User talk:Gwax/needs repair

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Here's the deal, I want to fix Uncyclopedia. It's full of crap, which is nothing new, but it's gone past the point of reason.

So, tell me what you think is broken about Uncyclopedia, be general or specific but do be serious. I'm not looking for stupid here, I'm looking to get stuff done, so if you post shit, I will ban you for a day or three. Let me know the problems that need fixing and I'll start figuring out what we're going to do.

After I feel this list is pretty complete, I'll deliberate, try to make the list as concise and complete as possible and then we can all start looking for solutions. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke

Takin' out the trash

  1. Category:Rewrite WAY too many articles in it, and most of them are NRV or QVFD quality.
    1. I had suggested taking the oldcat template and extending the count on it to 100 or so. Starnes put it up: Uncyclopedia:Maintenance/Rewrite
  2. We need to bring NRV back. ICU is ineffective. Furthermore, we need NRV back with a 3 to 4 day (5 day MAXIMUM) expiration time to speed things up and relieve some stress from VFD.
  3. We have no mission statement at the moment; people seem to be getting confused about what Uncyc is for.

More to come later.... -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

messing with VFS

Currently, VFS is a once every other month where only 2 admins get opped, and from there in the last 3 instances, i think 1 new sysop left because of a new baby, and a few others have stoped contributing as much. the process takes an entire month, and is devided into 3 parts each being 10 days. i think that at least one of those parts(the one where the admins decide if we need other admins) is too long a time period becuase all the admins either vote within the first 2 days, or dont vote. I tried to do something about this before on Uncyclopedia talk:VFS however it because ignored due to lack of intrest. i went through the history, and found that before the current method, we had a vote where anyone coul be nomed at any time and there was a vote to see if we didnt need any more admins. I say that we just restore that system and let people and only op the potential admins as needed.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN30px-Sucrose_b.gif 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User conflicts

I think, from now on, every time users have a conflict, we need a sysop to get in before it escalates, dish out small warning bans where necessary, and stop the issue in its tracks. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:45, Nov 11

Second. The Official Uncyclopedia Cabal analyzed the cause of problems on Uncyclopedia, and most stem back to escalating user conflicts. QED. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I also second this. Note: Some of TKF's edit was "adjusted" to reflect reality. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just remember to give a heads up on IRC (or whatever) to an admin when you see one brewing. They aren't psychic. Mostly. Also, they taste like candy. I've said too much. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Tasting admins are we, MO? -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

VFD limit

It seems as though Zombiebaron reverted your edits to Template:VFDRules2. Should we keep the 15 article limit, change it to 30, or eliminate the limit? --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUN) 20:52, Nov. 11, 2007

Eliminating the limit is a terrible idea and, as far as I'm concerned, if Zombiebaron would prefer that it be 15, that's fine for now. Since changing it, I've decided that there are bigger problems for me to address first. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro pages

The introductory pages are terrible, they don't tell new users much and they do it in a very slow and annoying manner. The introductory pages should be concise, informative and useful. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

People Bitch When I Do Things

It takes far more time to read/listen/ignore/respond than it should. Can we set up some sort of script where I can ban everyone who edits a page, with just one click? Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 11/13 01:37

Wait, so you don't already have one? Well, surely you are ten feet tall, and shoot fire from your eyes and lightning from your arse? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:40, Nov 13
Those sorts of scripts aren't my department, but I do agree that dealing with people bitching sometimes takes way more time than it should. I'll think on that one. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
“Sometimes, the only way to deal with mass idiocy is mass genocide.”
~ Somebody on whateveritis we're talking about.
- P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:26, Nov 13 Actually, I think this quote applies more:
“Sometimes, the only way to deal with a conflict is to ban all the unhappy people.”
~ Famine on diplomacy
--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools