User talk:SPIKE

New stuff at the end, please; I'll make it fit into the section organization after the topic dies down.

Is this about UnNews or UnNews audio? If so, talk to me here.

I don't routinely put a Watch on other people's talk pages. Nothing personal! I endorse keeping a conversation together on a single talk page, but a few days after the conversation ends, I will Unwatch you--the alternative being endless false alarms.

Anything typed here I may post-edit clerically. Typically, I combine parts of dialogues that took place on the other guy's talk page. Some conversations that pertain to the text of an article are moved to that article's talk page.

edit Archives

• Ceremonial greetings and cookies received in '09 from Thekillerfroggy, MrN9000, Romartus, Pelargonium, and Hyperbole.
• Forum threads I created in '09-'10 on multiple articles on the same theme, my proposal for the style guide on encyclopedia clichés, articles written from an uncyclopedic point of view, background-image in CSS, and suggested changes to {{Q}}.
• My entries in the 8th Poo Lit Surprise: Clip-on tie, Rules of baseball (a winner), and FORTRAN.
• Pee reviews I did in '09-'10: ITSCON, MGMT, Third-wave feminism, Hyphenation, Hard disk drive, Ozzy Osborne.
• Technical issues in '09-'10: Changing my user name; specifying a custom signature in a file; specifying a background color for data-entry windows; putting in for Redirect rights.
• Conversations in '10 that are done.
• Conversations in '10 about the Islam article.
• Conversations in '11.
• Discussions of civics and politics in '12.
• Discussions with user Kamek98.
• Other conversations in '12.
• Conversations in '13 before Oppage. After oppage: 2 3
• RFCs received in 2013 of no enduring interest except to those studying the requestors.

edit Meganew polices Aimsplode's personal pages

Wanna do something about this?

Meganew shouldn't be reverting peoples' edits to their own user pages. I think a ban is in order. --anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.198.163.168 (talk • contribs)

(For "edits" above, read "blanking.") Check the ban log, Aimsplode; I gave him a full two hours. Then check his user page, where I expressed regret about having to decide in favor of either of you. Spıke ¬ 10:08 16-May-13

edit Joke comment on User talk:Llwy-ar-lawr

SPIKE, I thought we were on good terms now. If I make a joke comment and you realise that, can you repond with a joke instead of a serious comment please? (Refering to Llwy's talk page). Thanks. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 13:28, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. If you will stop interpreting my retaliatory poke as a "serious comment" and stop obsessing about whether it indicates a sea change in my opinion of you. Spıke ¬ 13:36 16-May-13

Make it a good joke and maybe I'll get it. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 13:38, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

edit ScottPat's Forum

Just to let you know Spike that the reason I set up the forum was to find out whether there were any other active users on at the time of the attack when I first got on. Thanks for deleting it. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 06:00, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If you see from the variety of names used in his automated change summaries by now, it is not a personal vendetta but a quest for attention from anyone. That forum would have been his ultimate reward. We changed the parameters to make the attack less notorious; also got help from Wikia. Spıke ¬ 11:00 17-May-13

I never thought of it as a personal vendetta. He/she changed who he attacked simply on the basis of which person last edited pages on the website. I was talking to Romartus about getting Wikia to do something about it so thanks.

Thanks to everyone who reverted during that night (well night for me anyway). It was a real team effort and when the Americans and Aussies were going to bed the Brits had just woke up to continue the reverts. I still think there is more to be reverted though. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:10, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I put in a new rule that Anon gets only two edits per minute and the vandal seemed to lose interest. Later on Wikia came in and put in another rule trying to pattern-match the exact edits, but the guy will quickly see what's being filtered and adapt. Spıke ¬ 11:13 17-May-13

On further repair, view Special:RecentChanges and click "Hide patrolled edits". Spıke ¬ 11:14 17-May-13

Scott, at your current privileges, do you see when reviewing single edits, "Newer edit -> [Mark edit as patrolled]"? If so, then when undoing vandalism, you must walk back to the start of the vandalism and mark each edit. Otherwise the page will come back up in the report as needing patrolling, once we work through the (as of last night) at least 1800 edits. Although you corrected the page, someone will have to look inside to verify that this is the case; that is the most time-consuming thing about this repair. Spıke ¬ 11:13 17-May-13

Yes I do see mark as patrol however only on IP edits not on user ones and also if I revert something I can't mark it as patrol after only before. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:15, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Edits from users with Autopatrolled do not require patrolling; so your observation on "user ones" applies only to trusted users. Revert (versus Undo) automatically patrols the reverted edit, but doesn't let you provide explanation. Undo should be used to explain to user names and then you must manually patrol the undone edit. Each Admin here has been scolded on occasional lapses. Correcting the page is only half the job; you must record that you did, by clearing the patrol flag, so that others aren't led there only to verify that you already fixed it.

There is a JavaScript thingie on RecentChanges that patrols all edits. The problem is that the current list of vandal edits extends past the end of a RecentChanges listing. Spıke ¬ 11:23 17-May-13

I know that was quite annoying. Talking of vandals we seem to have one who is subtly writing absolute nonsence on IP pages and even made an article that Snippy put on QVFD. He/she writes half of the article in German. He/she seems to use multiple IP addresses. You can see his/her edits on Recent Changes as his summaries are random numbers and letters. Thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:28, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working through correspondence, but I'll review this now. Spıke ¬ 11:32 17-May-13

PS--http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidepatrolled=1&limit=2500 may be amusing if you have a faster connection than I do. Spıke ¬ 11:40 17-May-13

edit Terms-of-Use ban of Multiliteralist

PS--Undo me at Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault‎ at your discretion. The author has been banned for putting his recommendation into practice last night. Spıke ¬ 11:32 17-May-13

Don't understand what you mean by the last PS bit. Undo what part??? Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:35, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to answer his rant rather than just excise it as I did, feel free. Spıke ¬ 11:40 17-May-13

So you want me to answer a guy's rant because you don't want to do it yourself. (I'm sure that's not what you mean it's just I find it hard to understand why you want me to undo your undo). What's more is that you are encouraging me to respond to a vandal which you always warn me not to. Is this a joke in which you anticipate that I might want to reply to him? Confused still. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:45, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

PS Thanks for the 2500 one. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:45, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

This is not a joke. I would like a second pair of eyes on it (though Romartus has already seen and endorsed my one-month ban). I don't necessarily want you to answer his rant; I would like your opinion on whether my solution is the best. Spıke ¬ 11:48 17-May-13

Oh sorry, simpleton over here understands now. My misunderstanding. I will take a good look and post my opinion to you on this page in a few minutes. Thanks. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 12:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I like to think of myself as quite a just man and I hate to say it but I'm probably biased here but I'll try not to be.

• Firstly saying that they are not cherry-picking editors is wrong. One of the editors from the other site tried to make me come to their site on another forum (can't remember what the forum was called but it was about everyone giving reasons to stay on Wikia) by claiming that you had brainwashed me even though I stated reasons as to why I was staying.
• People on his site may go over there "without help" however the good writers' talents are wasted on that site's type of comedy. Instead of writing articles that have clever comedy in that you feel really pleased about writing at the end because it took a lot of work and now that has been payed off, they write a swear word and put in a picture of something sex related and call it funny. There minds are not allowed to mature.
• Multiliteralist himself seems a decent writer (by looking on the other site (t.here are some decent writers on that site)) but on his talk page he claims that the point of Uncyclopedia (non-Wikia) is not to parody wikipedia as that aim was achieved a few years ago. As far as I was aware Uncyclopedia is meant to be a parody of wikipedia and if it is not then I wouldn't have joined and I don't see what other point it can have.
• Romartus I don't think is biased here as he is not on that site at all so he seems to be in the same position as you and I. He has judged very fairly before although my encounters with him have been short and occasional. I think he thinks that you just went too far with deleting the comment.

To conclude (please do read the bits above, they are important): I think that a response to him would be justified. Perhaps a clever and well thought-out one. Maybe subtly asking him what the purpose of uncyclopedia really is. By deleting his comment you are just showing more tension.

I think Aleister is right that we need to draw the sites together. It reminds me of the Cold War which many people have said. The opposing idealogies are clever humour vs. cheap humour. Apart from that the sites should have the same aims and purpose. Both sides claim that the other site brainwashes their users and so on. By replying to their messages maybe we can start detente.

Please read and think about what I have said Spike. Thanks. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 12:43, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

PS - I think that when you reverted him you should have put a comment in the summary and that is why Romartus has asked you to revert the revert.Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 12:43, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree with the above. Should we reply to him? Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 13:17, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I have restored his comment and have replied. Thanks for your input. Spıke ¬ 13:26 17-May-13

No problem any time you need help. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 13:33, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Nice reply. I'll support you if there is any opposition to you replying. What I really want to know is what he thinks the purpose of Uncyclopedia is if it is not to parody wikipedia. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 13:37, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, if you were the victim of my brainwashing, one would think I would have done a complete enough job that you would not conclude so often that I must hate you.

Parodying Wikipedia is not our "purpose"--which indeed could have been done with a couple dozen articles--but our motif, a default style in which to write new articles. Thus the job is not done as long as life continues to unfold. This is indeed not a site for unbounded fiction writing or even unbounded comedy writing, but primarily for pages that support the gag that we are a legitimate encyclopedia, a legitimate dictionary, or a legitimate news service. ML has always chafed under this structure and has authored Forums asking for new namespaces that would accommodate his notions, from ranty expressions of personal opinion to descriptions of bowel movements. He is in the right place now; if he would only stop returning to, yes, sabotage this one. Spıke ¬ 13:43 17-May-13

I think we were right about the brainwashing and ML has been tricked himself: [Quotation deleted] Also brainwashing is fine by me as long as it is done in the right way.

By the way Spike, Al and I were wondering what your views are on the content warning and your reason behind those views. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 14:16, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Brainwashing implies dishonesty, or at least manipulation. (For example, throwing a long quote from Multiliteralist, at his sardonic best, in my face, to try to bias me against him, apart from his conduct? I already have a firm opinion of him, thank you.) The best example was MrN9000's visit to your talk page (for which he received my first Terms-of-Use ban), agreeing with you that the style of humor at the Fork was unacceptably childish, but promising that it would improve, through application of an unspecified process. I do not agree with brainwashing.

Regarding the Content Warning, are you kidding? I have stated my opinion repeatedly in the Forum and on Aleister's talk page. Spıke ¬ 17:17 17-May-13

The quote was a joke Spike. I was being sarcastic. I do believe in brainwahing, it's called education but then I believe in a strong state (American Nightmare!!!!).

The last bit was to confirm that you were against the content warning changing as you think that it is simply another episode that will go nowhere. (Am I correct?). Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 17:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

edit Managing UnNews

Do we mean to mislead users in this section UnNews:Newsroom#Managing UnNews? Should I replace the links to reflect the Lead Article 2 template? Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 02:04, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

The Newsroom is not a reference manual but essentially a big talk page. Don't change the record of what was discussed; at the time, those files were how to lay out the Front Page. The current method should be described somewhere, but not in the Newsroom. Right now, the wagon train of UnNews Chiefs just read the documentation in the templates themselves. Spıke ¬ 02:13 20-May-13

You got it, chief. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 02:34, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

edit User:Trollman2000

Hi SPIKE, please block the above user. Thanks a lot. :) Graphium (✉ • ✎) 00:56, 24 May 2013

Sometimes a user's choice of username saves us from having to guess! However, in the case of this guy, I show no activity at all. What is the problem, please? Spıke ¬ 01:03 24-May-13

