User talk:Phrank Psinatra

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit TAW 2011

Hi Phrank Psinatra. I'm just finishing up organizing this year's contest and I'm asking former participants for feedback on some changes I've made.

  1. I reorganized UN:REQ earlier this month, using Wikipedia's version as a model, since the page has been very slow to upload for users with slower computers (myself included). Do you think its easier to use now?
  2. I've limited the categories from five to three groups (UN:REQ, UN:VITAL and Wanted Pages). This limits the number of judges and, in theory, encourages more participants.
  3. I've added several optional categories. Judges won't be needed since the prize is awarded to editors completing the specific "challenge". Do you think its worth adding these extra categories?

If you're not too busy this fall I hope you'll think about entering this year's competition. It's be great seeing some "returning champions" participate (if only as judges). MadMax 02:36, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

edit From my edit summary on TAW.

The competition is not yet accepting entries. I would suggest not working on you article anymore until the 29th, else it be disqualified. --Tophat headless 04:36, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll back away.. :) Phrank Psinatra 04:54, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

edit Just a suggestion but ...

Have you considered bringing your articles to Pee Review? They're very good. Per this comment, they'd only need a little more work to get them featured. MadMax 04:56, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

I've offered some of them for pee review, but most often as a reaction to the prospect of them getting huffed for various reasons. Phrank Psinatra 04:19, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

edit Television

That's a great start. If you'd like, I can move the original deleted article to your userpage (i.e. User:Phrank Psinatra/Television (original)) if you want to use anything from the previous versions. MadMax 23:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks!Phrank Psinatra 00:02, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

edit UnNews:MS-Windows barely survives

Hello! Your new UnNews needs a few changes to superficially resemble a real news story:

  • Real news starts with a "lede," which is a summary of something newsworthy that just happened. Your story reads as though it's starting in the middle, with Gates's reaction to something that happened. As I read it, what just happened is that stats on Win8 were just published.
  • Real news doesn't quote anonymous sources, such as "one market analyst" or "a Corporate Vice President." You can get names from your source. (You do have a source story, don't you? You need to include it in the UnNews so that any ignorant readers can look it up to see what really happened and why your version is funny.) Or you can invent your own names, and you get bonus points if they are funny in their own right.
  • A photo
  • Format the dateline correctly; see most other UnNewses for how to do it.

Happy editing! Spıke ¬ 13:59 3-Feb-13

You have addressed the above completely, thanks! I've tweaked a few things, as shown in the Change Summaries. I see you had QVFD'd it but then removed it. But when you removed it, you removed something else too; did you intend to?17:24 PS--Evidently you didn't. The Chief Justice has put that other thing back, and reminded you that you don't take anything out of QVFD. If you change your mind, just strike it through, like this. Spıke ¬ 19:19 3-Feb-13

I had no intention of putting the article in QVFD. I clicked on the link by accident, meaning to click on something else. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 14:33, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. My only point is that you should correct your error with strike-through. Spıke ¬ 14:37 5-Feb-13

I see one of the things you changed. I am not American, so pardon my ignorance about the FTC vs Congress. But I thought Congress had the money to bail out big companies, since as I understand it, they pretty much determine the federal budget (which explains the debt ceiling/fiscal cliff battle). The FTC I would have imagined, make requests to other agencies, as well as elected bodies such as congress to bail out companies, but I didn't think the FTC had money of their own to bail people out. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 14:51, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Congress is our legislature and the FTC is an agency. While, informally, recommendations flow in both directions (Congress may direct the FTC to study something and report back to it), it sounded unrealistic to say an agency would direct Congress to do something. I did not mean this change to affect the story you were telling but just to add credibility on a superficial level. Spıke ¬ 15:01 5-Feb-13

edit A funnier story

Your UnNews notes that the market dominance of Windows has dropped slightly. A bigger story that begs for an UnNews is that the percentage of people using a PC at all to do their computing has dropped like a rock. [1] Meanwhile, Ballmer bets the house on Windows, most recently hoping to make it look both like a PC and a cell-phone. Compare Ken Olsen, who once flew another huge computer company into the side of a mountain (in this case claiming that the PC was just a toy). Spıke ¬ 18:30 3-Feb-13

That is not the effect I intended. What I wanted to parody was the excessively fawning media coverage of MS over the decades, and that it would be almost believable that market share below 90% would prompt a congressional bailout, even though they are making oodles of profit, just not as many oodles. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 14:33, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I get that; am just saying there might be another article for you or someone to write. Cheers. Spıke ¬ 14:37 5-Feb-13

edit QVFD

Thanks for the header for the new day. But why are you listing this here page on QVFD? We don't delete discussions. You may move the contents of this page to an archive, though this is tiny compared to the talk pages of the users who are too lazy to. And why did you just strike through all of the day's entries on QVFD? I changed the strike-through to just be of your request, because we don't delete discussions. Spıke ¬ 21:00 17-Feb-13

Hi, Spike. I remembered the last time I QVFD'd something by mistake, I deleted it, and you said I should use a strike-through if I did that in error. It happened again. I think the QVFD link is a little too quick. I keep meaning to click on a link above it. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 21:04, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Then what you did is correct (except for putting the terminating </s in the wrong place so it struck through everything for the day!). As the last thing I did was delete a work of yours, I was startled and assumed the worst. A link a little too quick? With my T-Mobile Data Suppository, I only wish! Spıke ¬ 21:12 17-Feb-13

Ah, you must mean the JavaScript widget that sends a page to QVFD! It is not too quick, it is instantaneous, and the only remedy is to not click on it (or turn it off and make submissions manually, which is probably just as good except when you are on active Patrol). Cheers! Spıke ¬ 21:15 17-Feb-13

Thanks. It has been turned off. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 21:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

edit DSM-5

This article taking shape in your userspace is a fun concept. To look like an Uncyclopedia article, however, each heading should be demoted one level (add an = at the start and the end). We virtually never use =Level ones=.

Also, you are allowed to have a calling card on your user page of other places you can be found; but not have your signature (on this article's talk page) point off-site. Thanks. Spıke ¬ 16:57 19-Jun-13


Further to my suggestion on VFH that you rename this article DSM and re-file the nomination, you need to ensure that [[File:...]] occur at the very start of a paragraph, and end with a hard return. Otherwise, MediaWiki renders them incorrectly. Spıke ¬ 13:37 21-Jun-13

edit Learn2Preview

Have I yet given you my nag about using the Preview button next to Save to see how your edits will look, then continuing to edit and not saving your work to the encyclopedia until you get to a good stopping point? I have just turned on your Autopatrolled flag, so your edits won't be highlighted in the activity log as possible vandalism (I think you were here even before this feature was installed), but minimizing the number of official edits to the encyclopedia will simplify the task of reviewing the log. Cheers! Spıke ¬ 13:57 21-Jun-13

The only change I made to DSM, apart from changing the name was adding the carriage returns, both as you requested. The addition of carriage returns affected nothing on my browser. I still saw the same thing. Also, these were such minor edits that I don't think it is necessary to preview something like that. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 14:02, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to decide for yourself what the "good stopping points" are; just please get in the habit of having fewer of them. Also, thanks for changing the coding. When someone puts an illustration in the middle of a paragraph, MediaWiki fails to emit <P> and </P> for that paragraph. Most people don't see the difference at all, but I do, as I have custom style for "paragraphs." Spıke ¬ 14:09 21-Jun-13

edit Double redirects

Hi again! In the process of creating DSM-5, you created a bunch of double redirects: pointers that point to pointers. (See Special:DoubleRedirects. Would you please either edit each so it points to a real page, or list on UN:QVFD the ones you don't want? Spıke ¬ 03:28 26-Jun-13

What he said, make sure that you check for any double redirects when you move pages. I'd rather not ban you for it, so please make the effort to avoid leaving them. If you're stuck then let an admin know and we can sort it out for you. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 06:08, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid to say that I don't quite understand what you mean by "double redirect", and what I read in the Wikipedia article wasn't helpful, unless you mean pointers to DSM...? I take it you don't mean the links I created in the article body (since they seem to work when I tried them, and the ones that are red aren't supposed to)...? I know I filled out a short form to move DSM-5 to DSM, as Spike requested for me to do. Was I wrong in doing that? I think you'll need to fix this lest I cause more damage :-( Phrank Psinatra (talk) 02:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I guess we fixed this. When you fill out that form, it creates a page under the new name, but changes the old name to point to the new name. Usually, we want to abandon the old name completely, which you do by going to UN:QVFD and filing a request of the form:

DSM-5 (redirect) (delete)

This complicated line ensures that we delete the redirect and not the entire article.

Now, I seem to recall that you had a reasonable argument that DSM-5 might be something that a person might search for in the encyclopedia. One way or another, this is no longer an issue. Spıke ¬ 15:02 22-Dec-13

edit Worst 100 Bands of All Time‎‎

This is promising work. However, on several recent occasions where we have cleaned up articles in the "Worst" series, we have removed the number 100; for instance, Worst songs to play at a funeral. This approach keeps anonymous editors from adding junk to complete the 100 (and they don't stop there, but go to fractional numbers), and keeps them from wrestling over the rankings. If you rename (move) this, it will create a junk redirect; although it is in your userspace, I will gladly delete it if you request at QVFD, as described above. Spıke ¬ 15:02 22-Dec-13

Yes, that would seem helpful, and will make it easier to clean up the article. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 19:12, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

edit Television

I have nommed your article on VFH. You can vote for yourself btw. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:27, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow! Phrank Psinatra (talk) 22:34, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
He has nommed you. But he has not spelled your name right. Spıke ¬ 22:36 11-Feb-14
Saw that. It was fixed :-) Phrank Psinatra (talk) 22:38, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

edit Nagging

It is time for you to reread Section 9 above on Previewing, which last time you rebutted rather than take to heart. I am not telling you what you should write, only that — especially for the more minor edits — you should Preview it and keep editing rather than make an official change to the encyclopedia. Do the same thing with fewer transactions (you had 26 to one article today!) (a Preview isn't one).

Separately, we would welcome you to Votes for deletion to help with the tedious job of reviewing the website's worst articles and voting whether to keep or kill them. Spıke ¬ 16:22 12-Feb-14

Most edits are, as you say concerning fixing minor mistakes. While I will try to cooperate I must say that I am one of those people who tends to send what I think is a finished document to my printer at home, only to find another error (usually a minor one) and I have to print again. Yes indeed I go through a lot of wasted paper that way, and it is mildly annoying even to me, but it happens. Like I said, I will try harder to preview. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 20:35, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I am not saying is to never make errors! But do keep trying to avoid saving after a minor correction only to go further down in the document and find another one; instead make them all with a single Save, cheers. Spıke ¬ 02:13 13-Feb-14

edit GIFs

Do you mean your GIF won't load? or that your animated GIF won't animate? If it is the latter, there is a trick to it. I recall that you can't use an animated GIF with a thumbnail, which may mean you can't have a caption. Copy exactly the coding at Hanuman and see if it works. (However, unless it is really good, ditch the movies and let your own words tell the joke!) Spıke ¬ 02:11 13-Feb-14

No, it is a still photo from the Uncyclomedia Commons. Its link is here.
Hanuman's dancing monkeys image works. My GIF is not animated, so it should display also. It still does not. I notice that Hanuman uses a File: tag. I tried both File: and Image: tags, and no luck. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 05:01, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

You can link to it, but you cannot use it as a photo without going to Special:Upload. This website is famously apart from the rest of Wikia and Wikipedia, and I see no evidence that that photo has been brought aboard — in which case, you would have a URL on Uncyclopedia instead of the one above at Uncyclomedia Commons. (As a refresher, save it on your computer and transfer it from there to Uncyclopedia using Special:Upload.) Spıke ¬ 13:49 13-Feb-14

edit QVFD refresher

When posting to QVFD:

  • Create a new heading for the current day, like it says.
  • If you can't do that, then newest requests at the top.
  • Use {{Redirect}} to form a request that ensures that we don't delete the underlying article by mistake
  • Don't say it is "orphaned" — that means that there were references but they have been edited out. You simply want a deletion of a redirect from userspace to mainspace, which is appropriate.
  • Less importantly, type one space at the start of the request, because that's what everyone does. Spıke ¬ 23:15 14-Feb-14

edit Liberals

Thanks for the new article! Here is a mini-review.

  • The only real joke in the Intro is an absurdly long list — a technique that is so over-used that we recommend against it in HTBFANJS. It would be better if you gave the reader a taste of what is to come, as the purpose of the Intro is to suck him in and get him to read further.
  • Half your readers will themselves be liberals, and the list additionally gives them the impression that, if they keep reading, they are going to be called names.
  • My own recommendation on how best to write about serious divides such as ideology is in Choice of Words (sections 6 and 7), where I suggest you keep it light enough to amuse all audiences. Writing from an alternate point-of-view is very hard to do; and when, in Section 1, you assert that, "All Liberals are elite, and elites, as we all know, are evil," the reader does not realize you are writing from an alternate point-of-view. This does not come across as humor but as preachy personal opinion.
  • Richard Nixon was notorious for making an issue of liberals. (When he wasn't doing liberal things like creating the EPA and breaking into psychiatrists' offices.) Vice President Agnew moreover stressed the need for morality in government, until the very moment he was forced to resign over bribe-taking. These are possible other humor directions. Failing that, Nixon was a long time ago and may be lost on a lot of your readers.
  • The article may need to be turned around, to start with an explanation of how and why liberals came to exist, followed by anecdotes and ending with what to do about them. Spıke ¬ 11:38 24-Feb-14
----
I'll give a rebuttal a go anyway:
* To your first point, the absurdly long list is a major point of the piece - to show that in the "real world" liberals include a distinctly broad swath of humanity.
* To your next point, I was taking on the persona of a conservative, since I wanted to bring out some of the right-wing rhetoric in the context of having to shame the left-wing for the "crime" of not counting the dead among their numbers. I'll fix the "All Liberals are elite, and elites, as we all know, are evil" quote, it didn't come out the way I wanted.
* I grew up with Watergate, I understand a good deal of it, but I wanted to focus on his "silent majority" quote, since I feel it is the most ridiculous fallacy ever concocted, yet is has cachet with much of the public. I traced the origin of "silent majoirty", and it does go back to Roman writers such as Plautus and Petronius. They used it to mean "the dead", and used it in the sense of "s/he is gone to the majority". I don't wish to parody Nixon or Agnew over historical events, since that has been done a million times over over the past 40 or so years. But I don't think anyone thought the phrase "silent majority" was worthy of parody. I do.
Anyway, those are my ideas. I'll try to implement what I can.
Phrank Psinatra (talk) 21:39, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Very well. Now, I didn't claim that your initial list didn't have a point, only that it might not grip the reader. Yes indeed, the claim that most Americans are with me but are simply not disposed to say so, is one of the "last refuges of a scoundrel" (there are so many). I wonder what kind of an epic you and Lucifuge Rofacale could crank out together. Spıke ¬ 22:31 24-Feb-14

Epics are good! My only suggestion is that you are missing Trendy Liberal Lefty. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:13, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I like the way you are turning this around. Only, the Intro doesn't need a section head. Just start with it and you'll get a Table of Contents just below it, at the first real section head. Spıke ¬ 03:50 25-Feb-14


Anon made three edits to this article recently. I marked them Patrolled, though you might want to revisit them. Don't know who uses square parentheses in prose, and "people of above-zero literacy" seems rather more complimentary than the tone you were taking. Spıke ¬ 01:59 4-Mar-14

I have selectively edited out anything I thought was not helpful, and added a bit more content. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 03:26, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

edit Another QVFD refresher

Would you please re-read Section 14 above, and do it right? Someone is going to delete your stuff by mistake instead of deleting the redirect when you list it that way. Spıke ¬ 11:41 24-Feb-14

Sorry about that. I will answer later to your remarks on the article (above). Phrank Psinatra (talk) 11:52, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! On the remarks, I don't need a formal rebuttal! Just take them into account and do the right thing, if you think they are valid. Spıke ¬ 11:55 24-Feb-14

edit Television

Your article is now featured! I have also added your name to the Hall of Shame too. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:59, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Blessed! :-) Phrank Psinatra (talk) 03:26, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

edit Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's Corner

Do you know that your request has been fulfilled by Maniac1075? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:36, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is: W. O. W. Pretty scary looking! :-) .... ! Phrank Psinatra (talk) 13:19, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

edit WotM

Congratulations, you won! The WotM award will from now on guarantee you a privileged access to the website euroipods.com. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:50, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

edit PEBKAC

Hi, I think you are going about this one backwards. If you are referring to the diagnosis Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair, this will be the classic case of requiring the reader to type the punch line in order to read the joke. And the usual joke is not original but was devised independently of Uncyclopedia, unless you have a plan to take the concept in a new direction. To insert this humor into Uncyclopedia, I think you should do it as a side-trip to some other destination (such as a new section in Dummy, which I've just rewritten to save its life from Votes for deletion) or in one of our articles on computing.

Also, when you move an article, the old name continues to exist as a redirect to the new one. We should not have an article in the main encyclopedia redirecting into your userspace, so you should ask at QVFD to have the old name deleted. This won't keep you from moving a product back to the encyclopedia when it's ready. (In this case, I've already deleted the redirect.) Spıke ¬ 00:05 3-May-14

Thanks for that, however, PLBCAM does not seem to me to have any potential, since there is no human between a keyboard and monitor to parody. PEBCAK, I feel I can do more with. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 00:39, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

I have already included a mention at Dummy. Spıke ¬ 00:48 3-May-14

I get it, sorry, I'm a bit slow. So, maybe just edit Dummy with a PEBCAK section. It could be a lengthy section, however, and I was going to write this more from the point of view of the PEBCAK sufferer. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 01:04, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

You are a bit slow tonight; as above, "I have already included a mention at Dummy." Write whatever you like, cheers! Spıke ¬ 01:09 3-May-14

Am not liking that. My concept of Dummy was as an overview of stupidity, but you have added a large section that is an in-depth study of stupidity in one particular field. This does need its own article. Spıke ¬ 02:26 3-May-14

Now, I understand you are a frustrated help-desk employee. Or, at least the article gives me that impression. But last night's edit got ranty; that item goes on too long and is not just about stupid things users do but how that one user in particular needlessly wasted your time. Keep it light and entertaining, not a vent!

Also, keep going at fleshing out all the list items. An article with only list items and no paragraphs will convince anonymous editors they can add crappy items to the end. And it needs links to look more like a Wikipedia article. Cheers! Spıke ¬ 12:13 6-May-14

No, I am nothing close to a help desk employee. I like that you think that I am, but I am a bit of a computer nerd. While I don't understand what you find "ranty", it did take a fair bit of research and creative fictionalizing of whatever I could find on various help desk horror stories I had heard about. I distilled most end user melt-downs to their essential elements and changed factual details to get something hopefully funny/amusing. What I would like to do to improve this when I have time, is to categorize the situations under subheadings, then flesh them out. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 04:00, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good! If not a help-desk employee, maybe that will be your next career, following writing for no pay. And don't forget: "Semicolon — Is that the one with the tail?" Spıke ¬ 10:22 7-May-14

edit Forum:Thumbnails are broken

Thanks for your report; I merged it into the other Forum in the same subject. Wikia has been advised of the problem. Spıke ¬ 11:03 8-May-14

edit Megan Fox and her letter

Hi! As you are the only one who has left a comment at the nomination page for this article, is there you anything you can advise, criticise or suggest for the article, please? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:30, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Not really, except I found it perplexing where a letter would fit into Uncyclopedia or its other projects. Phrank Psinatra (talk) 09:34, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Articles on Uncyclopedia have always been known for perplexing readers. Concerning mine, I don't know where it would fit either, and it wouldn't work well in another form, so I decided to keep it mainspace. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:49, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

edit UnNews:Pollsters unexpectedly accurate in P.E.I.

Thanks for the UnNews! I shortened the headline and did some minor copy-editing to prepare it for the Front Page. No excess capital letters in headlines, please. Spıke ¬ 11:51 19-Jun-14

edit Rollback Rights

Hi Phrank. I have given you rollback rights as an editor. It's a useful tool to remove vandal and idiot edits you may see. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:47, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

For an explanation and strap-on attachments, see UN:HAX#Rollback tools. Spıke ¬ 12:50 1-Aug-14
Thanks! Is this only to my articles? Phrank Psinatra (Talk) 09:43, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
No; you may now more easily roll back vandal and idiot edits to any article, hint, hint. Spıke ¬ 11:35 16-Aug-14
No, you can do it for all articles. Sorry, I missed your question earlier! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:26, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects