Talk:Contents

		This article was nominated for deletion on April 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete.

The talk page for the old Contents page has been archived here, for all the losers that get off on flamewars.

---

OMG CONTENTS HAS BEEN REWRITTEN!!!!1! MY VFD WORKED!!!!--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You. Are. GOD. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Zerotrousers is Ouroboros? >:-) —Braydie 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Braydie, say what you want about Ouroboros. At least I believe in Him. That's more than you can say. Oh, oh, what now?! What now, bitch? Yeah, best back off! That's what I thought, motherfucka'. What now?! --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PWN'T

A-Hem, Manos is god, the hand of fate simply moves me to create this article and forget about his own. That is how selfless he is. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Eh?

This had better be the best article-in-progress ever, that's all I can say. *Grumble* -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell happened?

This used to be the best page on the site! Bring back the old Contents! --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you think the old contents was better. IT WAS CRAP!!!!--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooooow, I Mr. Briggs Inc., one of Uncyclopedia's Blacklist first come up with better ideas for contents than sying "Contents" over and over, but now at least 2 people are pissed off by the idea. Here we go, how about an article on Caroline Munro made up of 1 thousand pictures of Caroline Munro?

Actually, you know what... :) Mr. Briggs Inc. 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Eh?

We need the old talk page

At the very least, restore the old talk page above this new area of discussion so that it flows better. It was classic. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At least THIS was back! --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Insineratehymn's recording?

Deleting the old article was disrespectful to him and removes a funny recording. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to old contents supporters

Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents Contents. Look at me, I'm so funny! --» >UF|TLK|▋» 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

*applause* --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For all you old contents lovers

I have an UnBook for you! Even became a Featured UnBook! UnBooks:This is a Sample Nomination! Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents will never die.

Not as long as I'm around. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes it will...» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not it won't. --General Insineratehymn 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have my ways...--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BLANK BLANK BLAN

Heading for another ban, are we ZT? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Contents vs. Sir Uncyclopedia equals: Contents Dies

What is better?

 

Sir Uncyclopedia

6

 

The Old Contents

17

 

The poll was created at 16:27 on April 29, 2007, and so far 23 people voted.

Please wait, submitting your vote...

Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the old Contents is winning, so there. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What sucks the most?

 

Sir Uncyclopedia

1

 

The Old Contents

7

 

Fisher Price

0

 

The New Contents

16

 

The poll was created at 15:12 on May 12, 2007, and so far 24 people voted.

Please wait, submitting your vote...

Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! So difficult, as both the old and new contents' suck. At least the old one was self-referential . . . -Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What doesn't not unsuck the least... not?

 

The New Contents

2

 

The Old Contents.

5

 

The Middle-Aged Contents

3

 

That old lady Constance down the street

3

 

The poll was created at 04:05 on May 15, 2007, and so far 13 people voted.

Please wait, submitting your vote...

Because polls are fun to add. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Translated: What is the best? Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Squiggle, you just voted that the New Contents is the best. Insineratehymn and I would know better. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I voted new contents. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Can I ICU this yet?

Pweeeease? Pwetty pwease? It's been under construction foreeeeeeeeeever and it's still just a blatent placeholder to stop the other one coming back. On the other hand, if it goes, the talkpage probably goes. Eep! Ummm... how about I make something decently meta-humourish but with actual content? Hmmm... [Thinks.] -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For contents haters

In the interest of balance:

-- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is not! Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine is better, and more official, and awarded to people already. Ha! Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

One out of three. You lose. More Uncyclopedians, at least ones who won't name themselves Uncyclopedian, love the old Contents. It's just you and three others versus something like ten of us. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I already HAVE an award for loving Contents so much, so THERE. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We need userboxes. "This user hates the old Contents and is glad that its gone, so there." and for those rightminded people among us (I only voted delete because Spang threatened to take away all my awards!!) "This user loves the old Contents and will not rest until it is restored!" I'd make em but I'm lazy. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 01:00, 13 May 2007

Can't we have them both? The old one as Contents and the new as Content. I like the old one best if you ask me.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think theres really only a small group of people who like the new contents. I think we should have another vote. This time I'll use my conscience vote, damn the consequences! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:27, 21 May 2007

We need a VFU page, that's what we need. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great idea!! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 02:07, 22 May 2007

Userboxes

OC!	This user loves the Old Contents and wants it reinstated.

 :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 03:57, 31 May 2007

NC!	This user loves the New Contents and thinks it should be kept.

:P Mr. Briggs Inc. 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Eh? And just to be even fairer...

NO-C!

This user hates all Contents and desires genocide to those who write them.

Mr. Briggs Inc. 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) EH??

I knew that those other ones would spring up :P ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 09:21, 31 May 2007

Contents (Nonsense)

In order to allow the fans of the old Contents and those who wanted it deleted, I have moved a copy to Contents (Nonsense). --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I already did that in my userspace. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I am opposed. I will not divulge my ulterior motive because that's not the point of flamewars. In conclusion, I am in support. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)