PS--I was willing for a while to believe that he was making edits faster than I could follow from my slow connection out in the woods. But still nothing. I ought not ban him simply based on the choice of names. Most registered users never make a single contribution (such as, alas, lowercase Spike, who registered in 2006). By the way, rather than contact your favorite Admin (for which I thank you), the best way to make these requests is at Ban Patrol, where whoever is on duty (and at the moment we do not have schedules) will satisfy it. Spıke ¬ 01:18 24-May-13

edit Anon protests something

SPIKE. Quite clearly a 40 year old virgin that lives in his Mum's basement and thinks he's the greatest wit since Monty Python's Life of Brian. Your not. By locking out a page and/or deleting it because you can't handle the challenge to your ego then I would suggest that this is not what Uncyclopedia is about. I suggest that you take your head out of your fat arse ( I bet you don't weigh less than 20 stone!!!) and fuck off to a place where you might be appreciated, Iran, North Korea, the Planet Zog, et al........... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.153.69.78 (talk • contribs)

As you sought the safety of an IP and did not explain what page has been locked and/or deleted, it is hard to explain why the action was taken, not that I'm inspired to do so. As you have seen fit to give me some armchair psychology, I will return the favor. "Your" too stupid to figure out "your" supposed to post to the bottom of talk pages; "your" convinced that "your" entitled to create anything you want and "your" under no obligation to make it fit into the goals of Uncyclopedia, and "your" supremely unpersuasive. It is not hard to imagine that you wrote some dreck that I (or someone else) saw fit to delete, and I am confident we will again if you write another. Because I am guessing "your" a very slow learner. Spıke ¬ 22:23 24-May-13

It's clear that Anon is a thoughtful, compassionate and erudite reader. I don't know what "your" on about, SPIKE. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 06:03, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

edit Gay Darkness and Template:Recent

Order rearranged

Hi, can you add my new article in this template? Thank you. --The Phantom of Gay Darkness (talk) 16:21, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

No, and in fact, I will not let it remain on the site, because it fails our notability policy. We are not for descriptions of fondling games that your high-school pals play, not even if it is good enough for our Italian analog. Spıke ¬ 16:48 25-May-13

At Nonciclopedia we also think that the page is shit. --87.16.185.124 18:47, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input--In our Uploads Log, the author cited Nonciclopedia, probably to prove that the photos were not merely amateur photos of homosexual play (which they seem to be anyway). Separately, yesterday a contributor from Bulgaria insisted that his article about either a minor town official or his neighbor were not cyberbullying: The article's subject had been in a YouTube video! Spıke ¬ 18:55 25-May-13

We Nonciclopedians really love that article. Too much. --Eyry; ^(talk) 13:11, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Are we meant to add new articles to this template as I haven't heard of it before and therefore haven't added any of my articles. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 18:34, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

There are no rules cast in stone for shameless self-promotion, but {{Recent}} (restricted to registered users) is a damned fine way to do it. You may post mine as well as your own, if you edit it. I took mine straight to VFH--where your comment (Make it longer) is a valid suggestion that I will try to act on later today. Spıke ¬ 18:55 25-May-13

How many articles do I put on {{Recent}} as I haven't put any of my 41 articles on there? I think it's probably sensible if I put my last one or two on. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 06:46, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those would be, how-you-say, recent. Spıke ¬ 11:52 26-May-13

Cheers to you for grabbing a copy of Boxes. You have two options: Finish your work and substitute it for the thing being voted on (a Parliamentary violation but an Uncyclopedia stock dance-step), then lobby voters to flip--this would be an actual VFD Save, though no one is counting--or participate in the original's deletion (I won't delete the photos, seeing that there is a second page using them in your userspace), then move your version to mainspace later. Done this way, the page's change history is exclusively your edits. Spıke ¬ 11:52 26-May-13

Please count me in on deleting the original article. I am finishing the rewrite now and I do need those pictures however I have looked at Wikipedia and noticed that their article is titled "Box" singular so I shall move the article to "Box" mainspace. I have taken none of the article from the original as it was all bad however the pictures were very good so I nicked them and changed their captions. I will count this page as my own work as really it is and I am enjoying writing it and never realised how much fun I could have with a boring subject. I will probably VFH it as well as I really like it. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 16:34, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

