User:SPIKE/2013-RFC

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit RFCs for 2013

The following RFCs (Requests for Crap-storm or Requests for Controversy) were received in 2013. Unfortunately, not all the requestors received the crap-storm they requested.

edit MrN9000 on my response to 75.65.123.86

Anonymous users are not entitled to an explanation, but I revert any Anon who just takes a list and simply make it longer. If you want respect, pick a username and stick around--in order to actually build funny pages and not just put your mark on one. Spıke ¬ 00:56 12-Feb-13

Wow. That's a lot of totally new (and random) policy you just attempted to impose on a new user their SPIKE. I can't say I approve of the suggestion that the IP needs to attempt to win anyone's (let alone yours) respect. They also do not need to create an account to edit on Uncyclopedia. There is also no policy RE "Anonymous users are not entitled to an explanation". Why are you making up this shit SPIKE? Looks to me like you are becoming a bit of a dick tator yourself mate. Yep. I just gave you a kick in the balls mate. Judging by various other things I'm seeing you do around the wiki you apparently need it. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:07, Feb 12

I did not intend to create any policy. Anon stated via Change Summary "give reason for reverting edit" and I gave it. However, my only goal in creating talk pages for Anons is to induce them to register. My respect is not an issue, though Anon seemed to be assuming it with his request.

Apart from not understanding a joke of yours this afternoon, what have I done that seems dictatorial to you? Spıke ¬ 01:20 12-Feb-13

What else? Just about everything I have seen you do so far since I have returned to this site. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:23, Feb 12

Oh, I see one thing, the block of the Anon who re-created Power Rangers S.S.S. Regarding "dick tatorial," I asked Puppy about this case, though I did not follow his recommendation but aligned with the length of a previous ban. Spıke ¬ 01:25 12-Feb-13

I'm not going to make you a list. Not right now anyway... Anyway, my opinion is only that. My opinion. You are free to value it as you see fit. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:31, Feb 12
I'll jump in here, with all due respect to MrN, who I would love to spend hours at the pub with talking about the computer simulated universe and the 911 theory that proves the computer simulated universe, but I must give my testimony. Since a few weeks before the fork I've been here almost every day, and have watched Spike guide new users through their first pages, fight the good fight on the forums and the talk pages, single-handidly hold up entire areas of this wiki, and, after being attacked like a dog by some users before and after they left, hold to his priciples. If I were to pick a Most Valuable Player on this site since the fork forked, it'd be Spike. He's taken the arrows in the front and back, pulled them out, and used them to write with. This has been my impression of his work, and he's one of the reasons I still edit here. And he does this all with a crippled internet connection and a bowlful of Quinoa by his side. Aleister 4:13 12-2-'13
I have to agree with MrN9000, banning users or talking to them the way that you do is not a good practice. If you want them to stay, you have to show patience with them in order to let them learn how uncyclopedia works. Sure they have limits, but you are bringing your foot down far too quickly and will scare editors away very quickly. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 04:59, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Spike is still learning the arts of adminship as we have all done. My own guess is that allowing new users to start adding on to a list is a sure quick way to create article rot and with only a few of us active here, that can mean this will be missed by people. I am sure the reason why we have so many log in but so few stay (this was true before the split) is that new users are expecting to see a good articles here. Very often they hit a button and come across a page that looks terrible. The good ones will try and improve it but others then think 'oh, this is the house style so I just add my bucket of random to it.' --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:23, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everyone, because I like to please.                               Puppy's talk page09:35 12 Feb

It was wrong of me to couch things in terms of the Anon's "respect"--again, he hit me the wrong way with his demand for an explanation. But it was wrong for my old mentor Mr.N. to mix it up on Anon's talk page, then to file a further charge when I moved his remark here, until Anon began playing us against one another. Frosty; you are right about scaring new editors away, in this case, but wrong to portray it as the typical case; Aleister, thank you for your remarks and for being observant. Let's move forward from this. Spıke ¬ 13:21 12-Feb-13

If you would like to explain my error I would be interested. Or... We could forget about it now. It's not really sporting to say "You are Wrong MrN". and... "I want to move forward from this". ...in the same breath. :P MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 13:34, Feb 12

I think an Admin should discuss a disagreement with another Admin separately rather than countermanding him with a scolding on Anon's talk page or in the block log. That is all. Spıke ¬ 13:38 12-Feb-13

Well... Your actions affected actual real users. I needed to act quickly to undo the mistakes you had made. The comments I made on the IP's talk page correcting your incorrect suggestions of policy needed to be read by that IP. I have no idea why you thought it appropriate to move my comment from the IP talk page. The IP you banned for a week for recreating deleted content also needed to be unbanned. I could have had a nice little chat with you on your talk page prior to doing the above. I'm sure we would have had a nice little debate about it all... I could have asked you if it was OK to unban that person you banned for no reason... Meanwhile 2 potentially good users would be leaving the site. Sorry SPIKE. I don't mess with the judgement of other admins on Uncyc very often, but when I do I will think first of the User and then the ego of the admin. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 14:02, Feb 12
The children! For pity's sake, won't someone think of the children?                               Puppy's talk page02:15 12 Feb
Why? Do the children ever think of us? Let them rot in their self-created living hell of slides and sandboxes and toy train sets, all made of shiny red plastic.Aleister 14:17
Yeah. When I was a child I had to make do with half a brick and and empty cola bottle. Bloody kids and their bloody plastic today!                               Puppy's talk page02:36 12 Feb
Did you find the cola bottle on a walkabout? Al
No - it used to be my father's. It was passed down from generation to generation.                               Puppy's talk page02:52 12 Feb
Okay. I don't have the bottle but I still have the half brick. Send me your address and I'll mail it to you.                               Puppy's talk page04:34 13 Feb

edit ScottPat: BNP on VFH

You voted against this article on the VFH (which I don't mind (please do not take this as me aggressively trying to mkae people vote for my nominations)) because you ssid that I was name-calling at another political party. I personally think this is a crude judgement as you said you'd never heard of the BNP and seemed to imply you hadn't actually read the article. The BNP are the Nazis of Britain. They are actually racists and have offended every single soldier who fought in WW2 on the allies side. To put this in Yankee terms they are like the Klu Klux Klan. Do you not think that if we make fun of the Nazis and the KKK we are allowed to make fun and name-call the BNP? Please don't misunderstand me and take this as an offensive maneuver. If you can back up your vote against it I will happily take that I just thought I'd let you know that this isn't about one political side hating another. For further info please read comments on VFH under BNP. Thank you. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 11:21, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Actually Spike, in reply to your comment, I voted for the BNP article for its humorous jokes such as: ""The BNP isn't racist. Racism is a crime, and crime is for black people." Members of the BNP believe that immigration in the UK has got out of control and hope to find some kind of solution to the immigration question, preferably one that is final." and not because of a political message on the front page. No offence but you seem to have this thing about political articles. You keep thinking I'm trying to get across a political point when I'm not. Perhaps if you would read the article first before judging the book by it's front cover and then explain why the artiole is not funny then your judgement would be justified. If a title for an article was Adolf Hitler: Jew-killer you wouldn't complain so what's wrong with calling the British National Party, the British Nazi Party. Maybe Nazi is short for Nationalist perhaps that is the author's intent. Yes I do know that Nazi in terms of the NSDAP is short for National Socialist but the BNP are almost definetly in the National Socialist category. This is not a serious mainstream party. I'm not trying to pick a duel against you Spike, I'm just simply pointing out that I think you are judging the article using the wrong method. Thanks. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:57, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

PS - You seem to think that they are simply against immigration. Check their manifesto and their leader: Nick Griffin. He celebrated Hitler's birthday and he went to KKK meetings. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 13:00, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

