From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Hello, Saddex, and thanks for joining Uncyclopedia! Before editing further, please take a gander at our Beginner's Guide. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, check out the following pages:
- About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
- Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue
- Votes for Highlight Page - read the very best articles and have your say about what goes onto our front page
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the community forum or in the chatroom, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, our Adopt-a-Noob program can bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! -- 05:51, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
edit Vandal attack
Apparently our returning vicious vandal didn't take kindly to your reverting him on your own article. That's how vandals are, unfortunately, and we hope you will stay and become a regular contributor. Feel free to revert any cyberbullying the vandal did towards you on sight. They usually attack users who they think have potential. -- 05:51, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I know. A administrate a wiki myself. But his vandal is the most persistent I have ever seen. He must be really mad at Uncyclopedia. Nah, I don't think he targeted me. He wrote false quotes about the wiki admins and seemed to believe it was them that reverted his edits. I think he chose my page, because it was new and appeared on the activity feed. (Saddex (talk) 16:43, May 16, 2013 (UTC))
- And did you notice that his Change Summaries began to single you out for mention?! Indeed, I don't take his mention of me personally, but I don't think he is mad at Uncyclopedia either. His need for attention--focusing on individuals who happen to be working the website at the time--is quite separate from anything that actually happened to him! 16:57 16-May-13
- To answer the first half would be (more) amateur psychiatry. To answer the second half: Because we instantly block any individual IP from which he vandalizes. 17:12 16-May-13
Regarding Talk:London, I'll tell you something you may already know, being an Admin but not necessarily an Admin of a MediaWiki site: You need not edit the document and identify and remove the vandalism; using the History tab, you can recover the version of an article as of any desired edit. Happily, the Wolverhampton/Diarrhea vandal marks his work CLEARLY. 19:57 16-May-13
- Yep, I am very familiar with that feature, since I administrate a gaming wiki also on wikia on my other account. The problem was that he did a series of edits, and I know about the rollback rights. Only a few people have them.
Rollback is not airtight, as this vandal uses several threads and works from lists that intersect, so frequently he vandalizes the same page from different IPs. He was back again last night and unpatrolled edits extend past the end of a RecentChanges listing, meaning that in the absence of careful editing plus manual marking, vandalized pages will pop up in the report again after we work down the damage.11:29 17-May-13
Saw you ask Simsie for recommendations on this. I have been patrolling some of your edits and thus watching this article take shape. I am not a gamer, but if League of Legends is not real but is something you invented in order to get its abbreviation to be LoL, then you are in the difficult position of writing an encyclopedia article that no one will ever look for. Fiction from whole cloth can be done here, but satire about real things is what our Wikipedia-motif site is really for. So underlying each of the characters you created is the question: Why does the reader care? If this is a take-off on an existing game, I (and perhaps the typical reader) need more hints.
That said, some of the article's conclusions (the characters are losers, the game is buggy, everything sucks) are opinions that read as unencyclopedic. You should be gently leading the reader to these conclusions rather than stating it overtly.
Finally, you might want to avail yourself of Rev. Pennyfeather's proofreading service. Hope this helps!13:06 17-May-13
- Link for proofreading: Uncyclopedia:Proofreading Service. Active user: User:Reverend P. Pennyfeather. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:15, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, League of Legends is a real game, search on google and you'll find tons of results. The gameplay I describes is just fiction, it's not even close to the gameplay of the real game. I find the game funny, but it's also funny to make a comedy about it. Also, the characters are just called "losers", it isn't said that they are losers.
