Forum:Are facts grounds for deletion?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Are facts grounds for deletion? (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2746 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I wrote my fourth article yesterday, and parodied some wikipedia content when I got writers block, but the next day it had a "Facts Detected" tag on it. That's not grounds for deletion if the facts aren't removed is it? This question may sound silly, but I just want to be sure... The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.104.7 (talk • contribs)

No SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 20:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First, learn how to write text without hiding it. Second, there's more than factuality that determines if an article is a keep or not. While you may be able to remove any factual data, the article itself must still be humorous ehough to stand on its own. If you were to copy a wikipedia article verbatim, but insert nonsense to make it unfactual, it would still be deleted. I'm not sure of the specifics of your case, could you provide the article names so I could get a quick look at them?--ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts alone are not grounds for deletion. Unfunny, however, is grounds for deletion. The two sometimes go hand in hand but not always. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, sometimes facts are funny thusly making themselves having grounds for deletion in some sense. Context is sometimes a dead give-away. I know this because I write many articles for UnNews, and my biggest nightmare is writing an article and having it become true. For instance, consider staying away from topics like President Bush, while its a wealth of humor, but all true, so it makes it unfunny on uncyclopedia... --HPSigHP talk KUN Icons-flag-pi 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah! Talk about deja vu...Forum:Factual_Template. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But what, exactly, is deja vu?

Bouncywikilogo2
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article very remotely related to Are facts grounds for deletion?.
“Oh Jesus, they better not do some stupid typing everything twice gag”
~ Oscar Wilde on The Deja-Vu article
“Oh Jesus, they better not do some stupid typing everything twice gag”
~ Oscar Wilde on The Deja-Vu article

Deja-vu (French for déjà vu) is a mysterious psychic phenomenon that makes one feel that one has lived through something before. It is classified in psychology as a mysterious psychic phenomenon of the psyche. It can be a very serious and torturous condition if experienced over long periods of time and, if experienced over long periods of time, can lead to insanity if experienced over long periods of time, meaning deja-vu can be a very serious and torturous condition. Deja-vu is also a mysterious psychic phenomenon that, if experienced over long periods of time, can lead to insanity, meaning deja-vu can be a very fun and entertaining tool for sadistic psychopaths.

Bouncywikilogo2
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article very remotely related to Are facts grounds for deletion?.
“Oh Jesus, they better not do some stupid typing everything twice gag”
~ Oscar Wilde on The Deja-Vu article

Classic symptoms of Deja-vu


Other symptoms of deja-vu

  • You experience deja-vu (Not to be confused with Déjà vu)


History

Deja-vu (French for déjà vu, this term is a French one, and it means “already seen”. Émile Boirac, a French philosopher, is believed to introduce this term) was first described in the 1800s by Sigmund Freud in the 1800s, when Sigmund Freud first described deja-vu. Ever since, deja-vu has confused and amazed people, including Sigmund Freud, who experienced it often in his life after he first described deja-vu in the 1800s. Ever since, deja-vu (French for déjà vu) has confused and amazed people and led them to insanity.

Causes

The causes of deja-vu are still widely unknown. In practice, there usually are two components: an element that is similar to an earlier experience encountered by the participant without being a major component of the earlier event, and a degree of strong emotion, including potentially psychosis, concerning the possibility of the event. Thus, while seeing a piece of bread wouldn't likely cause Deja-vu concerning a sandwich eaten five years ago, seeing a woman wearing a red hat when you have a memory of trauma concerning red hats around the time when your family was murdered in front of you, you may recall your family being killed by a woman that looked like the hat wearer. Note that deja-vu is not the same thing as being reminded of a past event; it is only Deja-vu when the current event never actually occurred in the past, but only seems like it had. The causes of deja-vu are still widely unknown.

Deja-vu is largely incurable, but typically doesn't interfere with one's life to any significant degree. In a Queenstown University study of twenty-six patients who had experienced deja-vu in the past year, 54% considered it a "good experience", 22% considered it "thought provoking", and only 5% "wished it hadn't happened". Another group, unaware of the previous two, is currently studying 54 patients at Camberra University in the exact same manner, and reporting "eerie results". Five months later, a small team at Kyoto Daigaku, in Kyoto independently conducted the same study with the same questions, and got remarkably similar data; only well after the fact did they encounter the original study.

Prognosis

Sadly, in severe cases, the patient is often deranged beyond all hope of recovery. Sometimes the only appropriate response is to place the patient into a large cardboard box padded with styrofoam chips, tape securely, and send via FedEx to the following address:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 

This will not really do anything helpful for the patient. However, it should amuse the national news outlets, give someone the feeling that one has lived through something before, and confuse the Department of Homeland Security for weeks on end. Thus, it will not really do anything helpful for the patient.

Treatment options

Patients who experience deja-vu typically do not wish to be treated; however, in the case that one does, there are usually a number of options. The deja-vu "trigger" must be discovered; this is an element that is similar to an earlier experience encountered by the participant which reminded inaccurately of earlier events. The patient should be regularly exposed to the trigger, first in a predictable office setting after being warned, and then steadily less predictably after that. In severe cases, medications such as haldol and lithium can be prescribed to calm the patient and reduce any psychosis-related effects.

Occasionally, treatment of deja-vu can make the condition progressively worse. Close attention must be paid to ensure that the patient doesn't regress and become more easily triggered. The deja-vu "trigger" must be discovered; this is an element that is similar to an earlier experience encountered by the participant which reminded inaccurately of earlier events. In such cases, treatment with medication is often the only solution; the patient should also be monitored for other potential psychological problems.

Causes

The causes of deja-vu are still widely unknown. In practice, there usually are two components: an element that is similar to an earlier experience encountered by the participant without being a major component of the earlier event, and a degree of strong emotion, including potentially psychosis, concerning the possibility of the event. In practice, there usually are two components: an element that is similar to an earlier experience encountered by the participant without being a major component of the earlier event, and a degree of strong emotion, including potentially psychosis, concerning the possibility of the event. Thus, while seeing a piece of bread wouldn't likely cause deja-vu concerning a sandwich eaten five years ago, seeing a woman wearing a red hat when you have a memory of trauma concerning red hats around the time when your family was murdered in front of you, you may recall your family being killed by a woman that looked like the hat wearer. Note that deja-vu is not the same thing as being reminded of a past event; it is only deja-vu when the current event never actually occurred in the past, but only seems like it had.

Deja-vu is largely incurable, but typically doesn't interfere with one's life to any significant degree. In a Queenstown University study of twenty-six patients who had experienced deja-vu in the past year, 54% considered it a "good experience", 22% considered it "thought provoking", and only 5% "wished it hadn't happened". Another group, unaware of the previous two, is currently studying 54 patients at Camberra University in the exact same manner, and reporting "eerie results". Five months later, a small team at Kyoto Daigaku, in Kyoto independently conducted the same study with the same questions, and got remarkably similar data; only well after the fact did they encounter the original study. Another group, unaware of the previous two, is currently studying 54 patients at Camberra University in the exact same manner, and reporting "eerie results".

But what is Deja-vu?

Deja-vu (French for déjà vu) is a mysterious psychic phenomenon that makes one feel that one has lived through something before. It can be a very serious and torturous condition if experienced over long periods of time and, if experienced over long periods of time, can lead to insanity if experienced over long periods of time, meaning deja-vu can be a very serious and torturous condition. Deja-vu is also a mysterious psychic phenomenon that, if experienced over long periods of time, can lead to insanity, meaning deja-vu can be a very torturous and serious condition.

Classic symptoms of Deja-vu

  • Anxiety
  • Insomnia
  • The feeling that one has lived through something before
  • Sensitivity to repetitive themes
  • Profuse sweating
  • Loss of bladder control
  • Heart palpitations
  • The feeling that one has lived through something before
  • Imagining that you own a rabbit
  • Anxiety
  • Chapped lips

Further research

As studies on deja-vu are nearly absent, it is recommended to interested applicants to apply to NIH for research grants on the subject. Of particular interest would be studies on whether or not patients who had experienced deja-vu were disturbed by the experience. Such questions could include asking whether they "wished it hadn't happened", considered it a "good experience", or even "thought provoking". These questions should be asked repeatedly in order to build up a good statistical picture.

In Modern Times, Deja-Vu is getting old due to repetition, some times Deja Vu is mixed with Deja Bu so in modern times deja Bu is the new Deja Vu, where as Deja Vu is the old Deja Va with a new Deja Bu, but Deja Bu happens after Deja Vu has occurred, but Deja-BU never occurs until Deja-Va is met with Deja-VU which only happens in history so expereincing Deja-Vu, you have to wait for tomorrow that Deja-Vu becomes Deja-Va, hence Deja-Va Occurs following the next day in persuit of Deja-Bu, but as Deja-Bu starts to appear, Deja VU becomes old and repetetive in Modern Times.

See also

But what is Deja-vu?

Deja-vu (French for déjà vu) is a mysterious psychic phenomenon that makes one feel that one has lived through something before. If you have it, it is advised you duct tape yourself in a large, cardboard box and mail yourself to the following address:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

See also

Bouncywikilogo2
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article very remotely related to Are facts grounds for deletion?.

Back to Topic: is True Facts And Other Deleted Prose underused?

Well? --L 12:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Douglas Adams has said some very funny things in his life, and just because some of Dougs quotes are true, doesn't mean they should be deleted because of that.--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
From the point of view of somebody whose chief weapon is satire (satire and Monty Python quotes) I think the template {{factual}} is a really bad one. Any piece of satire will have truth in it, and nothing kills a piece of satire quicker than a sign saying "Bits of this are based on fact, you know!".--Wyattj 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just have a {{satire}} or {{sarcastic}} template instead of the factual one? Is there some way to teach us members to create our own templates? Sometimes we just have to use a JPG image like this one to warn people:
Slipperywhensarcastic
--Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do we warn people at all? NSFW makes sense, the rest not so much.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So people won't slip on the sarcasm or satire and hurt their feelings or something. Then if they do, hey, we at least warned them and they cannot sue us over it then. Do you know how much someone can sue you or Uncyclopedia for emotional and psychological damages in civil court? There needs to be warning labels on some articles so severe in sarcasm and satire so people can tell if we are joking or not. I mean in real life like in video and audio people can use a sarcastic or satirical tone of voice to warm people, but the Internet has no such thing save a JPG file or a Wiki template. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Modus: "Why do we warn people at all?" I agree with that entirely: the work stands on its own merits. Period. I don't ever ever ever care that some walleyed git with a stoat up his nose thought that a piece needs a template proclaiming it to be sarcastic, or factual, or LIEbral, or propaganda, or communist, or lovéd by Black Jesus, or any other damn' thing. (I don't mind wirttars who are not wall-eyed gits with stoats up their noses, though.) ----OEJ 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Because the templates add to the humor of the article. Esp when they get stacked together. You can even use templates for the opposite reason, like a totally made up article with no facts in it, all of a sudden has a factual template on it. Or better yet a disputed template on an article that cites true facts with web references. We use these in place of stupid comments like "This article is bullshit" which belong on the talk page and not in the article anyway. Not only that but the whining template seems to be quite popular as well as of late. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Stoat

One Stoat.

I disagree and always have. A template is a cookie-cutter editorial comment that demonstrates mostly that the guy who placed it has zero creativity -- apparently he couldn't think of any way to actually create content, so he copied something that somebody else created. Templates usually detract from the actual article, not enhance it. (O.B., the reason we disagree is of course because we have our own subjective tastes in humor, and that can't be legislated, and that is as it should be.) But to me templates are boring. Seen 'em all, and don't care to see 'em over and over and over again. Booooorrrrrring. One of the best things about Uncyc is that most articles don't have templates. One of the worst things is how many otherwise funny articles have senseless templates stuck on 'em. Another thing I hate is when this dam' stoat gets stuck up my nose. Dammit, I think it is chewing on my frontal lobes right now. ----OEJ 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You lost me, what the fuk is a stoat...— H. Peebles - D - HS KUN Foolitzer Icons-flag-pi 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, see Witless Protection Program Rad 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't need the template on funny satire, if someone can read an article and not realise that it's satire that's their fault, we shouldn't have templates to explain jokes.
we should just change the article we do have to say too high a fact to joke ratio. if an article's all fact and no funny just vfd it - jack mort | cunt | talkKodamaIcon - 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects