Forum:A Modest Proposal regarding vanity

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > A Modest Proposal regarding vanity
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1548 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Fact is, there is still a fair amount of vanity out there. We don't want it: we want stuff to be humorous and/or humourous (for those of us who don't speak English). I have a proposal for a policy that is guaranteed to:

  1. Result in hilarity
  2. Deter future vanity
  3. End in the removal of vanity.

Or your money back!*

My proposal can be organized into simple steps:

  1. Some egotistical person submits an article about himself and how cool his articles are and how much better he is than some other person.
  2. The article is open to edit by members of Uncyclopedia, the goal being to make the article as uncomplimentary (or as complimentary, if it is an insulty-vanity article (tm)) as possible.
  3. The article is protected after 48 hours or when the article is deemed opposite enough to the vaniteer's original intent to the point that he will be surprised when he shows his friends.
  4. The article remains protected for the 5 remaining days for 1 week to pass.
  5. The article is deleted.
  6. Block the user if a sysop wants to.

Brilliant, yet simple.**

  • *Not applicable in all states, provinces, countries, or planets.
  • **Statement not based on clincal testing.

-- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's missing the part where we ban the sad soul of the vaniteer to the depths of olipro's Sex chamber--Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea flies in the face of everything written in WP:DENY. I like it already. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:35, Jan 9
You're missing the last step: "Ban everyone involved." Where's the fun without that?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 03:38 Jan 09, 2008
You lie. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just let me create this article lambasting this teacher who failed me and who I firmly believe prevented me from fucking this really hot girl. --Dexter111344 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Another person claiming to be the author of that? :P -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'm talking about a whole other incident. Fuck Winkler. --Dexter111344 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Other thoughts

The one drawback of this that i can think of off of the top of my head would be one of the problems that plagues all uncyclopedians; Laziness. As much fun as it would be to tarnish vandalism, most people would rather see it instantly deleted. Also, think of the admins and all the extra work they have to do with this. Protecting the article for a week. Waiting a week to delete/ban. From what I belive would be the general opinion of the common Admin (Uncyclopedianous Bastardous), they would rather delete it claiming "Nobody cares about this person/group/thing/pie. Go read UN:VAIN. Further recreation will result in a ban." as per the auto scripted delete button. While it would be fun to do this to a few articles, I can't see it being used on all vanity that comes into the site.--Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Spraypainting your tag over existing graffiti does not make it go away. It just makes more mess that still needs to be cleaned up by some unlucky bastard later. Also, approximately 99% of the vanity we get isn't "John Smith is teh bestest!!!!!111". It's more "John Smith's buddy Mark is a faggot lol". Also also, this proposal directly contravenes policies and guidelines included in BGBU, HTBFANJS and DENY. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget VAIN and occasionally CBN. —Hinoa talk.kun 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also English people don't put a "u" in "humorous", but we do in "humour". It's one of those rules we put in to annoy Americans. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We, meanwhile, put the "u" in earlier on. Huumor is the best. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Its not a Huumor!" -Arnold Schwarzenegger --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think his idea, just to clarify, is to modify the article so that it humorously says the opposite whatever the article says. As in, if the page harasses someone, turn them into some kind of deity. And, I do disagree with any policy wikipedia puts forth... But it sounds like a lot of work to me. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:28, Jan 9
Personal tools