And here and on VFH, you are again arguing the facts, as opposed to debating humor, and again, that is what convinces me that you are using Uncyclopedia to advance facts and not to make the reader laugh. That is why I voted against your nomination and you will not induce me to change my vote by arguing that the BNP's extremism makes name-calling appropriate. It is still not main-page funny.
On those things that go to a vote here, we acknowledge that various voters will judge according to different methods. I have spelled out my method and the only reason for you to assert that it is "the wrong method" is that you don't wind up with the win.
Now, you spent yesterday dumping your entire portfolio onto VFH, and contacting every Uncyclopedian who seems to be active and nagging them to vote on articles, and you are spending too much of today lobbying me to flip my vote. This activity does not improve the website, does not make anyone laugh, does not serve the readers or the other users, does nothing except attempt to manufacture effortless awards and recognition for yourself. We have Dannyboy and Aleister for this, and we value them for their humor contributions (well, we'll value Dannyboy when he makes one) and despite their tireless self-promotion. Would you please divert your considerable energy, which we also value, to actual useful work? Spıke ¬ 13:12 12-Apr-13

Well it took a while SPIKE but now you have admitted that the reason you voted against the article was because the title is not funny and not as you said, because "it happens to support the political opinions of nominator." Thank you for finally coming through clearly. I think you have perceived the wrong idea of me. I don't care if all my articles go down the drain. I simply want more people to vote on all the articles on VFH so that the best article instead of only getting five votes for and being called a fail just because only five people went on it that month can actually pass instead with ten or twelve votes therefore I am encouraging more community involvement and spirit. The way you seem to perceive me by some of your comments, and I'm sure you didn't mean them to be understood in this way, is that I'm an annoying self-promotion user who promotes is own bad articles, never votes for anyone and only puts his political ideas into his articles. To this I say that I have involved myself in the community by re-starting UnSignpost, pee reviewing everyone elses articles that were on pee review going back to November, congratulating others on their work, voting for lots of peoples articles on VFH and VFD and nominating others' articles to be featured such as the BNP one which I didn't write and I saw was funny. If there is anything else more you want me to do for the community I'd be happy to be asked to do more. On writing articles I have been on here for 12.5 days and have written 24 articles. Aleister said that this is unusual for a noob. I am trying my best to make as many of them as I can and make them funnier. If you think they are bad just tell me because I am open to criticism. On the note of my political views, suprisingly I'm not a racist but I gave you enough evidence to support why I personally thought the article was funny so your attack on me for voting for it only because I had political motive behind it is unjustified. I do not mean to attack you in any way and respect what work you do but how can I continue this when I make claims that I think it is funny and just because you don't you say I was politically motivated. Anyway thank you for finally admitting that it was the humour that this article was lacking, your vote is justified but please explain this point to me more clearly next time I complain as the words "you only voted for it because of political motivation" do not translate to me as "I thought it wasn't funny." If I have misunderstood your previous comments I am deeply sorry and I'm sorry to rant on but I'm British and we don't just back out of an arguement easily if we think we were right. I hope that meant sense to you. I'm sorry for my misunderstanding and don't take this offend you. May our friendship (if you can call it that) live on. Thank you. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 14:19, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

PS - You seem to deliberately want to insult me (I'm sure you don't mean it). You claim that I dumped my entire portfolio onto VFH yesterday. I selected my (what I perceived as) funniest two articles (as I thought they were good enough (and so do some others by the looks of voting)) out of 23 left (I stuck Capitalism up there ages ago) and posted them after much editing and improving. I did put them on pee reviews but no one has done them yet (which I don't mind). I then added an article that was one of the first articles I'd seen on Uncyclopedia that I saw a year ago and posted that because I'd always thought it to be funny. The accusation that I dumped my whole portfolio on VFH is deeply unjustified. I'm sure you didn't mean to make offence with that comment but a less relaxed man than me may have lost his will to continue by now. Look at the evidence before you make rash accusations please. Thank you. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 14:41, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

I've been called in as a neutral party, and have put on my judges hat. Brother ScottPat, your article seems to be a companion piece to Fascist Guy, a satire on both the BNP and Family Guy. As judge I order you to read it and see if that page makes you want to do some rewrite of your page. As you've been warned on other talk pages, Spike does not like anything near to what he thinks of as whoring (although he did buy my sister once without knowing it. She said he's not only fantastic in bed, but has many toys and hand puppets). He imagines I self-promote at every opportunity, which is not true, but you have to understand that someones perception is based on the amount of, and what kind of, data his brain allows to see based on a lifetime of decisions, habits, and amount of indentification and handling of basic trauma. You know that your article is good, but if all that's at issue is the name of the page, change it and redirect the old name to it. That way all the names will go to the page (unless you feel that it's it's "true name", ordained at the birth of the world, which it might be). But when Spike or somone says No, they mean no (except in the case of my sister after a few hours, when she found the doors locked and Spike just revving up), so arguing is as useless as pissing in the wind (my sister reported to me about that as well).
As for insults, of course Spike insults you. He is one of the most honest people to cross the border of this site, and usually says what he thinks (doesn't mean he's right in anyone elses universe, but he gets close once in awhile). So in this case, you, Brother ScottPat, are in the wrong. Brother Spike has his opinions, and to keep fighting once he's given you his opinion a few times borders on the insane (my sister again, in explaining Spike's collection of things with spikes, and what he wanted to do with them). So I'd suggest not pushing this anymore, accepting everyone for exactly who and what they are, and quickly walking away with your online life intact (as my sister had to do, metaphorically, in unsimilar circumstances while being yelled at about being a "self promoting whore" and "I'm not done with you, missy"). Judgement for Spike, and I sentence Brother ScottPat to read Fascist Guy. Bailiff, call the next case. Judge UnDread 18:22 12-4-'13
And, as always, if one calls Aleister in as a neutral party, Aleister dependably delivers something other than the response one was soliciting, not even dummying up about being called in as a neutral party. However, if part of the reason one called Aleister in is for him to read that I poked him (above) for being a fellow attention whore, Aleister dependably takes the finger and pokes it further in his own eye. Spıke ¬ 18:37 12-Apr-13

I say we settle on Aleister's inconclusive, uncomprihensible verdict. I accept that you voted no. I now know why but I didn't at the start. I just wanted SPIKE to make an explanation not insult me. It isn't even my article. Anyway truce declared I think. I open my communication lines back up to SPIKE. I think North Korea and the US have something to learn from this debate don't you? Get in an inconclusive incomprhensible Brit and the problem's solved. Thanks all I enjoyed the debate and I look forward to the next one but until then bye. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 19:40, April 12, 2013 (UTC)


Sorry to bring it up but can you please read my point on the argument above and respond. Thank you. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 17:20, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not. Stop trying to win a debate on the exact nature of the BNP. Stop sweating every individual vote that goes against you. Stop self-promoting. Stop inviting allies to back you in the debate while taking care that it not look as though you invited them to back you. Stop creating gratuitous new political disagreements for yourself to win. Go write more funny stuff. Spıke ¬ 17:31 12-Apr-13

If you actually bothered to read what I said to you you will see that I'm not arguing about the BNP thing any more I am arguing about your perception of me as an uncyclopedia which I feel is quite rude and misguided. Read it and find out. I wish to continue using this site as a tool for humour without being told I need to work harder and stop political backing and self-promotion. If you refuse to accept this and actually read what I've said then I'm sorry but I will cut communication with you and lose my respect with you (I know you don't care but your not forcing me to leave this ite). I made it clear that Aleister is a neutral. Perhaps you can't believe a noob is being helpful and so you force yourself to look at me in a bad way. You can't just win a debate by saying bad things about the opponent. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 18:06, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scottpat. I am sure Spike is not 'forcing' you to leave. So best can we leave that type of stuff elsewhere? This site, like any site, relies on people spending their free time to contribute, edit, write and generally keep the place running. Thanks. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:40, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Romartus but SPIKE and I have settled down now. I am going to continue and cannot make myself leave anyway. Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:38, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

edit Multiliteralist on Spike's psyche

Dear Spike! You're probably not even wondering why I should be leaving a message to your talk page of all people. You probably dismiss this just as another prank. If you're thinking along those lines, you're only partially correct. Of course I have no real reason to tell you anything about anything (or shit about fuck, as I might express it in less formal company). It so happens, though, that I have a lot of time on my hands. I'm also someone who can act in a passive-aggressive way for a time, but who sooner or later will bring things out into the open so that no questions remain. It's relieving.

The Fork. I was away for some years - so when I came back on the scene it had already happened. I was satisfied that this was so and that you had chosen to stay on the Wikia site. This much must be obvious to you already. You might, however, be interested in learning why I think that way - if you are capable of being interested in the mental processes of someone whose sense of propriety so obviously differs from yours.

You probably don't remember our first interaction from the time Zim nominated you to run UnNews as his assistant. I do, though. My first thought of you was "this dude had better keep out of my way with his rules". I got the instant impression that behind the joke-seriousness you actually were serious about the whole deal. To be sure, the first thing you did, all uncalled-for, was to mar one of my UnNews articles on the flimsy pretext that the ingress should not be bolded, because UnNews style differs from sensationalist newspaper style which I had been parodying (or maybe it was Zim, but I could have talked him over without you hovering about with your ideas). I doubt you even bothered to read the article to find out why I had edited it the way I had done. In this, I saw nothing else but a petty attempt at asserting your authority, as far as that goes on a wiki. In my case, you did succeed. Writing UnNews articles immediately became a chore instead of being fun. That's what assertion of authority does to some people when we are dealing with humour. I understood right away you did not need me around the way I was. I tried to reconcile just in case you were just inexperienced at dealing with people. What happened was that whenever I tried to contact you about my grievances, you took a very haughty attitude based on the supposition that you knew better or, simply, because I was not going by the rules someone had set. Rules. On a comedy wiki. Rules on a comedy wiki. RULES. Does this penetrate at all? In any case, all this was one of the main reasons I quit back in 2009 or whenever it was.

For your information, humour is essentially anarchistic. A good setup - this you know - serves as a platform off which the reader stumbles. Why do you, then, remain a stooge instead of being an actual humorist? Because you think you can improve comedic writing by trying to get people to censor themselves. This necessarily means you censor yourself as well. Oh flying bollocks. You must have huge problems trying to figure out the human psyche, if you even try. Do you understand there's a sense of relief when we actually laugh like children? Do you understand at all that this sense of relief is what many of us try to invoke in the reader? Do you have any idea how far rules are from the concept? In my opinion, rules are blasphemous in conjunction with humour. They are mental fascism maximised. By imposing them you are trying to deny writers the full use of their minds. I can easily admit that most often a crappy joke just fucking sucks. There's no way around it. But when it works, it's a million times better than anything where strict rules have been imposed from the outside. It will make us laugh until tears run down our cheeks. It's like an intellectual orgasm, if you know what I mean.

Back to the question I pose in the initial chapter: why do I bother to write to you? I'm an optimist at heart. I don't imagine I can change you in any way. Sometimes, though, people have it in them to alter their behaviour in spite of their inner impulses. This short ex- and complanatory text might give you a ricochet. You might think twice before trying to stump the creativity of yet another total stranger with imaginary and pointless rules. Not that you would want anyone like me around, and not that I would even be able to stay on a site where bureaucratic minds have any power over creativity - no matter that the power is not real but just by consensus between one editor and the other (until the breaking point when an admin kicks out one of the contestants). You do get me, don't you, when I repeat the idea that atmosphere is very important for creative thought? In your case, you seem to be missing that the task is to write comedy for no financial compensation whatsoever. I'll go further and mention that I doubt I would be able to do it even for money with you around. At least I would feel like shit doing it.

Someone might think I'm helping the Wikia site by trying to get you to see your own behaviour in a different light - new users might come in and not find you as obstinate as you used to be. I don't think there's any risk of my succeeding, though. You seem too immersed in your sense of how things MUST be done that you hardly take any notice of anyone else's opinions if there's a discrepancy.

The last laugh is on me, though: the chances are that any wiki I choose to contribute to will have people just as obsessed with order (and/or their own self-importance as opposed to that of the others) as you are - unless I decide to finance a site myself and kick everyone else out at the rate they come in.

If any of this seems totally debased to you, and if I seem to be reading you all wrong, do reply. Correct me. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 17:16, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, which provide context for your sudden return to troll at Forum:Cow tipping, an ostensible apology for name-calling that in fact was a transparent vessel for more name-calling.
But my calls as Editor-in-Chief of UnNews in 2011 still seem correct. We were (and are) in the business of telling one supreme joke: that UnNews seems to think it is a serious news source, though everything in it is obviously crap. To tell this joke, constituent articles needed (and still need) to conform small matters such as fonts to a single style (which, by the way, eventually changed by majority vote to ditch Zim ulator's ransom-note typography). Competent comedy writers had no problem adapting their work to this, and most had no problem with me.
You came here, by comparison, with a different agenda: that if any of Lord Multiliteralist's whims or affectations suffer any external constraint, it is the horrible, hidebound hand of tyranny that must be fought tooth-and-nail. You can't be arsed to support the framework of a "serious news source," as you couldn't be arsed to make your articles appear to be encyclopedia articles. You insisted that we create a special category or namespace that was less restrictive, just for you. It largely went unused, until the day you created a Forum along the lines of (permit me to paraphrase), "I'm quitting and it's your fault," in which I recall someone writing that it was not your first such.
Regarding your latest dollop of armchair psychology: No, I couldn't care less. Your own character disorder you have put on stark display. Your notions are supreme and any external consideration, even a Style Guide, is negligible.
And your signature need to state how even this transaction feels to you is simply boring. After all, you want my opinion as little as I want yours. What you are here to do, of course, is disparage me in the eyes of other Uncyclopedians. Too late! they know how stubborn I am; and after a while and a lot of patient explaining, they know why. My goal is to produce articles that people will want to read. My priority is the reader, not the author. This was the source of Thekillerfroggy's two-year vendetta against me, and it is the source of my problem with you. Your priority is the author, because your priority is you.
That settles it; though you will need the last word, because--well, see above. Spıke ¬ 01:15 15-Apr-13

Well, I'm surprised that you replied at such length. The name-calling bit aside - that's my childish side which pushes to the fore when I meet what I see as pointless bureaucracy - no, I'm not here to disparage you in anyone's eyes. It's obvious that those who are able to work with you are able to do so regardless of what I do or say. Trying to disparage anyone obviously would work against myself (which, granted, I wouldn't worry about too much). Instead, I'm honestly interested in learning what makes you such a stiff stickler to rules even where it serves no real purpose - and, this being so, why you would be interested in humour at the same time. This might be a surprise but I actually do agree with most of the general guidelines you promote. I'm just as annoyed as you at seeing shit in places where it shouldn't be - on a bad day. I have my rule-abiding side. The difference between you and me is that I would never take it upon myself to force a rule where no actual harm is being done - at the risk of tearing down something somebody else has obviously taken time to compose. And while we are on disparaging --- go ahead and let out that you see all my articles as total shit, completely unreadable. Outside of all the Style Guides you have ever written. It'll do you worlds of good.

It is now easy for you to argue that name-calling is far more harmful to writing atmosphere than any rule pushed upon authors. I disagree. If someone calls me a right cunt, I'll try to find out why they do that, and everything will then improve or deteriorate quickly - usually improve. Saves time, is funny.

As to all of it being about me: of course it is. It is so for each of us. Do you seriously think you somehow have the reader in mind more than I do? What specifically makes you think so? The fact that you cater to people who don't like to see the word "cunt"? I'll have to add that I really am interested in your opinion on this one. What makes you think that your sense of humour, along with stiff implementation of rules (many of which you have orchestrated yourself), is more enticing to a random reader than mine or that of someone else who wants to go a bit more anarchistic way? Also - if you had your way and the site had only clean articles, as defined by the set of rules you like to adhere to - don't you think it might become a slight bit boring, perhaps? After all, there are several sites besides the two Uncyclopedias that run a similar kind of joke-news service, all apparently pretty strictly based on some real life news. And the demand for strictly encyclopedic articles... this seems to reflect a narrow take of what can be done. For instance, the implied author -jokes I usually go for would be totally out. And why? For the sake of keeping everything in order. Tell me, if you will, if you can find any objective reason for this being an improvement on variety.

Seriously, I have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. I'm not discussing with you for the purpose of trying to harm your position in any way. I'm merely interested, and I'm actually grateful that you bother to answer, seeing how differently you view all this shit. Let me put it this way: until now I've been acting out of spite, but that's now out. I still don't get you. You apparently have written me off as another troublemaker, which is more than half true - but only where we deal with rules versus comedy. Otherwise I'm quite capable of dealing with people. So, if you have anything to say to that, go ahead. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 05:39, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Also, which namespace are you referring to? UN:LEGAL? So, the idea wasn't good enough, and it failed to interest people enough. What of that? We had a bit of fun with it. Is that against a Style Guide? Then the name-calling bit: I did apologise. I called you an incomprehensible nitpicker because that was what I felt at the time, and I'm sorry. As you can see, though, I'm now more interested in why you insist on being a stickler to rules at any cost. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 05:53, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this comes out bit by bit... I dislike being called "Lord Multiliteralist". First up, I don't like the political implication. Second, isn't "Lord Someone" usually reserved for those who want to lord it over others? If you don't mean it that way, you're naturally excused. If you do, check out my history on Dump (which you no doubt have done at some point): my main worry, when I still edited here, was to try and make the site more tolerable by trying to reduce friction between people. I often set myself up for ridicule in the process. Also, I tried to set up a system to create some actual collaboration between people who want to write different kinds of articles - some could have been your kind, some mine - all interwoven with the reader in mind. I never set down any rules or Style Guides, but instead tried to create an environment where totally different ideas and styles could live side by side. It failed to take off, for which I'm eternally disappointed. So - do use the word "Lord" a bit more carefully, if you don't mind. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 07:51, April 15, 2013 (UTC)


That [archiving] was swift....I admit that the discussion was pointless on the whole - but I actually was interested in what makes you tick, as hard as that must be to believe. Too bad you didn't feel my questions were worthy of answers. I guess I'll just need to go by my prejudices then. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 16:14, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

edit SABOTAGE!

Hokay Spikey boy, count this on "my signature need to get the last word" or whatever you like. More than anything else, I'm interested in seeing how quickly you will archive this one. Other than that, I have a few points to clarify since you seem to be living under an illusion.

  • There's nothing much more dorky than the suggestion I would try to entice (for instance) Zim to forget about your wonderful company and join "us" - whoever this "us" might be - in the sordid depths of literary depravity, wherever that might happen. I just wanted to say hi to him on IRC and you went and banned me. Who is dumb, Zim or me? Do you think he would have gone: "Oh yes, he has written about Bat Fuck Something - why don't I go do whatever he wants me to do"? Do you think I thought that? I think he's a nice and funny guy despite his totally off-the-wall ability to work with you, that's all. I liked his company those few times I chatted with him. Seeing how he hasn't tried to contact me anywhere, he's not interested, though.
  • This second point is a bit of the same: you apparently keep thinking that there's some kind of a thing - I can't grasp what it could be - that would make (term missing) preferable to the Wikia-run Uncyclopedia. How fucked up can you twist it? If someone writes an article that would fit in here in terms of what is allowed, what possible reason would he/she have not to put it in here - other than that there are people in here who might not appreciate the article worth the trouble? The fact that Wikia is a company? Who would be as daft as to think it makes any difference in the world which instance publishes our writings for free?
  • I think your willingness to sacrifice whatever ease you might get in your interpersonal comedy site relations to your loyalty to a faceless company must be a sign of something. You don't even get paid, do you?
  • You never gave me any answers as to why you hold your own sense of humour so high that you blatantly refuse to give anyone else's any consideration. I don't know how well you can leave it alone, seeing how I haven't followed this site a lot - but this is the impression I get. What's your point - I mean your real point? Only what you say: that all articles should be as fake encyclopedic as possible? As I told someone: good luck with keeping it fresh, if that's the case. If you have any other point, please tell me.
  • Don't go on a tangent about my wanting something more every time I start something. I've written 50 fucking articles this spring only, and drawn something like 33 images. I'm an industrious motherfucker who knows what he's doing and does it. I don't want or limit, I give and create positive environment whenever people want to work with me. Watch and learn. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 07:18, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
For God's sake please stop coming over here and telling us how to run this place. As you no longer contribute to this site you should not instruct people how to run it. If we are running it badly in your opinion then you don't have to do anything just ignore this website and get on with your own one. We don't go over to your site and tell you what to do despite the fact that we disagree with a few of your motives.
As for making 50 articles this spring - so what? That is what you are meant to do, I have made fifty articles this spring and so have many others. Get on with your own website and stop coming over here and telling us what to do, leave us alone unless you actually want to contribute and follow the rules. Thank you. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:10, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
Did I ask you anything? -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 11:55, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
Yes just now. As your remarks criticise my friend I shall stand up for him and the fact that in a fair society you put in no input into this website and yet expect output that favours you. Good bye! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:09, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
There's no need for any more replies here. This conversation has skipped civil and reasoned and gone straight onto downright rude and offensive. I'm uninterested in any personal squabble going on here, but I will ban anybody who continues it. --ChiefjusticeXBox 16:44, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

edit NXWave threatens suicide, cannot achieve closure until old recordings are deleted

[Hey Spike, this is NXWave]....You probably know everything about me, I was the vandal who went insane, driven a user away and made my life into total hell. Anyway, I'm writing you regarding the audio files I wanted deleted a month ago. I'd like to first off apologize for the way I've behaved back then, I was a pathetic person who was obsessed with a person from Memphis and couldn't let go of things; I parlayed that obsession onto Uncyclopedia and I disrupted it to a point where every user hates me. I don't know what I was thinking when I made Uncognito, Insignia and Nekami and I certainly didn't know what I was thinking when I tried to win an award for myself under Improver and Qua, why is it that I felt the need to try to win an award instead of playing a positive part of the community; sure awards are nice and all but I thought they were the beacon of the site, the way to instant praise. I now know this is wrong and I certainly payed the price for being wrong, a trial where everybody said fuck you to my face, the reputation of Lord Voldemort, the fact that I can never use my voice on this site again. I'm really, really sorry if I caused this site any trouble and I don't know how much I have to apologize or how much I have to do in order to make things right but I want to make things right. I have found life at a community, I don't want my negative past to fuck up my life and send me back to the one thing which gave me displeasure all of these years.

I would also like to say that Tthunder is not my sockpuppet. I know you will deny this and say it's my sockpuppet anyway just like EvaWNX but I'm going to defend myself anyway. I have edited at other places and I have respected the decision of this community regardless of how harsh it may have been. I have not had the desire to get my awards back nor do I want the awards back; I am not at the lowpoint of revising the past just so I can have an award that say I won something and I certainly didn't want to go into a fight with a user just so I can get awards back. That village dump post, that argument that I tried to make saying that I won them "fair and square", was not me. Sure, you may have more awards than I had but I'm not jealous, I'm not looking to get into a fight with you, in fact I have respect for you. Do you think that I would truly throw my life away all for some awards that I've won when I was obsessed with fucking TalkShoe and was just using this as an outlet to release my fucking obsession. I am not that person, in fact I'm the person who desperately wants a life.

I have made the mistake of saving every audio file that I've ever done under the conceit that Mordillo would of deleted them all. I want to move on from my past and they say you can't move on if you have constant reminders of the past with you. I tried to delete the image, I tried to forget but I can't truly forget unless these audio files are gone; and I'm not doing this for myself, we're both similar in that we have a determination to do things as quickly as possible. Your audio files represent the highlights, mine represent the lowlight. I have no idea what the fuck I was saying on those files and I have no constaint as to the norms of how to be acceptable in society. I've been looking at myself for quite a while now and I know what I am. Pathetic, unable to let go, unable to move on. I want to truly forget about NXWave, I want to pretend like this never happened and I can't fully do that. I can delete the files sure but the files still exist and there only so much I can do in regards to pretending. I take things literally, there's not a moment when I'm not serious and unfortunately, that's my major flaw. I really, really want the audio files deleted; I know about the argument that they're licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 but I thought about that, I tried Wikimedia sites and they told me that the audio files wouldn't affect the major project. There would be no "ungifting" of such "contributions", anybody else can easily record another version to take their place and even the one Mordillo deleted hasn't really been missed that much.

If Mordillo likes my audio files so much then I will send him the ZIP file of which I have every audio file I have ever done; that way he can enjoy it while at the same time benefiting us both. If you can't delete my audio files then please, PLEASE give me some advice so I can get past this. I need all of the help that I can get, I tried to do the things that I've done but I can't do it, I've tried a depression forum but I can't beat the depression, I think I'm at the point where I'm about to take my own life per my own article HowTo:Commit Suicide. I'm not placing this stuff on you to force you to delete my audio files, I just want to be done with fucking NXWave and get on with my fucking life. I really regret every one of the decisions that I've made here, I regret using my real name here, I regret taking the limelight from other worthy users, I simply regret everything and I don't know what I can do but I'm hoping by letting this out that I can finally be free of any negative energy. Thank you for reading. --174.123.0.244 01:15, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

edit Denza252 acts out

Original section head: WHAT THE HELL MAN!

YOU STOLE MY IRC NICKS, WHY, I DON'T EVEN VANDALIZE ANYTHING, WHAT THE HELL DID I DO TO DESERVE THIS??? P.S. I thought you were the only good admin left here, don't prove me wrong.... --The Infinite Otaku Emperor Denza252 21:05, April 21, 2013 (UTC) Please, just give me back my account! - The Infinite Otaku Emperor Denza363 21:05, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Denza:
  1. I have no presence on IRC and do not know what you are talking about.
  2. Changing your user page to redirect to mine was provocative but easily reverted and you have already saved me the trouble.
  3. Your sockpuppet "Denza363" is permabanned. Creating multiple personas is not permitted.
Further: I have no duty whatsoever to prove to you that I am a "good admin." This manipulation means it is time to evaluate your presence here. Namely: When you don't get what you want (of which I am unsure, other than constant attention), you act out, as above. Whereas when I ask something of you--such as making your signature proper--I get excuses, diversions, and treated as your personal babysitter. I do not see you as an asset to Uncyclopedia, not even for additional detail on our documentation of Vocaloids. This is not a problem except when I take a day off and return to find crap smeared all over the furniture. Your next misstep will result in a ban with no further explanation. Spıke ¬ 11:15 22-Apr-13
Yes, this is my school I.P. before you ask. I am sorry, I acted irrationally, and without reason, I already am trying to redeem myself. What happened, is that my IRC nicks (which I was about to register) got namejacked. So, I asked around. After some asking, it was a game of blame the other with me, and the nick-jacker. The present admins and some others were seeing who was real and whatnot. Then, it got serious. The nick-jacker hacked my uncyc, accounts (here and the fork). See, the reason why I blamed you, is some people in IRC told me it was you, so, with nothing else to work off of, I came here. I am sorry, again, I was stupid, immature, and irrational. Some time later, the guy got me banned on the fork. Then, when I tried to log on here, it denied me the log-on. So, I made the sock to ask you. But your previous message seems genuine, more than I could ever be. I'm sorry, I am at fault here, and I won't blame you if you decide to permaban me. I just want my DSII page to be protected. That is all I ask. Its too much for what I did, I feel terrible, and I will never be liked, both here or in real life, but I ask you, just don't delete the page I started. You can delete everything else. I am so sorry, I feel so bad for what I did, I can't apologize enough, and again, I will have no hard feelings if you permaban me. But the redirect wasn't me. Again, I am sorry, I know it feels ingenuine, but I just want to tell you how sorry I am about everything that I put you through, I feel lower than trash. Sincerely, the former Denza252 --146.129.242.84 20:03, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
No one is allowed to hack an article in your userspace. Including you if you don't log in. No one on IRC is able to "hack" your Uncyclopedia account. If you gave out your password and it was changed, go to the login screen and ask Uncyclopedia to email you your password, then change it again. As for your forelock-tugging contrition above, you must be mistaking me for a Small Claims Judge who gives a damn. Spıke ¬ 21:00 22-Apr-13
With such an open heart and sunny personality, one wonders why so many people dislike you. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 07:59, Apr. 23, 2013
Please, don't insult him, SPIKE has every right to hate me. If my life as an Uncyclopedian has come to an abrupt end, I deserve it. My actions in IRC were near unforgivable. Again, I won't be mad if I am to be permabanned. But, the hacking wasn't Spike, or Romanartus, so please, don't harass them. Without SPIKE, UncycloWikia would be in complete chaos, so don't de-admin him. Sincerely, the former Denza252 --146.129.242.84 15:25, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
I might add, IRC is the Haunt of the Fork. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 16:31, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up, Denza. Fooling mildly autistic 15-year-olds makes us feel big and clever. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 23:26, Apr. 23, 2013
As SPIKE said already, SPIKE is NOT on IRC, never really has been. Once in awhile you might see me there, but I would never hack someone's account. Wouldn't even know how. Neither SPIKE nor myself have any motivation to hack an IRC account. Think before you throw accusations around. Generally we don't permaban you from this wikia Uncyc for something said on IRC, unless it was really, really bad. I would have to be present to witness it, too, which I wasn't. Instead of just an apology, make good behavior your apology (it speaks louder). -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:29, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

edit ScottPat on NotM

Thanks Spike for voting me noob of the month. It means a lot to me that you voted for me as it is hard to get you to vote for much but when you do I know I have done something really good (good enough to make you vote).

This section may sound like I'm sucking up to you but hey. I really apreciate the work you've done with this Uncyclopedia to keep it going when times were (and to some extent still are) bad. Without you, well this website would frankly end up looking like a shambles or like [external link deleted in an act of tyranny awaiting feigned outrage by Zana Dark].

There were times in my early noob-life when I used to think of you as some dictatorial admin (not all the time mind you) who never contributed anything funny but expecting you to obey his orders. I didn't really see your sense of humour. However recently a light bulb has gone off (is that the right expression) and after looking at the formentioned fork website and listening to Aleister's comments about how much he respects you and from my oen personal experience I can agree with Aleister and say that I truly respect you know and thank you again for your hard work and effort. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:33, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Funny, it does sound that way. Now, one more criticism (of course!): You have changed "Brother" to "Sir" in your signature. "Sir" is an Uncyclopedia Worship Word. You are not entitled to use it as a title (see Uncyclopedia:Awards, Decorations and Honours), though you will be when you win this award. (But who knows when voting will close?) Spıke ¬ 10:46 6-May-13

Edit-conflict:

I know it was probably the wrong time to say this as it coincided with a vote for NotM but I seriously mean it Spike. I was looking at comments on old forums about how some people forked off on to the other site because they thought what you were doing was wrong but then without your strict rules they have know become very un-encyclopedic (you know what I mean (not Uncyclopedic)) which is shown by the feature on their front page. Others such as Kamek98 now have adopted your strict style of rules themselves and have turned into you in the same way the pigs turn into humans in Animal Farm.

