Uncyclopedia talk:Imperial Colonization/5

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia talk:Imperial Colonization
Revision as of 03:39, February 4, 2010 by Why do I need to provide this? (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: Before 2009Before NachladerThe Nachlader Incident


edit The meet our staff template is a bit big and ugly. Not as ugly as SysRq though

What do you think about moving it into a subpage? It takes loads of space and it's not that relevant to the everyday work you do here. ~Jewriken.GIF 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well personally I think it is helpful to give everyone a perspective of who is really contributing here. It may be big, but it shows who is here to help out. I see it more as that than a board showing points. I personally don't see the worth in doing this for points as they don't really do anything for you except change your initials...which also don't do anything. So I would say keep it. But that is my perspective, and I am sure mine is not what you came for. ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
might we be able to move it to a subpage but still link to it, similar to the review list on User:Cajek/Pee? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, that was the intention - leave a big ass link on the page with the whole board on a subpage. ~Jewriken.GIF 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh that sounds good. ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

edit Eh guys

What's up? Is Colonization dead again? Wikipedia has been up now for, what - three weeks? ~Jewriken.GIF 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

edit FU Spang, err...Mordillo

Okay, so I've been giving the IC process a bit of a think (constipation=plenty of time for Uncyc) and I've come to believe the timeline we try to follow are as unrealistic as I feared they would be. All of us have lives outside Uncyc, and the collaboration process is inherrantly inheirantly ierrantly automatically slower than writing an article by yourself. So, since Sys and Gerry have buggered off, I'm taking it upon myself to suggest the following changes to the default IC schedule.

  • First off: We're gonna finish Wikipedia. It may be coming along slow, but I think it's coming along in the right direction nonetheless. One more week for everybody to fill it out and polish it off, then I'm putting it on PEE Review and we're moving on.
  • After that: Two weeks writing->PEE Review->one week writing->done.

If we have enough colonizers we start splitting into two articles at a time.

Thoughts?

-OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN00:13, 24 May

My suggestion: Work on every colonization in the same subpage. That way I can watchlist it and be reminded to work on it any time someone edits it. As is it's too hard to keep track of where all the shit goes down. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:52, May 24
Yep, a realistic deadline is better than one that we just keep missing. Using same subpage is a pretty decent idea. We'd lose the change list if we just copy and past the article across, but that's not really needed, since the final work is going to be perfect and will never need to be changed again, ever! Would certainly be easier to track, and we wouldn't even need to visit the project page to know what we're working on. --Concernedresident 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What about the front page notice? Should we keep it even though it's there for ages pointing at the same article? ~Jewriken.GIF 09:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One subpage for all. Yup, I like it. We'll start doing it that way with the next colonization. As far as the main page notice, I say we just change the text to "Current colonization" and leave it at that. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN14:45, 24 May

oh, and maybe make the mainpage notice more attractive, you know, add some bling and shiney golden gods Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool Egypt_orb_spinning.gif 17:21 May 24 '09

i like this schedule. we can, of course, improvise as we roll along if need be, but a 2 week deadline seems to be the best thing to aim for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, and I guess I didn't make this clear originally, if the PEE review warrants it, we take another week to make the suggested changes. If it's a favorable PEE and we don't feel the need to take the third week, we just move on. Sound fair? -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN16:01, 12 Jun
sounds good, as long as we do it on a case-to-case basis. we can always come back to the colonized article as individual editors after the fact, but a good week of pee review assisted editing would serve excellently in some cases. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

edit Attention Colonizers

From now on we will be doing all our colonizing on one convenient page. Put it on your watchlists. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN18:01, 30 May

Excuse me, but what is Singapore? All I know about it is that its where zheliel lives. What are we gonna write about it? How many colonizers know anything about it? Shit, nobody even voted.. Give us a couple of days to nom and vote. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool Egypt_orb_spinning.gif 18:05 May 30 '09
Nope, time's up. Y'all had four weeks to vote while we worked on Wikipedia. None of ya did, so we're doing Singapore. Guess you'll have to do a little work for this one. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN18:23, 30 May

edit Colonized article template

Should it include a date, similar to the FA template?
 
11
 
0
 

The poll was created at 16:15 on June 19, 2009, and so far 11 people voted.

