User talk:Spike

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Redirected from User talk:SPIKE)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives Spike seasoning
  • 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 Revert reason

What was wrong with this edit? Correct surname is Wojtyła and I don't see anything funny in "Mojtyła". Expert 3222 17:00, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and that is why I reverted Anon. Only, I didn't read the change carefully and got it backward. Now restored, thanks. Spıke Radiomicrophone17:06 4-Aug-16

edit RE: Oh Dear...

I am really new, I should of put a Under Construction Notice to it I will find jokes, there are jokes out there. (And yes I am reading the be funny and not just stupid article) That was for a livestream, can you leave it up for a little longer so they can see it? -SW50000

Certainly not. Would you read our policies? (Would you read anything, such as how to sign your posts?) The {{Construction}} tag is not the issue; rather, even after construction is complete, your article is not of general interest. We are not here to host vanity articles for the benefit of your homies, but to host articles of general interest. Sorry about that! Spıke Radiomicrophone01:34 13-Aug-16

Wait I think I know what wen't wrong, hold on, let me re-write the page -SW50000

Oh, you are walking on the edge when you (1) re-create an article after I deleted it and told you why, and (2) that you post without signing it after I just asked you to do so. You may be wasting your time here, especially if you are expecting other people to correct words such as "wen't". Spıke Radiomicrophone01:40 13-Aug-16

Eh? Nevermind, can you give me a Copy of the page so I can just copy paste it? I'll find a better place for it, thanks -SW50000 And by "Re-write" I meant not Re-uploading the page, I mean completly re-write it to find a joke

<I deleted the message, fell free to revert this if you wan't (I'll recreate it on another website)

edit Nonsensopedia

Hi. We currently are dealing with a troll on Nonsensopedia who creates accounts with names very similar to those of admins. I've tried to restrict creation of such accounts with Abuse Filter. I got it to match on his accounts (when I use "test on recent changes" feature), but it still doesn't prevent creating them. The filter uses action=="createaccount" and user_name variable to match (when I used accountname it didn't work) and is set to disallow. Am I missing something? Expert 3222 17:19, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Our comparable tool is Abuse Filter 13, which you can take a look at. I don't claim it works, as our comparable vandal has been gone for years, but I do notice that it doesn't use double-equals syntax. Spıke Radiomicrophone17:51 14-Aug-16
PS--The "test on recent changes" feature is problematic, because if the filter works, then it prevents changes, and they are not logged as recent changes, against which you can test future editions of a filter. Spıke Radiomicrophone18:01 14-Aug-16

Thanks for your tips! I will modify our filter according to them and let you know if it works when the vandal strikes back. Expert 3222 00:14, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work :/. I am no longer an admin on Nonsensopedia, so I can't show you full contents of the filter (it's private). Maybe VSTFs can fix the filter? I heard that they help with it. If so, where do I ask for help? I have seen a page on "spam filter problems", but it seems to be for overreacting filters, not for those not working (and even maybe not for local abuse filters, but for global phalanx filter). Expert 3222 12:27, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

In my last effort, I found no way to post a problem for VSTF to solve. You might use Special:ListUsers to list VSTF members with accounts here, along with indications of their level of activity, and post to the talk page of one or more of them. However, writing new stuff has more allure than debugging old stuff, especially at Wikia headquarters! I still have no good textbook on MediaWiki; I know what I know through observation, trial, and error; likewise what I know about the Abuse Filter; and have told you everything I know that might relate to the problem.
I saw you deleted the note on your user page about being Admin at pl:, though it was not clear whether you were de-opped or simply no longer wanted to advertise the fact. If you just walked away in favor of adminship here, you would have concluded that the returning vandal is someone else's problem. Was there a putsch? Spıke Radiomicrophone14:33 26-Aug-16

Yeah, but that wasn't main cause of the problem. Everything started two months after I arrived. Before that point everything was ok, but after... I was considered a good editor, but one of the admins (Runouw) started bullying me... Yes, you read correctly, admin was bullying an user. Nothing was done with that (excluding bureaucrat's warnings, but they didn't do anything and he didn't resort to anything more serious) until the start of 2016 year. The admin was outcast from community, theoretically for 3 months, and I was promoted to admin status. However, the punishment lasted only three weeks. On 21st January, conspirators (former admins and bcrats which have left the community before) created an RFC for our current bureaucrat (ZelDelet) to deprive him of his rights. We had admin meeting to discuss this problem and the issue of what will happen if they succeed was addressed. We decided that we need another bcrat, and despite neutral voting result and former bad behavior, he decided to restore Runouw's normal admin status and made her a bureaucrat. The RFC ultimately didn't change anything, but her bureaucrat status remained. I then started to annoy her and ZelDelet a little, because I was pissed off of this punishment reduction (and even promotion) and lack of reaction to her further bad behaviour. This continued until mid of July, where other users started to complain about me, how bad I am, and also ignored Runouw's bad behaviour (one of the main reasons was probably their desire for admin or bcrat status, and of course they had to kiss current bureaucrat's ass for rights). This REALLY pissed me off and I decided to remove my own admin rights and leave Nonsensopedia. However, I returned few days later, because they weren't even fully patrolling the recent changes (ZelDelet, who was probably the only admin that did it correctly, was on vacation (and hasn't yet returned to this day)) and I wasn't able mentally to just leave this as it is. The problem only got worse, to the point where I was cosidered the bad, and Runouw the better. There was literally no person who would say that her behavior was bad. I have decided to fuck this and left once more. I have edited a few things yesterday and today, because once again they couldn't do recent changes patrolling properly, and I am still considered bad. They also ignore my tries to make them aware of Runouw's bad behavior. I don't know if I will ever return to my full editing schedule there.

That's the full story, sorry for wall of text. If you didn't want for me to complain about other website, I'm sorry, I just wanted to let you know what happened. Generally speaking, Nonsensopedia is full of dramas and always was, the community is really, really toxic, and admin/bcrat rights mean A LOT here, to the point that conspirators hacked ZelDelet's account to give the rights to one of them. Expert 3222 09:34, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Normally I don't like soapboxing about affairs on other websites, but I did ask, and for the reason of understanding your Admin and workload situation. This is disappointing, because if the politics tacks (sailboating) in the other direction, you will once again be an esteemed Nonsensopedian and probably more eager to edit in your native language. Also, I read The Painted Bird once and know that disagreements in Eastern Europe usually result in corpses of family members.
Bullying, here? If I give a harsh ban for the sake of removing a nuisance, there are enough other Admins to intercede, as you have seen and as you have done! The way we should work is set down at UN:AD, where I also had help. My last harsh ban, documented below on this page, was to a user who had much more time to manufacture disagreement than to write comedy or even read about how to do it. My user page mentions a time of bossy Admins (I got a three-month ban for telling another user he was "sucking up" to me — asking questions he could not care about the answers to — strategically timed to precede an important website debate.) But all those Admins have famously withdrawn to a tree-house of their own.
Runouw is an Uncyclopedian in good standing with rollback power, has only contributed interwiki links and patrolling, and has not edited anything in a month. And you met Ptok under his new name. He might be the only Polish user in the Uncyclopedia:Hall of Shame (4½ featured articles).
My only personal advice about your situation on pl: is:
  1. On a wiki, you can sometimes expect that harm to you will be undone, but you should never wait for cosmic retribution and fit punishment of the guilty — nor quit when it doesn't happen. Making a scene because another editor hasn't been fairly punished is unlikely to succeed and will be seen as disruptive. A friend tells me, "I have Jewish Alzheimer's: You forget everything but the grudges." But you are too young for that.
  2. RFC here (in my personal subpages) stands for Request For Crapfest (= shit-storm) and it is where I put tussles with problem users so other readers don't have to slog through them.
  3. It is important to "compartmentalize," as they used to say about President Bill Clinton. I remeber discussions in the Forum that got polemic and personal, but when my adversary asked on a different page for comedy or coding help, I gave it. This is perhaps because we have no way of knowing how bad each other smells. If you were to write an article in mainspace and Runouw kibitzed, you should be prepared to discuss the edit with her without reference to the offsite problems. And you should not use your powers against her; Admins would be unanimous that "what happens there stays there" (tourism advertising slogan for Las Vegas, Nevada).
  4. Cliques here used to be vital because you could not nominate your own article on VFH so you needed a gang nominating each other's articles. That has ended, along with a lot of the other rewarding socializing. If cliques returned to the point of denying facts, I would step in to clarify. I had a comparable personal situation in the past (Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault) and what made me pursue it with such vigor was that a user was trolling me to ban her and then using it to assemble a dossier. Spıke Radiomicrophone14:47 27-Aug-16

Yes, Ptok is very good writer, both here and on Nonsensopedia. Runouw has done nothing wrong here so I'm not trying to convince you to remove her rollback or something (after all, I suggested that she should have it).

  1. You are probably right, but it's too late. I was just too pissed off to pretend that nothing happened (actually, I was doing nothing wrong until February 2016, where unfair punishment reduction and promotion combined with further bad behavior were just too much to withstand).
  2. On Nonsensopedia RFC is generally considered as a way to remove a bureaucrat from his position, and usually written to do it.
  3. Yeah, we were usually trying to separate personal and website problems, just endless quarrel-and-then-consent periods (we were never successful to bury the hatchet completely) have exhausted me and I decided to leave. And no, I wasn't going to abuse my powers in cases like the one you mentioned.

The only chance for my full return on Nonsensopedia is probably ZelDelet's return, because he's the only admin (and bureaucrat) that is not against me, so he could convince others to look at the issue from the different angle, instead of denying user's complaints in favor of bureaucrat's. Thanks for your advice. Expert 3222 23:50, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you reply to my messages in "Wikipedia templates merge" section? Thanks, Expert 3222 09:34, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

That will be next. Spıke Radiomicrophone14:47 27-Aug-16

edit Recent Irritable of contents ban

I've seen on Recent changes that you banned him because he again forgot to list deleted photos on QVFD. I don't think it's worth a week ban and would reduce it, especially since his mistake doesn't have very big impact, as there already are many unused files on this wiki. Sure, I understand that you want users to behave correctly and don't make any mistakes, but banning a good contributor for a week for things like that is in my opinion a bit too much. If you'll allow to reduce the ban, I will patrol his edits for deleted photos unlisted on QVFD, so you don't need to worry about it. Expert 3222 00:14, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you intervening; however, substituting a waste of your time for a waste of my time is not a solution. I banned him not for making this cluttered website more cluttered but for blowing off a rule that he obsequiously followed after, sigh!, the previous ban. He is a good editor but "contributor" implies also knowing this website is a group project, not a personal sandbox. If you are going to intervene, I hope it is not merely to clean up after him but to advise him, and I predict you will not understand his responses, in which case: Do not blame your English skills. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:31 15-Aug-16

edit Anons' user and talk pages

What about deleting them? I have started doing so (using a helpful script from Dev Wiki), but there are a lot of them (I assume it's more than 200). Of course if something is done intentionally (like, I'm going to leave it. Expert 3222 03:01, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Anons don't get user pages. Regarding talk pages, we are not supposed to give more help than encourage them to pick a user name. If someone has done that, there is no rush to delete them, as Anon is not required to return the very next day to check whether someone has invited him to join. I suspect the other Admins would tell you that we are not running out of space and these should not be deleted, at least sight-unseen by a script. If Anon helped on an article and his talk page sheds light on how the article came to be, that might be moved to the article's talk page. Spıke Radiomicrophone03:07 16-Aug-16

No, I didn't mean to delete them without looking at them. The script doesn't delete pages for me automatically, I can just click a button after visiting the page and reviewing its contents to delete it instantly (see script description here). Yes, space is not an issue, but it makes the wiki less crufted, as almost nobody will visit anons' pages. Expert 3222 03:17, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

edit Canada

I know this article is an FA, but it's heavily outdated and nowhere near as good by today's standards. There's some cruft in there, issues with flow, several images are oversized, etc. Have you thought about rewriting it at all?--HolUp (talk) 04:07, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

I don't rewrite FAs, and other Admins are more against it than I am. Being "outdated" you are always free to correct, as an FA can be brought up-to-date; likewise the sizes of images, although this is a hopeless cause as all our screen sizes are different. I know of many crufty FAs, including many of our supposed website in-jokes, and I don't lose sleep over them. If you are from Canada or believe this article is projecting a seriously crufty image of us to Canadians, take your concerns directly to Romartus (who is only an ocean away from Canada). Spıke Radiomicrophone04:19 18-Aug-16

edit User:Simsilikesims/UnNews:Trump responds to statues

I was hoping you could help polish this up, or let me know if it is okay as is. If you aren't familiar with AC/DC's song Big Balls, by the way, do a lyric search (much less bandwidth involved than looking it up on Youtube). -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 04:39, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

It does not belong on the service at all. It is a single paragraph, and any notion of amusing the reader is subordinate to the evident purpose of (1) promoting a specific YouTube and (2) inventing ridicule for Trump, exactly as the sculptors in the Source stories are doing. (Twenty years ago, a sculptor in Portsmouth, NH used a campaign of nude statues to defeat candidates she thought might stand in the way of her arts subsidies.) A better use of the song lyrics would not overcome these problems. There is no clever nexus to reality, as Trump has not conducted a campaign on nudity or with nudity, except for the bizarre "penis" remark at the start of one of the debates. Returned to your userspace to see if you can come up with a comedy strategy. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:41 19-Aug-16

(1)The YouTube video described does NOT exist, never has, and never will. (2)Trumps campaign also has not responded to this PR crisis, and the very idea that Trump would create a video of this kind is ridiculous, and so far fetched, unless the man actually loses his mind over this, that I thought it had the potential to be funny. His losing his mind however, would not be funny in the least, but would be sad and scary. On a related note, sexism hurts both men and women when it limits emotional expression.---- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:11, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the YouTube, but it still comes across as unclever ridicule, based on unclever ridicule in the Source. Spıke Radiomicrophone21:30 19-Aug-16
Yes, I guess that sums it up, then. I didn't think presidential candidates were off limits for ridicule, but I suppose I should have chosen something less obvious than a song about parties/balls that is basically an innuendo theme that runs throughout the entire song (and yes, there are videos with audio or lyrics of the song, but none on AC/DC's official VEVO page for some reason). The anarchists wanted not just to ridicule, but to humiliate Trump, and in my opinion they crossed a line. Not that similar tactics haven't been used before, as you mentioned, and also in World War II - see also the Wikipedia article titled "Hitler has only got one ball". It was a real song with lyrics used in World War II. Also, there is some precedent in Trump's campaign for dealing with ridicule regarding body parts - when people said he had small hands, he took pains to deny that he had small hands. So if he says he has balls, reacting to the suggestion on the statue base that he has none, he would probably say that he has big balls. Because Trump describes everything regarding himself as bigger and better, not just his plans for the economy or his proposed policies that he would set as president. This is not just a sign of confidence, but a sign of an inflated ego if he actually believes what he is saying. Nobody can be the best at every single thing they do. His expressing regrets, even in a general and vague manner, were a good first baby step, and a sign that he might have an iota of diplomatic skill. I just hope that, for everyone's sake, the regret was sincere. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:02, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
Of course, nothing is off-limits for ridicule. It simply ought to be clever and entertaining reading; otherwise you have Caster Semenya, a litany of ever-lengthening lists of a single androgyny joke, which I put on VFD today.
Whether or not Trump has balls is damned peculiar, given that his opponent definitely has no balls. It could be that she as President would conduct a ballsier (more assertive) foreign policy than even the Scoop Jackson wing of her party (R.I.P.), although if your aim is to replace a tyrant who was still Reagan's Bitch with riots in the streets, ballsiness is not a clear positive.
Trump's vagueness, tendency to hide inside superlatives, and apparent inability to state policy at greater length than 140 characters, is profoundly troubling. Hillary has character defects too, a quarter-century of them, even if a rock-solid FBI director now tells us that "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges, which can only mean that any reasonable prosecutor would now fear for his life. I cannot psychoanalyze either of these guys, but they are both full of humor potential. "What difference--at this point--does it make" is an absurd response that became the final zinger in UnNews:Ford building self-woman-driving car.
Trump's expression of regrets today is only a tiny bit of the comedy. On a day when he might have led the news claiming that Obama and Hillary lied about never paying ransom to Iran, or shaming Obama for playing golf while Baton Rouge flooded, what does the Trump campaign give us? A change of campaign managers; the hiring of two other executives, but for the express purpose not of making Trump reverse course but of keeping him free, to "let Trump be Trump." Then he promptly reverses course anyway, reading a statement of spontaneous regret from the TelePrompTer, just after denying that he is going to submit to handlers, the statement giving him absolution on the next hurtful tweet he elects to make.
There, that ought to be enough for a full UnNews! Spıke Radiomicrophone22:40 19-Aug-16
Unfortunately, that is too close to the truth, and I can't find anything funny in it. Not only that, but Trump has suggested to his followers that if he does not win the election, they should riot and/or overthrow the government. He did that by implying that if he did not win, cheating would have occurred. Also, he probably did not bring up Obama staying away from Louisiana because the governor of Louisiana told Obama to stay away, and that would've come up if he did. Hillary is not innocent either, given the way she ran her campaign against Bernie and hired the person responsible for essentially jury-rigging the system to prevent him from winning fairly. Moreover, had Hillary been military personnel rather than Secretary of State, she would have been court-martialed for the way she handled classified information. Rioting in the streets is certainly not a desirable outcome of the election, but because there has been so much hate and divisiveness on both sides, it seems like it will be inevitable no matter whether the Secretary of Bengazi-gate wins or Donald "Start a War" Trump. (The war, by the way, will probably be with Mexico, though it could just as easily be China.) Both candidates have angered a lot of people. Honestly, if I thought there was a real chance she could win, I'd vote for Jill Stein. But the crooked primary process has shown that nobody outside a major party candidate can possibly win. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:58, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
No, "UnNews:Trump contradicts himself" would be close to the truth and not funny. However, on any choice of UnNews, having Trump stroll in and contradict himself — and bringing in Hillary too for legalistic evasions — would add texture to the article that is both funny and relates to real life. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:01 20-Aug-16
PS--I don't believe Trump, in his continual petulance that any personal defeat is because the "system is broken," was advocating violence, any more than that you were, just now. Nor that he really advocated that the Russians help us penetrate the Hillary fog or that Second Amendment types shoot her. One obstacle to writing about Trump is that absurd misinterpretation of his remarks reads just like the deliberate hysteria daily from his opponents. By the way, Trump's nomination disproves that "nobody outside a major party candidate can possibly win." Jeb Bush had a $140 million war chest and it was supposedly his turn. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:41 20-Aug-16

edit Anarchy

Greetings Master Spike. Are you saying that if I behave like a good boy and rewrite the Anarchy introduction, removing the flowery description and making it more direct, that you'd consider voting to Feature the article? You know I like to please. SMBsig21:25, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

Flowery isn't the problem. Your comedy strategy seems to be to make fun of the unreadability of scholarly papers, and the result is largely unreadable. It doesn't so much need to be more direct but be more relevant to Anarchy, and not just in the Intro. I was not saying I would vote for it. But, yes, I would vote for it. And please mind whom you talk to; I am really not so hungry for your obedience, but merely for fine writing. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:36 23-Aug-16

edit Ohgodyes

edit Don't appreciate the tone of your "welcome"

Come on, do you honestly believe I am here to vandalize?

Are all of my edits crap?

And then you close your message with a the phrase "welcome"

So sorry you weren't amused... and I don't feel welcome.

ps I appreciate your feedback as to why you didn't find things funny Ohgodyes (talk) 19:01, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you are here to vandalize; otherwise I would have shut off your account entirely for some number of days. No, I do not believe all of your edits are crap. However, enough of them are crap that I elected to give you the {{Oh Dear}} canned welcome file rather than my more welcoming welcome file. The hypocritical closing is simply what is in the file.
My feedback was in my Edit Summaries, available by using the History tab. At Feminism, when you encountered the awful "believe that by believing" from a previous editor, you repeated "belief" a couple extra times. This is one Uncyclopedian ranting at another Uncyclopedian in the text of an article. It is only funny to you, its only comedy strategy is ridiculing a previous editor, and any new reader will see it as simply bad writing. Bipolar Girl is a Featured Article (voted to run on the website main page). These are presumed not to need new help from you being funny, especially by changing the author's photo caption describing exasperation so it read, "going completely batshit."
Sorry you don't feel welcome. Please read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and learn how to make edits that will not elicit a reaction that makes you feel unwelcome again. Spıke Radiomicrophone19:18 23-Aug-16

Your interpretation of my motive is completely innacurate..... guess that's why you missed the joke.... abd that the repition was only part of the joke.

FA or no FA, cussing or no cussing, my caption is funnier.... and I am guessing your judgments about cussing and your oh no we must preserve a FA kept you from... missing the joke.

I appreciate your willingness to share what was going on inside your head... Ohgodyes (talk) 19:34, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

I did not guess what was going on inside your head. All I did is evaluate its promise for new readers, also enforce a long-standing rule that protects all authors against having their FAs hacked by a newbie. It would work best if you did not guess on the state of my mind either. UN:AD. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:29 24-Aug-16
Hacked? lol now THAT's funny!
Twisting my words, then advising me to not do what you did, then denying that you did it- you're a hoot! Ohgodyes (talk) 11:09, August 24, 2016 (UTC)
You have now spent much more time manufacturing drama than you ever did writing funny stuff. Goodbye. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:20 24-Aug-16

edit Feminism

You reverted this [[1]] as well without comment.... I think it is funnier the current one.... what do you think? Ohgodyes (talk) 19:43, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

I think that your caption is merely an observation, whereas the former caption attempted some actual original humor, which is the business we are in. I also think that if you are reverted, even group-reverted, by an Admin, a wise thing not to do is to appeal for popular support on the article's talk page, as you did. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:24 24-Aug-16

edit Template:Title

I have removed the italic [from {{Title}} in iCarly] as it causes template to malfunction and display "null" instead of title. Expert 3222 23:21, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, HolUp has fixed it. It seems that your template only works with plain text. Expert 3222 23:22, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

I have noted this problem at Template:Title. However, it is used this way throughout Uncyclopedia. My guess is that I broke it when I edited MediaWiki:Common.js to recode this using jQuery. Will ask PuppyOnTheRadio to look at it. Spıke Radiomicrophone23:38 24-Aug-16

PS--Puppy now emails that he will try to review this over the weekend, but is still having issues gaining mobile access to Uncyclopedia. I added documentation to Template:Title that identifies the code in Common that makes the magic happen. Anyone is welcome to comment on whether the two-single-quote syntax to specify italics would break this code. Spıke Radiomicrophone01:03 25-Aug-16

PPS--I have a clue. Have seen that the double (or triple) single-quotes are translated into HTML tags <I> or <B>. But the non-jQuery portion of the code looks for the text of the child element of the DIV (which would be null, as the meat is now two nodes down in the Document Object Model). Am not enough of an expert to know the most elegant solution. Spıke Radiomicrophone01:20 25-Aug-16

I have edited Common twice in a way that seems damned elegant. I cannot see the effect in other tabs, even after purging, though it works when I open a Web Console and do it manually. Also, I cannot ask Wikia to certify my edits as non-malicious and publish them, because of my choice of browser, but you are welcome to do so (by clicking on Review status). In any case, if the bug is fixed, HolUp's edit to not use {{Title}} is not the best solution. Spıke Radiomicrophone01:44 25-Aug-16

I have requested a review. Expert 3222 02:20, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

edit Wikipedia templates merge

As I have seen, Uncyclopedia has {{Wikipedia}} and {{NoWikipedia}} templates, and both of them have a "parameter version" ({{Wikipediapar}} and {{NoWikipediapar}}). The problem is that parameter versions are redundant, as this functionality can easily be implemented in basic versions of templates by using {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}} check to insert custom page link if template is given an argument, and automatically insert current page link if not. The problem is it would require mass replace, but I believe it can be done with tool described here. What do you think? Expert 3222 08:00, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

The same applies to {{Wikia}} and {{Wikiapar}}, and also there is a possibility of unifying the no-link version of Wikipedia template ({{Wikipediaalt}}) by adding completely custom parameter to not display link and another check. Expert 3222 08:10, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

These templates are well-documented and everyone is using them. There is no problem at all in changing {{Wikipedia}} to let it have an optional second parameter, nor even in changing the documentation to state that this is the "preferred" way to code and that {{Wikipediapar}} etc. are "deprecated." Actually changing hundreds of pages for the sake of elegance seems unnecessary. Spıke Radiomicrophone11:02 25-Aug-16

Not to me, I would prefer to have just one good template instead of three others whose effect can be added with a few lines of code. But that's alright. I will upgrade the template and add relevant documentation without global replace. Expert 3222 18:51, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

My opinion that it would be helpful to allow for other forms of {{Wikipedia}} is uncontroversial. When my opinion is a statement of a long-standing rule (such as don't rework a Featured Article), I try to specify that. Now, I agree with you that it would have been nice if everyone had used {{Wikipedia}} instead of the alternative. But they did not; and, despite your best efforts, returning Uncyclopedians who don't read our conversation will not and it will be a continuing effort to convert them. However: This opinion is not Uncyclopedia official policy but Spike personal aesthetics. Also, the "unnecessary" disruption I imagined is minimized if you make the changes with a 'bot. Here is Uncyclopedia official policy: Those seeking to set out a single coding practice that differs from the historical practice should not ask a single Admin but open a Forum at Village Dump. Spıke Radiomicrophone20:00 25-Aug-16
I will probably open forum once I get a few more things to do with the bot. Expert 3222 10:18, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, I must admit I'm very excited to discover this tool. I have been always thinking how something like that would be useful. Do you have any task that requires bot-like edits (replacing category, removing redlinks from pages etc.)? I'd be very happy to learn to use this tool and help! Expert 3222 18:51, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tell me if there are any small things doable with bots, like mentioned redlink removal, replacing categories etc? Expert 3222 10:18, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to create the template without using {{#if:}} as it theoretically could be done with {{{parameter|default value if not specified}}}, but I have a problem. It doesn't work, even though mediawikiwiki:Help:Templates#Default values clearly says it should. I'm confused. Expert 3222 19:21, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

  1. If you are conducting a test within the template page, then any attempt to reference the template itself references the version stored in the wiki, not the version you are editing.
  2. Anton199 had problems last year with parameters in templates, though we never pinned it down sufficiently to report it to Wikia. Spıke Radiomicrophone20:00 25-Aug-16
Yeah, I know about 1, that's why I created the second page. The template works now, though I had to remove feature mentioned in my next post because it didn't work. {{{parameter|default value if not specified}}} syntax also doesn't work, but I have used basic {{#if:}} and it works. Expert 3222 10:18, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it to work. I have removed support for nolink parameter, as I wanted for it to activate if parameter was used without value or with value, and supplying both ways was too much hassle. I couldn't understand how to do it at all. Expert 3222 19:55, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

edit bis

Thank you for asking me to reply further. I think you should register ExpertBot and ask Wikia to set it as a 'bot. I don't know of any global edits we would need it to make right now; "harmonizing dialect" would have to be case-by-case as we allow articles to be written in any dialect of English unless clearly unsuitable to the subject; and even errors in English might be deliberate. It might be useful in order to manage our sprawling Categories, as you have already done a lot of. Spıke Radiomicrophone14:53 27-Aug-16

I have registered Expert3222Bot account as my bot. If I remember correctly, requesting a bot flag from Wikia requires community agreement (ie. opening forum). Expert 3222 00:01, August 28, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bot flag. What about removing redlinks to pages deleted on VFD using this bot? Expert 3222 09:28, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

That too is a value judgement. For example, if VFD deletes Rush Limbaugh before I get around to rewriting it, surely we would want it to stay red to invite people to create a page on this notorious talk radio host. Spıke Radiomicrophone14:54 28-Aug-16

edit Unlink dates globally

I have something for your 'bot to do. As I often write as Edit Summaries and to newbies' talk pages: Wikipedia does not link-ify dates (such as [[August 2]], [[1959]] or [[August]] [[2]], [[1959]]), and neither should we. Their thinking was that, encountering a description of something happening in 1959, it is very unlikely that the reader wants a single-click way of looking up everything else that happened this year. Uncyclopedia famously rejected excessive bold/italic/links to ridicule Wikipedia in favor of a faithful superficial rendition, so all these brackets should be removed. Spıke Radiomicrophone15:28 28-Aug-16

After many struggles with the program I've finally managed to get the bot working. You can see its contributions to verify that it's what you wanted. I've also applied a fix to the abuse filter which banned my bot for editing existing page, whereas its purpose was to ban for creating page. Expert 3222 23:52, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already found one false positive! In addition, in articles about decades or epochs, the above logic doesn't hold because the reader might well want to click a link to an individual year. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:01 29-Aug-16

I will probably just revert wrong edits. Expert 3222 00:09, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that instead of deleting links to anything that looks like a date, the bot delete links to anything that is red-linked, other than This page does not exist, anything on UN:REQ, anything linked in the Forums, or anything on a talk page, anything on VFD or VFD archives, or userspace. That should get rid of most of the links to dates/years. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:15, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

It won't, because most aren't red-links. Links like August 2 link to the Anniversary page, and we have a page on 1959. Above we discuss the problems with fixing all red-links, as some want to stay red to invite Uncyclopedians to create an article. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:24 29-Aug-16

It also seems that AutoWikiBrowser doesn't support detecting if links on page are redlinks, which is bad. Maybe there are some other "bot frameworks" what have this functionality. I'll search. Expert 3222 00:36, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
It seems that I didn't uncheck some options and my bot uploaded videos which were called by <youtube> tag. That's pretty advanced functionality I must say. I suppose that replacing <youtube> tag is desirable, but having videos in articles by themselves in many cases not. So, should my bot keep doing that? You can always delete videos afterwards if you want. Expert 3222 10:14, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

We are not a catalog (1) of funny stuff someone did elsewhere on the Internet, nor (2) of videos a devoted fan might want to watch. The two videos in question add no humor and should be deleted. It was not AutoWikiBrowser that did this; Wikia has been importing videos "to enable faster rendering" and forging a log entry to the first user to read edit the page. Spıke Radiomicrophone 11:49, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about these rules. So, you don't allow any videos at all? Regarding auto-replace: so if I had changed one letter in an article with <youtube> tag, Wikia would make my account automatically import the video and replace it? That's not good. Expert 3222 12:03, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

In fact, if you had changed one letter anywhere on the page.

Would you please take care of checking if videos uploaded by my bot (including this one already sent, added here) should be in the articles, and eventually deleting them and removing links? This is assuming that this website allows some videos, otherwise I can just delete everything. Expert 3222 09:37, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

That video was not original humor but an invitation to the reader to watch television. I have deleted it and edited the article in other ways. Spıke Radiomicrophone11:52 30-Aug-16

Thanks for reviewing it. Expert 3222 12:08, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Have now added policy guidance on not making dates into links, at Help:HowTo, citing WP:MOS:UNLINKDATES. Spıke Radiomicrophone13:12 30-Aug-16

edit Am logged off everywhere!

Separately, though they have not sent me email regarding Friday's bug, Wikia has succeeded in logging me off on all PCs. Spıke Radiomicrophone 11:49, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

Are you auto-logged off every time you try to edit something or simply one-time logout? If first is the case, you might try logging on community central (though I'm not sure if it works anymore, as Wikia has changed the login system). Expert 3222 12:08, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

The logout is not the problem; it is the change in the login system. Older browsers cannot get in. I have reported this to Wikia and been told to change browsers (and discard customization including the option of running without JavaScript and images, possibly discard operating systems and hardware, and pay vastly higher connect charges) (perhaps inconceivable to you, as I hear that Poland has amazingly low utility rates). In other words, work around the problem so that the engineers don't have to fix what they broke, a response as dismissive as the previous bug report, when I reported Admins' dissatisfaction with the "cookie-cutter" Uncyclopedia Community Page. PS--Nothing on Twitter about any JavaScript malfunction; only a tweet about how marvelous it is to work for a company that lets you bring your dog to work. (Wikia is also leading the fight against Income Inequality!)

Don't tell them! On one of my PCs (the one with side-by-side two-foot-wide displays), I am able to log on. The login screen does not give confirmation, and in fact throws an error, but it does create the necessary cookie. Oddly, it does not log me in at pl:, where I don't understand the current RFC even after Google Translate. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:31 30-Aug-16

I have experienced bad translating from English to Polish, but I think vice versa is good enough. If you want, I can translate whole RFC for you (and paste it on for example or just summarize it. What do you like more? Expert 3222 02:11, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Neither, thanks; I understand the basics, don't need to know the details, and you have better things to do with your time than prepare a report for me! Again, you guys are all Uncyclopedians in good standing and should not let disagreements cross over to here. Spıke Radiomicrophone03:02 30-Aug-16

edit Table of contents not opening up

It seems like the TOCs on articles aren't opening up. Is this another coding error?--HolUp (talk) 05:42, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Some don't and some do (for example, VFD). Can you see a pattern? I made two edits to MediaWiki:Common.js early on 25-Aug UTC (to fix {{Title}}) which should be in effect globally, but I can't see any syntax error that would take down other code. Friday, I called into Wikia the fact that our JavaScript patrol tools aren't working. Spıke Radiomicrophone05:50 28-Aug-16

edit User:Sunny bacon/sig

I have deleted this page, as the author has blanked it. However, in the hindsight, I don't know if I should have done this, as it has created a few template redlinks where the user has signed his messages. If I had left the page blanked, there wouldn't be any redlinks, but user's signature wouldn't be displayed. Though, if I am right, policy is that user can blank or request deletion of any page in his userspace. So, what should I do? Expert 3222 08:04, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Blanking a signature file has disruptive effects on a variety of conversations. I would probably have unblanked it. Likewise for Osama bin Dipesh except that he never actually used it. Spıke Radiomicrophone11:52 30-Aug-16

I have undeleted the signature and reverted the blanking as you advised. Regarding Osama bin Dipesh, his talk, user and signature pages were created by other users before he even registered an account. Expert 3222 12:07, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be sockpuppetry (OBD42) going on here. It was years ago, but OBD42 created a variety of junk templates and categories. I do not see evidence that he ever wrote funny stuff. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:53 30-Aug-16

edit Yes (band)

In 2014, user M00rglade edited this FA. Rather than just updating the article with information on their newer albums, he added a bunch of extra (some would argue superfluous) detail, toilet puns, and cryptic in-jokes (i.e. one relating to three-layer cake, and another with the band members transforming into animals) to the article, which arguably changed the article's comedy strategy drastically.

I've gone through the article, keeping his edits that I think were additions rather than comedy strategy changes. However, it's proving to be tiring and cumbersome. Do you recommend reverting back to the 2010 FA version, or do you like the article as-is?--HolUp (talk) 03:49, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

We (Romartus and I, I think) agreed with his edits under the "bringing an FA up-to-date" thing, as Yes continued to tour and release new albums. This covers writing about the new events, but not changing the FA author's comedy strategy nor inserting cryptic new stuff. Such stuff as he added has not been voted as Feature material. You are free to improve it, and thanks for setting out in your Edit Summaries what you were doing (though one Uncyclopedian ought not use the Summaries to rant about another).
If he did some good work, wiping it away is harsh and not in the spirit of collaboration (though he never got into writing funny stuff beyond Yes and their solo acts). However, if he rewrote Yes concerts and albums made before the article became an FA, and not for the much funnier, you are fully justified in copypasting those sections back to the FA version. Spıke Radiomicrophone04:01 31-Aug-16
PS--I set iCarly back to using {{Title}}. It spits out HTML on the browser tab and window bar, but I have installed a fix in Common.js, which will take effect as soon as someone can request Wikia to approve it. However, this might be broken too, along with everything else that broke last Friday. Spıke Radiomicrophone04:15 31-Aug-16

edit Methodists

I cut the external links and religious conundrums for the Methodist page under construction and the page is more balanced now. I think the joke gets derailed quickly, trying to forcibly marry disparate needlessly in depth trivia's after more than a couple of paragraphs, but it works for a little bit and I can't think of anything else to remove that isn't just all of it. Irritable of contents (talk) 04:06, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

What a relief! it looked on RecentChanges as though you were blanking it. Spıke Radiomicrophone04:10 31-Aug-16

edit Georges Danton

I see you ran with that idea! Good work, guess we need a couple of more pix.--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:44, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was fun; thanks for the excuse to read up on the French Revolution! Spıke Radiomicrophone13:39 8-Sep-16

edit "Discussions" feature

It looks like Wikia is planning to replace Forums with something called Discussions in the not so distant future. More details here: Introducing Discussions (Wikia) One thing I can see that will be helpful with the new Discussions feature is that it will be easier to lock discussion topics. I am not sure if mobile compatibility will be helpful with our site or not, since we do not get many mobile editors here, but we may get more mobile readers than we think. (It looks like Wikia is really pushing those tablet devices!) Unlike many wikis that are based on movies, toys, or entertainment topics, we don't have a waiting period until new content comes out, so that part is largely irrelevant to us, as speculation on "new features" or "new releases" is completely pointless on a humor wiki. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 23:04, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, joy, another new way to enable us to do what we have been doing in a different way for eleven years.
Wikia famously claims (was it on your site visit?) that half the accesses are through mobile devices (except for Puppy, who can't get his to work).
The problems cited by Wikia for Forums include mobile (which doesn't mean you can't use a Forum with a mobile browser, but that it isn't as smooth as using an app) and the fact that site search still sucks, and doesn't search Forums at all. (Fix it!) (Is this even true?)
No, we are not dealing with movies that are not out yet, but we have the same need for a place for meta-text (such as conversations on how to improve things), and article talk pages and Forums work fine.
Cristina, meanwhile, mistakes correlation for causation and claims that Discussions induces readers to become more active on the wiki, when an equally plausible explanation is that readers predisposed to become more active are the ones who use Discussions. The War On Drugs uses the same illogic. The big benefit of Wikia is that it keeps so many control freaks and fuzzy thinkers from going up to Sacramento and writing their impulses into state law to further grind California to a halt. Spıke Radiomicrophone12:47 10-Sep-16

edit Javascript question

In our Common.js we have a function to allow viewing specific template element only when user in a sysop, using css display parameter. The code is as follows:

function EKNuke() {
    1 == inGroup("sysop") && $(".nuke").css("display", "inline")

How do I make it also work for content moderators (content-moderator group name)? I tried using || in the parenthesis, but it didn't work. I don't understand what 1 == does (probably some sort of if, but I don't know how exactly it works). Expert 3222 21:25, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

In this environment, there is no inGroup(), so I can't tell you what parameters yours accepts. The MediaWiki object is wgUserGroups, which is an array of strings listing the groups the user is a member of. I don't know what it has for content moderators, but a content moderator could probably tell you.
The 1 == seems like a perverse way to code if/then. If the first element were 0 (because you are not in the group "sysop"), then JavaScript would know it is unnecessary to evaluate the second element to find the result of && and would not call $(). That's all I can do for you. Spıke Radiomicrophone00:04 14-Sep-16

Thanks for your explanation. I have managed to primitively recode it. It works for me if I enter this in the browser console.

function EKNuke() {
    var isSysop = wgUserGroups.indexOf("sysop");
    var isContentModerator = wgUserGroups.indexOf("content-moderator");
    if (isSysop != -1 || isContentModerator != -1) {
        $(".nuke").css("display", "inline");

Is everything right? Expert 3222 19:57, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Have also found inGroup() function:

function inGroup(a) {
    var b = 0;
    for (i in wgUserGroups) wgUserGroups[i] == a && (b = 1);
    return b

Expert 3222 19:58, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, probably just adding another line with 1 == inGroup("content-moderator") && $(".nuke").css("display", "inline") would work. And sorry for spamming your talk page, you can move this to mine if you want. Expert 3222 20:14, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

I always like using if when one means if. You seem to have found content-moderator separately. Performing a variable assignment as a side-effect of a conjunction means cryptic coding remains, even after the cryptic coding you cleaned up! Spıke Radiomicrophone20:16 15-Sep-16
for (i in wgUserGroups) if (wgUserGroups[i] == a) { return true };
return false;

edit Request for generational articles

Since we already have a great article on Baby boomers, do you think it'd be possible for you to create an article on Generation X, or possibly even Millennials? Wikipedia and other website are ripe with comedy strategies.--HolUp (talk) 00:48, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

It would even be possible for you to create it, at which time asking for a review might lead to collaborations. On my own list is a save of Rush Limbaugh from VFD; then a new user correctly noted that a lot of Greece is ranty and mean-spirited, though his stuff was no better. This all occurring after I appeal to Wikia about the fact that a lot of our JavaScript broke yesterday, and maybe another try to get them to debug Login so it works with my preferred PC despite its legacy browser. Spıke Radiomicrophone14:11 26-Aug-16
I am hoping to have something on Breitbart at the Alt.Right comedy website. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:12, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Yikes! But no less promising than asking me to write about Millennials.... Spıke Radiomicrophone17:14 26-Aug-16

I'd say the alt-right in general deserve an article of their own. They're making waves.--HolUp (talk) 23:44, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton has made it an issue, chiefly to play guilt-by-association against Trump, as never seems to be done against her and the contributors to the Clinton Family Tip Jar. I don't think the KKK or David Duke are making real news, but in any case, the term has begun "trending" and we ought to have an article. Just mind Poe's Law! Spıke Radiomicrophone14:56 27-Aug-16

edit =Millennials

I've began an article here. Feel free to provide suggestions.--HolUp (talk) 20:04, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

A good start, you beat me to post it on {{Recent}}. As always, I would restructure the Intro to have a better chance of hooking the reader. The comedy point of the first paragraph — that millennials have a series of traits, or else they don't — is good, but very non-committal. Appearing first, it makes the reader wonder whether the page has a point to make or whether it is going to be filled with dithering. Avoid the list of synonyms in the first sentence, though you might have a similar sentence later on regarding other things they are called. Even here, it would be better if you did not rely on the mere listing to be funny by itself but fleshed it out. For instance, what is the implication of the synonym? Is it ironic and really not true at all? Also, your table seems to make the point (over and over) that the way Millennials are treated leads to perverse results. This might also be better done drawn out into prose. (The full scolding is at UN:LIST.)
Some of this material is simply documenting how ridiculous Millennials are. Although a lot of sentences make me nod and sympathize, but sometimes there is absolutely no humor added. With Millennial sexual practices (another list), I felt you were cataloguing and not writing humor. EStop has written several articles about Yorkshire towns and Yorkshire yuppies, but he goes into such detail (what they drive, what they order at restaurants) that it gives texture to it. You need anecdotes with rich detail.
Delving into the History section, there is another list — a long one — full of events (wars, blowjobs, etc.) from around 2000. Another thing that is missing is any notion of how these events led to the dysfunction of an entire generation. (Don't let it read as though you are speculating; make firm assertions, even if on analysis they are outrageous.)
Finally, avoid contractions (they're) and avoid "encyclopedia clichés" such as "is known to be." Keep going! Spıke Radiomicrophone20:42 20-Sep-16
Personal tools