Talk:Never on Sunday

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Created page to knock out the red link on top of the article. That is all. Aleister 20:24 1 11

Upon this wok[edit]

Googled "Upon this wok" and apparantly no one on the innernests has used the phrase to pun son Jesus' declaration. So I claim firstys, and expect to see a vision of the Virgin Mary on my toast or somewhere. Wait, there she is now! Later. Aleister 11:11 5 12

Dear diary, Jackpot!! DJ Mixerr 05:16, December 11, 2010 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

I can't edit this article[edit]

Which is bad. I want to change

So this business practice only applies to Christian whores.

To say:

So this business practice applies on the whole to Christian whores.

I feel it more rounded, and less discriminating. In my experience whores of all races, religion, and creed are available on Sunday, albeit at a higher fee. The fact that I actually can't make this change to this page makes Jesus sad. I have to wait for someone else to come along and allow my change to be made to this page? Because I'm new here? Is this a uniform protection policy of all "FA" articles? Why do that, or even infi-semi-protect virtually any page which is not currently receiving vandalism? What this current semi-protect everything says is: "Uncyclopedia is better than you for for 4 days, until then you don't even get a voice in the history." His story? Don't get me started on that. Try waiting for 4 days. It's 4 days man! Look, I don't know if whoever is responsible for this here article is responsible or not, but someone needs to remove most of the semi-protection from most of the pages on this Wiki. JFC 03:54. May 20

Also... It's fucking degrading. Having to write a message "asking"? ??? WTF? Seriously.

Especially when the only reason it's like this is because it means the admins need to ban a few less vandals and revert a few less edits. The status quo makes being an admin easier for the admins, but pisses of IP's and new users. That's bad. Have you listened to Status Quo? I can tell you it's bad. I can also tell you that banning and reverting is not difficult, and I assure you a pool of suitable admin candidates could be congregated if required... So... Why do we have the current semi-protection policy? Jesus says: "Let them back in. IP's, new users, even Jesus!" except near the family silver. Obviously. JFC 04:09. May 20

So...you desysopped yourself and started editing from a new account to illustrate some kind of point about how the wiki works? That's all well and good, I suppose. Trying to put yourself in a new user's shoes so you can evaluate the situation better. But there is an inherent problem with an admin trying to play the role of a new user. Once you have that much experience and trust, you can't just go back and forfeit that trust and then say that because you can't do the stuff you want to any more that we should lower the restrictions on that stuff, because someone like you who knows what they're doing is going to acquire a certain level of trust anyway, if they don't already have it. And the only reason you can't edit this article is that you've imposed that restriction on yourself. You see what I'm saying?
The policy of semiprotecting featured articles was decided on here. There was a strong consensus for doing it and the reasons seem pretty reasonable to me, so if you'd like to not have it be policy any more I'd advise you to start another forum - but the fact that a former admin's sock can't edit a feature does not seem as compelling to me as a case of an actual new user would. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribslogs) 21:10, 20 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
Do I see what you are saying? Yes. I hope so. But... You see what I'm saying? I don't think so. So... It's best not to judge people based on your best guess about their intentions. It's called prejustice and it's best avoided. Nasty business really. The trick is to judge people based on their actions, or better still... Maybe not judge at all! If MrN9000 bothers you, huff him or something! Just please leave this account so I can edit using it.
You appear to care a lot about my motives. Relax. It's me. I'm a do nothing bad to hurt Uncyc. ... RE the forum you linked me to says at the top: "Note This topic has been unedited for 1089 days". Do things change on a wiki in 1089 days?... I suspect you could have found a much more recent one than that! :P ... I don't care that I can't edit the FA articles now. Obviously I know that in a few days I can. np. I care that new users will not wait 4 days. They will think, "Oh I will have a go at this, I like this article" ... Oh, wait. I can't edit. I give up. ... When we currently have NO VANDALS. I think it could be done on this wiki, and NOT on wikia. They would never be able to manage wholesale semi-removal! We could... ;) Also... Jesus does not make forums. Ever. JFC 22:19. May 20
I do see what you're saying, and I don't have a problem with it except that I don't quite agree with how you're pointing it out. That was all I was objecting to. You are correct that things can change in 1089 days, and also that we may no longer need to semiprotect features and that it could cause problems (though there are in fact vandals from time to time, which in the past resulted in great chunks of time spent by me reverting edits and whining on irc in the vain hope that an admin would show up). I'd still appreciate it if you would start a forum, though, since that's how we do things and I'm not sure how you expect anything to be done otherwise, you know, getting people's attention so they can make a decision, all that stuff. I seem to be the only one who's noticed this so far, and I'd probably be beaten with frying pans if I unprotected all the features, never mind that my head would get muddled from such a long and repetitive task since I don't have a bot that could do it... but you know all that, to be sure. Maybe I'll start the forum and then we can all be happy.
Also, re. your statement that we could find suitable candidates for adminship, I'm not so sure about that either. I've considered all our active rollbackers and the only one I think I trust is Cat the Colourful, and I'm not sure he's around often enough for it to be worth it. Not that I'm not open to your suggestions on the matter of course. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribslogs) 23:24, 20 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
We could find more admins. Uncyc will ALWAYS be able to find more admins if it needs them... That's the easy part. Getting new users? That's the harder part... In terms of getting peoples attention and understanding the only persons attention and understanding I was trying to get was yours. :) Yea, actually doing the unprotection would not be difficult, and I'm confident that we don't need new admins whatever we do. If we should have them or not is another issue... JFC 23:54. May 20
Hello Noob. The change you propose isn't better for the page, please read HTBFBNS or something. I feel your mind is not ready to edit features, as they have been gone over hundreds of times by their authors and you haven't even had time to risen yet (was it three days or is that historical propaganda too?). As you can read, if you were taught to do so, the other religions don't practice the Sabbath on Sunday, but mostly on Saturday, which was the point of the section you wish to make worse. So please go edit Wikia where you will be banned. That is all. Aleister 10:21 21-5-14
RE:"I feel your mind is not ready to edit features". Then let your feelings cause my mind to wander. JFC 17:33. May 21
Aleister, you do know who he is, right? You're not being very nice. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribslogs) 18:42, 21 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
Do I know who Jesus Fucking Christ is? You think I was born yesterday (20-5-14)? He's a noob who wants to edit this fine article without reading HTBFANJSYKWIM or even without running in circles, which is a noob requirement nowadays, and not only should he be banned, but be banned so far down the road that he's around the bend by the time we look back. Aleister 19:58 21-5-14
I see the light. It's bright. JFC 20:51. May 21
Sorry Aleister, but I constantly suck up to admins so I feel compelled to suck up to this one as well. Never mind that he isn't any more, he still counts in my book. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talkcontribslogs) 23:46, 21 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

Getting back to the point[edit]

Because, editing pages is the point. So, as I was suggesting, and as I suggested:

So this business practice applies on the whole to Christian whores.

is a better, more suitable, and more amusing phrase than the current (and more pedestrian)

So this business practice only applies to Christian whores.

As I attempted to explain previously, my aversion was that the current text : "So this business practice only applies to Christian whores." actually suggests that Uncyclopedia either takes a discriminatory approach when dealing with whores, or does not have a wide and open world view regarding whores. Showing lack of understanding is never amusing, and is against HUFBANJOB. Or more simply put, and with an edit accommodating discussions regarding the exact date of the Sabbath: "In my experience whores of all races, religion, and creed are available on Sunday, or Saturday, albeit at a higher fee."

So to continue... I just felt the phrase

So this business practice applies on the whole to Christian whores.

To be more comfortable. It also implies a more detailed experience than "So this business practice only applies to Christian whores." which lacks depth and intrigue. Where did the person writing the article go? What other whores did they see during their obviously many travels? What other experiences might they have encountered? These are the kinds of question people will ask of

So this business practice applies on the whole to Christian whores.

but not of:

So this business practice only applies to Christian whores.

I stand my ground. JFC 20:51. May 21