User talk:Dawg/archive2

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< User talk:Dawg(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Cleaning up talk page)
 
 
Line 95: Line 95:
 
== Articles from Uncyclomedia ==
 
== Articles from Uncyclomedia ==
 
*Dawg,
 
*Dawg,
:I've been going through the Wanted page and I'd moved over a few articles from the mirror site ([[UFO]], [[Author]], [[Brad Pitt]] and [[World War VIII]]) before I realized these may have been copies of previous deletions. What exactly is the policy when finding articles on uncyclomedia ? (Sorry, I usally bother Splaka with this stuff however I can access his talk page from my present IP.) [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 10:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
+
:I've been going through the Wanted page and I'd moved over a few articles from the mirror site ([[UFO]], [[Author]], [[Brad Pitt]] and {{link|World War VIII}}) before I realized these may have been copies of previous deletions. What exactly is the policy when finding articles on uncyclomedia ? (Sorry, I usally bother Splaka with this stuff however I can access his talk page from my present IP.) [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 10:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 
::Probably a good idea to leave them be. If they're missing from uncyclopedia, there's usually a reason. All of these had deletion histories, some with very long deletion histories (3 of the 4 had at least three deletes). Sometimes it's better to leave wanted pages "wanted" as it increases the chance that a new version will be written, possibly even a good version. {{User:Dawg/sig}} 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 
::Probably a good idea to leave them be. If they're missing from uncyclopedia, there's usually a reason. All of these had deletion histories, some with very long deletion histories (3 of the 4 had at least three deletes). Sometimes it's better to leave wanted pages "wanted" as it increases the chance that a new version will be written, possibly even a good version. {{User:Dawg/sig}} 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
   

Latest revision as of 17:21, August 30, 2010


WARNING

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE, IT IS NOT WATCHED!

Do not reply here if you want anyone to ever read your brilliant prose.

Everyones' Favorite FBI agent

yay!! The HRH MuCal. Tayor Lz4MUN (Praise!) (CMC!)

Why thank you for your support! I really appreciate it. We all appreciate it. Dawg_sig_2.gif Sir Dawg  cun | tlk | vdp  15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One man's bone is another man's boner

Thanks so much for your feedback! I was keen to do your UnNews article quickly, because God told me certain of you lucky Uncylopedians in Boston might get a kick out of it. I can't remember if I gave you one of these, but here's another just in case... Zimbuddha Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Walter Payton College Prep deletion

could u kindly provide the deleted file or something so we are able to take it from this site and use it somewhere where it would be more acceptable? Could u leave a copy of it on my user page kindly? A lot of people from my school were using it and found the page quite enjoyable... and it introduced them to uncyclopedia. -User:Sujacal

I've restored it with the {{vanity}} template. It probably shouldn't be deleted again, at least not without running through VFD first. --KATIE!! 01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
See? I didn't think it was much more than QVFD fodder and it didn't meet Vanity requirements. Now, there is so much more crap that needs to die... Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

yup

oh yeah.

Cthulhu

Since we were able to trace the excellent question back to you, Cthluhu has asked that you be given this as a token of his gratitude.


--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful words

The problem with the article is that instead of using Wikipedia's Ritz Hotel article to satirise the Ritz Hotel, the editor has used it to satirise something else quite different. Now perhaps this can be done with style and wit, but in this case, clearly not, judging by the results.

The article would be improved immensely by writing about an infamous prison in the style of a great hotel, rather than as a cut and paste job. I am not convinced that the original author, with a couple of grammatical corrections (and these apparently made only after long and difficult effort) is capable of fixing it. I think the whole embarrassing thing should be removed and someone with a good grasp of both humour and grammar write a new article on the original premise.

Yes, I see the edit button, but in this case it should be a delete button. Are you saying that it would be fine with you if I were to remove the whole sorry mess and write a complete new article, retaining only the premise and a few of the gags?

