User talk:Phrank Psinatra
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Award from UN:REQ
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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
OK, I'll back away.. :) Phrank Psinatra 04:54, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
edit Just a suggestion but ...
- 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)
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)
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!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. 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.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.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.  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). 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.14:37 5-Feb-13
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.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! 21:12 17-Feb-13
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
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.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. 13:37 21-Jun-13
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! 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."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:Double redirects. Would you please either edit each so it points to a real page, or list on UN:QVFD the ones you don't want? 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. --
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)