Talk:Uncyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Uncyclopedia was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Connected contributors[edit]

I added Cathfolant alongside me as a {{Connected contributor}} at the top of this page. She reverted me, commenting: you are full of it on that, I have hardly contributed anything other than relatively minor changes. Apart from a complete rewrite in her sandbox, she does indeed rely on other people (often anonymous) to apply edits, so she and her confederates can save their ammo to protest that a revert is "controversial." The key term, though, is not "contributor" but "connected"; again, Cathfolant is a financial contributor to the Fork site and, like her pals, the sole point of her involvement in this article is to attract traffic to that site at the expense of the other site. The silence about this, compared to the recent reporting of me, is remarkable. She has also changed the parameters of the archive 'bot for this page, citing an unknowable conversation on IRC. I reverted that too, and the unaffiliated editors on this page should review it. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No.
My only reason for being involved in this, at this point, is to try to improve the article. I noticed an issue with the infobox and attempted to discuss it here, which did not ultimately result in it being fixed so I went in and made a relatively small change myself to direct the reader to the external links which are where the supposed two URLs are in fact noted. Whether my change has remained, I neither know nor care. I also was made aware by Beetstra that much of the content was sourced to wikis, and as he seemed to think it should not be I decided to find out what the article would look like without it (which I wouldn't consider a complete rewrite, but whatever), and also discovered that a good deal of the wiki-sourced content seemed to be original research. My reason for not making more than two fairly small edits myself to this article should be obvious - I am heavily involved in Uncyclopedia and as such my edits might be affected by a bias, and so I try to get the approval of others; and if they do not approve, so be it, I will accept that I was wrong. I originally came here because of the discussion on Uncyclopedia, I admit, but after that my intentions were not linked to my involvement with Uncyclopedia any more than I could help it.
I am sure this, too, will fall on deaf ears for Spike; everything else I have said has: he has seemingly responded to what I do on uncyclopedia, essentially who I am, rather than the points I have made, and he is doing so again here. But in any case, I will ping Σ now as I talked with him on irc and I expect he would agree on-wiki as well that the archiving needs to be fixed. Spike may not even be aware that it is broken, but of course, since it was I who tried to fix it, that must mean I was wrong to do so. Cathfolant (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I have again removed the claim that I am a connected contributor. Connected I may be, but I am not acting as Spike would suggest and I believe that to say so can never be more than an opinion. Cathfolant (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Reverted. "I am heavily involved in Uncyclopedia....I have again removed the claim that I am a connected contributor. Connected I may be, but" her intentions are pure, though she notes they were otherwise originally, but in any case I cannot be sure of them, though she can be sure of mine. Ergo, {{Connected contributor}}, at least as much as I, and financially to boot. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello...I am not a contributor, what is so hard to understand about that? But I am getting tired of this. I would have liked for there to be a clear-headed, conclusive discussion of what should be included in the article and why, and couldn't care less at this point if the article consisted entirely of WIKIA IS THE BEST or some such, but still I keep coming up against all this stuff directed specifically at what I am rather than what I have said. This is going nowhere at a zillion miles an hour. Cathfolant (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Cathfollant...I don't think anything more need be said. Let SPIKE have the last word and get on with the article. --Shabidoo | Talk 04:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that...
In any case I see that some more unsourced content got added. [1] Now what? Cathfolant (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Virtually moderating this conversation and rewriting the article in your sandbox means you are a contributor, even if you induce others or Anon to apply the actual edits. But you again reverted {{Connected contributor}}, with summary I've explained why I'm not a contributor and I also don't intend to come back and edit this or even try to discuss anything, I just want out now, a call for pity rivaling the "final" Nixon press conference. Do not go to WP:3RR and do not seek the stealth here that you have used in your campaign on other websites. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this here, for the benefit of anyone else who's been following things. Cathfolant (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hate expiring links. Archive836 is where it's at. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)