User talk:SPIKE

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 16:46, August 23, 2013 by SPIKE (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Archives

Welcoming anons/users

Hi SPIKE, is it possible if you tell me the code you use to welcome users? I find your welcome template quite a good one, but I don't have the time to create one as I am mainly on Wikipedia. So perhaps when I use your template I will mention that I welcomed on behalf of you? Cheers. Graphium () 11:38, 20 June 2013

Sure; and I'm flattered. The code is at User:SPIKE/Welcome. You should customize the photo and caption. Do not welcome Anons, unless they are good; then use {{Account}} and invite them to register. Spıke ¬ 13:07 20-Jun-13
I have left a message on Graphium's page. Ah..I like that idea of welcoming an IP who makes edits to improve an article. I will use that template too. -- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:25, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
I learned that from Simsilikesims. However, as I explain in my change summary, a full Welcome message, notably the part about how Anon would ask to be adopted, should wait until he registers; accordingly, I've changed Graphium's full welcome of the repairer of MMORPG. Spıke ¬ 13:39 20-Jun-13
@SPIKE: OK, I will customise it when I have time before using it. Graphium () 10:13, 21 June 2013 10:13, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

How not to do it

Copied from User talk:Graphium

You promised me you would edit my Welcome message to change the personalization to yourself (or you can remove the personalization entirely) before using it to welcome new users. Do not deliver remarks that seem to be from me "on behalf of" me.

Separately, everything you know about good writing needs to be subordinated to evaluating how enforcement will look to a very new user. In particular, you should not engage in a revert war with a newly registered Uncyclopedian (who might not know how to see your rationale in the Change Summary) without explaining your disagreement, probably on his talk page. (In the case of Idontthinksomeonehasthisusername, this is now done.) Spıke ¬ 13:27 21-Jun-13

Oh, sorry SPIKE. Graphium () 07:35, 25 June 2013

Anton199

Can I, please, welcome new users to Uncyclopedia? If I can, then can I take your welcoming message (I know where to find it) and change it a bit? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 06:48, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, make your own. Just remember to keep it userspace (I learned it the hard way), and that the code works well. Don't make it too long, and include all the necassary n00b articles. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 00:19, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
Of course you may welcome new users, and I'd be happy for you to take parts of my message; see also just above. Spıke ¬ 04:13 9-Jul-13
Ok. I will work on it. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:12, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Harry Potter (character) after deletion by VFD

Hi, I am about to restore an old version of the article Harry Potter (character), which was deleted on January 6, 2010 via VFD (here is the link to the discussion). The version I intend to restore (here in my userspace) is mostly the article's original version from December 2007, with a few later edits incorporated and some tidying up of my own. The original work is almost totally unrecognizable in the version that was deleted in January 2010 (article rot at its highest), so I don't think "restoring" the article would be a problem. Besides, the current version of that article is only a redirect to Harry Potter, which, in return, contains a link back to Harry Potter (character).

Since you seem to be the guy maintaining VFD, I thought I would ask you whether an {{Oldvfd}} template should be put on the article's talk page, in order to preserve and represent the article's history? Or, to avoid adding the article to Category:Deletion Survivor, substituting the template and then removing the category? Schamschi, 18:25, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the full know here but in your situation I would just copy and paste your article into the redirect page. I have never even heard of Deletion Survivor and I have re-written a few from VFD so I wouldn't bother worrying about that. Leave the old VFD template on the talk page. Of course see what Spike says as he's the veteran. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:32, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, however, I don't want to just copy and paste the new version because it isn't really my own work and I think it should be attributed appropriately, which is why I want to preserve the article's history. Schamschi, 18:37, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Oh fair enough, I see. I would say restore history then but wait for Spike's decision. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:40, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

A vote of VFD is a vote (with procedural safeguards including quorum and minimum time before deletion) to discard another Uncyclopedian's work. It certainly does not mean that no article can ever again be created on that subject. But unilaterally going against the decision of that August Body is a serious offense.

The rules say that a nominator is supposed to comb through the history and look for a better version. This might not have been done in this case; also, I see that my vote was that the current state of the article was a result of numerous bad edits by numerous IPs. This also argues that it had seen better days and that there was a better outcome than outright deletion. Given your own personal attention to it, you are helping the website to restore an older, better version.

Past that, however, I am lost. Harry Potter (character) now redirects to a disambiguation page. It should live on, under the name Harry Potter (disambiguation), and the referenced pages should feed it ("For other uses of Harry Potter, see...."). Your text could go to Harry Potter (character) or just Harry Potter (if you wish to repair the resulting red-links). I see that RDB deleted this as you say, also that Lee Harvey Osmond undeleted it on 25-Nov-2012. But there is no article history; only the creation of the redirect. I agree that the history should be preserved, but I do not see how to recover it. Maybe the Chief can.

On {{Oldvfd}}: You should copy this discussion to the restored article's talk page. Oldvfd is a strange duck; by definition it never appears with result=Delete. However, it is often used with something other than result=Keep, when necessary to explain other action that the VFD voters agreed to. You should tag it with {{Oldvfd}} simply to point to the VFD vote (although copying the discussion will also do so). Spıke ¬ 19:10 14-Jul-13

