User talk:SPIKE

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
  • Please add any new topics at the end to be sure they are noticed.
  • Don't split conversations between pages, for the benefit of future readers.
  • Post to User:SPIKE/UnNews about UnNews and UnNews Audio.

edit Archives

edit Sonichu

Hi Spike! Could you, please, restore Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sonichu? Even though the article to be reviewed has been deleted, this page was one of the reviews Chief did for the Pee Week competition and so we need for history, archives and proof of Chief's victory (so far), if it is needed. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:24, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Nuke is such a blunt weapon. Spıke ¬ 17:27 2-Dec-14
Thanks! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:28, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

edit Bitcoin rulez but it didn't cause me laughs sorry

I was linking to the article because I like Bitcoin and I appreciate any of the Bitcoin community's efforts into creating a fun article. I would love for people to have input on your article but I think I can write another one which is also for another audience. The cool thing with Bitcoin is that we have a huge number of audiences. We want all kinds of communities to join us, even those that are lead by super villains. I don't know if it was your idea to put the melons in the Bitcoin article but I didn't see a humorous way that it is made fun of, but then of course everybody's humour is different(nah, maybe removing the melons altogether to do proper censorship). I say, keep the article as it is and continue working on it as was originally intended. I don't find it adequate but instead of complaining about it I thought I'll link to it from the Bitcoin talk page and then become very famous on uncyclopedia and then you may even replace the whole Bitcoin article with my new great idea that will make everybody laugh. I was not sent by Anita Sarkeesian to write this btw. Reinakamoto (talk) 05:11, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! It is true that people's sense of humor differs. Bitcoin was voted to run on our main page and is assumed not to need new help being funny. The "melons" relates to the "computing problem" with which people mine Bitcoins. Reading your post and your user page gives me the impression that you have not arrived to help us build a satire encyclopedia but to write a Bitcoin article to suit yourself, until you found the space taken. There is room for another article on Bitcoin, and the existing article can link to a new one. Spıke ¬ 12:26 8-Dec-14

edit Uncyclopedia:The Article Whisperer

Hi Spike! The next competition (the Article Whisperer) is planned for the end of December. Could you, please, unlock the competition's page so I can update it?

By the way, I saw your last message and I am searching for a suitable image. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:17, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

There you go. You saw that I wrote "Barf in the cinema"? Spıke ¬ 17:21 12-Dec-14
Thanks! Your new section is very good and I can see you did some research. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:56, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

edit Vandalism at Illogicopedia

Urgent!...Some vandal named Samwight is wreaking havoc on english illogicopedia. Basically just changing all content with repetitive "hihicool", phucked up 500 pages in the space of less than 2 hours...I'm afraid he's wrote a bot or something. Cant post on illogico for 2 reaons: 1. it's users are available less regularly than here. 2. He's not leaving user n' talk pages from his rampage either!

Could you PLEASE get a crat there to ban him and revert all his edits? 18:41, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

I am nothing special on Illogicopedia. Hoping someone sees this.... Spıke ¬ 18:43 15-Dec-14
You saw what he did right? There wont be any powerful illogicopedian online at least until next morning by my local time (and right now it's 12:15am). Gawd knows how much damage he'll have done by then.
I'm neither a admin/crat there nor a programmer/hacker so I've no idea how to tackle this attack.
Anyways, thanks for caring. np. 18:47, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
I did not see what he did, and I cannot do anything about it anyway. For your own peace of mind, read our UN:VIP to see how easy it will be for an Admin there to undo the damage. Spıke ¬ 19:02 15-Dec-14
Okay they've fixed it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

edit Wheely Willy

Hello again! I just found out that the best wanted page, after This page does not exist, is Wheely Willy (a celebrity dog as some quick research shows, that even has a Wikipedia article). The red link shows that you deleted the page as vanity: so I just wanted to know if it was the topic or the content that you found was vanity. That's just that I am supposed to make a list of best requested articles for the Article Whisperer and it seems pointless to propose to Uncyclopedians to write about a celebrity dog especially if we already had a decent version. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:33, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Wheely Willy is (also) the name of a notorious vandalizer of Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia, and the article I deleted had nothing to do with a celebrity dog and everything to do with the vandal's autobiography. Spıke ¬ 20:29 16-Dec-14
Ah, ok! Thanks for signing up! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:30, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
It might be better to remove this from UN:REQ rather than enlist someone to write an article on it, because if we get one again, I presume the vandal will be back to turn it into a chronicle of himself (him being, after all, a vandal). Some of the stuff is on UN:REQ simply from red-links in popular templates (and in one case, a red-link in a user signature). While I am fine with the creation of any funny new article, the right solution might be to clean up templates, as I did a little of, a short time ago. Spıke ¬ 16:13 20-Dec-14
The list of these 303 links largely points to articles that end with {{Mass Media}} or {{Cars}}, but I don't see Wheely Willy actually used in either one. Spıke ¬ 17:17 20-Dec-14
Ok, I'll take a look. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:01, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

edit Billy Corgan

I had a tough time finding a way to contact you, so I hope this will suffice. Few points, 1) While on their own, the quotations you deleted and disregarded as "just as unfunny" as the existing ones, did lack merit. They would have stood up to the rest of the edit that I spent over an hour working on, only to have my session time out and erase all the work when I tried to save. 2) I didn't write the other points you were making. I found the entire article to be a waste of time to read and given the recent relevance of Billy Corgans increasing insanity, thought I'd take a stab at an edit. Sorry if I don't meet your personal requirements, I could see from perusing your profile that you have a high standard, almost as high as your opinion of your own writings. I mean that in the nicest way possible. In the future I'll spend more time studying the 'how to' before wasting my time writing only to have it erased. Cheers. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pearl J. Harbor (talk • contribs)

Yes, this is how to do it. The studying to be done in this case is at UNQUOTE. Basically, initial quotations (which don't help our articles resemble Wikipedia, which doesn't have them) need to be really good invitations for the reader to jump in, and not side-jokes told before the reader can relate to them because the editor wants to have the first word. What you found were three initial quotations (two attributed to nobody in particular) that overused exclamation points and took a victory lap in which the reader was left out. What you changed it to was two quotations of Corgan himself, to tell the joke (twice!) of his own egotism, then a quotation attributed to "everyone else" disputing it: an awful technique I call "bickering quotes." We are trying to write stuff that resembles encyclopedia articles, not a comic book. Thus I decided the quotes should simply go, as well as the alias "Butt Fuck" that someone else had in the Intro. Indeed, I did things on that edit other than remove your changes, and I do not claim that the resulting article is not a waste of time to read, about which I invite you to continue working, perhaps without snide comments about the personality of your fellow Uncyclopedians.
I do not apologize for the long time you spent thinking about this, or the fact that writing on a wiki means you may encounter editorial disagreements or see the removal of sections that you contributed to. Spıke ¬ 15:22 21-Dec-14
PS--Though WP:Billy Corgan has a fan-boy tone, I do not see evidence there of Corgan's "increasing insanity." He seems to have been a nut-job for a long time and would be a fertile target for ridicule here (provided the ridicule were easy to tell apart from the reality). Having initial quotations that scream out that "this man is insane" is by far the least clever way to do it. You don't start an Uncyclopedia article by explaining the punch line. Spıke ¬ 15:29 21-Dec-14
Personal tools