User talk:MonkeyGem

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Hey,

Could you please leave my articles alone, the silly fake categories are Part of the Joke, such as Pepsi on the one about Heston, Loop 05:44, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Go categorize yourself and d133333333333333. --MonkeyGem 05:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

edit Better Spam Than Red

Hi. I just hate to see empty pages. --JWSchmidt 13:44, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

waiting for Category:Crucial articles --JWSchmidt 03:14, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Crucial as in how? There might be another term for it! What are your ideas? --MonkeyGem 03:18, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

edit Kitty kitty

Hi, good work on the categories. Keep it up! --Splaka 19:56, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Bwahaha "Hot Babes You Don't Have A Chance With" on Jmi Spiggins. Yer insane. --Splaka 11:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) P.S. feel free to add {{MTUsign|~~~~~}} to any really short pages that fit in the undic (browse Uncyclopedia:Undictionary to get an idea). Cheers
Ok, I made you an award and put it on your user page. Muahaha. --Splaka 01:01, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Thank you oh noble sir! --MonkeyGem 10:22, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

edit "Nemory" Disconnections?

Why did you delete all the "Nemory" entry links to existing Wikipedia articles, redirecting them to (mostly nonexistent) Uncyclopedia entries?

Why did you delete the description of, and link to, NASA's images of dark matter?

And why did you change the proper noun "20th Century" to "20th century"?

The Science categorization was constructive, but those other changes merely degrade the quality of the entry. Why?

I asked you last week for clarification of your changes. If we don't get any by 9 Oct 2005, I'm reverting the entry to its previous version. Let's not get into a battle; let's get your justification for your changes before this escalates.
The Nasa links on Nemory were memorable but we have internal links to the things you suggested, so there is no reason for external links on those topics. If you want to link to Nasa pages, add a separate section. Also, who is this "we"? --MonkeyGem 10:20, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Those Uncyclopedia "links" you switched in don't link to anything, while the ones you dropped link to more info. That's a pretty good reason for keeping them.
As for the "we" in my message to you, that would be the readers of this page, including myself and anyone else in the public. You know, the consumers of the content we produce? Little detail. I ask you: who is the "we" who "have internal links to the things [I] suggested"? Because the "we" which includes me and the rest of the crew who can read the Nemory page don't have anything but empty links to those things. --DocRuby 16:15, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This, being a public wiki, can be edited by anyone and I am sorry your pants got in a bundle when I edited. Red links are encouraged because it stimulates new growth. To quell your anxiety I will try in my free time to create those pages. As for the NASA links, they can be added back or reverted too. Since it is public you can do whatever you want. So feel free to! Nobody's holding you back! OR ARE THEY? --MonkeyGem 05:42, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

edit Vote to save Diarrhea

Here --Naughtyned 20:56, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools