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 Jat people

hello spike. i notice you have reverted my edit. no, i do not own wiki. i reverted it to my version only because of vandalism by some chauvinistic jats (i am jat myself). see here: (...)

also, before it was vandalized, it was voted for deletion by someone who took offence but it was voted to be kept: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive206#Jat

then it got vandalized.

i have been an active participant and have contributed profusely and have been banned twice. i have no regrets and no wish to create an account. i also have no desire to argue with you (primarily the reason i got banned earlier, LOL -- for arguing with admins). i am undoing your revert -- if you revert it back, i won't interfere further. yenjaay!

I did not have to revert it, as fellow admin Romartus came to the same conclusion as I did. Both of us voted on VFD to keep this, but I reverted some vandalism (which you thus twice reinstated). You do act as though you own the article, as you accuse editors with different goals of "vandalism," and accuse nominator Pelozurian of "taking offence" rather than simply believing that this is a mediocre article, as I do too. Even if it is about Jats. Even the Wikipedia article is mediocre and tending toward vanity. And I don't care about your blog. You will find that Admins nowdays are as uninterested in drama as the generation of Admins that banned you. Good day. Spıke Ѧ 11:36 6-Jan-15
By the way, I see that part of my clean-up was to remove a half dozen places where you included an email address and an advertisement for a book. This was at least retelling the same joke way too often, and at most a misuse of the website. And as Romartus told you in his Change Summary, your old version is full of tedious lists. In summary, you have twice tried to restore a much worse version from the past, with accusations toward many others, just because it is your version. Spıke Ѧ 11:42 6-Jan-15
you are absolutely right. but i am a damn good writer (comic and otherwise). this piece is good and my other pieces are testimony to kick ass prose: Nepal Taj Mahal Kamasutra Steel. i have been a prolific contributor. i left because i found most stuff juvenile and mediocre, LOL.
i presume a lack of familiarity with the sub continent will make you miss the humour. yes, that must be it. the other conclusion is that you guys are poor writers and critics (equally tenable but i will give you guys the befit of doubt). take care!
scratch all of above. what a silly contributor to uncyclopedia(!) thinks about my prose should not matter. take care!
also, thanks for voting for keep and finding the pidgin endearing. that was the point of the article! as was a mockery of the rather tedious and chauvinistic write up in wikipedia!

edit Invasive species

How right you were. started editing the above to try to improve it and then realised it was utter garbage. Ended up rewriting the whole thing. I suppose that still counts as editing. Anyway, it's an article the site should have something on. --Sog1970 (talk) 16:25, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

About a half dozen other articles link to it (about half the time, in See also). Your work is not yet on the main page, but the name of it is. Thanks for earning a VFD save. Spıke Ѧ 16:58 6-Jan-15

edit Bigblunt40

This is Bigblunt40 and You are a Cyberbully

I am Not a Cyberbully as you suggest in my infinite block

I have Complained on The Uncyclopedia Irc Channel so my Block can be removed

How do You sleep at night knowing that you have Blocked for Pathetic reasons?

My image and Mrs morris page was a Joke and I thought Uncyclopedia was about Jokes

If you don't Unblock me I will move to encyclopaedia dramatics and abandon Uncyclopedia

I will be on the Irc for one Hour so we can talk so be there

Otherwise please Unblock me The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.143.152.114 (talk • contribs)

Saying mean things about someone who is not a celebrity is cyberbullying. Apart from that, your article was not of high enough quality to remain in the main encyclopedia. The IRC channel has nothing to do with this website and I never go on it. I wish you luck on other wikis, and I wish them luck with your quick recourse to playing a guilt trip. Spıke Ѧ 22:19 8-Jan-15

edit Admin abuse at Wikipedia

A serious question about upper level administrators deleting hate speech to white wash users edit histories....Does Wikipedia or any wiki actually have something like internal affairs incase one the admins is seriously crooked and vandalizing their content without anyone knowing it?

[particulars of the case deleted]

Sorry to be a crime witness instead of putting more fiction on trial; it kills the humor in me, I won't be editing again for a while. Thanks for your time. Irritable of contents (talk) 22:10, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

This website has nothing to do with Wikipedia either, though I am sure other Admins would be interested in pursuing proof of abuse of Admin power, as Uncyclopedia would not, especially laying out your particulars in the Change Summary of an Uncyclopedia edit. In any case, I have reverted your insertion of yet another initial quotation to both of our ED articles. The segue from Encyclopedia Dramatica to Erectile Dysfunction is done later in the article, and to confront the reader with a quotation that is random (until he comes to a complete stop to figure out your pun), well before the humor begins, is borderline vandalism. Happy travels. Spıke Ѧ 22:19 8-Jan-15
Thank you greatly, you're the first person to really help me with this; David Gerard politely told me to go fuck myself when I asked if he would redirect me to someone who could help me. That, plus edit warring over the importance of calling U.S. presidents slave owners, while not doing the same for Muhammad, might as well be proclaiming one's a racist who has no regard for history general.

I know those three wiki's aren't connected, I've never seen anyone on Rat Wiki other than David Gerard who professes being an Uncyclopedian; and Wikipedia doesn't even give Rat Wiki their own page. I'm just going to leave edit summaries for mentioning typos and explaining why something sucked enough to delete; which requires that I read much more than I write. I'll keep things more pertinent when I come back, though I'm glad I finally have a walking into a bar joke for my user page as classy as the knock knock one for breaking bad; I didn't think it was good enough for Starwars, but it's good enough for me.

I'll let some administrators know whats up at Wikipedia, I was beginning to think no one there would care enough just to look into it; thanks again. Irritable of contents (talk) 23:26, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

edit Subjects that don't exist

I was reading your review of Supply-side Jesus, one of the most thorough reviews I've read in a while, and I was a little struck by: "The main conceptual flaw, writing about a subject that does not exist". I have found that writing an article on a non-existent subject can be liberating because there is no brief to follow and can also make for more biting satire because it can be a fictionalised version of real things, which is possible in an article about its subject, but in a fictional article you can just state things as facts for jokes, which makes the writing more like Wikipedia. I understand that there are many important subjects without accompanying articles here and that writing more fictional articles further muddles the site, but the philosophical question behind this is: should we let the supposed necessity of having articles for every important subject effectively impede the course of some humourous opportunities? I think that there are too many mediocre articles here on people for whom something humourous is hard to right. I have often thought that we need an article on Robert Louis Stevenson, but will never write it myself because I don't know anything funny about him. --Sigphoto|(get dtf) 12:54, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

It is a rule. Like we say in all our rules, and at the start of How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, rules are there to be broken, provided the result is excellent. But writing about real things — writing pages that an "encyclopedia reader" is likely to look up — is why we're here; we are a satire encyclopedia, not a free-form comedy blog. Over the years, writers seeking their own liberation have created other frames, from UnNews, where the way to follow the frame and produce a realistic result is clear; to HowTo, which I think is usually an outlet for the writer to amuse himself by nagging and scolding the reader. But the point here — usually — is to make your writing fit in the frame specified by the project. Stevenson? I knew nothing about Horace, except that there were a few famous people named after him that might be good for detours, until this competition. Spıke Ѧ 13:20 11-Jan-15

edit The Article Whisperer

Hi Spike! Thanks for completing your entries in time and thanks for doing your part of judging! I'll do whatever needs to be done whenever I have more time than now. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:59, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

edit Jim Corr

(→‎2015: Rehab for Jim: Revert Noamshouseparty--New section was mean and not funny; included anal fist rape

I don't mind deletion, it's just that 'mean and not funny' could apply to the whole article in truth :P --noamshouseparty 21:01, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Luckily, I recognized your user name and even checked the page history, and this is why I neither blocked you nor rewrote the article. Drive-by slaps are the least humorous humor we have, but it's your article. However, the anal-fisting stuff was overtly unfunny; likewise the section where the article celebrated its own length. Spıke Ѧ 21:16 22-Jan-15
What is a drive-by slap? Remove the article if you like, my goal was to edit/rewrite as little as possible so that the page had the same rambling style as its subject, this including the overtly unfunny or unkind content. Aas for blocking me I wouldn't know the reason but I won't worry too much on that one either. --noamshouseparty 21:33, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Regarding changing as little as possible, it is your article, created in 2009. If someone I don't recognize dumps a new section on anal fisting in someone else's article, then I weigh whether they should be banned. None of that is at issue here, so there is no need to get confrontational. Spıke Ѧ 21:39 22-Jan-15
Confrontational? I think there's been a misunderstanding. What I meant was that I did not rewrite my submissions, they just went out unfiltered that was kind of the purpose. So if most of it looks poor then I wouldn't object to it being deleted. Anyway I'll leave it with you. --noamshouseparty 21:47, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry; I misread the end of your 21:33 as, "no big deal if you block me." I don't know of Jim Corr (though I do own a Best of the Corrs CD), nor especially whether he is like that or whether you did a good job of writing it in his style. I don't have a problem with the article; just thought two of its sections were excessive. Spıke Ѧ 21:51 22-Jan-15