After we have enough votes, we'll make any changes deemed necessary. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN16:22, 19 Jun

Ironically, I was thinking about adding a date before I saw this vote. If no one else wants to do it, I'll get to work on it, and should have it finished before our next colonization is done. But I really wouldn't mind at all if someone else wanted to do it. Any volunteers? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 01:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

edit changes

hello all. i've made a few policy tweaks. the big board has had all colonizers with 0 colonizations under their belt removed, because there were like ten of them. this serves to keep the template smaller and keep off the names of people who signed up in march and haven't done anything. for admission to the template, users can sign up in the designated spot, contribute to a colonization, and earn their wings. if anyone has an issue with this, please discuss. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Should people who haven't contributed in over a year go into a ready reserve/disabled players list? (On a sub-page))  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  03 Feb 2010 ~ 02:01 (UTC)

edit A possible project for the future?

A promising article, Let me just say one thing..., was started recently but the author has appartently run out of ideas. It mght be something to consider for the next nomination. MadMax 23:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

<opinion> I think it contradicts our civility policy. I also think it might be better off thrown toward DU+Bang as it's first person narrative so would work better as an individual writing as opposed to group collab. </opinion> Pup t 00:42, 29/07/2009

edit Every Empire Ends

And with good reason.

As a long time reader of the grossly politically-incorrect, blasphemous and acid witted satire that is Uncyclopedia, let me just say that your 'mission' to 'cleanse' (a term those familiar with genocide and ethnic-cleansing will be familiar with) is going to harm Uncyclopedia and possibly be a contributing factor to the death of this site. Uncyclopedia is a bastion of free-speech and has never been afraid to satirise anyone or any topic. Stereotypes, nations, religions, concepts, ideology, history, the environment, etc. are all targets. Most of the articles are extremely clever and extremely humourous - do not embark on a CRUSADE like moral puritans who, through their extreme misguidance, destroy something that they never understood in the first place.

The anarchical nature of Uncyclopedia has in the past allowed for individuals to harmoniously work together, without the need for a union which will inevitably succumb to the will of a narcissistic 'leader', if it has not already, either blatantly or discretely.

Freedom is always compromised in an empire. Shame on you all.

""If you have to explain satire to someone, you might as well give up." - Barry Humphries. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.116.139 (talk • contribs)

So far the only thing I've seen IC get rid of is poorly written shite that is a small step up from Pokemon rape, but to each their own. Pup t 14:04, 29/07/2009
such rumblings from the lower class will not be tolerated! listen not, ye colonizers! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea and verily, Oh great and powerful leader! By the way, you spelt colonisers wrong.Pup t 21:03, 29/07/2009
No, you speeled colonizers rong. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN21:06, 29 Jul
Eye spill cheque aviary think eye dew! Sew fork yew!Pup t 21:13, 29/07/2009
User 58.106.116.139 is totally correct. If we keep going this way, some Uncyclopedia users may become more and more powerful. One day they might invent an extremely high level for themselves called Admin and give themselves the power to huff articles and block users! Whoa! Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

edit Signing up

How do I sign up for the Imperial Colonization? I can't edit the article where it says enter your name below. The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueSpiritGuy (talk • contribs)

You can't sign up until you've been here four or five days. It's an automatic thing to stop excess vandalism. Also it's good if you sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~ which will show your name, date and time. :) Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:34, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the help. People around here are so friendly. Except when their not. --BlueSpiritGuy 05:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
We're only unfriendly when you put "their" instead of "they're". Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 16:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies English is not my first language. This is the part where I go stand in the corner and say nothing, right?--BlueSpiritGuy 16:42, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Nah, this is the part where we make you start chugging from the beer bong, despite your protests. At Uncyclopedia, no never actually means no. It generally means "harder". Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 16:51, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Beer bong? That is a language I do speak very well indeed.--BlueSpiritGuy 17:46, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
And by "beer bong" we mean Olipro. You'll find out about him later. Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 17:55, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of a beer bong either, and don't think I want to. From what I've seen here so far, people are either very nice and helpful, not very nice and very unhelpful, or not nice and helpful. If that helps. (But Miley Spears is very helpful, and I'm not just saying that because she's my Mommy.) WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 18:29, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
What about me? I'm both completely charming and totally useless. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:01, Sep 17
The 2+ weeks of silence suggests that no-one is jumping to defend you... Pup t 21:56, 4/10/2009
No defense was necessary. You don't have to be useful if you're charming. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects