Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive15

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Village Dump
Revision as of 01:56, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Policy

In the process of working on Uncyclopedia:Ban Policy, I've noticed the lack of policy organization in general. If you ask me (and you didn't:) Uncyclopedia:Policies and guidelines and Uncyclopedia:Policy should be put down humanely, merged with one redirecting to the other, and in the very least function as a one-stop-shop for anything that users might want to know. It could also simply be a mirror for Category:Ignorable policies. Any objections to me trying to tidy up a little? Any suggestions as I tentatively proceed? --T. (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as you remember that all new rules are evil and death until firmly proven necessary. As far as I can tell, the actual operating principles of Uncyclopedia are (1) Be funny and not just stupid and (2) Don't be a dick. In that order. (Uncyclopedia:VFP/Kakuns Place and Uncyclopedia:Useless Gobshite of the Month, for example, are most cruel but also sort of a needed statement.) This is based on my observations, so I'd love to hear Chronarion's take - David Gerard 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In my understanding, we don't really have any real written rules or policies and work mostly on a set of rough guidelines and precedent that we call policy sometimes. Based on my philosophical understanding or rules/laws/policies, this makes us much more flexible and able to deal with situations as they arise, especially considering we have relatively few hardass admins. As such, I would like to go on record as having said that I am opposed to codifying any policies and think that any page about policies should be no more than half serious, present only vague guidlines and possibly give examples of precedent. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be a case that before a newly appointed Admin takes up his/her ceremonial banstick for the first time that the individual's judgement is, or should be, apparent to the people who have bestowed Adminship. A "general" collection of policies would be a good thing, but shouldn't restrict an Admins judgement. We ARE THE LAW!!!! Seriously though, deletions and bans are for the most part given out to deserving parties, hopefully evenhandedly. As with Gwax I would prefer to have "guidelines" rather than dogma. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading what I wrote, I don't think I suggested anywhere that I was going to create policy. We do have a pile of ignorable policies (whether they've been categorized there or not) that are not referenced on Uncyclopedia:Policies and guidelines and Uncyclopedia:Policy. They're a couple of useless pages. I can try to make them useful and point at something, or leave them as is. I'd delete them completely were they not referenced all over the site.

But please, let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that we're good, pure, and not like the evil twin brother, en.wp. People are creating new "policies" around here, whether they choose to label them as such or not: the new rules on VFH & VFP, Kakun's Place, and Uncyclopedia:Special_Rules, to name a few.

If it makes us all feel better to leave Uncyclopedia:Policies and guidelines policy-free, but pull out the various official and non-official pages when it's convenient to slap people with them, just so we can continue to coddle ourselves with the illusion of being "better" or "freer", that's fine. It was just an idea. But if people are seriously concerned about us getting too political, then our own actions recently are hypocritical, and the policies being made are also being used by some of the most vocal "anti-policy" people we have. --T. (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that I really count, but I think having a centralized, well done set of user guidelines would be good. Doesn't have to be rigid, but including some precedent would be helpful. I think it would also be nice if the page did a little explaining of how the admins and the site operate so that people can be understanding when an admin deletes something they like. Having a "the admins are scary and evil, don't piss them off" stance is funny, but maybe not the most productive. Anyhow, I say go for. And if you want help I will volunteer my time. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My original plan was not to have any sort of strict policies, but a set of guidelines. However, as the site gets larger, it might be necessary to draft up, well, actual policies. The things in place are hopefully engineered for the concept of:

  • 1. Funny, not stupid
  • 2. Don't be a dick

As noted earlier. Pretty much, anything that is in place is to help assist these two guidelines. However, it is true that our "official" policy pages are a bit of a confusing jumble. Should I kinda clean the thing up?

--Chronarion 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Huff it like you got a cat shelter for Christmas. BURNINATE! BURNINATE! - David Gerard 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Having been pointed to Uncyclopedia:Ban Policy for the first time, I'd like to spout off about it: Once you place rules in stone, you need to follow them. While it may seem easier or better, it's not. With blanket-rules, we will inevitablly run into the two situitations where someone does something incredibly major, but it falls into say, a one-week-ban category. Then someone does something incredibly minor, and it falls into a one-week-ban category. Now we have two bans of the same length, for vastly different offenses. If the users raise a stink, we spend time defending the categories. Or we vote to change durations. What this all comes down to is another layer of beurecracy and irritation that we don't need.