Of course images here are treated with a great deal more leeway. Nevertheless I am quite sure that using a copyright image from the Ritz Hotel's own website to satirise an Iraqi prison is not fair use. If your understanding differs, then come out and say so - please don't imply that I've got it wrong if you yourself don't think so! --Skyring 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what they say about opinions...
I have often used indirectly-related articles that are more applicable for my sporks, or mixtures of articles that are most relevant. We don't just parody the original - we sometimes use parody names, random (but humorous) nonsense, exaggerated attributions, lack of attributions, completely false attributions, etc. See our beginner's guide, or even the en.wp article on Uncyclopedia, for more information.
You can write a new one if you like and completely overwrite it. If there's a dispute, contact an admin or three, they'll make a decision on which is at least better, though there's always the possibility that it'd be split into a new article specifically about the prison. There's a lot more freedom here - you don't need to discuss an edit or rewrite to death (or at all). There are a few exceptions (you don't want to do this in the colonies, featured articles, or certain special articles (AAAAAAAAA! and Euroipods are prime examples), for instance), but in most cases you don't need to discuss an edit before making it.
You're correct on the images. I told the writer to replace them, too, when they mentioned it on IRC.
Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been writing satire for thirty years and more, but it's always nice to get a fresh view. The article sucks and I don't have the time to write a new one - I've got my publisher breathing down my neck and I'm preparing for a long trip. I look on UP as being a quick break away from the real world, and it's odd to see low-quality material such as this being defended. --Skyring 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You should try "Random Page" for a while or surf the NRVs (which are the top 50% or so of new articles, since the other half get deleted). There's a lot that needs to be done and a lot that needs to be deleted, but this is better than the vast majority of articles, even if it seems bad to you. We don't have overlord editors, and admins can only do so much. We lose our ability to detect humor after a week or two on the job... Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't "seem" bad. It is bad. The premise is good, the execution is poor. If most of the work submitted is of equal or worse quality then it seems to me that the site should change the way it does things. I see a lot of good work on UP, I also see a lot of crap, and if the crap issue is not being addressed, but actually defended, then I can't see much point in wasting time here waging a hopeless struggle. Why not take a leaf out of WikiNew's book and have new articles given "draft" status until they are of good enough quality to be generally visible to those without accounts? That way editors see rubbish, but the Internet public see a professional site full of good articles.
BTW, I've got this page on my watchlist, so there is no need to tell me about new traffic, though I thank you for your thoughtfulness in doing so. --Skyring 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Its nice that you think you know satire and ima sure you could write a article twice as good but i am sorry to inform you that not everyone likes the same type of satire thus different people laugh at different things written diffrent ways. Americans, australians and the english play on things in diffrent ways(and then people in those countrys laugh at different things again) and lets not forget the other billion people on this earth. I suggest you write your own articles with your own comedy values and i would love to read them(personally i would love it if you added to my article instead of taking away from it)). If 14 year olds log on and laugh at the article it will make me happy.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 07:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think its fair to say that the highbrow humour on Uncyclopedia is outnumbered quite dramatically by its cousin-marrying, country bumpkin relation. And as YYYY so eloquently stated, we do have to cater for the prepubescent demographic just as much as we do for people in control of their cognative processes. Other than that.....I look forward to your contributions. :) -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
I can understand your view, but look at the sort of humour that works best for unsophisticated people. The Simpsons and South Park are probably aimed directly at the 14YO market, and they don't skimp on quality, except as an act of self-parody. Just because the sort of humour produced by junior teens is generally of low quality, poor grammar, spelin-opshnal, it does not follow that the humour produced for them should be any less than professional quality. Ideally, we should, like TS and SP, aim to produce material that works on several levels. Your average 14YO might not have a clue who Oscar Wilde is (though, having been a 14YO, I'll bet that quite a few do) but that's no reason to get rid of all the Oscar Wilde quotes on UP. In fact, I'd say that the 14YO audience isn't even close to our core demographic. My guess would be that the Slashdot user who participates in feedback is pretty close, and we should be aiming for getting a Funny response from these people. However, what I see with the Abu Ghraib article in particular and a great number of other articles is Lame. There are a few good gags in there, but it suffers from its origin as a cut-paste-hack job, most of it is Unfunny, of dismal kwality, and the approach to copyright is careless. Not that I care a real lot about the reproduction rights of the Ritz Hotel, but I'd like to see some thought applied to images. --Skyring 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


The Honorary Quarter


True Love

Todd Lyons is no longer with us, that means when I have questions I'm coming to you. Lucky you, I know, but your the only other admin here who I've had any contact with. If you could help me it would be very appreciated. I'm working on the article for true love, and I'm trying to format a quote from William Shakespeare to look like our Oscar Wilde quotes look like. I wanted to insert-

"The course of true love never did run smooth". - William Shakespeare after losing a hundred bucks on True Love.

I know there must be some kind of quotation template that's applied or something... I don't know wiki-formating that well... Thanks again for your help.--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out. Response added to your talk page.

Dawg is hot

Caternest Acid likes you. Be thrilled.
Now go make him a sandwich.

Hey pup

It was nice meeting you at Wikimania this weekend. Holla back Toughpigs 04:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Re our conversation at the Wikia lunch: Possibly the reason that people are reluctant to start new articles is that they get threatened with speedy deletion within ten minutes of posting their first article. Just a thought. Toughpigs 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Entirely possible. The standards on uncyclopedia are sometimes a bit high from the point of view of new users. NRV is both a godsend (from the standpoint of helping us control the rate of creation of articles that are not up to snuff) and a curse (scaring new users).
I was speaking in general, though. Article creation is always daunting, even for those of us that have written quite a few.
I checked out your article, and you should be proud, actually. A 30-day prod means that it's quite funny, just too short as of yet. Uncyclopedians like articles that are roughly the size of shorter en.wp articles at a minimum. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally understand and empathize with the need for an efficient NRV patrol. You've got a much tougher gig than I do. We just have to worry about things being factual and interesting, which is hard enough. We usually settle for factual.
It was a weird experience, though, to create my first article in more or less good faith, and have it tagged within ten minutes with a scary box that says it's not good enough. It might soften the blow a little if it's someone's first new article to also post a message on the person's talk page saying, hey, this is why your article got tagged, we still love you, stop blubbering and pull yourself together. Y'know? You've got the welcome message template, so maybe this is like a second level of that -- a "don't feel unwelcome" message.
Not that I personally cried or anything. I didn't. I'm just worried about other people who aren't as rock-hard masculine as I am. Toughpigs 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles from Uncyclomedia

  • Dawg,
I've been going through the Wanted page and I'd moved over a few articles from the mirror site (UFO, Author, Brad Pitt and World War VIII) before I realized these may have been copies of previous deletions. What exactly is the policy when finding articles on uncyclomedia ? (Sorry, I usally bother Splaka with this stuff however I can access his talk page from my present IP.) MadMax 10:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to leave them be. If they're missing from uncyclopedia, there's usually a reason. All of these had deletion histories, some with very long deletion histories (3 of the 4 had at least three deletes). Sometimes it's better to leave wanted pages "wanted" as it increases the chance that a new version will be written, possibly even a good version. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel left out...

The Wikimania list was a "self-add" for all of us, I think. It was good to meet you! --CocoaZen 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody contacted me to tell me to list myself. Oh well... Good to meet you, too! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychological analysis

Hi Thanks for getting in touch with me on the Psychology Wiki. I appreciate your offer of help. I'm trying to work out how to get access to the list as its in a library book they wont let us scan, or take out the library!!! As to the MBTI guess I thought maybe INTP, Maybe E. If you go onto the MBTI page on the wiki you can do the test properly, or Google "MBTI free" theres quite a few sites out there. Let me know what the official score is so I can be appropriately humbled. Joe

Certainly!
Yes, that does put a damper on it. I hope it works out, since it sounds like it would be a very useful resource, especially since it doesn't exist online (at least not from free/open sources).
Excellent guess on my type! I'm an INTJ. My score is 21:0 - I, 17:9 - N, 21:3 - T, 15:5 - J. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Veree interesting - stroking beard! Thats blown my understanding of J. I would have thought working on Uncyclopedia was a definite sign of relaxed social norms and letting go. maybe you just like to get it right and preferably on time. Well good on you!!!!. At wikimania they told me that those data lists are copyright free for before WWII so I am trying other avenues for accessing the data. I'll come back to you if I may when I've made some progress. But dont hold your breath there is big money involved for those who control our knowledge.Viva the revolution!!Joe
Uncyclopedia, curiously, has a notably-high percentage of INTJ sysops (I know that many from before 2006 are INTJs). Most of the bureaucrats here are INTJ or INTP. My theory is that the prominent keepers of the "clean"/informative side of the internet are Introverted NTs, particularly INTJs, due to some aspect of the personality and the nature of the internet (based on internet claims of the type, it seems they are very common, while in the world they are rather rare). I would be willing to bet that at least 25% of the en.wp admins at wikimania were INTJ or INTP.
Yes, I am known for very meticulous research in my uncyclopedia articles. If you look at them, you'll notice things like: man uncyclopedia is a real man page (complete with source), the Home Haggis Maker graphically describes how you slaughter a sheep and the actual ingredients used in Haggis, Eva Peron was originally written for Rosa Parks (it covers many incidents in her life) while using proper Mars time and transliteration to Greek characters.
Yes, controlling and selling access to knowledge is big business. I'm very excited about the progress thus far and I am hopeful about the continued freeing of information from proprietary control. We have the tools, now it's just a matter of blazing the trail. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you hate me?

Really, that's my question: why do you hate me? What did I do that made you feel the need to repeatedly ban me from the IRC? Just to let you know, I'm very pissed right now. --Señor DiZtheGreat Cuba flag large CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You are the winner of your very own "you annoy the crap out of me" award. What does this entitle you to? Being pissed off about things on the internet that really don't matter after acting like a complete idiot, getting banned, then evading your ban and getting banned again. You're now on my list of auto-bannable people! Thanks for playing! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, DiZ, I have never banned you, but evading bans is annoying as Hell and is dealt with pretty harshly. Sorry you had to learn that the hard way.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am granting DiZ amnesty. I truly hope he has learned from his timeout. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects