From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit "It's" versus "Its"
- Much as I appreciate you appreciating, may I suggest you either
- Scrotum 23:09, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Another classic Uncyclopedia moment..... --
OK. Since you haven't appeared on IRC, I'll leave this message for you here.:
I banned you to make a point about civility. I thought that you were making a genuine mistake between "its" and "it's", and in my capacity as an admin, tried to point you in the right direction. The reply I recieved (edit summary:"(Poor idiot)") was unneccesarily aggressive as far as I was concerned. Also, had I realised you were replacing "it's" on purpose I probably would have reverted your edits anyway; it's not the kind of "joke" many people will tend to notice, as there was nothing to distinguish your deliberate edit from a common mispelling. Chances are, if I hadn't reverted it, some "helpful" user would have at some point.
Incidentally, I blocked you after conferring with another admin, and it was yet a third admin who deleted your article. Since this essentially boils down to a misunderstanding, I'm going to unblock you now in the hope that you see my point.
- Sure, no worries. By the way, just to set the record straight, the first two deleted articles were not mine. Scrotum
- ...and neither is the ultra-hilarious one that somebody else has just started. Scrotum 23:09, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Ok, dude, it was a cool off period for what was obviously a very confrontational argument. It's not a mark on your life or anything. So chill. Sending angry letters to ALL the admins was.. slightly excessive, mind you? --Chronarion 01:00, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Excessive maybe, but hey there's an upside: Scrotum has drawn me back into the fold (pun not intended, but nontheless amusing) after I'd all but forgotten about the big Un. Silver linings and all that, no? --Gadgeophile 01:18, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Spam is spam is spam. Don't do that again. The others are the "nice" admins. --SilentConsole 01:23, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ah right good point. Missed the whole good cop/bad cop vibe you had going on. --Gadgeophile 01:39, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the lovely adminspam. Did you email all 40? Some multiple times. Dude, get a life. --Splaka 01:26, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Due to chronarion's sense of humor, you are on probation... do not spam people about what really is a trivial problem, especially when the issue is your inablities. 24 hours is mild. -SilentConsole 02:21, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Right. Sorry for spamming and all, but I couldn't make my point publicly (or didn't know how to). Also apologies if I offended anyone, but to be honest I can't understand anyone taking himself or anyone else seriously enough to be offended by anything around here. Anyway, can I ask you what was wrong with the article its that you deleted? Did it violate any policies or anything? If not, can you please put it back? Thanks. Scrotum 07:52, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Aw, I thought I was special, to get an email asking for my help. But even if I'm just a minor deity in the Uncyclopedia pantheon, I hear your prayer, and respond to your questions:
Hi there, Please look at my talk page and let me know if you consider my reply enough for Codeine to 1) Ban me for 24 hours for "Rudeness and uncivil behaviour" 2) Remove my perfectly valid article its 3) Being such a dick
- My answers:
- 1) Since this isn't Wikipedia, our standards for banning depend on several factors, ranging from the admin's mood to his/her Tequila intake. I'd say you're lucky you didn't really upset him.
- 2) I looked at your article, and failed to laugh. I think it looks a little *too* factual. Maybe if you add an Illuminati conspiracy theory, or some helpful information about the Underpants Gnomes' attempt to corner the punctuation market.
- 3) Judging from my experience (ie, they picked me), Uncyclopedia admins are required to have a very low threshold between "being civil" and "being a dick/twat/indeterminate genital". Miscapitalizing an article title is enough for me to become a dick, so I can only imagine where the line is drawn in Codeine's mind.
I'm sorry if you didn't find my article funny. Personally, its being "factual", as you put it, and its not containing any unoriginal and nonsensical aliens is why I actually like it. It's also not stating the exact opposite of the truth, and therefore even more misleading.
But this is not the point, is it? I dislike many things on the Unciclopedia—first among others the Wilde quotes. But do I go around removing them? No, because otherwise I wouldn't be any different from a vandal.
So anyway, is there any objection to me reinstating the page? Thanks, and sorry again for the mishap. Scrotum 21:48, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- And as someone who only checks his email only on alternate tuesdays, let me add my late rambling bit:
- I saw your edits. I skimmed your contributions. I hovered over the delete/ban/send the goons over to beat some sense into that moron keys. Then I said, "Eh, fuck it. I've got work to do. I bet either Carlb, Rcmurphy, or Codine will ban the hell out of that idiot". It wasn't the its article that pissed me off - it was the additions of the link to a thousand different pages. A few words in every article should link elsewhere. Not every single word like on Red Page. Before you self-promote on twenty different pages, make sure of two things:
- A) That your article is well done, and people appreciate it.
- B) That you're helping and not just making a mess.
- When in doubt, ask an admin. While we'd rather ban people, we'll offer advice and help if forced to. 00:46, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
If adding one single link to (not a thousand, and not even twenty) other pages was the problem, then surely the links would have gone and the article would have stayed, which is exactly the opposite of what happened. Also you may have missed that in my first round of "self-promotion" (with non-misspelled links), the edit comment was "I hope you don't mind :-)".
- Can't complain now. Its (sic) gone now. Your article was unsuitable IMO because it was reminiscent of an aggressive grammar lesson. Doesn't fit in so well with the other generic insanity here.--Sir Flammable KUN 08:41, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I thought that creativity and originality were encouraged around here. If what I write has to "fit in well with the other generic insanity", otherwise it's nuked, then I'd rather not write at all. That's not creativity, that's stalinism. Do I have to wear a uniform when I write?
I quote from How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid
- However, this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. We're not writing "the Truth" (or "Neutral Point of View") here, so the important thing is whether a given individual article is entertaining/interesting in its own right, on a stand-alone, individual basis. In fact, it can be great to have, across different articles within a topic area, a different viewpoint in each article. It keeps the creative juices going for the introduction of fresh ideas and a variety of perspectives and approaches. As well, what's entertaining can vary from reader to reader. Maybe a reader who wouldn't find the first viewpoint on a topic area as expressed in Article 1 funny might find the second or subsequent viewpoints on that topic area in Articles 2, 3, etc. funny. Also, if you try to keep to one storyline across articles just for the sake of consistency, there's the possibility that some of the various linking articles in the series may become boring, unfunny articles that aren't interesting on an individual-article basis
I still fail to understand which rules "my" article violated. Scrotum 19:32, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
edit A question of Rules
- We don't have rules - we have guidelines. And not all of them are written down. And some of the ones written down are satire, and not meant to be followed. Using pages on a website full of misinformation and lies as a resource to figure out proper behavior is kind-of silly, don't you think? Basically, you were the unfortunate victim of not understanding one unwritten rule, and two written ones:
- Unwritten Rule: Thou shalt not spam stupid-ass links across many articles.
- The fact that you missed this is understandable. Many people miss this one. Depending on how nice the admin is feeling, they will either get a note on their talk page (like you did) or an insta-ban for a short while. Here, an admin was being nice.
- Written Rule #1: Thou shalt not give the admins lip.
- Your first true mistake, after an admin nicely decided to inquire about your stupid-ass link spamming instead of instantly banning you. If an admin is communicating with you instead of banning, you, it's best to politely communicate back.
- Written Rule #2: Talk to thine offended Admin.
- If you don't like what an admin has done, ask them why. They are pretty reasonable, generally. Spamming all of the admins with a whiney email is not cool, and will irritate the bunch of us.
- Unwritten Rule: Thou shalt not spam stupid-ass links across many articles.
- A wiki is all about communication. Even if we're trying to communicate misinformation and lies, there has to be a standard of language in order for that communication to happen. If we throw out all rules of spelling and grammar on every page, then this site becomes a cesspool of intelligble mush. We get pissy about massive lingustically incorrect edits because we need some standard of language for this site to work. One page of incorrect lingustic information is fine. In fact, we encourage it. Spreading that to other pages begins to decrease the overall ability of this wiki to spread our misinformation.
- Aditionally, Admins here look long-term. While simply changing some grammar on ten or twenty pages doesn't seem like a big deal, you're not the only one who's thought of this. And when someone else comes along and sees those changes, they might decide that "their" will be the standard spelling of "they're" and "there", and start making those changes to a number of pages. While it's innocent now, we've had other such things start to become widespread, and really screw this site up. Our goal is to look good, and look authoritative. If our pages spiral downward into unintelligible quasi-english articles, we no longer parody an encyclopedia. We parody Encyclopædia Dramatica. And that's a bad thing. 16:20, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Misspelled links. I take your point. Though I think one non-misspelled link ("it's" correctly spelled, but pointing to its, or "its" pointing to its) in each page would still be acceptable. That is what I did in the first round. Anyway as I said I accept that the second round (same links, but misspelled) was one step towards cesspitland.
- Give the admin lips. Sort-of fair enough, though I didn't have a clue that Codeine was an admin, and the first contact didn't sound like a warning at all. Anyway, I think that incident has been clarified now.
- The article itself. I don't mean to be annoying, but I'll ask again: can I please have the article back? If not, why? Thanks Scrotum 17:54, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, I'd just restore it, and give you the "you've got X days to make it funny before I whack it again" ultimatum. However, when Flammable whacked it (the time in question) he left the comment "RRRR SO ANGRY! ITS IT'S RAAR." That sort of talk generally means that he got fired from another babysitting job, and I'm not going to cross that sort of mood.
- You're going to have to wander into his den and ask him nicely. Bring chocolates or meat, or chocolate covered meat or something. You'll probbaly need it. 18:45, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Scrotum......congratulations, you have been voted this months Gobshite of the Month, beating off stiff competition from an excellent late entry. We'd all like to pass on our best wishes for your stirling work. You may wear your special Roll of Honour with pride. --