edit Christy Clark

Can you remove the protection for the Christy Clark name so I can publish it? Adamwashere (talk) 04:47, January 23, 2015 (UTC)Adamwashere

This is done and the article is moved without redirect. The article still needs Categories and real list syntax in place of lines starting with -. I think it still smells more of advocacy than humor. Spıke Ѧ 04:55 23-Jan-15

edit TAW

Congratulations! You won! A very deserving piece it was. I'll come back soon to give you a medal. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:24, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for managing the contest, and for your effusive praise of the article; you continue to make everyone feel good about contributing here. Spıke Ѧ 15:44 31-Jan-15

Oh, thank you, it's my pleasure. Although I partly disagree with effusive, as I took some liberty to criticize your ending!

ArticleWhisperAwardGold Article Whisperer Winner
This person is a Grand Prize winner of the 1st Inter-Annual Article Whisperer Competition (2014-5), which they won for their article: Horace in the Best Vital Article category

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:50, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

How could I forget?
ArticleWhisperAwardBronze Article Whisperer Judge
This person was a judge for the 1st Inter-Annual The Article Whisperer Competition (2014-15). The community would like to thank them for their contribution.

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:56, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that too. You criticized the treatment of Horace's death as well-written but not novel. I agree the article could use a better finale, but the situation in Real Life is that "not much is known," and I'm not going with that. Your suggestions are welcome. Spıke Ѧ 00:21 1-Feb-15
I agree that "not much is known" is no better technique. What I found is that, apparently, Horace was a man very preoccupied with death, although I cannot read Latin. He also (apparently) believed that separate individuals could be exempt from death. Maybe he was trying to immortalize himself using mirrors? I don't know. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:29, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Now, that is a connection I simply had not made. Stay tuned.... Spıke Ѧ 18:07 1-Feb-15

edit Delft edit in Netherlands page

Hello.

My friends and I found it quite funny. We are international students ("foreigners") living in Delft so we know a few things about the place. As for the novelty side of things, I doubt any joke on the internet is "novel".

That being said, this site is way too restricted to allow any creative input. Instead of deleting entire entries, try improving them. Or at least let other people improve them.

“A monarchy conducted with infinite wisdom and infinite benevolence is the most perfect of all possible governments.”
~ Ezra Stiles

Unfortunately, you (admins) have none of the aforementioned qualities.

Anyway, you kind of killed the moment. Thanks. Have a good day.

P.S.: Your page on Lebanon is outdated... The preceding unsigned comment was added by 404 lie2me john (talk • contribs)

Hi John! I understand your frustration at the deletion of a paragraph you've inserted, but remember that it's not gone from history (the article's history) and if you could improve on it, it can easily be re-inserted. What Spike was telling is that the "this city is boring" joke does not work, not because it's not novel on the Internet, but because it's not novel on Uncyclopedia (which has seen dozens of additions of this type). It might be funny, when done very cleverly, but it still is the simplest humour technique you can find when you don't have much to say about the place. That being said, your paragraph is still very promising, and I am sure that by doing some research and/or editing out the too explicit moments (disease Tedium, for instance), it will work well in the article!
Concerning Lebanon, many of our articles are out-of-date, which is something Uncyclopedia needs help from editors with. If you have any ideas about Lebanon, please, don't be discouraged by the revert of your first edit (most of our first edits have been reverted). If you add something to the article, I will help you with it! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:42, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
I endorse Anton199's comments above. I have the time to keep Uncyclopedia from deteriorating, especially by the addition of sections that don't go in entertaining new directions; I do not have the time to research Delft sufficiently to make a contribution that didn't do so, start to do so. Fortunately, it is likely that you are situated to get it done, especially if you use some of the time you are now using making the case against Uncyclopedia and its Admins. Get started! Spıke Ѧ 18:07 1-Feb-15
Personal tools
projects