Actually, User:Schamschi/Harry Potter (character) is the page that Lee Harvey Osmond aka Roman Dog Bird restored, meaning the article and its whole history, it's just that I already overwrote the last version (the version that was VFD-ed) with the version I want to restore. I don't know what exactly RDB did – judging by the logs, he wasn't quite sure how to do it, which is probably why the redirect Harry Potter (character) is no longer protected (it used to be). Maybe I should have asked for permission to overwrite the page because of this, but Lee Harvey Osmond (he was the one who protected the redirect after the VFD) is no longer active and he didn't seem to care about the whole issue back when I asked him, so I just assumed that nobody would care if I overwrote the redirect, not only because the version I intended to restore had basically nothing to do with the article that was VFD-ed, but also because, even though the disambiguation page links to 3 articles, none of these really fills the "Harry Potter (character)" niche. But I understand what you are saying about the VFD policy about checking for older revisions etc.
About the disambiguation page: What I meant was that within the first entry in Harry Potter there is a link to Harry Potter (character). Yes, this is a sign that the disambiguation page is badly organized, and needs to be remedied. I already addressed this issue here in November 2012, but nobody responded (probably because nobody was watching the page), and I didn't care enough to pursue the issue.
So does that mean that you're OK with me moving the page from my userspace to Harry Potter (character) if I repair the disambiguation page and make the articles referenced there link to it? Schamschi, 20:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK with it. I posted a query to ChiefjusticeDS on the history, but apparently youse moved it after restoring it and you are in possession of the history. I do not want to make my approval contingent on the conditions you list, but I do like a job to be done completely, cheers! Spıke ¬ 03:35 15-Jul-13

OK, could you please unprotect Harry Potter so I can update it? And do you mean that I should move this disambiguation page to Harry Potter (disambiguation) and make Harry Potter redirect to it? Because there currently doesn't seem to be a Harry Potter article in the broad sense, only specific articles (Harry Potter (character), which is where I intend to move the restored article, Harry Potter (books), Harry Potter (films)). Schamschi, 10:26, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

You are now able to edit or move that disambiguation page. Spıke ¬ 11:33 16-Jul-13

OK, thanks. But it turns out I still need your help, because apparently I can't move the page from my userspace to Harry Potter (character), even though the notes say "Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is empty or a redirect and has no past edit history", which is why I assumed that I would be able to move the page. So could you please delete Harry Potter (character)? Schamschi, 11:55, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Done. I listed it on QVFD to make it official, and to show you an alternative way to make this request that would be carried out by whomever was on duty. Spıke ¬ 12:02 16-Jul-13

Thanks for your help! I wouldn't have thought about putting it on QVFD, since the deletion of that page only made sense within the context of the move, and I thought that this would be outside the scope of QVFD. But I'll keep that in mind. Schamschi, 12:08, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Good point; another Admin would not only have had to research the issue, but would have gotten around to it only perhaps once-a-day, which would have delayed your project. Spıke ¬ 12:11 16-Jul-13

Continuing this, you are changing several links to point to the disambiguation page, commenting at one point that Uncyclopedia could eventually have a Harry Potter article, as Wikipedia does. Why is this a pointer to the disambiguation page, and not exactly the full article you have restored? Although the disambiguation page has a bit of humor, why don't you point those other articles directly to the content? That is, why do we have a Harry Potter (character) (with a redirect at Harry Potter (person) and not a Harry Potter? The rule at Wikipedia is that you never point to a disambiguation page but take the reader through it to the desired content page. Spıke ¬ 13:09 16-Jul-13

I assume you mean the redirects I have changed, because if I have changed in-article-links, I've only changed them NOT to point to the disambiguation page. Yeah, you're right, it would indeed make sense for these pages to redirect to Harry Potter instead of a disambiguation page, but in the current situation, that would cause double redirects. But this is really the only reason I redirected these pages to the disambiguation page. Or do you mean that I should point these articles (eg. Draco Malfoy, Dobby) to Harry Potter (character) or one of the other articles from the disambiguation page? I thought that would be too specific, which is why I only redirected Harry Potter (person) to Harry Potter (character). Schamschi, 14:09, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you mean that I should simply move the restoration to Harry Potter? But the question is whether the article is general enough to fit into that spot. It is true that the original title chosen by 172.189.248.227 back in 2007 was The legend of harry potter and that it was MadMax who moved the page to Harry Potter (character) a few days later (Harry Potter was already a disambiguation page at that time), but the article is kind of focused on Harry. I agree that, if the disambiguation page is at Harry Potter (disambiguation), there should be a proper article at Harry Potter, but maybe Harry Potter (books) is better suited for that spot. The alternative would be to move the disambiguation page back to Harry Potter, so that pages can be redirected to Harry Potter without causing double redirects. Schamschi, 14:28, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

I mean that many of these distinctions are too fine. Whatever is at Harry Potter should be content. You seem to be saying that we have two pages with actual Harry Potter content, and whatever you decide, as to which of these is the "main" Harry Potter article, is fine with me; simply make it easy for the reader to find the other one too. If someone really wants to create an article on individual books in the series, we can deal with that later. Spıke ¬ 14:46 16-Jul-13

OK, I've decided that the article currently at Harry Potter (books) is simply too bad to be moved to Harry Potter and be the "main" Harry Potter article, and unfortunately, its history doesn't look very promising either (not that the article I've restored is great, but I think it's a bit better). Also, I think the books-article is more focused on the books than the restored article is focused on Harry, which would justify making Harry Potter (character) the main Harry Potter article. Now there's only the page currently at Harry Potter standing in the way of the move … Schamschi, 13:53, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
Well, that should do it … thanks again for your help! Schamschi, 17:31, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAA!

Hi there. I have requested twice now that someone insert the interwiki link cy:AAAAAAAAA! into that article, and you could do this, so would you please?

Also, I hear tell that local admins on Wikia wikis cannot edit a local interwiki table. This appears to be true, as Special:Interwiki gives me an error. Can you comment on this? Thank you. Llwy (scold|hover) 23:27, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Your interwiki link is now inserted. I cannot edit Special:Interwiki either, but not because I lack privileges, but because it is not one of the closed set of defined pages in the Special namespace. PuppyOnTheRadio knows more than I on how interwiki links are achieved. Spıke ¬ 03:35 15-Jul-13
Thank you - but you'll need to remove the leading colon. Only as [[cy:AAAAAAAAA!]] will it display in the sidebar.
From what I can gather, only Wikia staff have access to the interwiki table, and Special:Interwiki doesn't exist for anyone on Wikia wikis. I think that's really all there is to it. I was mostly wondering what your opinion of this setup was. Llwy (scold|hover) 16:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you still need to remove the colon. I suppose I won't bother you any more... :) Llwy (scold|hover) 23:12, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Spıke ¬ 11:33 16-Jul-13