Thanks; I stand corrected on this. Simsie is our gamer and you were wise to ask her instead.13:54 17-May-13
- May I ask you too what you think about the logo I photoshopped today? It usually looks like this. (Saddex (talk) 14:05, May 17, 2013 (UTC))
Simsie is advising you now on her talk page. Although I am not a gamer, the other two parts of my recommendation remain valid: (1) That you gently lead the reader to a conclusion rather than stating it un-encyclopedically, and that (2) you solicit proofreading. On the logo, I am not able to judge how well it plays against the original.01:11 18-May-13
I have decided to nearly rewrite the gameplay section, since the gameplay I described is too far from the actual gameplay. I also added a "History" section, read it if you are interrested. (Saddex (talk) 23:22, May 18, 2013 (UTC))
- As above, I am not going to be your best reviewer; nor apparently is Simsie up-to-speed with this particular game. As for being "too far from the actual gameplay," do whatever is funniest. It is not necessary that you accurately teach the game; only that you check in with it, once in a while, so that it is clear you are not writing about nothing.
- Anyway, I'm looking at the "History" section:
- Calling the company "evil" is not encyclopedic and is not funny; it's one of those conclusions you should lead your reader to, rather than state yourself.
- Use double-spacing for paragraphs. Never use
- The second paragraph is not quite English.
- The emphasis on conflicts within the development team might be funny to those individuals in the development team, but is not funny to the rest of us; we have no way even to know if it is true or not.
- Having gotten to the end of this, if you are writing this to air grievances against your current or former employer,
please take up knitting instead!23:32 18-May-13 Sorry! That sounds horribly like I am suggesting to you activities other than Uncyclopedia. All I mean is to change the emphasis and broaden the appeal. Cheers! 02:08 19-May-13
- Lol, I have never been employed by Gazprom. I just selected a random big company. I will add some details that shows that the statements in the history section are just lies.
Your article notes, in the video section, that Uncyclomedia is not available to let you upload video. Members have debated this before; it is not that it is unavailable but that video file types are not supported. The closest you can get is an animated GIF, as at Hanuman. Please abandon efforts to turn this article into a TV show, with either uploads or links to YouTube, and continue to focus on original writing. 22:07 22-May-13
- Nope, I couldn't access the site at all. Ok, then I skip the video. (Saddex (talk) 22:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC))
You are certainly permitted to nominate an article. Just go to VFH and follow the directions carefully. (Adding a comment to the talk page, by comparison, accomplishes little.) I knew I wouldn't vote for this after reading the Intro. It's a very old article when we have good new stuff being written. It says mean things about Apple that aren't so much clever but you'll like them if you already hate Apple. Section 1 ("greedy capitalist society...shit tons of useless gadgets...shove into their genitalia") ensures that I will vote against; I don't want this rant on our main page. 00:43 20-May-13
Were you the one who created a page without logging on and asked someone else to put some content into it? Did you see it (before I deleted it!) and decide to do an article? If so, thanks!00:37 23-May-13
edit Pee Review
The link is here: Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/League of Legends. I have reviewed the League of Legends article. Now please review another article on pee review that someone else requires to be reviewed to ensure the well-being of pee review. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:55, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this review much appreciated. Just a few replies to your posts.
- Strike in this sense meant a labour workforce strike in which workers refuse to go to work in an attempt to gain better wages.
- I shall get my article proofread by The Reverend to eliminate spelling errors.
- Ahh..you meant so? Maybe, a few more details should be added. Also, you can add an Oscar Wilde quote, or something, at the top. (Saddex (talk) 13:56, May 29, 2013 (UTC))
No, don't fall into that trap. We are trying to limit the number of articles with quotes and Oscar Wilde quotes should not be used unless where absolutely necessary. Quotes do not look encyclopedic. Only put a quote at the top of an article if you think it really needs one. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:59, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the Oscar Wile quote on my article, instead I replaced it with a Russian reversal. (Saddex (talk) 14:09, May 29, 2013 (UTC))
I prefered the Oscar Wilde quote on your article better just attribute the quote to someone more relevant to your article like on of the characters or the guy who made it. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 14:14, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
edit Hey Saddex.
- I saw the reverted edit, and indeed, I didn't ask for that right. Although, the rest is probably true. I didn't find Uncyclopedia before April this year, and found that it was probably among the best satire-sites I have ever seen. Yes, I am interrested in games and computers. I did my first build 1½ months ago. It's running fine. (Saddex (talk) 14:38, October 8, 2013 (UTC))