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 It is I

Cheers for sorting that out Spike. I'll see if I can get to work on the UnNews this evening. SirScottPat VFH NotM WotM WotY UotM 16:58, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

edit Categorizing Beginner's Guide articles

The first few sub pages of Uncyclopedia:Beginner's Guide/Overview/old aren't really as helpful as Uncyclopedia:Beginner's Guide/Overview, but starting with Beginner's Guide/Time they get more useful and they are part of the Beginner's Guide category; so perhaps they should all go together. Someone else on the talk page for the new overview suggested it be added to the BG category, which I think is a good idea because the term redirects there. There seems to be a lot of overlap between the Beginners Guide and Ignorable policies, but I figured stuff like formatting votes is less important for beginners; showing up just to vote but not edit articles seems an unlikely first step, but than again so does not signing up for a username and voting, which is what the half vote is for. I also think the ban policy is one of the first things a beginner should read, not that it will do much good to prevent intentional vandalism, but it should get categorized to prevent accidents. What do you think? Irritable of contents (talk) 17:14, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Admins reworked the Beginner's Guide at the start of this year. The reason the old one is at old is that it is old but, as part of the website's history, we elected not to trash it altogether. This means it doesn't need new navigation tools to help find it, as the reader should have found the new one. A single consolidated page is not the solution, as many Uncyclopedians have criticized me for taking that approach at UnNews:Style. Also, what to do is a better first lesson than either what not to do or how long we will ban you if you do it anyway. If you would like to improve the encyclopedia and not merely get paid attention to, please concentrate less on helping us reorganize it, perhaps in favor of the two projects in your userspace, paying heed to How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, which tries to define "Funny" from the reference point of the reader. Spıke Radiomicrophone17:33 4-Jul-16

edit Ban

Why did you block StarmanW for 3 months when he didn't do anything bad? I assume this block wan meant for IP ranting on the site, so a fix probably is necessary. Expert 3222 17:58, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Yikes! You assume correctly. This is now undone and I have apologized to him. Well-spotted! Spıke Radiomicrophone18:17 4-Jul-16

edit Feature import

We have JS code on Nonsensopedia which shows the page's protection level under its title line, on the right. It certainly helps to quickly check if page is protected without having to dig through the history. What do you think about implementing it here? Expert 3222 13:48, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. Non-Admins don't care. (If they do, they can't do anything about it. Their "Edit" tab may read "View source".) Admins can already see it, as your new "Protect" tab will read "Change protection". Spıke Radiomicrophone15:16 20-Jul-16

edit Melania

You probably missed this article while looking through recent changes. It looks suspicious to me, like some sort of cyberbullying, but I'm not sure. Expert 3222 22:01, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to give Irritable of contents autopatrolled rights. He makes good edits and patrolling them is annoying. Expert 3222 22:04, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
Made the change and added rollback rights. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:13, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
Regards the article, that is Melanie Trump isn't it? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:26, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
Irritable in the early days also made a ton of bad edits; namely, inserting cryptic hints into articles that only he would know the answer to. I wanted to review each individually. Am not sure he has advanced beyond this, as it is still all about him, often.
Melania is an unflattering reference to the wife of Donald Trump by casting her as a disease. It could be a promising comedy concept. Melania is a public person and thus not protected by our cyberbullying rules; the problem is that insults without humor are not humor. There is nothing particularly laughworthy about her, as the only way we know her is through her obligatory speech about him at the Nominating Convention. Probably should have a tag attached; it should not stay in the encyclopedia at its current length. Spıke Radiomicrophone22:30 22-Jul-16
I am working on it if the initial author doesn't return. I will ask them on their talk page. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:51, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
What you gave it was exactly what it needed, playful references to real life. I put it on {{Recent}}. No need for the author to approve, if he is going to stick it in mainspace. By comparison, Anon just wrote a single mean paragraph at Mariah Carey with a beg for others to do the heavy lifting, and I deleted it. Spıke Radiomicrophone22:59 22-Jul-16
Personal tools