However you actually have skill, talent, experience and humour, which is why instead of looking at you as a dictator I think I see what you are underneth which is funny and trying to preserve the meaning of the word parody, which the others never seemed to be able to see. I really mean it when I say thanks for everything you have done and please keep going! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:49, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of "Sir". I thought that if I got a feature then I was entitled to the rank of Commander of the Order and therefore allowed to write "Sir." This is what I read on the Uncyclopedia ranks page. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:51, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected; it is Item 3 in the table in Section 1 of the page describing awards. You may use the title with all due honor. PS--Now it really sounds that way (only, I cannot figure out whether you are implying that I am a pig, or a tyrant with somewhat more skill than Kamek98). Simsie did note at Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault that YukyDoodyPedia has a main-page feature that would not pass muster here, and I hope this website continues to focus on the amusement of the reader and not merely on the author's own amusement. Spıke ¬ 10:59 6-May-13

Damn, my English it must be coming out completely wrong. I mean no sarcasm. This is me being serious. I thought that the reference to the other site would back-up my point and not make it look like I was jumping on your vote. I timed this wrong and I really do mean what I say.

The main feature on the other site's page is certainly not a parody of a Wikipedia article and isn't even that funny. When I saw this site I actually realised that without you we might have ended up with a guy who was a noob seven months ago running the place with an imature sense of humour, as stated by TFK's leaving message on the other site, running the place. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:12, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

This is you being serious, and me being not serious; I did not think you were calling me a pig. I should not do this; I recall working at a company whose President came down to the computer lab and thought everyone would take his male-chauvinist-pig imitation as a joke. And I should not retort that this website, by comparison, has a guy who was a noob one month ago running the place! Separately, can it be only four months since the said user banned me for a month (changed to two days after frenzied discussion among other Admins) for calling the other said user a suck-up? Spıke ¬ 11:23 6-May-13

Thank you for your understanding. This just proves that underneath you are not just a heartless ogre as you would have probably made a remark like "go and write an article and stop wasting my time" if you thought that I was sucking up to you. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:07, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

PS - When I was writing about Kamek I thought you'd think I was hypocratic (is that a word?) but I wanted to point out that I have no intention of becoming an admin in the next year's time as it sounds like a lot of hard work. kamek could just sit back and make articles instead of self-nomming himself 11 times. (I haven't self-nommed myself that many times in one go). Alsowhat really annoys me is that he hated you for your strict rules and yet on a forum on the other site I saw a page in which he dictated the rules to everyone else most of whom are more experienced and deserve adminship more than he does. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:12, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Talking of the other site have you noticed how much they vandalise your user page? They really seem to hate you over there. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:09, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

How bout we stop talking about me. Obviously here I think the site is corrupt and over there we're peaceful. Sir Peasewhizz de New York (Chat) (Stalk?) 21:08, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Eric, note that I had not replied to this. In fact I have not noticed what Scott did, nor will I. Y'all have the legal right to a copy of my personal pages, but you ought not display them, as it is deceptive to imply that I am one of your editors. Scott, I never got the impression either that Eric hated me nor that he hated strict rules; all I ever said is that he often sought my advice and rarely followed it. Spıke ¬ 22:02 7-May-13

Fair enough. My misunderstanding, I will not speak of him again. This whole saga has just confused me even more as to why the sites split, They seem to be both aiming for the same thing so why don't we just merge? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 05:47, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

edit Ban of Llwy-ar-lawr

edit Special:AbuseFilter/17

I made some tests in my sandbox today to see if it was only tripped by certain external links, just out of curiosity. It isn't - which was probably as intended. However, full url links to somewhere on this Uncyclopedia also trip it. For example, if I add http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com anywhere, it gives me the warning and tags the edit. (It warned me for this one too.) But only sometimes, which is pretty strange.

Is this wrong? I don't think it's really very nice to have everyone who provides a fullurl link to something in here be warned about linking to an external site, and it can't possibly have been your intention to do that. Isn't there a way to exempt fullurl links that contain uncyclopedia.wikia.com? Llwy (scold|hover) 01:48, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I did not write the MediaWiki Abuse Filter system but am merely a filler-out of forms. It is most elegant for me to use the simplest syntax to test for added links--as the Abuse Filter defines them--rather than bog the website down by rolling my own so as to avoid giving offense. I am not worried that someone who uses a nonstandard alternative to double-bracket links to an Uncyclopedia article might get a warning and get his edit flagged. If I am on Patrol that night, I might post to his talk page and teach him how to do it with double brackets.
Your sandbox file continues to attribute these warnings to Evil Wikia despite my patient explanation in Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault, and even though you clearly realize it's my doing, the routine administrative business of detecting, minimizing, and discouraging attempts by Anon to use this website to hump his latest YouTube video. I am baffled that you continue expending energy chafing about receiving a warning. Please write a funny article instead. Spıke ¬ 02:51 22-Jul-13

edit Llwy's talk

Sorry for bothering you but I just noticed that User talk:Llwy-ar-lawr is protected now but it is still not complete, as you did not put back all the deleted posts. Thanks. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 09:51, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened! but thank you for catching it. And you surely don't have to apologize for "bothering" me after I made a mistake! Spıke ¬ 02:20 31-Jul-13
I just thought you did not want to talk about her anymore, as this can grow again into a quarrel between Uncyclopedians. I am probably wrong, though. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 08:52, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

edit A bit hypocritical, much?

For so long, I've seen the interwiki's. And I see no problem with the welsh and assorted interwiki's being added. Why hypocritical, you ask? Well, I haven't clicked every interwiki, but one of my more frequented uncyc's is, [gratuitous advertisement deleted]. I know we have an obligation to wikia, but, its not our first purpose to be wikia slaves. Our purpose is to spread humor of all kinds across the planet...( I know that sounded a bit corny, sorry.) The more languages we have, the farther the spread of our humor. Thats one thing I like about the fork. That is, they are (at least, in theory), more focused on the humor part, rather than politics. And I'm sure the TOS states that promotion of non-wikia stuff is not desired but it isn't barred. And what say you, about the tons of links still in articles? I know that some of that is a bit of "boosterism", but some is to add on to the article. Wikipedia, has interwikis, and links to external stuff. You're enforcing wikia policy too much. I know it should be enforced enough to keep us from degrading into encyclopedia dramatica, but keep in mind, we're a humor wiki. The rules are (or in my opinion, should be) relaxed a bit. Llwy is just trying to help out her division of uncyclopedia. Is that so wrong? I mean, uncyclopedia is already distanced from wikia, a bit, and its not like swarms of readers will leave us to go to the welsh site. Think about it, how many people here have even a basic grasp of Welsh? And much less a grasp of welsh humor. I am kindly requesting you to let Llwy do her thing, I won't complain if you throw in a clause to write for the english uncyc, but you shouldn't bar her from spreading a welsh uncyc. Again, how many users would actually be permanently diverted from this site to go to the welsh site. And also, don't mess with the japanese interwiki links. Sincerely, --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 18:03, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by this elipsical post here. The links are there...as far as I know...no one has taken them down. Llwy has been somewhat disruptive and has also claimed three times she was leaving. I also think that SPIKE only grudgingly adheres to wikia's policy when it goes against the interests of uncyclopedia and that he tries to work with wikia rather than against them. I'm not a fan of giving in too much to wikia and I don't think anyone else here is. --ShabiDOO 18:39, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
Llwy has not danced like she has never danced before and so she cannot edit here anymore. Concerning the interwikis, this really concerns the interwikis, doesn't it? User:Anton199/sig/Parody/Spike 18:48, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

edit Reply

Denza: I do not, and you have not claimed that I do, assert a privilege that I deny to other users. Therefore, there is no question of hypocrisy and I assume you started your message this way just to get my attention. My honor does not need defending, but if you engage other Uncyclopedians with such name-calling, I am sure we can do without you for a few days.