I am not "counting you in on" anything unless you cast your vote--a vote that would, incidentally, be the decisive 5th vote. Box would eventually need a redirect at Boxes; while coding [[Boxs]] would specify it, "Boxes" might not. Separately, I hope my work at Turban satisfies your objections. Spıke ¬ 16:41 26-May-13

I have cast my vote now sorry I was in a rush to get on with my box article. I'll put in a redirect to it. Thanks. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 16:47, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

PS - Actually scrap the "box" idea I'll call it "boxes" as my intro makes more sense that way. Please delete the current "boxes" so that later this evening I may put on my "boxes" article. Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 16:49, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

edit Axlman5

Hello. I was just wondering about the article of mine that got nominated a couple of weeks ago. I've been snooping around and I believe it has to have ten votes to pass? I just wanted to get a clearer picture about the process. Thanks! ==My Creations==

William Lane Craig

Black Album (Metallica album)

Jason Kidd

Trolley Problem 23:30, May 26, 2013

If anything got ten votes these days, several of us would have heart attacks. Articles have recently gone onto the main page with six, though the guy responsible is decreasing the frequency of rotation and is sneaking in old articles that failed on a technicality, because several of us are sending up any crap that we crank out. Yours got two votes from ancient Uncyclopedians who rarely vote, and should do fine when the regulars get around to it. The obscurity of the subject may be an obstacle. Spıke ¬ 03:36 27-May-13

edit Anna Pavlova

Spike, congratulations with the feature of Ph.D.!

I finished my work on Anna Pavlova. Here is the article which is in main space and here is the one on which I worked. Can I just replace the main space version if mine is good? Thank you!

Anton (talk) 19:24, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I like the original better. The main motivation for hauling it to VFD--its absurdly long section heads--I always saw as a running joke. It has fabulous turns-of-phrases, such as "can only be described as indescribably dull." And "Bird Flu had nothing on this," meaning Bird Flu was tame compared to murder-by-attack-swan; also a mention of "Brian Stalin, brother of the other one." The article is full of gratuitous references--but none are on-the-level; each one pulls the reader's leg. Even at the end of Section 3, where the arithmetic is flagrantly wrong, the author has me hooked to see where he goes with it.

The mainspace article's first photo caption hints to the reader, "All the writing in this article is absurdly exaggerated--maybe you'd like to do the same thing." Your caption to the same photo tells the reader that the narrator is simply confused. If you can't do something funny with a hammer-and-sickle, for God's sake choose a different illustration! Using a confused narrator is trite unless it leads the narrator to absurd and funny conclusions, and even then, it's best if the narrator never realizes how confused he is. Your article's technique is to begin with the truth, then build a false extension that goes half the distance to funny.

Surely The Reverend was having a bad day: unexperienced, re-perform, "she deceased." And there are subtle problems in the use of tenses.

Detailed comments:

• Sec. 1: A vague section, "Her father is unknown" and she entered "some kind of school"--and yet we know her exact thoughts.
• Sec. 2: When I saw the first modern remake of Pink Panther, I was not satisfied, because it was not clear whether or not Steve Martin's "Inspector" was to be taken seriously. Is he a fool who inadvertently falls into the role of heroic crime-solver? or is he a genius and a computer whiz? In your article, too, I ask: Is Anna an inept dancer whose errors inadvertently transform dance? or does she "invent a new ballet technique," which implies that her career is deliberate? The answer seems to be neither: She disobeyed--and thereby found career success? And the "Communist....government did not respect Jewish people." No kidding! Are you again explaining to the reader what was funny about the joke you just told? (A later sentence that oddly trails behind the joke is: "The medicine at that time was not very well developed.")
• So Anna purchased some swans; I presume to study how to imitate them in dance. Me, if I studied swans, the only thing I would learn is summed up by the phrase, "like crap through a goose," a lesson I am relieved that Anna didn't take to the stage. We never follow this purchase anywhere, however; and you drop me in mid-air with the final: "The fate of these birds is unknown."
• Sec. 3: We don't know who Victor is. And we only guess why he had her cremated. Why do I read this encyclopedia if it so often does not know the facts, and so rarely transforms that ignorance into humor?

Your article has much more fidelity to history than the mainspace article. And that is the least of my concerns. Spıke ¬ 20:23 27-May-13

I certainly have had a bad day, but I haven't yet read this one. As such, I believe I am absolved of all crimes. Unless, of course, I have missed something elsewhere, in which case I have a noose at the ready. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH 20:54, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

You are absolved and I apologize. My first draft of the above held out the possibility that Anton had not submitted the page to you for proofreading, then I minced words. You surely would have caught the above non-words. And may yet. Spıke ¬ 23:03 27-May-13

Well, what I hate the most in the main space version is completely irrelevant reference to communism when Anna did not do anything for the revolution and left Russia in 1912. Mass killing was not connected to Pavlova neither. It seemed to me that the author just wanted to make up some random stuff and, of course, as Pavlova was Russian, he thought of communists, Stalin, vodka and mass-killing.

Thank you for very-detailed review (actually you have covered the whole Pee Review table). As I am simply re-writing the article, I decided to keep the first image. It will tell to the reader that if by any chance he thinks that Anna was a revolutionary/politician (like the previous author thought), then they are wrong.

Her father's part is deliberate as well as the swans. The joke was (and that is partly a parody of Wikipedia) that we don't know who her father is but we know that he dies when she is 2. How is that? The swan fact is true, she actually did have swans but probably as simple pets. What I do, is make a reference to the fact that her most famous role was of the Dying Swan. And of course like any other artists she wants to improve. The fate of these birds is unknown: this is not because we don not know the fact, this is an implicit joke. To look how the swan dies, you have to kill him.

And you are wrong about not having another reference to it. Read closely about her death. Her last words are real. Here I contradict the history and say that several minutes before her death, Anna re-performed (for the last time) her Swan role. And she did it better than during her lifetime, c'est-à-dire deceased.

Her talent was great but I made fun of her character and technique. The joke about the prompter's box is my favorite. I was sorry to see, while reading the previous version closely, that I did not like any jokes there and I explained why. The only joke I kept without re-phrasing was about the "New Zealand" dessert.

Finally, yes, fidelity to history is my technique and this is how you can actually characterize all my work. What I basically do in all my articles, is I read a Wikipedia one first (or any other encyclopedia) and find facts that can be funny but are true. Then I either present them in a funny way, or change the truth a little bit. That's what I call "Wrong Logic" on my user page.

Anton (talk) 06:57, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with recourse to real facts (I did exactly that in Cadillac, Michigan). It is not the strategy but the execution that is the problem.

Funny! when I think of Russia, I too think of communists, Stalin, vodka, and mass-killing! What do you mean by saying the original article is not so much based on the facts?!

PS--When listing a redirect on QVFD, there is a special format you need to use so that we don't follow the redirect by mistake and delete the actual page. Spıke ¬ 10:36 28-May-13

I think, if I may put in a comment here, that Anton may mean that the article refering to the Russian being communist is not funny because it simply is no longer funny just to call Russians "Communists" anymore as it has already been done too many times, in the same way that most articles about Germans (presumably) claim that they were Nazi supporters. It is not funny calling Anna Pavlova communist unless it is backed up (I haven't read the article so I don't know if it is backed up). Sir ScottPat CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 11:20, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that, and led the crusade for Uncyclopedia articles to stop portraying U.S. states as Soviet satellites. Calling someone "slutty" or "gay" without basis is the first move of many new Uncyclopedians, and is unfunny for the same reason. PS--Read the above on QVFD; I declined to execute a request of yours last week for the same reason (also because I had already explained this to you); please re-file it. Spıke ¬ 11:29 28-May-13