User talk:Jaygo

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome

Anteater

No, this is not me, this is my worst enemy: antoneater.

Hello, Jaygo, and welcome to Uncyclopedia. This is a wiki (a collection of pages anyone can edit). Words in blue are "links" and can be clicked to take you to another page. This wiki is for comedy. It pretends it's Wikipedia, but we make people laugh, not bore them. If you aren't interested in a fake encyclopedia but in fake news stories, we have UnNews, and there are other projects for scripts, lyrics, how-to guides, books, etc.

What you can do

You can create your own article. It is better to do it under your won name, if, for example, you are not sure whether you will finish it; for example, User:Jaygo/An article. (The red instead of blue is a link to a page that doesn't yet exist.) If you don't have any ideas, we have a list of articles that need to be created.

If you've written an article, we have a Proofreading service where someone will correct your mistakes, and a review process where another Uncyclopedian will read your article and suggest improvements.

You can help without writing articles; just read articles and, if you see an improvement in writing or in comedy, jump in and edit it. In fact, you can help without writing at all, such as organizing, watching for vandals, or even greeting other new users.

What you need

To write articles, you need a sense of humor and an ability to write good English. We all have strengths and weaknesses and you can get help in any area. But everyone needs an ability to work with other people. Be polite, positive, and helpful toward others, and assume others are doing the same toward you.

What to read
For personal help
  • Active administrators of Uncyclopedia are able to help you. In addition to that they are paid twice as much as we are, however, they still cannot afford a cup of coffee;
  • Several experienced Uncyclopedians have indicated their willingness to adopt new users;
  • Finally, you can ask questions on your (here) or on my talk page. And I will be willing to help you!
How to post to talk pages

Please follow these general rules:

  • Add comments at the end of a talk page so people notice your addition.
  • Start your paragraphs with one or more ":" characters to indent them and set them off from other people's posts.
  • At the end, type ~~~~ (four tildes), which gets replaced by your signature (you can set it up using Preferences) and the date and time of your post.
  • Don't delete anyone's messages. In case of any controversy, we depend on an accurate record of what was written. You may disavow your remarks by striking them through like this.

I hope you enjoy it here!

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:40, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

edit Feminism

Well done with your first edits! Just a small question: there has recently been an IP user who edited the article and was it you? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:48, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I forgot to log in before doing the 2nd small edit. Sorry I did not see that a different IP user had made some rather unhelpful edits. These were not mine, mine was the one where I changed "tries" to "try" Jaygo

edit Sexism

Nicely done on the rewrite, still needs a little proofreading but the concept is now completely different. Usually you should start rewrites in your userspace, then copy over the rewrite to the mainspace, but the existing article was poor enough that I am letting your rewrite stand as it is. Just a note though, noticing that you also edited Feminism - this site is about comedy, and you may be better off editing subjects that you have no strong viewpoint on - on subjects that you do have a strong viewpoint on, it is too easy to make them into a rant, rather than make them funny. This site is about being funny, though the occasional point of view is welcome as long as it is funny. Moreover, some of the articles you may not find funny yourself, but as long as someone could find them funny, they are allowed here. Should you find an article you don't find funny, you can either start rewriting it - as long as it is not a feature - or else put it on VFD. If an article gets enough delete votes on VFD, it will be deleted.---- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:03, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I concur. If you are again editing Feminism logged off, your repeated parenthetical notes and swears sound ranty and come off as personal opinion. (We all have personal opinions; but you ought not come off that way, but as an "encyclopedia article.") This doesn't help the article author; this interrupts him, in ways that will disrupt the experience of reading the article. Spıke ¬ 02:16 19-Jul-13

Ok, well, I edited these two articles, not because of personal opinion, then they would have looked VERY different (beginning "Sexism is the completely unfounded idea that men are superior two women. While popular among men with no balls or brains, it is discredited by everyone else.". Hey, actually I might make this the new definition of "male chauvinism". Actually, I just did, check it out, although it does feature my view, I hope it is also funny!). Please note, I also made edits to the VERY poor article on Denmark, and Xenophobia, and have plans on editing other completely unrelated topics with poor or no existing articles (just made a new article on Cristiano Ronaldo) I changed the entire concept of Sexism, because the existing one was more or less useless mostly containing complete nonsense (Chuck Norris?). Suggesting to delete the articles instead, makes no sense: Of course Uncyclopedia should have entries on Sexism and Feminism!! I cannot help but get the feeling, that your concerns are American PC at work: Be funny, just do not write anything that could be considered making fun of women or minorities.User:Jaygo/signature

We always welcome multiple articles on popular topics (such as Global warming versus Climate Change), also our articles on Bush and Obama, and we never require that they be consistent with one another. If a new article of yours is good, we will find a way to make the others cross-sell it.
On existing articles, you are absolutely welcome to replace Chuck Norris with real comedy wherever you find him; less welcome to "change the entire concept of" someone else's article, especially as your tastes seem to run toward rant and toilet humor. (Our guide to writing comedy, How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, is always at your disposal.
On your parting shot that my objections are merely political correctness at work: You really don't know to whom you're writing. Spıke ¬ 12:19 19-Jul-13

No, I don't, dear Sir, apologies. I mistook the fact, that the only thing I know of you is that you are someone who accuses people of misogony, without really knowing to whom YOU are writing, as evidence of PC. That was wrong and will not happen again. I rewrote the entire concept of the article, not only because it was un-funny but because it was complete gibberish, which I believe is one of the main points in not being just stupid. I would never dream of changing the entire concept of a serious well-written article, whether I find it funny or not. You should rather be welcoming to the fact that anyone bothers to rewrite these articles that make the site appear incomplete. There is a lot of cleaning up to do in that respect. TOILET HUMOR??? What on earth are you talking about? I have never in my life referred to feces or urine in a joke and in particular not in the very few edits I have made in here. With regards to ranting: Political topics are supposed to include some degree of ranting, or at least I see no way to make anything funny without someone seeing it as a rant. The trick Is to make your rant slightly more clever than the average talk-radio host, and hopefully maintaining an ironical distance. Since you disagree feel free to write your very own article instead: I am dying to see how a funny article on sexism, containing absolutely nothing which even a single individual could possibly consider a rant, would look like. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaygo (talk • contribs)

I take your point that a second anonymous editor was present and apologize for my accusation of toilet humor. Also, I may have confused you with another editor overnight.
Separately, though, there are several ways to approach political topics other than rantiness. One can tell the truth, designed to be maximally shocking, in a tone of daintiness; or your comedy theme may be that the "article writer" is totally clueless and has mistaken his subject for something similar but irrelevant. I always claim that it does not work (regarding races, religions, nationalities, and ideologies) to make fun of an extremist by portraying him to be more extreme, as there are people doing so in dead seriousness. You should write so that your reader enjoys the result and never wonders: Who wrote this, where is he coming from, what is he trying to sell me? Spıke ¬ 14:03 19-Jul-13
ok, apology accepted. Not to open another discussion, but I noticed that you notified another admin (Frosty, I think) of me being ranty, probably unable to comprehend and a potential vandal, yet have not corrected that following the last entry, which I find rather strange.
separately, my point was that one man's "truth, maximally shocking, in a tone of daintiness" is another man's rantiness. I was actually trying to clean up an entry which 'I considered ranty as well as non-sensical. Guess that teaches me that we mere mortals should just leave it to the infinite wisdom of you admin guys to draw that line. I am deleting my edits and returning the article to its former "glory". Enjoy.Jaygo (talk) 20:19, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that you cannot just "take back" all your edits. As the Note below the Save button reads, "...If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." In other words, we may decide to keep all of your edits, some of your edits, an edited and re-edited version of your edits, and so on. You are not alone on this wiki, so it would be wise to learn to work with others. SPIKE is only trying to help in his own way, he may come off as having a superiority complex if you don't know him, but once you get to know him, you will find out that this is really not the case, but rather he is interested in helping the wiki become superior. Please stick around and take some time to learn the ways and quirks of our wiki. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:10, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

And you are naturally more than welcome to do so, and I understand you want to keep the "Sexism" edit, so by all means, please do. I also deleted my edit to "Feminism" which you are more than welcome to restore. But you cannot accuse someone of being a borderline misogynist, and then expect them to want to keep the edits that caused the accusation.Jaygo (talk) 23:33, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Check out this page, check out the anonymous edits, and you will see what prompted the "misogynist" accusations. This anon was editing at very nearly the same time as you were, and SPIKE appears to have mixed you up temporarily, though hopefully most of the misunderstanding now is cleared. More edits like that and I would've blocked the anon. Those are the edits that could truly be called misogynistic. After all, you did say you did some editing while logged out, and we ordinary admins don't have any way of knowing if the IP was you or not, except for the writing style. I don't think you made those edits, and I don't think SPIKE thinks so anymore, either. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:15, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Good thing we found the logical explanation: Forgetting to log in once, naturally makes you liable for everything any unregistered a-hole has ever written. No, I am kidding: Glad we cleared it. Now, as you dont seem to mind, I will now go back to making random stuff up and putting it in random articles :-) Jaygo (talk) 00:52, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

edit {ICU} tag on Cristiano Ronaldo

Hi Spike,

While I completely agree that the article is not at all finished, and needs additional words and pictures, and I agree that you should definitely maintain standards, I think the "make the article very long before ever submitting anything"-strategy is taking the site in a wrong direction.

The question you should be asking yourself, when someone bothers to create a new article, in my humble view, is not "does it have lots of pictures and words", but "is there any sort of original idea that others can build upon?" Ideally there is both and that is what the end result should be, but if there is only a good idea, why give the message "it aint completely finished yet, so get your act together within a week or get lost, loser". You may very well think that the underwear model angle was lame, fair enough, in that case just delete it. But if not, why should other people not be allowed to develop it further, even if Ithe author (in this case, me) would not have the time - or general intelligence - to come up with further clever ideas on this particular topic the next week. In my view, ideas should be allowed to develop through collective effort over time, and not nipped in the bud, before ever given a chance for anyone else to see them and develop them (or take them in a completely different direction). I thought that was the point of the site.

At the other end of the extreme, take an article like "Denmark": Lots of words and pictures but most of it is complete crap: "ruled by King Erik Thorgaard??" I am from Denmark and there is not even a marginally well-known Danish celebrity in any field of this name, it is most likely some moron called Erik Thorgaard who wrote it himself. "National socialist republic?" Reindeer from Finland attracted by bacon mated with Vikings to create Valhallans? Repeated rants about right-wing politician Pia Kjærsgaard hating "brownies"?. The EU referred to as the "fourth reich?". Former prime minister and Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh renamed "Fjogh" (meaning fool) which is only funny in Danish (although an extremely old joke) and nicknamed as "fudge factor", apparently a reference to an old tabloid rumour - completely unbacked by evidence - that he is secretly gay, and I would be very surprised to learn that that story is known outside Denmark (and even if he were openly gay, I don't think "fudge factor" is funny, but that may be just me).

However, this exceptionally poor article is considered good enough for your standards, having "ya know words and stuff". Please don't tell me, that I can nominate it for deletion, because 1) of course there should be an entry on Denmark, and 2) despite the overall crappiness, it does contain a very few good ideas (e.g. the flag referring to the cartoon crisis and the coat of arms being a lego viking), and 3) if its deleted it will never reappear, because given your policy on new articles, well noone gets to start a new article, if not more or less finished ( a rather unlikely event given the limited attention span of most Danes - including myself. I tried to clean up some of it, but realised it would probably just get me in trouble for, well, I nearly said "editing anything without being admin", so I deleted it again (though simsilikesims recreated some of it, yesterday).

There are lots of examples of articles that are long and have pictures but are complete rubbish. I say lets cut them down and keep the few good ideas, and let those develop over time through collective effort. Who cares if the resulting articles are short for more than a week, when the alternative apparently is focusing on producing and maintaining loads of rubbish like "Denmark" or no article being written at all. Again, my idea on this particular entry may have been lame, in that case just delete it. Cheers Jaygo (talk) 18:27, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

The usual way to develop an article is in one's own userspace (such as User:Jaygo/Cristiano Ronaldo) and to go for Pee(r) Review before mainspacing. Some people develop articles in mainspace (for which there is no penalty). However, the person patrolling the website that day tags articles that are obviously unfinished. The tag does not mean, "Get lost, loser," as you imagine it does.
I applied the tag without evaluating the quality of any of your humor, only concluding that it was short and lacked photos. My first impulse was to tag it with {{Fix}} (which implies a 30-day grace) but that tag has no way either to denote shortness nor to add a custom message.
Neither does the tag mean the page is the worst one on the website. I did not approve Denmark and have no opinion on it. Past Admins have conducted purges of articles, such as the notorious Uncyclopedia Kristellnacht "Forest Fire Week," and the outrage was widespread.
I wish you would be less quick to imagine offense from routine transactions and to predict retribution. Your work on Xenophobia was a definite improvement that I signed off on during last night's Patrol, you seem perfectly situated to improve Denmark, and indeed some stuff that you deleted during your brief resignation got restored. Spıke ¬ 19:14 20-Jul-13
i understand, that ideas can - and are supposed to - be developed in private without submitting, and I will do this in the future, but my point was: Then how are we supposed to develop and improve upon each other's crazy ideas? I would never have improved upon Xenophobia, if the article had not been there in the first place, and it really was (and might still be considered) "obviously unfinshed". If it were created from scratch today as it was when I did the edit, you would probably have tagged it for deletion within a week, (possibly even the way it is now). That way, the ideas are nipped in the bud and are never giving a chance to flower. CheersJaygo (talk) 19:47, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
Articles in userspace are either developed unilaterally or by invitation from the owner to the Uncyclopedian(s) from whom he wants help. If you want to establish different rules for your userspace, say so here or on your user page. But owners often don't view as helpful unsolicited "collaboration" to an article before they get the desired theme to work well and to be evident to the reader. In contrast, the problem with collaboration right now is that it's midsummer and this is a remarkably slow day on the website. Spıke ¬ 20:04 20-Jul-13
And I think I too would consider unhelpful such unsolicited cooperation when trying to build up such a "complete" entry in my userspace (I am trying to do that now for an article on "Scientology"). However, sometimes you just have a simple concept or one joke or silly quote and would like to throw a 'hail Mary" which someone may or may not catch. For example, Today, someone (not logged in) added something to the Ronaldo article. I dont find it particularly funny, but the point is that maybe it gives me or someone else an idea to develop it further. When we delete the page within a week, in particular because everyone is at the beach, we are 100 % sure noone will.Jaygo (talk) 13:05, July 22, 2013 (UTC)
This is a wiki and no change is irreversible. In your extreme case where a user creates an unfinished work in mainspace and leaves town for a week, he would be mistaken to think it will be unchanged when he returns. However, any previous edition can be restored or have some of its text copied (please experiment with the History tab above any page) and I can even fetch back the text of a deleted article. Any Admin will be happy to place even text voted for deletion into your userspace for reclamation. Of course a seemingly unfunny contribution might lead in a useful new direction. The trade-off, however, is to have many articles permanently Under Construction, at the expense of an attractive presentation to the new reader. I am not eager to see mainspace articles get overgrown with weeds to find out which reveals itself as an orchid.
The anonymous changes to Cristiano Ronaldo I certified as patrolled, as I guessed they were you. The only problem I had with them is the early changes are mostly written to an insider, and the later changes transform your final line into a bulleted list of unconnected items. These "Trivia" or "Fun Facts" sections tend to attract anonymous overnight writers, who add more one-liners until the result is total junk. Spıke ¬ 14:25 22-Jul-13
You are definetely right, it's a trade-off, and you may very well be right that it may produce many more weeds than orchids (you probably ARE right, as you have been her much longer than this noob). Personally, I think there is a great challenge in finding "weedy" articles and weed them out, keeping any orchids and developing them.

If no-one - including myself - gets clever with the Ronaldo article, the next week, I will try do develop a new one privately, and have it peer reviewed (I really hate the term used here without the "r"), before mainspacing it, as I will be doing from now on with all new ones.

I am very focused on remembering to log-in, as you remember that last time it nearly got me into trouble, so uou may assime there will be no more, anon IP edits from me. Jaygo (talk) 14:57, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

edit Scientology

Your new article is vastly better than having "Scientology" redirect to Scientologists, and in fact vastly better than that article (though if "Scientologists" has any pearls of humor, please steal them so we can vote it for deletion). I have moved your article to the main encyclopedia, over the redirect, and have maintained User:Jaygo/Scientology as a redirect to the article in mainspace so that your request for a Pee Review can proceed.

(My first attempt to do this was in error and I hope it didn't confuse you.)

My observations on your article:

  • The intro meanders and interrupts itself too often. Keep in mind that its function is to lure the reader in. Give the reader a quick comedy reward for clicking on your article.
  • When we jump into Section 1, prefixes like "It is widely acknowledged" are what I call encyclopedia clichés. You may think it makes it read more like an encyclopedia, but it would be no worse if you stated what you intend to state, simply and directly.
  • Avoid the comedy technique of making Scientology seem extreme or turning it into a caricature. There are many people out there that do these things in total seriousness, and the reader will wonder whether you are a humorist or merely an anti-Scientologist trying to convince him of something.
  • On your three recursive See Also's that are red because the page doesn't exist, this would be better as a paragraph in the main article where you compare Scientology to Scientolology and Scientololology, that is, the science of studying about the study of the science of study, etc.

Let's see if you get a second opinion via Pee Review. Thanks for your contribution! Spıke ¬ 15:31 23-Jul-13 great, thanks for constructive feedback. I will do some edits based on this.Jaygo (talk) 15:44, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Jaygo if you add something about yourself, shoe size and stuff you like, your personal user page name will change from red to a default blue. It also acts as a shortcut for people to find your pages.-- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:41, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. DoneJaygo (talk) 21:05, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed this article and after reading all this discussion here, so you don't have to answer my questions in the first paragraph of the review. Also, sorry for not responding to your comment at the beginning, it is just that I was absent for 12 days. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 08:58, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

edit Lionel Messi

Cheers on your deletion of that section, and especially with such a detailed Change Summary. There is a strong tendency among authors to use homosexuality as a meme, assuming (1) that this or any meme is funny based on mere mention rather than through author effort, and (2) that bedroom innuendos are funny absent something in the real world to which to relate them. Spıke ¬ 16:48 23-Jul-13

edit Cristiano Ronaldo

I removed the ICU tag and added a paragraph and images. On the talk page I have put it down as a 'placeholder', in that the article is good enough to occupy the space here (to prevent red links) but that is could do with more work at a latter stage. -- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:48, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Cheers on that and your edits, especially since I actually wanted to add that very picture (the first one), but was unsure whether it could be a copyright problem to upload from my particular jurisdiction (which I don't think, but have not had the time to investigate yet). I am still considering how to develop the ideas further18:17, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Jaygo, have you suddenly become an invisible man? (Look at your post above) Well, you don't have much skills yet because I still understood that it is you. And why do you bother so much about the images, why just don't take a random image, use it and wait until its crazy owner comes to your house? This is the technique I use. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:43, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
Invisible? I wish! Then I could sneak into football games, women's showers, concerts, more women's showers... No, seriously, I am not sure why my signature disappeared from my preferences, as I know I did the 4 tildes. And yes, I am new to formatting.
Separately, though: I bother about copyright because my daytime job is being a lawyer, so I do care a bit about those crazy owners ;-)Jaygo
If anyone does complain about an image copyright - and is most definitely theirs - then it can be taken down. Has happened about once in five years to my direct knowledge. TV stills, grabs off videos etc are a good source to import. -- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:36, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
As for me, I am still alive and ... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anton199 (talk • contribs)

edit Special mention

Congrats on being an “also ran” on NotM. Due to voter apathy you didn't quite make the cut, but rest assured that your efforts here are not unappreciated.                               Puppy's talk page09:24 24 Oct 2013

Thanks, I guess: I had no idea I was nominated for anything, where the voting took place or to whom I should adress my concession speech, ofcourse beginning with the immortal words of Dick Tuck, "the people have spoken, the bastards!". No, seriously, thanks.,I have not been contributing for a while, as I have been extremely busy, but hope to soon be back to contribute just a bit. Cheers. Jaygo

edit Ninjastar

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 09:44, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects