User talk:Zombiebaron/archive46

Game

I've got a suggestion for a game you admins can play while I'm gone: "Wheel Wars"! Basically, what happens is starting at 2am UTC, you take turns banning and unbanning me, making up stupid reasons such as "vigilance" or "go eat shit fuckers". Luckily, nobody cares because I won't be active the entire time. But the game ends on Saturday when I get back. Thank you for your consideration. -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 22:15, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like fun. -- The Zombiebaron 05:15, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hey...but if you guys do that...Qzekrom might have more bans than I do by the end :( --ShabiDOO 05:20, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

61, fuck yeah! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:33, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zombiebaron. You have new messages at Gabriel Turner's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gabriel Turner (talk) 17:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

This template is unnecessary, I put your talkpage on my watchlist. -- The Zombiebaron 17:43, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Forum:Patrolled Edits

Hea ZB. Not sure if you have had a chance to look at the above forum, but I think we might need to ask Wikia or whoever to turn on "Autopatrolled edits" as per this thing. Currently we are swamped on checking patrolled edits, and it would obviously be great if we could get all of them. I figure that we probably don't want to be granting rollback to everyone but maybe if we could flick the Autopatrolled setting for some of our regular users it would cut down on the number of edits which need to have the "mark as patrolled" button pushed, and then maybe it might be more feasible to check them all and so catch more vandalism. I don't really know exactly how this would work, but maybe it might be a good idea. What do ya reckon? MrN 17:39, May 4

Ok, I read your huge block of text. I agree that having a separate usergroup for autopatrolled would be useful, but I can't see the drawback of just using the existing rollback usergroup. -- The Zombiebaron 05:12, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion rollback is overused sometimes when Undo with a comment explaining the reason for the revert would be better, but so long as we end up with a lot less users needing to be patrolled on RC I suspect it would be fine either way. I guess it's up to you, so it's your decision to decide what we do. MrN 13:29, May 5

I think you should contact Wikia and ask them to make a separate autopatrolled usergroup. Because such a thing would be useful to have. But, rollback can be simulated through javascript. I know I had access to a rollback button long before I was ever given an official one. I feel that we should be giving out rollbacks to everyone who is interested in preventing vandalism to the site, and if we trust someone enough to make it so that all of their edits are automatically patrolled, why wouldn't we trust them enough to have a rollback button? -- The Zombiebaron 16:21, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding what I'm saying. Yea, I remember the old .js days when we had that sucky .js and were not allowed real rollback. That sure sucked, but I'm not sure why you mention it now. Anyway, Yes I think we should give out rollback to everyone who wants to fight vandalism and spends time on RC, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about reducing the number of edits we need to check. It's not about trust it's about understanding the difference between when rollback should be used and when undo should be used. If we just granted rollback to everyone then lots more people would use rollback when actually they would be better using undo with a comment. If a users does not fight vandalism they don't need it. I suspect that's one of the reasons why the people who made the media wiki software added the auto patrolled option, and the same reasons why every other wiki use it (and not just rollback for everyone) also probably apply to us. What I am suggesting here is that a large number of regular users get the autopatrolled flag, and that they get it without asking for it. Auto patrolled is also better with this in mind as it's more transparent from a point of view of the user. To think of it another way... Why have you not just granted rollback to every regular user on the site already?

I actually think this is an issue which only a bureaucrat can deal with as it would be you who is doing the actual granting of the flag. Sysops can not grant flags to users on Uncyc. If I sent a message to wikia asking for it, I would not even know when/if they had actually done it or not. Only you would know that. I would not have the new buttons, could not test it, and so could not enter into a discussion with wikia about it. Sorry dude... YOU are going to have to sort this one. That's why you is a crat! ;) MrN 03:50, May 8

Sorry to contradict, but anyone can see what groups are active, what groups aren't, and who's in which list at Special:ListUsers. I think the issue is ZB (as far as I understand his comments here) doesn't see the value in the user group. Wikia generally won't make changes without community consent. I would suggest rather than leave it in the hands on the one 'crat that is regularly active, maybe we can forum it to gather support. This would have the added advantage of showing users that do have rollback what the patrolled function actually does, and encourage them to use it. Then we can hopefully have numerous people patrolling rather than just the few that do it now. My experimenting showed that patrolling can be done swiftly with multiple tabs and a small amount of faith in various users who are not currently auto-patrol. Nominally Humane! 04:15 08 May

I don't understand what you are contradicting Puppy, but Bizzeebeever has done something good here which might help a lot. I don't think we need additional community consensus to ask wikia for this separate group (if we need it), but I may be wrong. MrN 14:30, May 8

Ok, I've sent an email to Wikia requesting an autopatrolled usergroup. We'll have to wait and see what happens. But really, I think this whole "rollback vs. undo" thing that you are talking about is simply a matter of educating our userbase. You and I both know the difference between the two and how each should be used, but I'm not sure that everyone else does. People who use rollback incorrectly should just get a polite note on their talkpage requesting that they smarten up, and then if they don't their rollbacks can be taken away. -- The Zombiebaron 16:38, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. On an unrelated note I think it might be a good idea to delete this... MrN 16:45, May 8

Don't know about deleting it. I'd rather wait a few days and then protect it. -- The Zombiebaron 16:49, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

That email

Is there any progress in getting that email out to me justifying the ban that I just served? Nominally Humane! 02:33 07 May

No. -- The Zombiebaron 16:01, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

So then I can assume that it was done with no justification then? Nominally Humane! 11:58 07 May

He already explained it; you just didn't like it. What would be the purpose of telling you again when you are no more likely to accept the reason now than previously? 1234 ~ 06:48, 8 May 2012

We had a conversation via email and via IRC which you weren't privy to. Rest assured, you were mentioned in the conversation. Adding your voice in here is not constructive, and has just managed to destroy the feeling that I had that you were being honest about trying to reconcile in that forum. In fact, everything that he said to justify my ban could be reflected directly onto what you are doing at the moment. Nominally Humane! 09:44 08 May

Zombiebaron filled me in and endorsed my responding; this is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, and while you have obviously not been the only one to do some monumentally stupid crap lately, it also does not change that fact that you are still entirely responsible for your own actions and need to stop this, now, before it leads to another ban. I truly am sorry for upset I may have caused, but I also don't know why you are putting this on me, I really don't; meantime the only one you are hurting is yourself. 1234 ~ 15:14, 8 May 2012

You have the capacity to ban me. If you feel that asking for a justification for a ban is a ban-worthy offence, then do it. I now realise that pointing out that the actions of admins when they are being arrogant and not following their own guidelines is an offence around here. So be it. Nominally Humane! 03:19 08 May

ZB - you said that there were edits I made that we're done purely to stir up drama. Beyond the one edit made on Lyrithya's talk page, which was a sign of contempt, you still haven't directed my attention to a single one. Now I'm convinced that this is a power trip of some sort for you, as you realise that I have no respect for the "authority" of an admin, and I've said as such. If I can be proven wrong, I'm happy to be. If you send that harpy in to talk on your behalf again I'll treat her with the contempt she deserves again. Nominally Humane! 03:28 08 May

I stopped writing the email to you after we spoke on IRC, when you made it clear to me that you were only interested in getting unbanned and not in improving your behavior. I do not have to justify your ban to you. I do not have to link you to diffs. I was going to, as a favor to you, because you are such a prolific member of the community. Now, your ban has expired and you are back on the site causing drama. Let me assure you that your next ban will be for much longer than a week. -- The Zombiebaron 16:22, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I said I saw no need to change my behaviour as you didn't point out anything in my behaviour that was awry. That was why I sock puppeted - I have no interest in abiding by a ban that's unjustified. That ban remains unjustified. I'm still waiting for justification. And given it's one of your responsibilities is to justify a ban, then I'm well within my rights to ask for it. And as for sockpuppeting always being wrong - there are numerous users who have sockpuppeted in the past. Beyond my sockpuppet being polite and complimentary, and asking for help that people were happy to give, and me voting for an award when it was moot, and deliberately under-scoring an article in a competition, I fail to see how it did less harm for you to "expose" it then what it was doing. Especially since there wasn't a single warning on anything at any time until after the event. And I recently came to IRC for explanations several times - where you decided to either lie or ignore me. I also emailed you numerous times - where you decided to ignore me. And now you expect me to wait until you feel that I've spent enough time to "change my behaviour" where the only behavioural issue I can see is asking you to live up to your responsibilities, and approaching a contentious issue via the method you had suggested (ie via a forum) while you ran and hid behind Lyrithya - who you knew was the major cause of the reason for me wanting to leave - rather than live up to your responsibilities. In the meantime User:PIGGY is not only an "acceptable" sock-puppet, but has been given admin authority. User:SecondChanceForMe, who is an obvious puppet, is not an issue. And C₂H₆O, who was going to become my only identity here, given I was sick of being hounded, was polite, intelligent, and got down and wrote articles and encouraged others to do the same. In short - you banned me for my "poor behaviour" that I felt was unwarranted, and I showed you that I could behave the way you wanted people to, and you decided to ban me indefinitely.

I apologised, I have begged and pleaded, and I've done everything I can to be exactly what you would want users on here to be. I've been insulted, and had someone screwing with my outward symbol of my identity here, and your only response is to run and hide from "drama", which I can only take to mean "a conversation that you don't like". And to send someone else who I've plainly stated has been cyber-bullying to come back and cyber-bully some more.

But what would I know. I've only been here for three years, and been one of the most active users here for most of that time. I've only encouraged so many of our regular users to stick around and keep writing. I've completed more reviews than most, and become one of the most regularly featured writers, along with doing everything I can to encourage this site to grow. I haven't vandalized, haven't plagiarized, and generally have supported every admin that has been here. All I was asking for was for an explanation of what I did wrong when I argued against a calculated barrage of insults and arrogance. Or is it again that you actually don't care about the site as much as you do the authority you get by being here?

It's back to you. Explain what I did that cost me the original ban, and please do it on my user page. Don't start pulling this "I don't have to explain myself to you" stuff again. Actually do what it is that an admin is supposed to do, and has been responsible for the entire time you have been here. And please don't make me keep asking, because as far as I can tell it's all down to you making an assumption, and being wrong. So far nothing you have said has suggested otherwise. PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

And once again you evade your ban. I have given you the justification for your initial ban several times. You were causing drama. You are still causing drama. Drama is not "a conversation I don't like". Drama is coming to my talkpage and calling me a liar. Drama is dropping out of VFS. Drama is leaving "cryptic clues" about whether or not you are planning to leave the site. Drama is accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without first requesting that an admin request a CheckUser. Drama is misusing VFD. It is you who makes assumptions. I never "sent someone else" to talk to you. The top of this section where you and Lyrithya talked to each other occurred while I was sleeping. PIGGY is a transparent sock (everybody knows it is Lyrithya) and it is an admin because the community voted to make it an admin. A CheckUser was run on SecondChanceForMe and came up inconclusive (so if it is a sockpuppet, we cannot prove whose it is or what purpose it serves). I hope this satisfies your curiosity about why you initially received a 1 day ban. There is absolutely no reason why you need to evade your ban to have this discussion with me. -- The Zombiebaron 14:26, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

What the hell just happened? I was going to comment 'oh my this sounds excatly like an episode of Emmerdale, I press the edit-button, and a 'Content not found'-text appears. What just happened? OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 14:34 15 May 2012

Probably because I archived my talkpage while you were editing it. -- The Zombiebaron 14:48, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologise for the crack about you being a liar - it seemed civility was failing as you kept ignoring/not responding to me. And it did take 3 weeks, and numerous sock-puppets until you finally did what was asked of you three weeks ago. Having said that - I do appreciate it. And as for permabanning me - I'm not going to come back here again as PuppyOnTheRadio. I was sick of being hassled three weeks ago, which is why I was talking about leaving. My attempt to create a new identity that wasn't being treated as badly as I was failed due to me not bothering to cover my tracks properly. As you pointed out - if a sock is a clear sock, it's fine. If a sock is hidden well enough, then it's fine, even if it keeps shouting out "I am a banned contributor". It was having a sock that was uncovered - predominantly due to being similar in style to me - that was an issue. I promise that I won't allow you to be aware of any further socks.

See ya later, although you probably won't see me. :) Nominally Humane! 07:48, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

It could be time, ya know... to draw a line on the Uncyclopedian experience and move on. Letting go can be a painful process, but worth doing. This is just a silly comedy website and similar ones are about.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:12, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to bring your attention to this forum

Forum:Vote to De-Op Lyrithya Nominally Humane! 03:20 07 May

Thanks. -- The Zombiebaron 16:01, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

Good call in protecting the forum Zombie. Especially in light of all the help people in the community offered to c2h6o assuming it was a nOOb account. When I re-read the paragraphs of help I left him and the mini pee review I did, and worse, how many other users gave suggestions, support, nominations, critiques, adopting him, welcoming him, formatting tips, invitations. I feel like an idiot for wasting my time on a stupid little game. --ShabiDOO 18:18, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that new user was too good to be true but sometimes we do get people like that. Just as well ZB rumbled this ruse, stopped us all wasting time with c2h6o. Bad dog PuppyOnTheRadio. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:02, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

People fly to their fate. Let's just all...never talk of this again. And I'm going to go kill myself. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, May 8 '12 19:09 (UTC)

Ministry of Love

There's lots of open discussions at the Ministry of Love that I've posted which no one has replied to yet. I suggest you go see this, that and this because I really need replies sooner or later...! -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 20:15, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Whats a rollback?

Hi Zombiebaron. I just got a notification saying my rights went from none, to being able to rollback? What exactly is a rollback?---Maniac1075^{Complain Here} 09:08, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia:wikipedia:Rollback, in a nutshell you can rollback edits, suppress redirects and have your edits automatically patrolled. I recomended you btw. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 09:10, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a rollbacker, too. You know, I suggest you put this on your userpage to show you've got this right. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 15:50, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Frosty and Qzekrom are correct. -- The Zombiebaron 18:44, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

On a different topic, Mr. ZB, how's my new signature? (I designed it to emulate yours and ChiefjusticeDS'.) -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 19:31, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- The Zombiebaron 22:24, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just doing a bit of polling so I know what to improve in case I make a new sig again in the future. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 22:34, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

I meant the third paragraph in the article I mentioned, not the first. Somewhere in time and cyberspace, Aleister 19:26 14-5-'12

Ok. -- The Zombiebaron 21:40, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Question:

What the hell is a rollback? It seems that you gave me something like that... OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 06:42 15 May 2012

Oh, sorry, never mind, got it. Thank you kind sir! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 06:50 15 May 2012

You're welcome. -- The Zombiebaron 11:30, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Dick test

Would you please dredge up and userspace this article, which you huffed last fall? Lyrithya first tagged it as too short, though it was longer than the article from the World Book Encyclopedia from which I sporked it. I'll see if I can flesh it out, no pun intended. Thanks. Spıke ¬ 08:31 16-May-12

Ok, I've moved it here. -- The Zombiebaron 14:01, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Sigh, it still seems like a good thing in a justifiably small package (if the wiki needed a page on a treatment superseded by penicillin). Spıke ¬ 14:17 16-May-12

You're welcome. -- The Zombiebaron 14:50, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

PS--Returns to mainspace inside a new Scarlet fever. Spıke ¬ 18:04 18-May-12

---

Is this a forgery? Spıke ¬ 17:15 18-May-12

No, that's Hype editing as Horace Donald Westenchester. I don't remember the details, but he's disallowed as "Hyperbole" or something. He also socks as "Inebriated" when he's drunk. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, May 18 '12 17:18 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I guess. Spıke ¬ 18:04 18-May-12

Hyperbole forgot the password to User:Hyperbole, and never bothered to attach an email to his account so he cannot recover the password. So he now edits as Horace Donald Westenchester. -- The Zombiebaron 21:20, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Are you shitting me?! ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, May 18 '12 21:56 (UTC)

I didn't know that! I thought he just liked using Horace. What a great thing, because Horace had some really wonderful pages before we knew it was Hyperbole, and he even got nommed for Noob of the Month (if I'm not mistaken, I nommed him or voted for him with high praise). Very similar to the Puppy thing, but stupid Puppy did it while being banned like a fucking moron, bless his heart. Horace! Aleister 22:15 18-5-'12utc!

Hi

I would like to propose giving auto-patrolled to Platypush, because none of their edits are bad/they've been here for a while. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:10, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. -- The Zombiebaron 06:12, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

System messages

How many of our interface pages have actually been customized? You know, I think MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext is one of the more important ones that could be parodied. See what I did on my own wiki. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 21:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. -- The Zombiebaron 03:04, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

My idea:

This page is {{#ifeq:$1|protect|fully protected|semi-protected}} against potential vandals like [[you]] and can only be edited by {{#ifeq:$1|protect|[[UN:AA|administrators]]|[[Uncyclopedia:Autoconfirmed users|established registered users]]}} at this time. Get away from here, foo'!

Something along those lines. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 22:16, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

This is not really the sort of change to site that can be made unilaterally. You should probably start a forum about this. -- The Zombiebaron 03:10, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. To MiniLuv! -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 03:23, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in MiniLuv. MiniLuv is for admin discussions. This should be discussed by the community at large and therefore belongs in the main Village Dump. -- The Zombiebaron 03:39, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Well, admins are the only ones that can actually implement this so it kind of fits there. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 21:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Admins may be the only ones who can implement it, but the whole community should decide what ends up getting implemented. -- The Zombiebaron 23:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Go to Forum:System messages. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 23:30, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

About the UnScript...

As far as I was concerned, it was adequate and therefore done. I don't know why I forgot to remove the WIP tag. Could you hack it up for me (removing the WIP tag)? -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 22:04, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. -- The Zombiebaron 03:29, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This script's got the attention of several other people. -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 21:02, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- The Zombiebaron 23:36, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Kerala

If you feel like it, Section 1 of this article would benefit from a shoop of the god Shiva, with a hatchet in each of his four hands. Spıke ¬ 10:52 6-Jun-12

I'm working on a picture, it should be done soon. -- The Zombiebaron 16:09, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Spıke ¬ 01:59 11-Jun-12

I have completed the image and added it to the page. Hope you like it. -- The Zombiebaron 21:33, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I do like it--you must have spent hours on that finger-work. However, it and your vote arrived too late to save the VFH. No harm done, but it's frustrating that one key No vote was from a user (Vaibhav Jain) seemingly created solely to vote for the out-of-the-blue VFH of Pakistan, and his only other edit, ever, was a drive-by No to this article about part of the enemy nation. Spıke ¬ 17:45 19-Jun-12

Weebils

This guy has been around since 2007, he has hundreds of UnNews, won the Foolitzer twice, but he is somewhat of a recluse, though I cracked his shell... Anyway, he didn't keep tabs of articles that got featured, but I'm sure he has more than 3, how can you verify that? Mattsnow 13:14, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

You could try going through his contributions. -- The Zombiebaron 16:10, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at his userpage, he seems to have been keeping a rather comprehensive track of which UnNews was a lead or a featured story, so it'd be pretty odd if he hadn't also kept track of his featured articles. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:39, 10 June 2012

I hate to be a pain but...

I've been really PO'ed about POTR's ban. Could you be so kind as to revert his ban? He was my friend. Also, I believe that a regular user should not be banned forever, but that's what I think.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling things like it is. User:Matthlock/sig 19:43, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am not going to unban PotR. Him and I have worked out a method for paroling him privately via email. -- The Zombiebaron 20:49, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

All right, could you give me the address to reach him, because I'd like to speak with him also some time. User:Matthlock/sig 20:42, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to post PotR's email address on my talkpage, as that would be a breach of his privacy. You can reach him at his talkpage on the illegal mirror Uncyclopedia. -- The Zombiebaron 21:04, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm male!!!!1!!11111!!

I don't what you have talked about me, and, to be honest, I don't really care, but Aim told me that both you and EMC though I were a girl. Fuck you. :D Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 07:15, 14 June, 2012 (UTC)

I never though you were a girl. -- The Zombiebaron 20:50, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

WHY Aim told me then? Or was it only EMC and Aim? Not that I'd care, though... Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 06:47, 15 June, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any idea why Aim would say that. I don't recall ever discussing your gender with him. -- The Zombiebaron 07:21, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Zombiebaron just admit the truth. You and Aim were planning a threesome. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:40, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

PLS Rewrite

I was thinking about rewriting this for the PLS but I already rewrote the intro and deleted some poo from it about two months ago. Does this make it ineligable on account of the "no starting articles before the comp date" thing? I understand and I wish to continue. . 04:44, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend choosing a different article to rewrite for PLS, to avoid all confusion. But if you would really like that article I don't think it will be a problem. -- The Zombiebaron 14:06, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I might give it a miss anyway though. On a seperate note, Do you still need a third judge for the rewrite section? I'm assuming the the mystery judge is non-existant. If so, I'd be happy to do it. I understand and I wish to continue. . 09:32, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put you down as the third judge. Thanks! -- The Zombiebaron 17:50, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

A PLS question

I recently started User:Xamralco/Human anatomy for the Best Illustrated Article category. It's really the most appropriate for that category, but so far no one else has entered anything. If nobody creates another best illustrated article, should I just move it to Best Article? -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 14:13, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well if nobody else enters Best Illustrated, you will win the category. But I doubt that is going to happen. Once people notice that the competition is almost over and there is only one entry in Best Illustrated, they will cobble together last minute entries (or, at least, that what happens most PLSs). -- The Zombiebaron 14:28, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what happens. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 14:48, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

RIP Best Illustrated. It was always the most fun category to enter, since I always had to go out of my comfort zone (and I feel mostly everyone else had to to, which is why it always performed poorly). Maybe bringing back Alt Namespace for the next competition could drum up more interest? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:34, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

That decision will be up to whoever runs the next PLS. I certainly would be against eliminating Best Illustrated. -- The Zombiebaron 17:37, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't ya marry enter it? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:40, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally the person running a PLS does not enter that PLS. -- The Zombiebaron 18:14, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally your face. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:47, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Pro tips?

What's the best way to write comedy based on alternate history? -- Sir CuteReshiramOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 20:58, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Very carefully. -- The Zombiebaron 21:02, June 17, 2012 (UTC)