Encyclopedia Of Stupid:Admin Discussion
From Encyclopedia Of Stupid
Contents |
Honorable Mention
If there is one problem with being a small encyclopedia, it's that there are so many articles you can click on (roughly three out of four, it seems) that are nearly contentless, and therefore useless. So I made a new category: Honorable Mention. In this category, I put in every article I could find that was not a GoldStar that was amusing, well written, and had some substance to it. I think I probably put in a dozen or so that weren't very long, and I may weed it out some later, but the point of having this category is to give users a way to find and read the good stuff that may not have been designated GoldStar by an admin. Anyone at all can add to the Honorable Mention category. In populating this category, I ran across a number of articles that I thought were GoldStar material, so I encourage admins to go through the Honorable Mention category and look for them. Me, I'm tired. Whenever anyone writes something good (though GoldStars should be given to the best of the best) - make sure to give them an Honorable Mention. - Supervisor 194 11:21, 4 Feb 2007 (PST)
Rethinking the PS Contest
We need to rethink the Platnum Star contest, as no one pays any attention to it. We need some sort of incentive that is somewhat more irresistable than 
. Also, I think I would like a contest that encourages more articles than just one. For instance, we could have the contest be for the month of November, and anyone can write ANYTHING. If their submission goes GoldStar, it would be put in the running for the PlatinumStar, which would be decided upon by a vote from anyone who uses the site (except those in the running) on the contest discussion page. The reward for being chosen winner of he PlatinumStar article would then get something more like $100 in upgrades and cash. If it worked, it could generate a lot of good content. -- Supervisor 194 16:45, 23 Oct 2006 (PDT)
- You got a hundred bucks to throw around like that? --Fbi2thegrave 00:13, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)
- Well. Not on a regular basis, but yeah. Now and then. I was paying $50 for banner ads which got us mostly users who wrote shit articles (if anything at all), so I would look at $100 investment as a good deal if I could buy a $5 banner ad linking to a thread explaining the contest and it generated a bunch of GoldStar articles. Thing is, I just didn't feel confident in the way we were doing the contest. -- Supervisor 194 15:22, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)
Admin Reshuffle
I'm removing admin status from all "admins" who are not obviously reasonably active tomorrow. The admins that will be left are: Myself, Thedreadedkettle, DoubleR and Fbi2thegrave. Please accept my thanks, you guys, for hanging around and helping out our humble wiki. I am under deadlines at work that are kicking my ass (and have been for the past month or so) but I plan to be more active once October rolls around. Also, it feels like we have reached the end of what SA advertising can do for us. We brought in 44 new users with the latest banner ad. Extremely weak, considering past performance. I will be looking for alternate ways to spread the word about EOS, but barring finding anything useful (please feel free to suggest), I am just going to let the blogosphere do it for us. Future Platinum Star contests will use $5 SA ads pointing to a CC thread. I'll set the next one up in October. - Supervisor 194 20:23, 6 Sep 2006 (PDT)
SA Banner For August
Is submitted. The contest/forum upgrade is mentioned, so hopefully that will generate a greater number of users. FYI, without a banner in July, the Internet bestowed upon us 22 new users. Since we average ~50-60 new users when we HAVE a banner, it would appear that we are getting closer to the singularity, and by singularity I mean the time when I will no longer have to foot banners. -- Supervisor 194 18:48, 31 Jul 2006 (PDT)
OMG Wikipedia Deleted Us LOL
Shows how much we know. Hurr we pay attention! 
I don't fault them for the delete, they did at least move it to the Wikipedia:Parody namespace, and it was a vanity article... but shit, anybody else notice how butt-hurt Wikipedia seems to be about all this media attention they've gotten lately? Anyhow, it appears that before we can rate our very own main namespace entry in Wikipedia we are going to have to have a lot more users and a lot more Internet banging on our door. So. The march progresses. Will we make it? 
-- Supervisor 194 17:03, 31 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Fake edit: We now have emoticons. More can be added as templates, if any are missing that you really like. They all need to be collected together in their own page similar to the templates page or something.
-- Supervisor 194 17:03, 31 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- We need to make a post on SA now that we're offering an upgrade. --Fbi2thegrave 18:46, 31 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Go for it. The ad should start appearing tomorrow. It mentions the contest also. -- Supervisor 194 19:37, 31 Jul 2006 (PDT)
Who wants to be the designated driver?
Obviously one of us is going to have to judge the entries for the PLATINUM STAR contest, and I think it would only be fair if that person didn't write their own version. Or we could all vote for their favorites, even if it they vote for their own (man that would be akward). What do you guys think, and do we have any volunteers?--Fbi2thegrave 18:52, 25 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- This question is going to come up every time, but for now, I am going to go ahead and say I'll take responsibility and I won't write an entry. THIS TIME. Also, I am offering a free forum upgrade to the winner (or PayPal $10). Once the SA banner goes up, we will have a lot of neckbeards joining again so maybe the free upgrade will entice them to write. Hell, we could probably even start a thread about it since we're offering upgrade. Wait - oh shit - I could modify the banner to mention the contest too. Anyway, go ahead and put that in the contest description - and when August 1 rolls around I will put the details of the contest on the front page. Since a prize is involved, I think you should consider extending the entry date to at least August 15. In the future (I'm thinking monthly here, folks), I will still offer the prize, but will want to have others do the judging. Voting just won't work, so we'll rotate responsibility like I rotate responsibility for the ctopotw. -- Supervisor 194 19:31, 25 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Also we should mention something about entries being disqualified if any are entered and others rip them off? Or what. -- Supervisor 194 19:38, 25 Jul 2006 (PDT)
EOS->EoS?
NOTE: This issue was resolved in an entry to the grammar entry. -- Supervisor 194 19:31, 25 Jul 2006 (PDT) This concerns a pretty big change and something that has been bugging me for a while now. I can't remember my rationale when I changed EoS to EOS - but it is grammatically not quite correct. Prepositions should only be capitalized in titles when they are more than five letters or some shit (I actually looked this up). Since we are so serious about grammar here, I thought it only appropriate to discuss whether or not the site should be converted to EoS again. This is how it was in the very beginning, and of course, how it still is in the logo itself. However, there is some currency to the idea that by capitalizing the preposition we are making a snarky meta-criticism of ourselves (and by proxy English). I am torn. I would appreciate your research and thoughtful responses to this question. -- Supervisor 194 21:13, 17 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- EoS. EOS is for commie bastards. -- Electric Messiah
- That must have taken you forever. -- Supervisor 194 08:13, 18 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- I'd say EoS simply for consistency, what with it being Encyclopedia of Stupid in the logo and that it's grammatically correct. I do like the idea of the whole EOS snarky meta thing, I just feel that it's outweighed by the fact that grammar is a pretty big issue here and it makes more sense to have the logo match the actual name of the site. Although I'm as nonconformist as your average guy/gal, I think we should stick to what we're told is right and go back to EoS. But hey I'm British, so what the hell do I know about grammar? -- DoubleR 18:28, 18 July 2006
- I think that it would be too much of a pain in the ass, and I doubt people out there thinking, "Well I think I would like to write an article for this wiki but they refer to themselves incorrectly and thus I shan't. Thus I think we should worry about writing a bunch of good articles instead of looking for every instance of EOS and changing it to EoS. Also, Install Linux--Fbi2thegrave 22:05, 18 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- I don't want to do it or not do it because it would be a pain in the ass. I want to do it because it's right or not do it because that's actually funnier, because grammar is stupid. In thinking about this yesterday, I had the following thought: there is actually no grammatical rule which says that prepositions under five letters long cannot be capitalized. It is just common practice. So perhaps by NOT doing it, we are simply making a statement about how the arcane rules of English are stupid, and we put an entry in the Grammar/English articles which say something to that effect. -- Supervisor 194 09:54, 19 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Based on that, it would probably make more sense to stick with EOS seeing as it can be used for comedic purposes in articles and whatnot. If the preposition capitalisation 'rule' is only a guideline then there's no reason why we can't legitimately keep it as EOS, call it correct and further criticize the stupidity of English and grammar in the articles. Of course this u-turn renders my opinion completely stupid, but based on what's been said so far it seems sticking with EOS may be the way to go. DoubleR 10:35, 19 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- I don't want to do it or not do it because it would be a pain in the ass. I want to do it because it's right or not do it because that's actually funnier, because grammar is stupid. In thinking about this yesterday, I had the following thought: there is actually no grammatical rule which says that prepositions under five letters long cannot be capitalized. It is just common practice. So perhaps by NOT doing it, we are simply making a statement about how the arcane rules of English are stupid, and we put an entry in the Grammar/English articles which say something to that effect. -- Supervisor 194 09:54, 19 Jul 2006 (PDT)
This page will be protected so that only sysops can edit it. Serious issues will go here. Since I haven't felt the need for any serious discussion until this very moment, I expect that it will be relatively empty for some time to come. -- Supervisor 194 21:02, 17 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Stick it in her pooper lol --Fbi2thegrave 22:04, 18 Jul 2006 (PDT)