Penguin

I saw that you protected this page several months ago or so but should Anon's edits be reverted? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:09, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Your call; and the page is not protected against you but only against Anon. I would have seen the edits that Anon made eight hours before my move. I think I decided his latest edits, while not having a clear comedy direction, were not that bad. Spıke ¬ 11:31 16-Jul-13
Oh, ok. I just did not know whether to revert them or not and decided that you knew better, as you protected the page. Then I will just mark them as patrolled. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:37, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Cotswold Olimpick Games

Hi Spike, I notice that you have not added this to your user page as one of the articles you wrote (I may have missed it) despite the fact that you joint wrote it with me. Is this a mistake or do you not take credit for it? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:11, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

A mere oversight. Ooh, you gave me half credit in the Hall of Shame! Spıke ¬ 16:22 16-Jul-13
Well you did collaborate with me, it's only decent of me. Besides your wonderful intro set the tone for my content. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:56, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Help:Contents

Sorry, another edit request. Could you add the following interwikis to that, please?

Thank you, and please remember to leave off the leading colons. Llwy (scold|hover) 00:47, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Brit-slayer... we need to look into this

Its not vandalism anymore. I'd classify it as an obsession. The guy doesn't want to vandalize uncyclopedia (let me finish), he just hates the british. I mean, the "nya" guy (who kept making pages with the word nya), gave up (hopefully) after the second try. This guy keeps coming back. He, almost religiously, comes and posts his crap here. I'm not sure what to do, save rollback and ban-patrol him. Since he uses the same text, the exact words should be put into the abuse filter. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 05:13, July 18, 2013 (UTC)(Sorry if I seemed rambling in this post...)

Ironically his determination to continue when everyone else has moved on and thinks he is just sad is very British indeed. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 06:38, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
I understood there already was a filter set up for some of the text, but he may have changed a tiny feature that causes it to go unnoticed. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 11:19, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
The conversation is here. I assume AF7 is a type of filter. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 11:26, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
On many days, you will see that his messages vary, and sometimes decrease by half. This binary method is the most efficient way for him to determine exactly what text I am matching on and modify the manifesto. He is expending enormous effort to have no lasting effect on the wiki. Spıke ¬ 11:30 18-Jul-13
AF7 is Special:AbuseFilter/7 (Don't bother clicking on it). Spike sockpuppet (talk)
Sorry bit confused who is Spike the sockpuppet. Is that a legal sockpuppet you have Spike (if so why use it here?) or is it an intruder. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 06:01, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
It is someone SPIKE keeps locked in the basement. He must have left the key in again. -- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:20, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
I used it to see what garden-variety Uncyclopedians see when they try to view a non-public Abuse Filter--in order to tell you not to bother. Spıke ¬ 12:11 19-Jul-13
PS--It got one this morning! Spıke ¬ 12:49 19-Jul-13

Special:AbuseFilter/17

I made some tests in my sandbox today to see if it was only tripped by certain external links, just out of curiosity. It isn't - which was probably as intended. However, full url links to somewhere on this Uncyclopedia also trip it. For example, if I add http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com anywhere, it gives me the warning and tags the edit. (It warned me for this one too.) But only sometimes, which is pretty strange.

Is this wrong? I don't think it's really very nice to have everyone who provides a fullurl link to something in here be warned about linking to an external site, and it can't possibly have been your intention to do that. Isn't there a way to exempt fullurl links that contain uncyclopedia.wikia.com? Llwy (scold|hover) 01:48, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I did not write the MediaWiki Abuse Filter system but am merely a filler-out of forms. It is most elegant for me to use the simplest syntax to test for added links--as the Abuse Filter defines them--rather than bog the website down by rolling my own so as to avoid giving offense. I am not worried that someone who uses a nonstandard alternative to double-bracket links to an Uncyclopedia article might get a warning and get his edit flagged. If I am on Patrol that night, I might post to his talk page and teach him how to do it with double brackets.
Your sandbox file continues to attribute these warnings to Evil Wikia despite my patient explanation in Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault, and even though you clearly realize it's my doing, the routine administrative business of detecting, minimizing, and discouraging attempts by Anon to use this website to hump his latest YouTube video. I am baffled that you continue expending energy chafing about receiving a warning. Please write a funny article instead. Spıke ¬ 02:51 22-Jul-13

Armorgames.com

May I...write an article about a recent Armorgames.com account hacking thing? There are no specific people, but armorgames was down. It would be a nice change from the more serious UnNews articles and such. Thanks! --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 04:37, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

You don't need permission to write anything (in fact you don't need permission to do nearly anything here) as long as it's not disruptive and it is in the spirit of HTBFANJS. Want to write...then write. Want to propose something new...make a forum. Want to improve something...be bold and try it. You don't have to ask. Just do. --ShabiDOO 04:46, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
Well said. Nevertheless, an article or UnNews about mischief occurring at some other website would normally lack notability both to the typical writer and to the typical reader of Uncyclopedia. Something tells me that what you have is not a brilliant comedy concept but the recurring desire to show us that we are not your only website. An UnNews primarily designed to inform rather than entertain would be a change from the "serious" business of applying a funny take to a piece of real news that we hope the reader is familiar with, but not a nice one. You indeed don't need permission, but if you were instead asking for advice, my advice is to pick again. As you are familiar with the site, you might create an article on it (like Lucifuge's recent Salon.com) that puts a comedy spin on it. Spıke ¬ 13:01 23-Jul-13
Please don't interpret my choice as me saying: "Other sites are interesting, this site sucks." I'm a very lampshady guy... which means I like to point out/ comment on things I see. But I'll write something soon. Love, --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 01:36, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
Denza, read again carefully. I am not asking you for boosterism; only relevance to the reader. Spıke ¬ 02:53 26-Jul-13

Jesus Penis

I'm flattered that you think I'm Mojo Nixon, If that were the case I'd have played toad in the Super Mario Bros movie. But no, I'm not Mojo Nixon. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.23.142.60 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken to think I viewed your YouTube video. But I did delete your attempt to add it to a page, as this site does not exist so that you can advertise your video. Spıke ¬ 13:01 23-Jul-13

FA Cap'n Crunch/The Last King of Scotland

Hi Spike. Congratulations on our feature, we finally got Cap'n to rise up in the World for once. Also thanks for voting for Last King of Scotland. Seeing as you rarely vote I must be privelaged or you must be drunk. Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottPat (talk • contribs)

Thanks! But I am not drunk, and you still can't spell. Spıke ¬ 16:20 23-Jul-13
I don't admit to being good at spelling however I am surprised I forgot to sign my name! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:11, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

"Privelaged" [sic] must have been merely a reminder for me to proofread the other half of "Scotland"--as several of its VFH voters said it needed. Spıke ¬ 18:30 23-Jul-13

Requests for Autopatrolled

Give Lakepoint autopatrolled....Isn't a spammer afaik. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 01:55, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but neither is he rip-roaringly funny. At the moment, he is confining his work to his own userspace, where you may certainly mark his edits Patrolled without detailed analysis. Spıke ¬ 02:53 26-Jul-13

BlogsyQuenz Has gotten straight to work cleaning up errors in the site. Doesn't look like a spammer, and has potential for humor. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 01:38, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Mostly positive contributions; thank you for delivering praise. Simsie found one bad move (at 4chan). I'll keep an eye on him. Spıke ¬ 12:39 29-Jul-13

Improving other articles

I have been reading the Uncyclopedia pages on all the countries of the world, and I noticed one happened to be missing: the United Kingdom. When you type in UK, there is a redirect to the page of Great Britain, which is an island that makes up a large portion of the UK. However, the article is written to describe the UK exactly (an island that constitutes a nation wouldn't have a prime minister, etc.), so I think this article needs a title change.

Another article I'd like to improve is that of Pokémon. The article has one paragraph that constantly repeats itself throughout the article, but it is uneditable (I know that's not a word). I'm sure other Uncyclopedia users and me could put together a pretty good article that actually contains more information, but this is impossible at the moment. Thanks Spike! --Chocolin (talk) 22:01, July 29, 2013 (UTC)Chocolin

On Great Britain, I agree with your comment on nomenclature. However, we only have the one article, and it doesn't bother me that "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" point to the same text. If your point is that the wrong one is the redirect, it is valid. Would you please mention this to ScottPat, as he tends to have extremely strong ideas when it comes to GB and UK? Likewise if your point is that you'd like to write a second article with a different comedy take (which is explicitly allowed, and doesn't have to be consistent with the existing article).
Pokémon is presently a redirect to another page. It has been protected since 2008 so that only Admins can edit it. I have changed this protection so that you can make it something other than a redirect. However, please make it easy for readers who actually want to see the other page to get to it. Spıke ¬ 04:28 30-Jul-13

The page that I was talking about that needed editing was the Pokémon (video games series) page. The same paragraph repeats over and over, and I think this could be a pretty good written article if it sprouted out of the paragraph and into other information. In my opinion, the redirect is good because we don't need to separate pages for Pokémon and Pokémon (video games series), since the franchise mainly is a video game series. I'm not sure if this page was originally written by an admin, but it still is locked from editing. Thanks Spike. --Chocolin (talk) 21:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)Chocolin

Pokémon (video games series) was protected by departed Admin MrN9000 in April 2012. I find it tedious; the joke that Pokémon video games are distinguished mainly by having different signature colors and by nothing else, really does not have to be told 19 times. In his Change Summary in the Protection Log, he raises the possibility that a better article could be written, but wanted to see it done before letting his article be transformed. I tend to agree; tedious or not, it does what it is trying to do very well. If you have a different comedy strategy, I don't doubt that it will be better (or at least more diverse), but do pursue it in a separate page--for example, the now-editable Pokémon.
Separately, I appreciate your vote to feature Cap'n Crunch--but it ran last week. Spıke ¬ 02:20 31-Jul-13

Thanks Spike. I might go ahead and do that, but I don't know if the articles I'm creating are good enough along the lines of humor! I feel dumb for not getting MrN9000's joke, and that makes the article have a pretty good humor strategy. Earlier, I mentioned the UK article, and found that ScottPat will not return from vacation until mid-August, so I guess I'll wait on that. If you have any sports, geography, or other articles that need completion or editing, I'd be happy to help! --Chocolin (talk) 03:10, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

A risk-free option is to click here: User:Chocolin/Pokémon. For other suggestions, you can browse Uncyclopedia:Requested Articles or peruse our articles on nations of the world, states of the US, and states of Mexico, for gaping quality holes. Boston Red Sox is an article that departed user Kamek98 began with the strategy of exploiting cheap puns, and on which I insisted that it had to reflect some of the club's history, but never finished the job. Spıke ¬ 03:28 31-Jul-13

Llwy's talk

Sorry for bothering you but I just noticed that User talk:Llwy-ar-lawr is protected now but it is still not complete, as you did not put back all the deleted posts. Thanks. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 09:51, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened! but thank you for catching it. And you surely don't have to apologize for "bothering" me after I made a mistake! Spıke ¬ 02:20 31-Jul-13
I just thought you did not want to talk about her anymore, as this can grow again into a quarrel between Uncyclopedians. I am probably wrong, though. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 08:52, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

A bit hypocritical, much?

For so long, I've seen the interwiki's. And I see no problem with the welsh and assorted interwiki's being added. Why hypocritical, you ask? Well, I haven't clicked every interwiki, but one of my more frequented uncyc's is, [gratuitous advertisement deleted]. I know we have an obligation to wikia, but, its not our first purpose to be wikia slaves. Our purpose is to spread humor of all kinds across the planet...( I know that sounded a bit corny, sorry.) The more languages we have, the farther the spread of our humor. Thats one thing I like about the fork. That is, they are (at least, in theory), more focused on the humor part, rather than politics. And I'm sure the TOS states that promotion of non-wikia stuff is not desired but it isn't barred. And what say you, about the tons of links still in articles? I know that some of that is a bit of "boosterism", but some is to add on to the article. Wikipedia, has interwikis, and links to external stuff. You're enforcing wikia policy too much. I know it should be enforced enough to keep us from degrading into encyclopedia dramatica, but keep in mind, we're a humor wiki. The rules are (or in my opinion, should be) relaxed a bit. Llwy is just trying to help out her division of uncyclopedia. Is that so wrong? I mean, uncyclopedia is already distanced from wikia, a bit, and its not like swarms of readers will leave us to go to the welsh site. Think about it, how many people here have even a basic grasp of Welsh? And much less a grasp of welsh humor. I am kindly requesting you to let Llwy do her thing, I won't complain if you throw in a clause to write for the english uncyc, but you shouldn't bar her from spreading a welsh uncyc. Again, how many users would actually be permanently diverted from this site to go to the welsh site. And also, don't mess with the japanese interwiki links. Sincerely, --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 18:03, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by this elipsical post here. The links are there...as far as I know...no one has taken them down. Llwy has been somewhat disruptive and has also claimed three times she was leaving. I also think that SPIKE only grudgingly adheres to wikia's policy when it goes against the interests of uncyclopedia and that he tries to work with wikia rather than against them. I'm not a fan of giving in too much to wikia and I don't think anyone else here is. --ShabiDOO 18:39, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
Llwy has not danced like she has never danced before and so she cannot edit here anymore. Concerning the interwikis, this really concerns the interwikis, doesn't it? User:Anton199/sig/Parody/Spike 18:48, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Denza: I do not, and you have not claimed that I do, assert a privilege that I deny to other users. Therefore, there is no question of hypocrisy and I assume you started your message this way just to get my attention. My honor does not need defending, but if you engage other Uncyclopedians with such name-calling, I am sure we can do without you for a few days.

Llwy was not "trying to help out her division of uncyclopedia"--another use of the "one community" mush that people use to divert attention away from misbehavior. She has chronically used this website to send traffic to, and serve the interests of, other websites, and her most recent crusade was that we voluntarily shut down this website.

Llwy's only defense has been that (1) she was in a bad mood, (2) she has the courage to name her offenses explicitly and say she probably shouldn't have committed them, while committing new ones such as ban evasion, and while noting that banning will not be effective. She has explicitly stated that she does not intend to contribute more content (political screeds evidently excepted).

I do not know how you became her spokesman, but it is a reminder that your good work patrolling this site has to take into account your recurring philosophy that the site is less about writing funny stuff than about playing games of personality politics; as before, making alliances and strategically doublecrossing them.

It is a cheap shot that everyone who enforces Wikia's Terms-of-Use is a mind-numbed robot. There is lively discussion that you are not aware of. But I have been on this website for four years and I enthusiastically enforce the rule against supposed contributors sucking away its resources, and I don't care who owns the site that benefits. Wikia is free to cross-sell its other wikis in its ads in the footer. I recently deleted a post where someone who started a new Wikia wiki tried to recruit an inactive Uncyclopedian. I do not have mastery of the Interwikis, but apart from the useful function of sending foreign-language readers to a version of the page they would enjoy more--and apart from more faithfully spoofing Wikipedia--I am not sure why we do Interwikis either. Spıke ¬ 12:03 2-Aug-13

Interwikis

Spike, I would agree with Denza if I, myself, would notice that some interwikis get deleted. But I haven't and now I am addressing myself to you with a complicated issue: on the main page there is an interwiki to [1] while it can be considered dead. The site which is active is [2], although it is not a wikia site. Do you think we ought to change the link? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:34, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that there are two Russian-language Uncyclopedias and one is more active than the other (though the UnNovosti in the "dead" one aren't entirely dead or ancient). In an unaligned world, the question of which of the Russian Uncyclopedias is "better" is an inherently political one on which we need not take a stand. The world is not unaligned, and I'd expect Wikia's position is that we should not actively divert traffic away from another Wikia franchise. There was a week, earlier this year, when Wikia seemed to be getting active in the defense of this site; namely, removing from the Interwiki table the links to some foreign wikis where en: does not link back here. I do not know whether there was any follow-through.
I do not think "we" ought to change the link; because "you" can't do it and "I" don't know how to do it, and especially because I concede it would be a Terms-of-Use violation to do Russian readers the "favor" of helping them avoid the relevant Wikia product.
We have a variety of foreign users whose only business here is adding Interwiki leaks to their own websites. This does not help our site except to become a giant table of pointers out, which is ultimately not a traffic-builder. We also have a huge table of Interwikis on the main page for no evident reason other than to pat ourselves on the back for being part of a World Movement. This table confronts and sidesteps the question of whether there is more than one suitable destination in the foreign language. I do not know why a reader interested in Russian-language humor comes here at all, nor why we would care to offer him an opinion on where he should go instead. Spıke ¬ 17:50 3-Aug-13
When I came here, I was very interested in what was happening here (and I still am). And I had no idea that there was a Russian site like this one. And guess what? I found it with the help of the main page but it created a lot of problems as I went to the old one first and all the users who are not wikia staff left it, so it is dead as a humor site, not as a wikia site. And it took me quite a while to understand which site was actually working. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:24, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Spike, I thought about this and think that what you said is extremely sensible and I actually remember that there is still is some action going on on the old site. But I am very worried by the thought that, by forbidding intwikis to external websites, we enclose ourselves in the wikia family and our site becomes a complete wikia site. And wikia does not always equal humor. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:37, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Interlinks are mutually benificial as long as both are linking to each other. To be honest...with the languages I know...Ive clicked on the other websites...noted the general lack of quality and a different (not always in a good way) sense of humour...read a few articles and never really saw the site again except to write a few articles that were utterly ignored. Readers on the other sites may visit and perhaps stay...considering we offer links to see the best of our features, openly encouraged to vote on the best articles, an (at times) outstanding news component which is constantly being rolled over with new and timely articles on a daily basis etc. etc. etc. In this sense...we are far more likely to retain readers than anglo-saxons who visit foreign websites as none of the other websites offer this to the extent and of the quality that we do. As long as the website is in the uncyclopedia tradition...and the website links to us for "english" ... I believe it is advantageous to keep the links. --ShabiDOO 20:13, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
Replying to 19:24: I don't concede your narrative. Even in this locale, some argue that the only people electing to remain on a Wikia website must be "Wikia staff" or at least bought off, which is the cheap shot, common in partisan politics, of accusing adversaries of being driven merely by lucre. The question is why this website should take a position on two websites in a foreign locale, especially why it should favor the non-Wikia one.
Replying to 19:37: Of course it is unlikely that a Wikia product is always the best (funniest) at what it is trying to do. But Wikia is using us to build Wikia traffic, and I have always found that "price" of using its free services for instant global publication the least burdensome agreement I have ever worked under. By comparison, in almost any radio job or even in sports announcing, you will find actual words placed in your mouth. We do not "enclose ourselves in the Wikia family": We do not agree never to look outside. The Terms of Use as I understand them is that we simply agree not to recommend to prospective Wikia readers that they instead go elsewhere; and I don't mind that a bit.
I am not prepared to conclude that the Wikia Russian Uncyclopedia is the worse of two Russian Uncyclopedias. And if it were, the two options are to join (or assist) the exodus, or to stay and get the work done. Spıke ¬ 20:27 3-Aug-13

Thank you because you might not understand how helpful your comment was! And because of this I just remembered that when I joined the Russian wikia, a user from the fork immediately sent me an e-mail that I should not be working there. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:59, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Further intercession

I am not really sure if I am right to write this thing here, as you probably consider the situation over but:

  • Llwy blanked her talk page for the first time because, as she said, she did not know it was forbidden, seeing that others have done it. I, personally, have never seen anyone blanking his talk page and not being blocked but maybe she did. But who knows? Anyway, she got banned for one day.
  • Then she blanked her talk page twice. So, at the same time, she reverted an admin and did the same thing for which she git banned for the first time. But: "21:44, July 29, 2013‎ Llwy-ar-lawr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (343 bytes) (-42,210)‎ . . (Please let me do this. A talk page is a place for contacting the user; if the user can only be found elsewhere, the talk page should point there)". This comment basically says that she does not know she is doing something wrong and I think that she did not believe that you banned her only for blanking (but for a political reason). And this is not surprising knowing everything she had said before and after. Anyway, she got blocked for three months.
  • Llwy made her unblock request, then changed her mind and decided not to stay here anymore but still argued for a while and left several messages. This is clearly ban evasion. But Llwy is neither shy, nor quiet: when she thinks that she is being attacked, she defends herself and I think it was impossible for her to leave without defending herself. And, in addition to this, going directly form one day block to a three months one is rather quick, isn't it? So...

There is no right or wrong in this situation because Llwy is completely sure that the site is very authoritative and does not allow her at all. And when a person thinks that, he can fall apart and begin committing mistakes only because he thinks that he fights for the right causes. And I know this on my own example because I have almost the same thing on the Russian uncyc now and I am trying very hard to understand whether it is me who is causing problems or the admins who want to throw me away.

Conclusion (if there is any): I disagree with Llwy because I think that the site is democratic and user-friendly. So if I am right, maybe she just deserves a chance to understand how everything works down here and see for herself that people do not get banned because they express their thoughts openly? I am sure it is none of my business but ... it is a question and not a request and I, myself, would help her in every way I can if she gets into further conflicts. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:45, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I do consider the situation over. I greeted her in February with my standard message, which includes: "Don't delete anyone's messages. In case of any controversy, we depend on an accurate record of what was written." My standard message does not include a table of punishments, nor should it. The first ban was for a token interval; the follow-on ban was for deliberate, repeated misconduct, and I have banned one Anon that was she, as I will ban any others. No Admin here bans users "for political reasons"--that is, on the basis of their opinions, even hers that this website owes it to others to go out of business. Personally, I do not think she blanked her talk page merely to resign but because my rebuttal of her final comments did not reflect favorably on her.
As you set out: She was not here to contribute content; she was a drama queen with a preconceived opposition to Wikia, to any rules she felt like disobeying, and to me. These are not even banning offenses, but together I have no motivation to set aside the ban. And no, it is none of your business, unless like DungeonSiege, you view this website not in terms of writing content but as a game of forming and breaking alliances. Spıke ¬ 14:50 4-Aug-13
I don't view this website like that. I just thought ... Well, I have already said what I thought and you responded. So I won't ask you this kind of questions (for a while) and go do something else. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:58, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hello. I was recently blocked. I am wondering if I could have more info on why (specifically what I vandalised) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phant0mhaX0r (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your inquiry. After typing the unhelpful, and unsigned, comment "Writer block is umm… er… let's just say meh" at Talk:Writer's block, you went to work on an actual article, Wikipedian, and I quote, "There is a reason why The Site Which Must Not Be Named has no spork label. It is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE spork." Together with a user page full of L33T, this struck me as vandalism and I banned you for 1 day. I also provided a detailed explanation along the same lines as this, at User talk:Phant0mhaX0r, plus reading suggestions for you. Spıke ¬ 12:03 2-Aug-13

QVFD

Spike, sorry, but could you, please, delete UnSignpost/Template:News (but it is a redirect page) and restore Uncyclopedia:UnSignpost_Template? Maybe I posted it the wrong way on the QVFD. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:21, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Done. The reason the rules call for you to use {{Redirect}} on UN:QVFD is to keep us from clicking through it to the page redirected to. Spıke ¬ 20:39 4-Aug-13
Ok, thanks. I will always double-check the pages I post there. By the way, I was on an unexpected leave for two days and I hope that today I will finish everything concerning the formatting. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 09:27, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
No rush. However, I am baffled that the UK and Russia seem to have been annexed by France so that everyone has the entire month of August on vacation. Spıke ¬ 15:54 7-Aug-13
Do you mean Reverend? I actually did not know he was leaving in France. I thought he only had some relatives there.
And what do you think about this? (The articles are from the Wikipedia Signpost, so just look at the formatting. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:58, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
It's attractive; and it probably makes a lot more sense for us to mimic (and track) Wikipedia rather than the Fork. A couple years ago, UnNews was re-skinned to continue to imitate Wikinews. However, the word UnSignpost is annoyingly large; I think humor should be achieved by funny writing, not by large lettering. Also, the date of the articles seems to be coded as a section heading at the same level as the headline itself, which should not be the case. Spıke ¬ 18:10 7-Aug-13

Ok, thanks. There is actually another problem to fix (except the two you mentioned): the newspaper can fold itself (see my talk page "test") but cannot get unfolded. Then delivering it makes no sense, if the readers won't have a mean to open it. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

I finished this current issue and am planning to deliver it tomorrow. The only problem is that it does not fold itself (I fixed the first problem - the fact that it could not unfold itself). But this is impossible of the formatting is similar to Wikipedia's, and I don't think we really need this. You can write an article for the next issue (if there is anything to talk about), as I agree with you on the newsworthiness of recent events. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:55, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
May I explain Spike's joke: The French are famous for their holiday routine in which every single Frenchman decides to take a holiday at the same time in August so that France basically closes down for a month. He presumed that because the Russians and Brits on this site have their holiday in August that they must be turning French. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:19, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, now I get it. Spike probably found my comment extremely stupid. I was baffled by the word "annexed" the meaning of which I did not know well. Thanks for explaining! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:21, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Token ban for Denza

Spike, Denza is upset by his ban even though it is rather short. This is what he said exactly: "I just wanted to direct the user to an admin, but I now realize that I should have linked him to UN:AA". So he is sorry and asks you if you can unban him, please! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:00, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, UN:AA is exactly the right way to do it. The system is not letting me unblock Denza, so he will have to wait another 3 minutes. Spıke ¬ 19:49 13-Aug-13
Should have used UN:AA, I'll remember that next time. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 19:57, August 13, 2013 (UTC)(shiny new sig!)
Everyone should; and if you agree with me, vote with me at VFD, where I have nominated this piece of Performance Art for deletion. Spıke ¬ 20:04 13-Aug-13

UnSignpost Subscription

Just wanted to tell you that after V V I P's comments, I made another option for the UnSignpost subsrcibers: from now on they can choose to only receive a link to the new issue and the news summary (like on Wikipedia). I am just informing you, so you do not have to react to this in any way. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:18, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Having the UnSignpost be a template means that, although it does not increase the character count of people's talk pages, it vastly increases the character count of their talk pages as rendered. Even to select the correct section of an infrequent editor's talk page on which to comment, I have to download the complete text of all UnSignposts since he last archived each page! This is a concern for those of us on slow and metered Internet links. I would like this option to become the default (though I am not "voting" for this, as it isn't my talk page and I don't read it by subscription). Spıke ¬ 16:28 15-Aug-13
Thank you for your opinion! I will go and include my and V V I P's names to the second list! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:31, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

User:Reverend P. Pennyfeather's block

Spike, don't you think that a two week block is a bit much for being drunk and mis-spelling votes on VFH (or as the Reverend now calls it "VHF"). As far as I can tell he hasn't done anything bad to this site, so wouldn't a shorter block be better? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 05:50, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

PS - It was exam results day over here in England and Wales, which may explain his drunkeness (depression or celebration). I find it slightly amusing he started correcting spelling to British English from American English when usually he distances himself away from me when I do that (and not even I go as far as he did!) but in all in all he's only drunk for one night so I don't think he ought to have that long a block. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 06:07, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! I meant two hours, not two weeks, as evidenced by my comment that he sleep it off, and not Rip Van Winkle style! You are right to object. Fixed now, and let me blame force-of-habit. Spıke ¬ 11:10 16-Aug-13

Cotswold Olimpick Games

Whoops. Mis-read. I thought it implied "two weeks earlier than the date that the reader is reading the article on." Thanks for the revert. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:32, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

NASCAR

You again. *sigh*...

Do you know anyone who knows about NASCAR? I worked hard on that page, don't want it deleted... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronaraujo2013 (talk • contribs)

I don't think the article is at risk of being deleted, but more content is always better. Good move to call for help on the article's talk page. On the present page, it is always going to be "me again." No Uncyclopedians who are also NASCAR fans have advertised that fact. Spıke ¬ 20:24 17-Aug-13

UnBooks:My Summer Vacation in Saudi Arabia

On the nomination I responded to your against vote. Are you voting against it because you think it should be in some other namespace. I agree...it ought to be in unbooks. --ShabiDOO 20:25, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

I do think it would be better in UnBooks; but I also think the function of the main page is to showcase our "encyclopedia" identity and not the fact that we have good writers doing relatively unrelated things. Spıke ¬ 20:29 17-Aug-13
In this period of one against vote usually kills a VFH...it's a pity that one users idiosyncratic view trumps. But we have to respect it. --ShabiDOO 22:03, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem idiosyncratic to hold that the Uncyclopedia main page showcase Uncyclopedia rather than individuals. But I have suggested to the editors that the next UnSignpost flog the question of whether my opinion is "namespace bias" as is prohibited in VFH and what, if anything, should be done about it. Repeating a previous conversation in response to a complaint of Anton199, it is not one vote against that is fatal but persistent lack of votes in favor. Spıke ¬ 22:09 17-Aug-13
PS--Are you a car-racing fan? If so, see immediately preceding section. Spıke ¬ 22:11 17-Aug-13
The feature page was set up...from the beginning...to show case the best of the best of uncyclopedia. This has...over the years of its existance included all sub projects which parody wikipedias projects. Based on the voting patterns of nearly all users in the last so and so years...the community clearly, openly and welcomly voted to feature non mainspace articles. The only exception I can think of was when there were four or five unnews in one week...and I believe the dissenters were often over-ruled by the votes of the rest of the community anyways. I could count on my hands the amount of times I've seen users openly vote down an UnProject article because it wasn't mainspace. And even then...that featured mainspace articles should be thoroughly "encyclopedic" is an issue that I have never ever heard mentioned in votes or on forums about the vision of uncyclopedia. Perhaps there are a few rare moments or there were some of those before I came here.
I suppose if users became more active in voting against articles that didn't meld with their vision of the wiki...then indeed there would be more articles featured despite votes against and perhaps more balance. Perhaps we should all become more proactive by letting users know our own visions of the wiki and voting in kind. Not a bad idea considering the lack of users. Now is a great time to openly carve out a vision that emcompases how all the remaining and new users see the future uncyclopedia fork here. Great time for change.
Sorry...I don't know anything about NASCAR except for how southpark parodied them. It was an okay episode. --ShabiDOO 02:14, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Spike that 1 vote does not kill an article. I have had a few featured recently with one and even two votes against (some of those votes against coming from both you and Spike). As for whether an UnBooks can be featured it is a dilema. You don't won't to spoil the parody effect of the front page but I reckon that chances are you'd have got the joke before you get to the front page because most people find it through article pages.
By the way what happened to the content warning as I no longer get it. Is it gone finally? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 06:36, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
Wikia removed it after a discussion with the admins on this website. Regards VFH, the issue of voting against an article has been a long running issue that pre-dates the schism. I see no problem with people voting against an article. Regards whether an article should be 'encyclopedic', 'navelistic' or personal ('The Day My Fridge Ate the Postman' type story) is up to the people who are active on this site. I have my own preferences but when it comes to VFH it is a matter of drumming up enough support. -- Laurels RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:22, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't it this: "Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, UnTunes, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded"? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:45, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Now see Forum:Namespace prejudice. Spıke ¬ 13:55 18-Aug-13

UnNews:Russia makes prison time a prerequisite for voting

Thank you very much for proofreading my UnNews! However, I changed some of the sentences back, as probably you did not fully understand my concept. So, if you want to know more about Russian politics, here is some information:

  • Alexey Navalny is the greatest opposition leader in Russia right now (the greatest, because of the amount of his supporters and because of his actions against the government, and not because I like him the most). He is known for criticizing the government's actions openly. This is why he got arrested. This is not my opinion, this is just that all the evidence got falsified and after taking a close look at all the process, it will become obvious that he is innocent. So I am not parodying him but the government.
  • I did not name the sponsor, knowing that the law is fake, which is another aspect of my concept: I parodied all the silly and pointless laws that the government made recently and another reason for not talking who the sponsor was, is that anyone from the government could be him.
  • Finally, I did not want to annoy the reader with many Russian political details (what I am currently doing now) but I wrote about Alexey Navalny, knowing that his verdict became very famous outside Russia and caused a lot of people from different countries to express their opinion on the Russian democracy. I am not sure whether you know this or not, but the press (not the Russian one) even associated Navalny with Nelson Mandela.

Thank you for your attention and sorry to bother you with all this! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:20, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not want to know more about Russian politics. I just wanted it to read like a news story, which means it must open with what just happened, not how what happened was conceived. Failing to state the law's sponsor seriously detracts from the resemblance to news. What you should do instead is contrive an explanation for how the law's sponsor was unknown or unavailable.
"This is why he got arrested" is of course your opinion, as arrests in Russia do not correspond exactly to transgressions. You are welcome to describe this arrest as a reprisal, but you should do it delicately and with irony--not add a footnote saying essentially that people who don't come to your conclusion aren't paying attention. This feels like advocacy. It always works to have the "writer of the article" be credulous and repeat the explanations of Government without questioning them, even though the reader will. Spıke ¬ 14:34 18-Aug-13

What I said in the UnNews is "People who disagree with the verdict did not study the affair closely) which is irony, as actually those with it are people who studied the affair closely. And thank you for your criticism: I will include the reason for which the sponsor is unknown. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:37, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Cupar, the UnSignpost and your talkpage

Do you think the article needs more work? I think that I did all I could. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:35, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

It is now in good shape, but not yet remarkable enough for the main page. The challenge on a VFD save is not to produce the best possible article. If that is your goal, I had a look at the Wikipedia article and there is material about history and commerce that might be sporked and ridiculed. Spıke ¬ 20:58 18-Aug-13

I was actually not planning to feature it. But if it is good, I can add history and commerce and maybe nominate it. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 09:52, August 19, 2013 (UTC) There will be too much small sections on your talkpage, if I keep on creating new ones every time I have a question, so I just decided to post this here:

  • Please, could you take a look at at this forum and vote, if you care about the UnSignpost format?
  • Do you know that before the contents of your talkpage are downloaded completely, there is the Uncyclopedia logo which appears at the upper left corner right where Spike the Dog's head is and disappears immediately? This gives the body of the dog and the Halloween Pumpkin at the top, because the is not enough time to notice that it is a potato. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:42, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
I've been told that. I should not dabble in these tricks, as my screen dimensions are very non-standard. Spıke ¬ 21:28 19-Aug-13

Promising new Uncyclopedians

Could you, please, make Tyrone McGee autopatrolled? His edits are very good and he is adopted by Scott, so they will get reviewed anyway. Thanks. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:13, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. He aroused my suspicion by making a bee-line for Cunt and Masturbation (sport), and his Sir Swagsalot article, even after renaming, makes me regard him as part of a recent trio (with The TwaFFs and Kody-the-Fox) of promising new Uncyclopedians who have not yet bought into the idea of writing articles that "encyclopedia" readers will actually search for. Spıke ¬ 21:28 19-Aug-13
I agree that it is not the most encyclopedic however for a first article it is very promising. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 22:15, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:38, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects