Forum:New User Month

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New User Month

If you are a new user reading this page: Welcome to Uncyclopedia! We hope you like it here.

Recently, Uncyclopedia has been getting less new users. This is bad. We need new users. So, your friendly neighborhood admin team have decided that October 2012 will be the first ever official New User Month.
What is New User Month? It is one entire month where the regular users of Uncyclopedia make a special effort to get new users on our site, and then be as helpful and kind to them as possible once they get here. There are lots of ways you can participate in New User Month! Tell your friends about Uncyclopedia! Link celebrities to Uncyclopedia on Twitter! Post Uncyclopedia links on Reddit! Welcome every new user you see! Help them with their new pages! Get on IRC and answer their questions! Tell them how great they are on their talkpages! Nominate them for Noob of the Moment!
We can do it, together! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and all you people that quit because of a shrinking userbase, stop it. You are not helping. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 04:26, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm not but like, you know, life and stuff. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:54, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ideas and stuff

• Better anon warning notice. More encouraging of anonymous editors to make accounts. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:14, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Abolish ICU, because it makes new users afraid of us. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:26, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Stop protecting featured articles! I wouldn't want to be a new user here if I knew that I could only edit 10 out of 29,678 articles. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 19:23, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

  10? That is a ridiculous exaggeration. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  If we say we have 1 feature for every day the site was been active (which it isn't even close to being the case) than that gives roughly 2,827 features. Then subtract 2 retroweeks, all the times we forget to set features and the fact we didn't have featured articles in early 2005 and you would get well below 2,500. Which is significantly less that 29,668 as you suggest. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:09, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  And then look at Category:Featured it only contains 2,169 pages. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:12, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  Also, featured articles are only semi-protected so I'm not sure what we are even talking about. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:43, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  Most of the best articles are semi-protected and there should be at least something that IPs will search for that they are allowed to edit. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 19:51, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  If an IP wants to edit a semi-protected page they should make an account and become a new user. You know, like, the thing we're trying to get more of. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:24, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

• You people should've called it n00b month. A pity cool online jargon deserts us when we need it most. --Lord Scofield Stark 11:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
• Advertise ourselves unabashedly a small bit on our social media streams to drum up editing. We can have lil events like joke contests held in the forum, where new users could register and tell the best joke and win a gift certificate to the Olive Garden or something. Or we could advertise Top 3 of the Month as an ongoing writerly contest and then give real-world prizes top Top 10 authors to drive article creation. We get a lot of readers through Facebook (are social accounts have actually been growing, even though community participation has been down) so it wouldn't hurt to try to activate it. We're not a business, so we can't do real promotions, but damnit we could try! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:53, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Boner. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:24, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'd advertise Uncyclopedia on my Facebook, but after mentioning it casually in conversation to some of my relatives, I get the impression that they are easily offended. Besides, most women my age have kids, some too young to be reading Uncyclopedia, so they don't want to read Uncyclopedia around their kids. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 18:43, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I was talking more about advertising through the Uncyclopedia account. We regularly get at least 30 likes on each update. These people are already amused and interested in the site, there is no reason we shouldn't be activating them with more promotion. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:17, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

We should post our featured content on Facebook. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 21:02, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and that counts as a For. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 21:05, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

• Hold a writing competition where the main focus is on new comers. Such as that only new comers can write for it, and it gets judged by a panel of experienced users and we hand out prizes and shit. This is waaaaaaaaaay better than just having it as an aside category in a larger writing competition. I think we should make it accounts registered before June 1 are allowed to participate, that way we have plenty of contenders. I would totally organize this if I could gain some help and hear some interest from other users in seeing this run. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:21, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

SIGN UP FOR IT NOW ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:39, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Please do! What Uncyc needs most is a bunch of new, crap articles to be improved by humo(u)r experts. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 23:57, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Returning Users

I recently came back to Uncyclopedia a few days ago after I had left a couple years back. I've seen a few other users I used to know have also just come back. Lets hear it for returning users! Woot! -Da man360^Talk HAPPY 01:01, 4 October 2012!

Welcome back! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 07:45, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for everything here

BUT honestly, this is still atrocious

• http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:BlockList

I mean, if new users are smart, then okay. But honestly, the amount is ridiculous. Maybe we can get to a point where we won't have to ban a user/IP almost every day. Maybe. Barack WeinribZ Obama 13:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

You're upset that there's a few bans per day? Actually, looking at that list, it seems to me the overall situation has improved drastically on that front in the past few months. I remember when I personally would be banning at least five or six people a day, not counting sockpuppets of course, and other admins on the same days would be banning quite a few too. Now it's rare I have to ban more than one or two a week. Most blocks arise from vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other malicious intent so I don't know what exactly we could do to stop that from happening. I mean, if you look at any wiki the results are going to be similar or more overwhelming. We're really not banning a lot of people right now. -RAHB 19:28, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has more bans than us per day; they must be a less successful wiki than us. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:17, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

They are pretty unsuccessful to be fair. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:29, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Vote to resurrect users that were banned in 2009 and earlier

Score: 1

• For. We're going to have a bad impression if we have such a long block list, and many innocent IPs will be turned off just by the numbers. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 00:02, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
• somewhat for I think that all infinitely blocked IPs from say 2007 (or earlier) that aren't spambots or proxies should be unbanned (there are plenty of those). They probably have been reassigned / the intended blockee have simply forgotten about Uncyclopedia. It may be worth doing imo. This bullshit about it giving us a bad image is flawed in that most newbies don't even know how to access our blocklist. Also I do not agree with your idea, I think we should do my amended idea. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:08, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Frosty's idea

Score: +5 for Frosty's better idea

• • For Frosty's amended idea. Oh, and please unban 127.0.1.10 whom I misidentified as a proxy (it sounded too much like 127.0.0.1 dammit!). —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 00:16, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • For Frosty's amended idea. -Da man360^Talk HAPPY 02:24, 5 October 2012!
  • For. OK we can start from there and see what happens. I will cite Admins v Gouncyclopedia! 2009 and 2011 if this doesn't work. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:56, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • For Because, as mentioned, the original vandals probably don't even use those IPs any more. And if they do come back, we can just ban them again, which is always fun. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:06, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Boner. Frostee wants to flood RC so, yeah okay. Whatever. -RAHB 01:23, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Boner. To make it seem all legit and shit. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:32, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Boner. Because... boner. -Da man360^Talk HAPPY 01:44, 6 October 2012!
  • Against. What if we unblocked an ip of Grawp or something like that?--fcukmanLOOS3R! 05:44, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

    This is why I'm going through the list manually, I will not unblock proxies, spammers and other bans that were but in place for very good reason. Only the vandals that went on a brief spree, cyberullying, etc that would almost certainly have a new IP in the last 4 or 5 years. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:51, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

• This is going to be done now because nobody is voting and everyone on IRC approved it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 03:10, October 10, 2012 (UTC)