User talk:Romartus

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
220px-Austro-daimler-AFV


Leave Comments Below or not:-

edit Catching up

Good morning, I see we are back in business and it looks like Spike kindly sorted the poopsmithing. I was expecting a backlog of un patrolled edits and was here to volunteer assistance but they are cleared too. I am handing over my ship in about an hour and going on leave, is there anything remaining you or Spike need help with this afternoon to catch up? --EStop (talk) 10:04, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ah..missed the message..so I guess you have gone on leave. Handing over your ship? Are you a captain in the Queen's Navy??--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:23, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
Nothing quite so splendid! My command is more of a self-propelled floating construction site, you know, riggers, crane ops, "hero rock".--EStop (talk) 21:07, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

edit The Who

I've got a new version of The Who article on my userspace. Could you go over it and see if it's good enough to replace the current article? I took bits from the old article and distilled them, then combined them with the new article.--EpicWinner (talk) 22:35, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:23, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
Same problem as with the Star Wars article. You have created an extension of a featured article. I can see some re-use of material and the basic joke - Doctor Who/The Who - remains. Now, saying all this, there was a featured article that was changed/extended. It was also about a band. Let me see if can recover the article's name and the discussion at the time. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:44, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
Yes was "brought up-to-date" earlier this year. Spıke Radiomicrophone15:51 23-Jul-15
Odd, it is not showing in the article's history. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 16:05, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
Oh...it should be Yes (band)! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 16:06, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! Yes. Spıke Radiomicrophone16:46 23-Jul-15

Now that you looked at the Yes article, do you think mine can be arranged? Also, do you recommend linking years (e.g. 1964, 1965) or not?--EpicWinner (talk) 17:36, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

We are in the business of parodying Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not make links of year numbers (as in 1964), and therefore we do not either; this is also why we don't add excess capital letters to page titles and section headings. Wikipedia reasons that, reading that something happened in 1964, it is rare that a reader needs to go directly to a page describing everything else that happened in 1964. That is not helping the reader; that is free-association on drugs.
I haven't looked at Yes (band) in a long time. The issue, then and now, is that when an author is voted to the website main page, his work is preserved against latter-day attempts to "do it better." Anyone can try to deal with the subject matter better, but no one ought to try to rewrite that exact page. This is sometimes a shame, as there are some crappy pages in our FA list.
I haven't looked at your recent edits, except one, which I thought was on the obscene side. Writing about MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, even if Samuel Jackson is in play, amuses you more than the reader, who will see it as mechanical repetition of a stereotype. Spıke Radiomicrophone18:01 23-Jul-15

Romartus, thank you for commenting further to EpicWinner, as he either ignored the above or defied it, including with stylistic edits to the said FA Yes (band). Regarding his other edits, he may have disavowed his earlier work, but a lot of what he is doing nightly here is still stuck in the developmental phase called "Watch Me Rant!" As you egged him on, please serve as his de facto adoptor. Spıke Radiomicrophone13:42 24-Jul-15

The odd thing is, EpicWinner never writes on his own talk page. OK, I will keep an eye out. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:45, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

edit The Who and Yes (Part 2)

I see there is a fundamental problem with feature re-write or extension. Looking at the Yes (band) example. The original article was by Thehallway in 2010. It was featured and came in at 36,600 bytes. In 2014 M00rglade asked to add some extra info. Because we were not really paying attention, the article length went to 69,760 bytes - essentially doubling it in size. This is not to say the extra info was good or bad but I think this has set a precedent. So...do we revert all that work or at least copy the existing Yes article and revert it back to 2010 status or come up with a new definition of 'adding' to a featured article (my emphasis). This would therefore also apply to the Who article reworking by EpicWinner. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

I was paying attention (at the start!) and told him he could add to the article, as Yes continued to release new albums and then went on that worldwide Walkers and Iron Lungs Tour. The relative increment is not an issue; it could be that the latter-day albums deserve that many words. If M00rglade has reworked or restyled the original feature, that is a problem.
Likewise, again, EpicWinner is free to write another article about The Who, and we have many ways of pointing readers of the FA to his sequel — but not to replace or supplant the FA.
That is our rule. I would be willing to reconsider our trophy case that protects FAs, as many of them are from our era in which we featured copycat articles that did nothing other than admit an Uncyclopedian to a clique. I am also eager to rewrite 2006 FA Martin Van Buren so that it is about something other than a guy who hit me up for twenty bucks in the locker room and who looks like shit. But I don't think any other Admin agrees with me. Spıke Radiomicrophone18:31 25-Jul-15
I think M00rglade got carried away so I will consider a cut back on some of that. Otherwise, I would prefer we stick to the Featured Articles receiving protection from excessive re-editing or replacing unless the active community wills it. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:47, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

edit A Clarification

I just want to clarify that I was the one who created the Mod section on the Minecraft page, and all I was doing with that minor edit was adding a mob that I forgot was in Minecraft. If you think it is unfunny, why didn't you just edit it rather than delete it alltogether? TTMsigTTMsig2 (Profile) (SPEAK!) 16:35, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see it is your article. Apologies. We have a recent spate of users changing featured articles (see EpicWinner) that were not the original author/inspirer of them. Since I have never played Minecraft, I wasn't sure if the edit was adding anything or not. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:26, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, but its not my article, just that one section. 184.5.222.23 13:25, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

In fact I see it is by Frosty, an irregular visitor to these shores. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:29, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

And please excuse me for going into "anon" mode earlier, I had some difficulties logging in. TTMsigTTMsig2 (Profile) (SPEAK!) 19:54, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

edit ROBLOX

Why did you redirect the ROBLOX page to Vanity? Nobody can see it now! TTMsigTTMsig2 (Profile) (SPEAK!) 19:53, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

No problem, users have had a lot of loggin issues with the database merger between Uncyclopedia and Wikia. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:13, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

But why is ROBLOX redirected? (I wrote that article) TTMsigTTMsig2 (Profile) (SPEAK!) 21:16, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Restored. My logs were showing it was an article that had been huffed before. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:39, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated my good sir, pardon me for asking, but what do you mean by being "huffed" before? I am fully aware of all the crap edits it is getting, but you can't really stop that, after all, the subject of the article has a VERY notorious fan-base. TTMsigTTMsig2 (Profile) (SPEAK!) 23:28, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

There were previous versions of ROBLOX by other writers that have been huffed in the past. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:11, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

edit Uncyclopedia:Talk pages

I thought it would be good if we actually wrote unofficial policy into written policy regarding talk page etiquette. Your help and input on this page would be most welcome. Simsilikesims (talk) 22:08, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Extend this article or to point users there? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:41, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
Right now, I'm thinking to extend it, then when we have community input on it, to point users there. Simsilikesims (talk) 22:44, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
Have we had a recent problem? I know it is frustrating when users don't talk back on their own talk page regards questions. We also penalise those who remove conversations unless that is vandalism and/or bullying. I try and leave an 'admin advisory' with comments and if a user is banned, an explanation why they have been banned. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:04, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects