From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Tom Jones (To avoid disturbing historic ruins, Dogs must be kept on a leash.)" Sheer quality! RabbiTechno 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

edit WALEZ

WALEZZZ The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icantthinkofone (talk • contribs)

Some ignorant basdud can't spell Llareggub. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

edit Sheep

I love the bit about the sheep near the cliff! I think it's hilarious! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

ahh Wales... i think its a pretty damn good thing many people dont even know theres such a country cus they wont come snooping. i bet you theres english people that dont evem know hahaha...exept for those who watch rugby because last year WE TOTALLY KICKED BUTT! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

edit this needs work

It is long and rambling and not very funny at present. Though there are some good ideas in it. Mh96 22:31, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

edit Offensive content

I realize that Uncyclopedia and everything written on it is supposed to be funny, but unfortunately I must now be serious. You will forgive me this.

This article is mostly very funny excepting the section 'Welsh Stereotypes', which is not funny at all. Except for the patriotism thing and not feeling the cold it's basically just a list of insults. Who could find such things as 'there [sic] women are a [sic] slightly better looking than a dead monkeys [sic] half-digested ass' anything but rude and disgusting? Just applying it to a minority that has been much beaten up on does not make it funny. The total disregard for spelling, punctuation and capitalization doesn't help either; it's not only bad-looking but doesn't fit with the style of the rest of the text.

On the 10th, editing under an IP address, I blanked this section as an attempt to get someone to care. My edit was immediately reverted to the version with the unfunny section in it with no attempt made to actually improve the content, and my IP was blocked for three days. I am annoyed, but not surprised, that nobody cares enough to fix the problem instead of just blocking me. I can't imagine this kind of nonsense would be left alone if it were about a major group like the English/British -- it's the Welsh, Polish, etc. that get mercilessly beaten up and dug into the ground. I am well aware that you like to poke at minorities, but that doesn't make it okay. Quite the contrary. It would be better if we could poke at all nationalities equally, though I suppose that won't happen on a wiki that thinks it's part of the British Empire. 'We must colonise savage lands and make them stop worshipping sheep' and so forth.

If nobody tries to improve Welsh Stereotypes, I will try my hand at making a version of it that doesn't make dark rainy clouds hang over my head (yes, that's how the current one made me feel) and if I can't figure out how to fix it I will delete it. Please spare yourself the trouble and don't just block or revert me.

Sincerely, Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 22:09, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Yes, by all means try your hand!
Thank you for picking a username. Romartus and I (SPIKE) are two Admins who reverted changes recently. Unfortunately, when someone editing under an IP address blanks an entire section, we tend to revert the IP without regard to the quality of the section in question, and continuing to blank sections may get one blocked. Talking things out is always the remedy, and you are doing exactly the right thing rather than blanking and waiting for us to guess why.
A section that is a "hatchet-job" or contains merely stock stereotypes or drive-by put downs is not quality humor. It sounds as though the product of your effort will be preferable to what's there now. We do like to poke at minorities, and quality writing and authentic humor does make it okay. We do poke at all nationalities, and with no effort to ensure that it is done equally. We do not think we are part of the British Empire; we are hosted out of San Francisco and I'm north of Boston.
So welcome to Uncyclopedia, and by all means get started! Spıke Ѧ 22:20 14-Feb-13
Thanks for explaining. I'll see what I can do, though I am pretty busy and may not get anything up here for quite some time. Sorry about accidentally deleting your reply -- I was trying to figure out a link and kept messing it up. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 22:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
For the record: In the edit you refer to, you did not just blank the section; you replaced it with: "Blanked. Please be funny and not just stupid next time or I will blank the @&#^!* section again. Thank you." Admin Frosty replied with a 3-day ban and the comment: How will you blank it if you're banned? I certainly would have banned you as well, and probably would have given you 7 days, for not just blanking but for snapping your fingers and demanding better content. You see, we are all we've got. Again, by registering with a username and promising to devise said content, you are proceeding in the right way, and on your way to becoming an Uncyclopedian--with, from the sound of it, a better sense of humor than those who came before you on the article. If anyone here had such power, I would declare you the article's owner; no regular has done anything except revert stuff for almost a year. Spıke Ѧ 22:32 14-Feb-13
One final procedural quibble, at "if I can't figure out how to fix it I will delete it." No. If you can't figure it out, you may list it at Votes for Deletion, and we may agree with you, in which case someone will start over, some day. Probably you. Spıke Ѧ 22:34 14-Feb-13
I didn't mean that I would delete the article, just the section. It's not necessary to the page and if it can't be rewritten into something better it has to go. 02:53, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sure--but logged in and with a calm Change Summary, please! Indeed, there is no reason why your work on the article has to retain in some form every section that was originally there. Someone once created them, even if by extracting them from a bodily orifice. Spıke Ѧ 02:59 15-Feb-13

edit It is deleted

Upon further review--that is, upon actually reading Wales--I agree with Llwy-ar-lawr entirely and have deleted this section: a section entitled Welsh Stereotypes. In stark contrast to the rest of the article (which touches on Welsh stereotypes, such as the language, with competent original writing), this section was a lifeless listing of stereotypes, most of which were hardly unique to Wales, with no value added. It was visited by authors who notably did not start sentences with capitals nor end all of them with full stops. Viewing the code shows that this is because it was typed as a list by one or more users who did not know the items would be wrapped end-to-end into a paragraph. It touched on chavs--a word that singlehandedly gets British articles voted for deletion as "towncruft." And its very title was an open invitation for more of the same. However, it is deleted not for having given offense, but for being thoroughly bad writing.

Please, though, Llwy-ar-lawr, do not let it end here; dig in with further improvements to the article. Spıke Ѧ 15:32 15-Feb-13

You are welcome to improve the article Llwy-ar-lawr when you can. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:35, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

edit The Valleys

I don't know what to do with that section, and it needs major help. Somebody else please step in because I happen to know nothing about that particular show. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 00:04, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools