User talk:Hindleyite/1

The new template doesn't look right

Do you want me to try to fix it, or do you want to fix it yourself. Just asking because I didn't want to edit your userpage and possibly edit conflict you and start a whole unnecessary mess . . .

--Hrodulf 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. I wonder if it's something to do with having different browsers? What seems to be wrong with it? --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's superimposed on the yellow frame and the UKer template. I'll look at the page in Explorer to check it out that way. If it looks ok for you it's probably a browser thing. --Hrodulf 20:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor alteration to my userpage. Better? --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When I looked in explorer, I couldn't see the britishuser template at all. Does it show up ok for you? --Hrodulf 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Explorer and it seems fine. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Must be my computer or something. If it looks fine to you, then it's probably ok. --Hrodulf 20:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit strange... I put it at the bottom because it didn't fit in the Babel box, by the way. Don't know if it's something to do with that? --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could continue this in the chatroom?--Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you said it looks ok, I have to assume you did it right. I don't know enough about wikiformatting to answer your question.

Here's what it looked like to me (it still looks the same, except now the uker template is gone):

This is messed up, no?

--Hrodulf 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... that is weird. I think I have an idea why it's doing it though. It's my formatting, not the template. I have removed it for now and put the old one back. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about all the verbiage over it, but I wanted to make sure you knew that it was messed up on my end. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to figure out what to do with it. If it's your formatting, maybe what you could try doing is just copying over the template code and messing around with it, rather than invoking the template via the {{template:britishuser}} code.

--Hrodulf 20:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I modified the britishuser template so it's more like the horizontal size of the uker template (I added two breaks in the text and made the flag slightly larger to make up for the fact that now the vertical height was a bit bigger). Maybe it will work better this way?

--Hrodulf 21:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying your userbox page code and putting it on [http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Hrodulf/UserboxTest] to test the new BritishUser template with the breaks and resizing. It seems to be working fine. Just thought you'd be interested to know. Whether or not you use this template is up to you, but I wanted you to know that I think the problem was with the horizontal width, which has been fixed now.

--Hrodulf 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the template's been huffed (via redirect that it's probably unwise to mess with), but I again took the liberty of taking the template code and editing it into [http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Hrodulf/UserboxTest]. It's slightly different from the original version, but still has the same picture and text. Again, if you want to use the code, it's there, if not, don't worry about it.

--Hrodulf 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks better now its sort of a standard userbox size. Never mind about the template being huffed, it can still be used by copying and pasting the code, as you mentioned. Some good work, by the way. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and kind words, since if you hadn't tried using the original, I wouldn't have been known there was a problem with it. Next time I create a template like this, I'll make sure it's about the same size. And be more careful about making sure there isn't another template that does the same thing as the one I'm creating! Btw, did you see Frogturd's page? He tweaked my code a little :D --Hrodulf 17:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Demonbob has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic. Or don't, he doesn't care.

Thanks for being a sport with the use of your handgun picture on my firearms template ^^ Demonbob 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! More foodstuffs... Mmmmm... --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia may or may not be the worst

Where can I get one of those shirts, dude? --Lenoxus 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it's only in the design stage yet. I'm hoping someone will see it and print it. :-) --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're tto fast for me — you wrote that when I'd just thought to copy it here, and we crossed in the internet. Insane. --Lenoxus 18:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Dice Man

Wikipedia had a format ripe for sporking, so I fired ahead and wrote something. It's a beginning.--Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mate

Thankyou for the welcome i received from you in my first article, you have some terrific stuff mate, well done. --Takster 08:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I'm not an admin, but I'm always happy to help. Your The boony doll article also made me laugh out loud. Keep up the good work! --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cookie!

Cookie! For posting stuff on my talk page. Cctoide 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Chocolate chip is my favourite. Don't think that I only posted on your talk page to get the cookie... well alright then, I did. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Auction

I want that T-Shirt. I am prepared to offer a whole box of Mr. Kipling Cherry Bakewells.--Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Throw in a Cadbury's Mini Roll and it's a deal. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vanilla or jam? Chocolate coated? I don't know - it's pushing the deal a bit. That design would make a great prize. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

HowTo:Get Started on Editing Uncyclopedia

I happened to notice you referred someone to the page. Just wanted to say that I'm glad people are actually using what I wrote. I'm pretty psyched that it appears I've finally managed to do something here that's actually useful. So far I havn't really had the time to create decent articles so I've focused on unnews since the pieces seem to be shorter and that's ok there; I am pretty excited about the HowTo page actually getting some circulation though, so thanks for the reference, and hopefully it will help to stop the n00bs from going crazy and getting into too many silly fights with the admins, which it seems usually descend into ridiculous vandalism that's just a waste of everyone's time, including the n00b's.

--Hrodulf 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like the article as a guide. There's not much genuinely serious stuff on the site, but I believe this to be useful a useful article. I wonder if we can get it made more prominent? --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 20:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I linked to it from [http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Beginner%27s_Guide/Creating_articles], but didn't really know how to make a more prominent way for people who need the article to find it. I don't know, or have the influence, for example, to make it a separate 'If this is your first article, read the Beginner's Guide first' link below each editing window that's opened, which of course would make it easy to find.

There's wikipolitics involved also. While Isra is neutral on the subject of this article (I ran it by him on his talk page, he replied "I have no objections," Gwax doesn't seem to like the article, saying (from Forum:Deletion policy, again):

"I think that the content of HowTo:Get Started on Editing Uncyclopedia would be best improved by replacing it with, "Read and perform minor edits on existing articles for a while. After you're confident that you understand what passes for quality on Uncyclopedia, start making more substantial contributions. Eventually, if you feel you have the understanding and wit to compose a feature-worthy article, feel free to start a new article." --Sir Major gwax the vacationing Image:Signuke.gif (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded with:

"That would probably work better as another paragraph in the Beginner's Guide, rather than its own page. If as a policy issue, you don't want people to work on drafts on userpage subpages, which is the main thrust of the piece, feel free to take it down. The piece was just a response to what seems to be an ongoing problem with new users believing they can just drop an idea into the main space without developing it on the first try, which obviously isn't working. --Hrodulf 09:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)"

Since there's some admin opposition to this article even existing, rather than push for it to be more prominently featured, particularly because of my status as somewhat of an outsider at uncyc, being a n00b, and already having gotten into some huge arguments with the admins over policy ([[1]] and [[2]]), one of which was actually the genesis of the article we're talking about (Forum:Deletion policy, again), I think, at least for me, it's smarter right now to be a bit quieter about this issue, and if I see someone who's a newer user having problems, just refer them to the article via their talk page. I'd love for it to have a higher profile (not because I wrote it, but because I think it will help n00bs become a functioning part of uncyclopedia, which will lead to more decent content, which is obviously an unqualified good), but right now it's linked from the beginner's guide page on creating articles, and that's not too bad.

What I find interesting is, although I got flamed to extra crispy in the VFD conversations, mostly by Isra, awhile later, a few people who agreed with my ideas actually did manage to get the NRV template language changed somewhat, which is something I think came about, at least in part, due to my discussion in the VFD conversation and with other users about this issue [[3]]. I think this goes to show that, even when people (particularly admins) tell you their opinions matter more because they've been here longer and "have done more work," you need to remember that that's also only an opinion. Don't let other people's opinions define you. That's how they exert power over you.

I only went through all of those discussion links to give some idea of the history and wikipolitics that led to the creation of the HowTo article, and why this issue is somewhat sensitive. I think there is definitely a faction of admins who don't like the HowTo article, and would love to wipe it out. They certainly wouldn't want to do what you're talking about doing with it, integrating it even further into uncyclopedia.

I'm sensitive to this "turf" issue, note that on the [[4]] page, I referred to the HowTo page as "unofficial." I don't want the admins to think I'm stepping on their toes, and presuming to dictate site policy from on high, or from the wilderness, or whatever.

I do however still believe that we, as registered members, and yes, the minority of admins among us, need to do a better job of dealing with the n00b who is not a vandal, who yes, is writing crap that's three lines long, but not because he/she is bad, but just is (for want of a better word) ignorant. Punishing them by deleting their article stubs and slapping on NRV, without bothering to educate them about the right way to create content here may be fun, but I doubt it's going to encourage people to become members. The purpose of the HowTo page is to address n00b ignorance in a constructive, not destructive way, and I don't think the article should be huffed, it contains content about how to register, create userpages, and subpages, and use subpages as a personal sandbox, that isn't duplicated in this form elsewhere. It can be a powerful tool to help educate n00bs and encourage them to become members of the site, with a method to create without being harassed by admin critics before their work is finished. And even if some people don't agree with me or understand it, we need those n00bs a hell of a lot more than they need us. I think failing to realize that is bad for uncyclopedia.

Anyway, sorry about the long answer, but I felt it was important that you understand the history and politics behind the HowTo article and the issues that are at play here. If you have any ideas as to how else the article could be used/linked to, I'd appreciate any input you had. I'm honestly just grateful it hasn't been wiped yet. Aside from the three unnews pieces I've written, and some pretty unspectacular articles that aren't going anywhere and will probably be huffed in due course (I think my niche here is really unnews), the HowTo page is really all I've done here and I think it has a valid reason to exist, although some users disagree. We work by consensus, not democracy, like every wiki, so hopefully before this is wiped it will get a fair deletion hearing, if it comes to that.

--Hrodulf 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following this issue quite a bit and think that I personally would have benefitted from reading a page like this when I first joined. The average newbie can't be bothered to trawl through the HTBFANJS, Beginner's guide (too long) etc. etc. I know I couldn't anyway. As someone who had a little bit of experience of Wikiformatting, previously being a member of Wikipedia, I knew a lot of the basics but didn't know about creating user subpages and such like. I wouldn't dis the admins because they are only doing what they believe is best for the wiki, but they can be a bit stubborn sometimes. The best we can do is perhaps 'clean up' the page to conform to their standards, but continue referring newbies 'unofficially' to it under good faith. This would get some recognition for it, but it is missing the primary target of the article: the complete newbies that have not yet registered and are making edits under anonymous IP's. That's my opinion anyway. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 10:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but the situation isn't within my power to fix. Maybe someday, I'll either have enough pull here to do something like that, but that day isn't today. I have no choice but to leave it as it is for the time being, and try to keep it from getting deleted. I'm glad someone here agrees with me about this issue, since sometimes it seems like getting into a huge argument as nearly the first thing I did here was a mistake; while I'm still unsure if I did the right thing, at least there have been some good consequences, among which are the HowTo page, another is finding like-minded uncyclopedians like yourself who are willing to accept that for the site to convince new people to register and contribute, there perhaps needs to be some fine-tuning of how this place runs.--Hrodulf 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

UNnews Boris

Hi, I've protected the article to stop the idiots from destroying a good joke. If there's anything you need to edit there give me a shout. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Hey, thanks. Glad at least someone liked the article... --Hindleyite Talk 12:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not a mugnugget

Just pointing it out for the record - though I do say that you are on Talk:Uncyclopedia_is_the_worst - this is purely satirical and not true. I think that the article is a great idea that would have to have been invented if it wasn't um... invented, by yourself. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, no offence taken. I, too was being satirical in my reply. Glad you 'like' the article! --Hindleyite Talk 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Nice wikilink work there, especially the monocle wearing championship thingy. -- Boothman 11:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, ta for the pie man. -- Boothman 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the other football-related stuff on this site sucks. You've some good articles emerging. --Hindleyite Talk 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You've won the Poo Lit Surprise

Poet Lowrate

 

This person is the winner of the Poo Lit Surprise, which they won for their article: user:Hindleyite/Age of Umpires

Congratulations! Your article Age of Umpires has won the Poo Lit Surprise for Best Illustrated article. You are hereby pronounced one of our three new Poets Lowrate for the Order of Uncyclopedia and are now authorized to append the iconic laurel wreath of the Poet Lowate to your custom signature with the following code: [[image:Lowrate.png|Poet Lowrate]].

Thank you for participating in the Poo Lit Surprise competition! MoneySign will contact you with regard to claiming your Amazon e-certificate. —rc (t) 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MOZAL TOV!!!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you. (Coughs) I am naturally honoured to receive this prize, and would like to thank all the other entries for their competition (blah blah etc)... --Hindleyite (Talk) 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all: Congratulations, man!! Second of all: Find some way to give me your email address. Best thing you can do is join the cabal for a brief period of time... Put Hindleyite as username and join #uncyclopedia. We can go from there. :D --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations.....its good to see not only a fellow Englishman, but also a Northerner win such a prodigious award. Well done! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Thanks

My fellow unedumacated Americans dont understand British humor! I used to live in Suffolk in RAF Lakenheath (or was it Mildenhall? I cant remember...they're right by each other.) --PiOfFive 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A question from The King

Is that Hindley or Hindley Green?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Hindley. -- Hindleyite 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindley near Wigan? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yes. Why you ask? Are you also a pieman?

Nah....other side of the East Lancs....though I DID start an article on Wigan. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yep, I've seen it. It's on my future edits list... need some ideas first though. -- Hindleyite 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)