Llwy was not "trying to help out her division of uncyclopedia"--another use of the "one community" mush that people use to divert attention away from misbehavior. She has chronically used this website to send traffic to, and serve the interests of, other websites, and her most recent crusade was that we voluntarily shut down this website.

Llwy's only defense has been that (1) she was in a bad mood, (2) she has the courage to name her offenses explicitly and say she probably shouldn't have committed them, while committing new ones such as ban evasion, and while noting that banning will not be effective. She has explicitly stated that she does not intend to contribute more content (political screeds evidently excepted).

I do not know how you became her spokesman, but it is a reminder that your good work patrolling this site has to take into account your recurring philosophy that the site is less about writing funny stuff than about playing games of personality politics; as before, making alliances and strategically doublecrossing them.

It is a cheap shot that everyone who enforces Wikia's Terms-of-Use is a mind-numbed robot. There is lively discussion that you are not aware of. But I have been on this website for four years and I enthusiastically enforce the rule against supposed contributors sucking away its resources, and I don't care who owns the site that benefits. Wikia is free to cross-sell its other wikis in its ads in the footer. I recently deleted a post where someone who started a new Wikia wiki tried to recruit an inactive Uncyclopedian. I do not have mastery of the Interwikis, but apart from the useful function of sending foreign-language readers to a version of the page they would enjoy more--and apart from more faithfully spoofing Wikipedia--I am not sure why we do Interwikis either. Spıke ¬ 12:03 2-Aug-13

edit Interwikis

Spike, I would agree with Denza if I, myself, would notice that some interwikis get deleted. But I haven't and now I am addressing myself to you with a complicated issue: on the main page there is an interwiki to [1] while it can be considered dead. The site which is active is [2], although it is not a wikia site. Do you think we ought to change the link? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:34, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that there are two Russian-language Uncyclopedias and one is more active than the other (though the UnNovosti in the "dead" one aren't entirely dead or ancient). In an unaligned world, the question of which of the Russian Uncyclopedias is "better" is an inherently political one on which we need not take a stand. The world is not unaligned, and I'd expect Wikia's position is that we should not actively divert traffic away from another Wikia franchise. There was a week, earlier this year, when Wikia seemed to be getting active in the defense of this site; namely, removing from the Interwiki table the links to some foreign wikis where en: does not link back here. I do not know whether there was any follow-through.
I do not think "we" ought to change the link; because "you" can't do it and "I" don't know how to do it, and especially because I concede it would be a Terms-of-Use violation to do Russian readers the "favor" of helping them avoid the relevant Wikia product.
We have a variety of foreign users whose only business here is adding Interwiki leaks to their own websites. This does not help our site except to become a giant table of pointers out, which is ultimately not a traffic-builder. We also have a huge table of Interwikis on the main page for no evident reason other than to pat ourselves on the back for being part of a World Movement. This table confronts and sidesteps the question of whether there is more than one suitable destination in the foreign language. I do not know why a reader interested in Russian-language humor comes here at all, nor why we would care to offer him an opinion on where he should go instead. Spıke ¬ 17:50 3-Aug-13
When I came here, I was very interested in what was happening here (and I still am). And I had no idea that there was a Russian site like this one. And guess what? I found it with the help of the main page but it created a lot of problems as I went to the old one first and all the users who are not wikia staff left it, so it is dead as a humor site, not as a wikia site. And it took me quite a while to understand which site was actually working. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:24, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Spike, I thought about this and think that what you said is extremely sensible and I actually remember that there is still is some action going on on the old site. But I am very worried by the thought that, by forbidding intwikis to external websites, we enclose ourselves in the wikia family and our site becomes a complete wikia site. And wikia does not always equal humor. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:37, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Interlinks are mutually benificial as long as both are linking to each other. To be honest...with the languages I know...Ive clicked on the other websites...noted the general lack of quality and a different (not always in a good way) sense of humour...read a few articles and never really saw the site again except to write a few articles that were utterly ignored. Readers on the other sites may visit and perhaps stay...considering we offer links to see the best of our features, openly encouraged to vote on the best articles, an (at times) outstanding news component which is constantly being rolled over with new and timely articles on a daily basis etc. etc. etc. In this sense...we are far more likely to retain readers than anglo-saxons who visit foreign websites as none of the other websites offer this to the extent and of the quality that we do. As long as the website is in the uncyclopedia tradition...and the website links to us for "english" ... I believe it is advantageous to keep the links. --ShabiDOO 20:13, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
Replying to 19:24: I don't concede your narrative. Even in this locale, some argue that the only people electing to remain on a Wikia website must be "Wikia staff" or at least bought off, which is the cheap shot, common in partisan politics, of accusing adversaries of being driven merely by lucre. The question is why this website should take a position on two websites in a foreign locale, especially why it should favor the non-Wikia one.
Replying to 19:37: Of course it is unlikely that a Wikia product is always the best (funniest) at what it is trying to do. But Wikia is using us to build Wikia traffic, and I have always found that "price" of using its free services for instant global publication the least burdensome agreement I have ever worked under. By comparison, in almost any radio job or even in sports announcing, you will find actual words placed in your mouth. We do not "enclose ourselves in the Wikia family": We do not agree never to look outside. The Terms of Use as I understand them is that we simply agree not to recommend to prospective Wikia readers that they instead go elsewhere; and I don't mind that a bit.
I am not prepared to conclude that the Wikia Russian Uncyclopedia is the worse of two Russian Uncyclopedias. And if it were, the two options are to join (or assist) the exodus, or to stay and get the work done. Spıke ¬ 20:27 3-Aug-13

Thank you because you might not understand how helpful your comment was! And because of this I just remembered that when I joined the Russian wikia, a user from the fork immediately sent me an e-mail that I should not be working there. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:59, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

edit Further intercession

I am not really sure if I am right to write this thing here, as you probably consider the situation over but:

  • Llwy blanked her talk page for the first time because, as she said, she did not know it was forbidden, seeing that others have done it. I, personally, have never seen anyone blanking his talk page and not being blocked but maybe she did. But who knows? Anyway, she got banned for one day.
  • Then she blanked her talk page twice. So, at the same time, she reverted an admin and did the same thing for which she git banned for the first time. But: "21:44, July 29, 2013‎ Llwy-ar-lawr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (343 bytes) (-42,210)‎ . . (Please let me do this. A talk page is a place for contacting the user; if the user can only be found elsewhere, the talk page should point there)". This comment basically says that she does not know she is doing something wrong and I think that she did not believe that you banned her only for blanking (but for a political reason). And this is not surprising knowing everything she had said before and after. Anyway, she got blocked for three months.
  • Llwy made her unblock request, then changed her mind and decided not to stay here anymore but still argued for a while and left several messages. This is clearly ban evasion. But Llwy is neither shy, nor quiet: when she thinks that she is being attacked, she defends herself and I think it was impossible for her to leave without defending herself. And, in addition to this, going directly form one day block to a three months one is rather quick, isn't it? So...

There is no right or wrong in this situation because Llwy is completely sure that the site is very authoritative and does not allow her at all. And when a person thinks that, he can fall apart and begin committing mistakes only because he thinks that he fights for the right causes. And I know this on my own example because I have almost the same thing on the Russian uncyc now and I am trying very hard to understand whether it is me who is causing problems or the admins who want to throw me away.

Conclusion (if there is any): I disagree with Llwy because I think that the site is democratic and user-friendly. So if I am right, maybe she just deserves a chance to understand how everything works down here and see for herself that people do not get banned because they express their thoughts openly? I am sure it is none of my business but ... it is a question and not a request and I, myself, would help her in every way I can if she gets into further conflicts. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:45, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I do consider the situation over. I greeted her in February with my standard message, which includes: "Don't delete anyone's messages. In case of any controversy, we depend on an accurate record of what was written." My standard message does not include a table of punishments, nor should it. The first ban was for a token interval; the follow-on ban was for deliberate, repeated misconduct, and I have banned one Anon that was she, as I will ban any others. No Admin here bans users "for political reasons"--that is, on the basis of their opinions, even hers that this website owes it to others to go out of business. Personally, I do not think she blanked her talk page merely to resign but because my rebuttal of her final comments did not reflect favorably on her.
As you set out: She was not here to contribute content; she was a drama queen with a preconceived opposition to Wikia, to any rules she felt like disobeying, and to me. These are not even banning offenses, but together I have no motivation to set aside the ban. And no, it is none of your business, unless like DungeonSiege, you view this website not in terms of writing content but as a game of forming and breaking alliances. Spıke ¬ 14:50 4-Aug-13
I don't view this website like that. I just thought ... Well, I have already said what I thought and you responded. So I won't ask you this kind of questions (for a while) and go do something else. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:58, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

edit Darthpedia emissaries visit

edit Please unban SG1

Cuz he told me to tell you to do so. But seriously, he never edits here, or there. Just let him fix his sig or something. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:18, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I remembered that dis talkpag ting has madclaw sign with an external link. And he wasn't banned. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:20, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
[17:21:22] <SG1|Hereish> No, you need to tell him I wasn't trolling. I was trying to point out your link was broken.
[17:21:32] <SG1|Hereish> And that I apologize for any unintended dickishness.

^ true stuff. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:23, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Madclaw's signature is now corrected. Supergeeky1 indeed never edits here. So it doesn't matter. Spıke ¬ 00:26 6-Sep-13
[17:28:00] <SG1|Hereish> Denza: Please tell him that I intend to edit.

Why do I have to be the messanger boy? My skirt might get dirty. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:29, September 6, 2013 (UTC)(yes, I do want to wear a skirt.)

Have a heart old chap. I'll see to it that if he vandalizes, I will promptly rollback him, and post him on UN:BP. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:31, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, I have like, a Spanish thing to do. And I intend to score well on my stuff. Please do it so he'll stop bothering me. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 00:33, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

edit Bans of user Supergeeky1

My dearest homeslice, SPIKE... I would like to apologize for my actions here. I understand that you don’t see it fit to join the Uncyclopedia IRC channel, so I should have foreseen that you wouldn’t understand the sort of relation Denza and I have. You see, Denza and I are often quite, as you put it, snarky with each other. Obviously this snarkiness didn’t translate as intended on this wiki as well as I had hoped, but I assure you that 1) I meant no ill-doing with my edit, and 2) Denza was well-aware I was only joking in my tone. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this wiki and assumed that such jokes didn’t require citations announcing the preceding comedy, but I’ll remember to include such a reference in the future. Still, the fact of the matter remains that the joke aside, my edit to that thread was primarily made to point out that the Category:Anime link Denza included was broken and needed to be fixed. I didn’t want to overstep my boundaries and *gasp* edit another user’s message, so I simply referred him to the broken link. It was only meant to be helpful.

As for my signature, despite the seemingly misconception, I was never told by you or anyone else that external links were prohibited from being included in signatures. Quite the contrary, I had seen fellow users include such links in their signatures. At no point was I attempting to advertise Darthipedia, but rather, I was including the link as a legitimate method of contacting me. My time spent on Wikia has been drastically reduced as of late, I’m afraid, and I may not immediately see messages when posted on my talk page. My link to Darthipedia was included as a form of communication that I’d be able to respond to in a more timely manner. However, I can also understand how one can misinterpret it as advertisement, which is why I’ve removed the external link from my signature and replaced with a non-external, Wikia-hosted link to a wiki I can be more suitably contacted on. Hopefully this is to your satisfaction.

Finally, while this is purely conjecture, I could also understand if part of my ban was related to a completely hypothetical bias you have against me because of my “associations” with the fork. Rest assured that like Denza, I swing both ways. I love to get in on the spooning action just as much as I love to get in on the forking action, and at no point will I ever pick sides against one or the other. Needless to say, both have their pros and cons and each is a truly unique experience. So if you’re worried about having to ban me over this association, fret not, I mean no trouble.

Anyway, I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my cold heart for giving me an opportunity to present you with this heartfelt apology. Know that forever more, I shall do the right thing.

P.S. — I attached an animated gif of Hank Hill twerking. It has nothing to do with my apology, but it made me laugh and you seem like you could use a laugh. Cheers!

[Animation and signature deleted] 02:54, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Both of you emissaries from DP were active in the vote last February, during which the implications of our webhosting rules on user signatures was explained. When a user returns after being away since almost that long ago, he violates that rule, and his first and only edit is to pester a more active Uncyclopedian, it merits a ban. I could not know your intention and do not care about your intimacy with the recipient.
After your protest on IRC that were not in fact trolling and you "intended to edit" here, your block was reduced and then removed. Your only edits thereafter were overt trolling of me. In everything from your assertion that mine is the problem attitude here, to your chronic, redundant self-advertisement in each Change History, you make it clear that your purpose here is not to amuse the Uncyclopedia reader but to use them, us, and this website for your personal amusement. (As I was recently accused of inventing and stating rules of Uncyclopedia, it's important to stress that the above is instead a rule of surviving on Planet Earth.) For you to choose Darthpedia was wise.
PS--For the "heartfelt apology" above, combined with including [w:c:spike-in-my-rectal-passage] in your signature file (even if technically legal), let's have you go away for as long as you were away. Spıke ¬ 11:45 6-Sep-13

edit Madclaw: Deletion request

Hey SPIKE ols pal old buddy of mine, could you please delete this page, it has become obsolete since I changed my signature in my preferences, having a signature on a sub page is too prone to vandalism, Thanks in advance buddy and have a super terrific unfrustrating day Madclaw [external link deleted] 16:33, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

I have taken care of this. Madclaw has asked for a second opinion regarding linking to wikia sites on Sannse's page, and his question referenced this sig file. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 17:40, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to butt in here, but the transclude on of sigs is against site policy (see UN:SIG), as as far as I can see the main reason for this is not due to vandalism (as that hasn't happened), but due to the issue raised on Sannse's talk page, which hasn't been raised here. I also intended to take this to MC's talk page but the “talk” link isn't a link, and the @ included in the recent transclusions is a way of avoiding the request of an admin in order to get around a restriction - top level dickery.
I don't think that links to most external sites in sigs is an issue with TOS, although as far as I'm aware it has to be plain that the link is to an external site (but that may be simply local policy - on that I'm unclear). In this case the link is not clear, and not being able to navigate to a talk page, and being misdirected off site, is just a pain in the arse. A link to another Wikia based wiki on a page is definitely not against site policy of TOS - in fact it's enforced in the footer ads on this site. Kip the Dip's signature recently has had a similar edit, Lyrithya's “extended” signature used to (maybe still does) link to her previous home wiki, and I know Sannse definitely links off-wiki on her user page.                               Puppy's talk page11:24 06 Sep 2013

Madclaw, in other words: To prevent a recurrence of "vandalism"--by which you mean an Admin editing your signature file to conform it to our Terms of Use, you have instead typed the same code into your My preferences. This has the unfortunate effect of spitting the code (rather than a link to the signature file) into every talk page you post to, including a link to your preferred website. This is directly against UN:SIG, which you must know by now. Therefore, do not sign anything before correcting this problem. Incidentally, "ols pal old buddy of mine," thank you for filing a gratuitous complaint to our webhost to try to get me in trouble. Spıke ¬ 12:04 8-Sep-13

Personal tools
projects