While I can understand your need to have a quantitative guide to banning, I don't want to deal with the crapstorms I think it's prone to. In addition, if it's "Not an official policy" it should be in a subpage of your userspace, not in the Uncyclopedia space. Like my ban-cheat-sheet.

Having spouted off on Uncyclopedia:Ban Policy, let me spout off on Uncyclopedia:Special_Rules: These spawned directly from violations of Rule #2, and were an attempt at finding an alternative to banning people for a long time. If our official policy is "simplify the rules", we lose a mechanism like this to give users who struggle to be good citizens another chance.

What I'm sensing from all the discussion above is that we need a concensus on what our top priority is:

  • Helping users grow into good writers and good citizens
  • Keeping boatloads of crap off this site

If we're helping users grow, we need to coach and cajole them along - we need to flex and bend, and give them second, third, and fifth chances.

If we're keeping boatloads of crap off this site, we need to simplify the rules, and boot any user/articles which spew crap.

At the moment, it seems that our top priority is being user-friendly, as our crap piles are growing ever higher. If that's our collective choice, we accept that we do what we can to keep troublesome users around, and ignore the crap piles.

Personally, I'm an evil hard-ass and would like to purge a lot of crap. Tough love makes for a better end-product. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First, let's be clear that the quantitative need stemmed from Carlb's legitimate complaint about the arbitrary nature of bans. I'm a "do" person, so I took his complaint and assembled a framework. Others volunteered their ideas, and now we have the beginning of something workable. I created Ban Policy in the Uncylopedia namespace because it was intended to evolve into an actual policy. I suppose I could have omitted the "Not an official policy" line and just threw it up there like other rules around here, but it seemed presumtuous.
It need not be designed to be overly punitive to those who don't deserve it. I don't think it is. It has steps (warn/ban) and variable lengths for severity. Its only purpose is to add some absolute limits to power around here, so there's no room for "24 years because you slipped and I'm in a bad mood".
It's not done, either. I've been asking for help, so please help. Or ignore it. Or delete it completely. Or move it to Carlb's userspace. Whatever is done with it, I won't undo. I'm resigning from further work on it because I don't have the time to argue with people anymore. I have another week's vacation and I intend to enjoy it doing things for myself, rather than try to help others. --T. (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess to me, there is a huge difference between anon-IP and user with edit history. If you're a user who's edited a number of pages, and generally contribute moderately decent stuff, I'm way more likely to leave a note on your talk page about some issue. If you're an anon-ip and you have 5 bad/malicious edits in the span of 20 minutes, what's a note really going to do? Once your cable company assigns a new IP address, you'll never see that warning. In fact, it's likely that some other user will log on and be freaked out by it.
I do see the reasoning behind the quantitative need for non-arbitarary ban-lengths. However, my concern is that there are so many variables that it becomes difficult to quantify every situitation which may arise. Really, if people could just follow Rule #2 (Don't be a dick), 90% of our bans would never happen.
Regardless, thanks for being a "do" person, because it offsets me being a "sit on my ass and bitch about people doing stuff" person. Enjoy the vacation, and don't stress too much about Uncyclopedia - that's a sure sign you're taking it too seriously. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm going to continue to ignore any policies that I feel to be inconsistent with the actual purpose of this project. Which, I think, a few people may have lost sight of. This is supposed to be fun. The whole point was to just let people go and have at. If it's utterly bad, axe it. If someone does something stupid, the admins should use their own judgement as to what to do about it. if it's deemed as a bannable offense by an admin, they should also use their judgement as to how long the ban should be. Feel free to criticize me, but... when has it ever been neccessary to excessively explain to vandals why what they did was wrong? Tell them that it wasn't funny, or that they deleted things that shouldn't have been deleted, and let it go at that. If they truly need to talk to someone about it, direct them to me. I'll do my best to explain what's up. I might not edit or delete crap here anymore, but I still read and watch. Frankly, this setting down of concrete policy scares me, unless it is being used as a sporking from wiki. And that's my two cents. --PantsMacKenzie 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes + yes = yes. --KATIE!! 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Uncyclopedia:Miniluv. --KATIE!! 06:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Breathing is Good

It seems to me that lately, we've been getting our collective panties in a bundle far too easily. Remember when this was fun? And not about admin drama?
It's great and all that we want to be fair and all that, but puh-leez, it's not that big of a deal. I mean, so what if everything isn't perfect. So what if admins have "too much power" over the "regular users." This isn't some commune where we all vote in bi-weekly meetings.
And why, you ask. It's not fun or funny anymore when everything is bureaucracy. We stick to teh humor. And Sophia. Not to the rules, that's what en.wp is for.
It seems to me that all the admins who object to other admin behavior are the ones who aren't involved very much, who aren't around day to day. So your opinions are valid, but you try to not want to jump off a cliff after five hours of recent changes patrol with a serious attitude.
So whatever! This is supposed to be funny. Boohoo, we hurt his feelings. Oh well! Who cares?

My point: let's just all take a deep breath and remember why we're here.
Nobody wants Uncyc to lose its humor, and me least of all. --KATIE!! 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But wait! My feelings are... wait... oh yeah, they're inconsequential because I'm not an admin. ^_^ My bad! w00t! I'm gonna go catch me a varmint on QVFD! Regular users fo-evah! La, and shit! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of breathing, can we get Breathing certificate turned into a template with a {{1}} for the person's name? --Keithhackworth MUN 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • {{Respiration}}
Award
Certificate of Respiration
is hereby granted to:
{{{1}}}
for his/her ability to breathe.
--Uncyclopedia HowTo
Asig
1=Name; 2=his, her, or its. What should this be classified as?
    • I know I'm new in the admin game but.. what admin drama? I haven't noticed anything out of the standard drama levels lately. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to propose a new policy that requires admins to tell us what they're actually talking about whenever they post new topics to the Village Dump. --Some user 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no clue either. Sorry. --T. (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • FINE FINE FINE. I'll be explicit. =]
    • Isra et al making a fuss over gimmick nominations/features cheapening longer, more actualized articles.
    • IRC CABAAALL.
    • The vogue opinion of the month: some admins are abusing their powers.
    • Attempts to introduce serious policy.
    • Just taking everything so seriously!! And being dramatic about it.

Dunno. Makes it less fun around here. --KATIE!! 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You breathe too.  :) Personally, I don't like continuously stupid nominations, random banninations for random lengths, or single/unencumbered persons making irc decisions that affect the site as a whole without regard for procedure (Chron doesn't either). I'm not in favour of making this place into Wikipedia, but I won't watch idly, either. The only places you can 'have it your way' are Burger King and Keiteipedia. I started my own wiki. So did Mhaille. Anyone can.  :) --T. (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have simple solutions to each of these difficult problems! Look!
  1. . Isra can chill out, if the admins tell him to. It's the admins' site, and he can leave if he doesn't like what the admins do.
  2. . RC can call a Cabal vote on the Cabal if he questions the Cabal's absolute divine authority, but I can't be held responsible if the gods punish him as a result.
  3. . There is no such thing as an abuse of admin power, for reasons stated in answer #1.
  4. . People get scared and confused when they don't know what to expect, and that is a good thing. Fear will keep the users in line. Fear of the admins and their power-mad mood-swings. You never know when they'll ban a random user for life. You could be next!
  5. . If you can't be serious about comedy, you shouldn't be here. Comedy is very serious business. So serious, that most admins ban people who aren't funny after 2 or 3 unfunny postings. Yes, we keep the screws tight on Uncyclopedia. You wouldn't want us to be a hack-job like ED, would you?
....and that's all the sarcasm I've got, for the moment. I'll be back if I find more...--Bradaphraser 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, time for me to weigh in, excerrent!

  1. Isra, et al are right and I'm with them 100%; always have been.
  2. Cabal? What cabal? There is no cabal.
  3. Um, no; there most assuredly is such a thing as admin abuse of power and it does happen occasionally. Also, the admins do not own the site, the community does; that's what the Creative Commons licensing is all about. I'm inclined to believe that some of the admins don't understand that as admins we're more accountable for our actions than regular users, not less.
  4. I don't think that we should be too serious about policy, but I do think that we should be serious about our actions and make a point of setting good precendents for Uncyclopedia.
  5. If you can't be serious about comedy, you shouldn't be here. Comedy is very serious business.

Quality (or at least potential for quality) is why I come to Uncyclopedia and if someday it turns out that that's not what we're aiming for, I won't be coming here anymore. As of late, I'm still having plenty of fun on Uncyclopedia, though that's because I spend more of my time reading, editing and policing than getting entangled in silly drama on IRC. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned by name, I suppose I should respond:

  1. I fully reserve my right to comment about the appropriateness of nominations on the page specifically designated for that. In the future I will refrain from also jokingly saying "you are evil" to Katie. I'll just hit on her instead, which will piss her off more.
  2. TINC
  3. Admins are human. They do things they shouldn't sometimes. It isn't drama if other people want to correct mistakes. Oh, except for Hymie. He's a robot, not a human. Disagreeing with him is drama. He'll also shoot you with laser beams. Or so I have been told.
  4. I completely disagree with Brad. One of the weak points of this site is the fact that the average uninformed user is so completely unaware of how the admins and operate that he believes they act on whim, caprice and malice. We don't don't need to make these things true. Seriously, about the only thing I call drama is when someone explodes and starts saying, "You all hate me! The cabal is out to get me! Why am I the only sane person on this site? Quit being mean, and also delete this page I don't like!" Do you really want more of that?
  5. Quality is serious. And if you think this is drama, clearly you've not spent time with theater people.

---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was joking with #4. It appears that didn't come across very well.--Bradaphraser 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Come on, brad, this is a time to be serious. You just wrote that so I'd think it was serious and then make myself look like an idiot when you explained the joke. It's a conspiracy. You're out to get me. You and the squirrels. You're in it together. Well you can't take my nuts.. Cuz they're my nuts. And you can't have them. Not even if youhave sporks... (continues babbling incoherently) ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to write much of a response now, but I'd just like to point out that discussion/disagreement != drama. And it's easy to say that admins don't abuse their power when you're not a "regular" user and aren't on the receiving end of admin decisions. --—rc (t) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now, I'll do a numbered list since that seems to be in vogue.

  1. See Isra's response.
  2. See the previous discussions on the IRC cabal.
  3. See gwax and Isra's responses.
  4. See my first comment from yesterday.

--—rc (t) 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

/me is tired of 24/7 IRC debates.
Can we agree that that is tiring? My life is people complaining! Rah. It is not my job to solve everyone's problems all the time...
Just recognize that admins appreciate non-crap too and don't exist for you to complain to and I'll be happy.
Also, as a "regular" user, I absolutely adored the admins. I don't forget what it was like at all. Oh, and RC reverted a change I made once, and put effort into. With rollback! I assumed he knew better because he was almighty admin.
So... Yes... Admin duties need more funny, dagnabbit! --KATIE!! 13:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You say u were obedient and respectful of authority without questioning??? What kind of American teenager are u?? Well, others do question when they think something may be wrong, and that's the right thing to do. Yep it results in Drama sometimes, but it's also the only key to constructive dialogue. So my respects to Isra. And my respects to RC who being one of the elders admins still considers the position of the simple mortals.--Rataube 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Images

Can anyone figure out why Image:Woof1 and Image:Tennistablerot13.jpg are not being displayed in my gallery on the Binary page?

For Woof, the links should be Image:Woof1.JPG and Image:Woof2.JPG (yes you need the .JPG bit and yes the filenames are case-sensitive except for the first character). Carlb 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Carlb, but I already checked the case of the exensions and that is not the problem. Image:Woof1 above should say Image:Woof1.JPG - that was a typo, but it is correct in the Binary article. Interestingly enough, both Image:Tennistablerot13.jpg and Image:Woof1.JPG are both displayed on the computer I'm using now, but not on others. This will probably take someone who took part in creating the Wiki code to solve.--Naughtyned 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems in the galleries dimensions matter. So, I cropped Woof1 and used a different ROT13 picture.--Naughtyned 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Navigation popups

Nice stuff, found on Wikipedia: add {{subst:navpop}} to your uncyclopedia.js (User:USERNAME/uncyclopedia.js) and purge the browser cache. Then try hovering the mouse over wikilinks. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, spiffy! It's all hovertastic.--DeathByPie 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Man, that's cool!! Great for people like me who are too lazy to actually click the link. --Keithhackworth MUN 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hoy, what a timesaver! Thanks, Guest! --Some user 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me just add that Guest deserves an "Original Ninjastar" (yikes, maybe even an FIYC?) for pointing this out. --Some user 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Revamp the Colonizations?

Lately the Colonizations have been a wee bit dead. There's talk on Uncyclopedia_talk:Imperial_Colonization abut how to bring theseback to liife. I say we take a vote right here on what to do about it. Here are some of the issues:

  • Article time. Some articles need more work than others. Proposals range from a variable time based on the quality of the article to a lengthened time of 2-3 weeks.
  • Sub-par results. If we keep the current article time, what do we do with crappy results? Do we release them into the wild or keep them chained in the basement till they get better?
  • Management. It took, what, two months for the colonizations to be updated this time? Proposals here range from letting any old Joe Schmoe user update to Admins only to the creation of a 'Colonization Board' (with flashy logos for the user page, of course) in charge of determining both which articles are colonized and article time.
  • Positioning. Being at the bottom of the main page, it's hard to see. Maybe it should be moved?
  • The name. Some feel that 'Imperial Colonization' is too negative. Some user has suggested that we change it to Naked came the Potato. I say we flip a coin. --Hobelhouse 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am the new dictator in Rangeley's absence. It's been an admin's project, and I've simplified it from 45+ places to change things to do a week changeover, now it's 30, but not terribly intuitive. I'll try my best to keep them up, but it's not as easy as it appears. It took me over a couple hours to revive the beast and took him an hour a week to keep them updated... I couldn't imagine what it took to start them.
  • Article Time - How will I know how long to keep an article up?
  • Results - It's for the next FFW to decide...unless someone wants to do a vote on which to delete immediately.
  • Management - It was Rangeley's baby. He's taking a sabbatical. I'm an evil dictator that believes in listening to the voters...when it suits me. So, vote or I'll choose the next one too. I felt these had the best support or best possibilities. I'm going to try my best to keep it up in the future, but we'll see what happens. Worst case, I'll put it up to a vote.
  • Positioning - I can't do much about this. Ask Algorithm and/or rcmurphy about it. I don't handle the home page, though I sometimes do minor work on it.
  • Name - I proposed a few names to the admins, but no concensus was found. I liked a play on potato, but without using the word "Potato". "Solanum Pollination" was one of mine, but they thought it would confuse the proles. I think the name is alright, but there are certainly wittier options.
Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once my times frees up, I'll kick ass and chew bubble-gum on these needy pages. At the moment, work sucks the life out of me, and I can't really help out much. Personally, I like the current name. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi all... I think my point here can be summed up in three words: status changes perspective. As admins, you can't be expected to view these colonizations the way "we" do; from your perspective, they're an effort to direct talent towards a predefined goal, which isn't necessarily bad in itself. But talent is a scarce resource, free talent is even scarcer, and free talent willing to collaborate with others in an environment where all one's work can be wiped away in an instant is even scarcer than that. For this kind of project to succeed, you have to first remove as many barriers to entry as possible, and then emphasize that the process matters as much as (if not more than) the end result, given that in many cases the result won't be fully satisfying to those who participate. I do realize this is all rambling incoherent nonsense, but I just wanted to explain myself, so you wouldn't think I was suggesting a name-change without any quasi-philosophical justification. Thanks, --Some user 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to explain yourself, you should have sobered up first. However, I speak drunk moderately, fluently, so I'll try to translate: You don't want to help out, because some other user/admin might delete all your work if they don't like it. Right? If this is the case, how is that different from any other page on this website? Talent is a scarce resource, but often one small edit from one user becomes the inspiration for a whole article by another. The goal of the Colonizations is to write decent articles, but it's also to fill in major gaps in our article coverage. I can sort-of see your point of the articles having a predefined goal, but if you rewrite it in another style and it's A) damn funny and B) a complete article, I'd be surprised if anyone raised a stink. Replacing a semi-complete article with a paragraph of crap will probably get people irritated, but generally, we like funny here.

The process is the same there as on other pages - if you think of something funny to write, take some time and do it up well. If people get into a pissing-revert war, let an admin know, and it will get delt with the same as revert wars on other pages. Don't be scared based on the fact that this is a "project" with a "name" - these pages are just like all the others here. The only real difference is that we're trying to funnel a little bit more man-hours in that direction. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox request

Could someone make or "steal" an infobox similar or exactly like this one? Or worst case senario, point me in the right direction so I can do it myself.

You want Wikipedia:Template:Infobox Pope. This is the edit link, which will show you the wikitext - David Gerard 12:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[Force Persuade] You don't want Wikipedia:Template:Infobox Pope. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What kind of request is this?

It's kind of requested addition to Template:Stub, that received no attention on Template talk:Stub.

Kindofcrap
What kind of article is this? It's kind of crap! Let's improvement Uncyclopedia gives us much pleasure in the way. Do it here! Do it now!

Thanks for the Laughs

Since I'm not sure how else to express my gratitude, well, here it is. I don't really know this wiki community very well, but I would like to commend all of you for your devotion to comedy (or, failing that, your devotion to keeping on-line wiki comedy up and running). Without comedy, I think life would be most unliveable, and it's fucking awesome what the myriad of authors and artists at this site have come up with.

I don't usually get sappy, but there you are. Take it as a blanket compliment, no sarcasm intended. If you'll excuse me, I think there's a drink with my name on it. In it. Whatever. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp Icons-flag-us sex & violence! 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you're still finding plenty of good stuff to enjoy. Seems like I see your name most often in the VFD area.  :) --T. (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonizations Are Back!

I have updated the colonizations. This 1.5 weeks only we'll have them up for 1.5 weeks. I think I've streamlined it down a bit, make sure you nominate and vote in the future, or I'll dictate the colonizations to you again. Lack of obvious concensus among contributors to the colonies will result in me selecting the one I believe has the most promise.

Please help bring them back to life! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Showcase newsletter Biography

____________

Geog1 Geography

____________

Paperclip Mundane Object

____________

History History

____________

Phrenology Science

____________


Template:C

Just so you all know, there's no need for all the HTML. I was about to make Template:C for censorship as a counterpart to Template:Q, but it appears to already exist. Just as all quotes have been simplified to Q, we need to start simplifying these to C also. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need censored out blocks in enough places to justify doing it with a template? So far as I can figure, outside of Censorship it doesn't serve any useful purpose. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's stupid. I say we delete it. Strikethrough is much better than 'censorship'. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only Censorship, I use the template in articles like Deletion, GIF, and maky others, as well as on talk pages. It's much easier to type {{c|text}} than <span style="background: black">text</span>. I don't think one template will hurt. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's only one template and it dosn't interfer elsewhere I think it can stay.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Category help needed

I need to add a category to a page, but not include the category link at the bottom. I only want it to include the page on the category pages themselves. This is for the sdrawkcaB page. I would like to supress the default Category:whatever and write the categories section backwards as well. I was thinking <includeonly> would do it, but appearently not. Any idea on how to do this? Thanks --Keithhackworth MUN 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You could have another page which had the category in and {{:sdrawkcaB}} this wuld include the new page in the category whilst only showing the content of sdrawkcaB then fake a category box in the sdrawkcaB page surrounded by <includeonly>, thats the closest thing I can think of. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::<includeonly> worked. I guess I typed it wrong or something... Thanks! --Keithhackworth MUN 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

nevermind... it's not working. I tried this, and the categories are showing up at the bottom. See SdrawkcaB --Keithhackworth MUN 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's in a category, it'll show up at the bottom. No way around it as far as I know. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I got that part working (see Sdrawkcab). I managed to get it off the page, now I need to get it in the categories pages. --Keithhackworth MUN 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There is one way. See: AAaaaaa!. However, this requires a dirty javascript hack in MediaWiki:Uncyclopedia.js. We limit applications of these to skin-days only, as this javascript executes on everyone's browser on every page load. People keep asking for custom logos on their userpage, but it is just not feasable (although technically easy, but should be avoided) to do this other than for main page theme days. --Splaka 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: Ok, After a few hours of arguing, IRC Cabal (Algo, I, Volte) came up with (aka: we made Volte write), a simpler reskin method, You can see it at the bottom of: MediaWiki:Uncyclopedia.js. Custom skins are in the MediaWiki: namespace which is Admin only, due to security reasons, and skin requests will not be granted lightly. I've set up Sdrawkcab as a proof-of-concept and even gave it a custom logo. The big change over the previous method is all the .css are in the MediaWiki: Namespace. Note also: that the names are by default intuitive. Eg if you want a skin for Sdrawkcab the new page will be MediaWiki:Skin/Sdrawkcab.css, and "Uncyclopedia talk:Your Mom" would be MediaWiki:Skin/Uncyclopedia_talk:Your_Mom.css unless you specify differently (which should only be done for shared css usually). Note that underscores must be used in the .js and that the case must match exactly (unlike most namespaces) as it goes by the <title> tag. Actually, if you are not Algorithm or Volte, just ask me to do it. Except, don't ask us to do it! Unless your skin has been accepted. Note you can always test your own skin editing your own User:Yourname/uncyclopedia.css. Also, backwards is still broke, the fake category box you put in is invisible too, I'll take a look at it. --Splaka 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys are AWESOME!!! Thanks! --Keithhackworth MUN 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea for a new sister project

Congresspedia, where US lawmakers can post their lies and silly delusions about reality. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We have more than enough wikipedia rejects already; I say no. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah. But since the colonizations seem to be dead I think it might be a good project to try to get a good, funny entry for each member of congress. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
colonization isn't dead Isra, its just most people don't pay it any attention...As a Canadain I think Nintendo's idea shouldn't qualify as a "project" (ie with its own special pages/namespace)...however by all means, if you Yankees wanna make articles your lawmakers, then I can't stop you...I just don't think it should be a "sister project" --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Weekly colonizations haven't been updated in 6 weeks. I think that qualifies as dead on a wiki. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I figure if they have a site on which they can post their crazy, twisted versions of the facts, then they have no need to do it on a site that's taken seriously, like Wikipedia. For those who don't get it, the recent scandal is mentioned a bit lower down on the page. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't that they're posting on a site that's taken seriously, the problem is that the site's taken seriously in the first place. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why would people post things they believe to be true on a site that purports to collect false information? And realistically, there already are many legitimate forums for political debate. But if you want to collect nonsense that is posted elsewhere and put it here for satirical purposes, I think you can do that, and without a sister project. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Very off-topic, but I've noticed that colonized pages are of amazingly high quality. I want to pick this project up and handle it myself, if everyone agrees. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Do it! ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was a fan of the colonizations (not that I ever read them, but it was a good idea). --—rc (t) 05:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do. Ideas needed. --T. (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fghdfgbdfb

This was deleted rather quickly yesterday, and while there seems to be a general adversity (big word, woohoo!) to AAAAAAAAA! clones, I was going to add a (slightly modified) version as a subpage of my userpage, unless there are any major objections. Scythe33 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It was totally ugly and unformatted. AAAAAAAAA! and the clones are FUNNY because they are very nicely formatted, and show that wiki articles are often judged more on formatting than content. --Splaka 02:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least the version I deleted yesterday was. I see STM deleted the older version. So NM. --Splaka 02:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be the person who points things out, but I put "slightly modified" in there for a reason. There was actually going to be a hidden joke. Scythe33 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry bud, but just give it up. Really. These stupid AAAAAAAAA! clones will never match the quality of the original, let alone surpass it. Creating a million of them totally cheapens it and is a waste of time & space. Besides, it annoys us admins. So, please, quit this crap. Thanks. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how fghdfgbdfb is a clone of AAAAAAAAA!. Both are hilarious in their own way, and I really miss that article. It's no more of a "clone" than certain featured articles like Redundancy, Morse Code, Binary, Igpay Atinlay, etc. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bah, if User:BobBobBob can do it, why cant I? Besides, if you want to get rid of clones, go QVFD Developers! Scythe33 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
/me wakes up.
Hey, what did I do? This time, I mean. Did my friend Jose get me in trouble again? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated it, I forgot to add the VFD template to give it a fair chance to defend itself, as I was later pointed out. So I say let him at least keep it at his refugee camp namespace--Rataube 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So it's settled, then. Scythe33 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So Uhh... Here's the Thing...

It seems that in the past week, the only thing the Dump has been used for is voting and such. So I'm just gonna go ahead and vote Against doing that in the future, but For a new special page for generalized voting. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the dump is fine for voting. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For great democracy! You know it'll be ignored anyway. Voting is stupid and evil - David Gerard 07:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, the dump could be used for voting, and another place for non-voting things. At the very least, it would clean up this cluttered page if we split it into appropriate sections. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One possibility would be to split part of this to the forum page, which is being used for little or nothing at the moment. --Carlb 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Or you could just turn Talk:Main Page into a forum. I don't know, and i don't really care, it's just very cluttered, like nintendorulez said, and i swear to god everytime i try to edit something new there's an edit conflict, dag nabbit! Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Carlb, use the forum. --Algorithm (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fake banner ads request

Can someone make some clever fake banner ads for us to use in a possible Template:Banner (which would display a random banner ad)? Would be useful for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and other things.

Example: Stolen

Nonymous 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is one, that spookily, isn't fake. I saved it in 1997:
Youpeople
--Splaka 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • God, I love the internet. You people rock.--Bradaphraser 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm inspired to make one now, but there's two things stopping me: MS paint, and my lack of an idea. Ah well. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Template:Banner}} (Template:Ad already exists ~spl) Template made. ^_^ Anyone know a way to remove the external link thingy? Or put images in a piped link rather than an external one? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I'm combing google to find more ads. Here's a few I've found: [1] [2] (Of course, the only way we could use this would be to leech their bandwidth ^_^) [3]

leech... leech...

--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

sounds like a plan
I've deleted Template:Banner, as someone has already made Template:Ad. I don't think we need to link them anywhere. But if we did, a <span class="plainlinks"> removes the external link. --Splaka 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose there's not really much to link it to as it is. Perhaps Gullibility for Dummies mirror, but that only works for some of them. Anyway, I added youpeople.gif to the template. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could sell it as actual advertising space to cover server costs. We'd keep the silly ads, as those are funny and not annoying, but have them link to advertisers. Given that it's humor and not the typical "Hey, buy our product" that annoys people, I'm sure some people might actually click them out of curiousity. Or, if nobody is willing to buy ad space, we could just link them to silly domains, such as Pen Island. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If each were to link individually to somewhere unique, we could send the cardcheck ad to "yup, it's been stolen now..." or to a picture of Chron's new Ferrari (because the old one was dirty). People don't know who I am. I'd like to keep it that way. That's why I carry *your* Canadian Express card. Canadian Express... don't leave home without reporting it missing. --Carlb 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, gold. This weekend I intend to make "Are people sending you subliminal messages?" It will flash "BUY OUR STUFF" every few seconds. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Delete

A worthless crufty page that isn't VFD'able because it's in the Uncyclopedia nameaspace (and therefore, theoretically, policy/important).

DELETE Uncyclopedia:Forum FOR GREAT JUSTICE Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this page. The forum is the future of this website, and all should use it instead of the Dump. The Dump has no future, and there is no spoon. In addition, keep the Uncyclopedia:Complaints Department, because it gives me no end of amusement to ban people who complain there. I mean, it's like chocolate ice-cream with chocolate chunks. Fucking sweet!!! Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Dump is getting edited too often, which tells me the site is growing rapidly ... we really ought to do some kind of split --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Banninations 'Я Us!

Am I imagining things, or is the quantity and nature of banninations on this site growing out of control? The special:ipblocklist should be a last resort, typically used in instances where it's the only way to stop vandalism in progress, halt a spambot attack or refuse edits from an open proxy server. Most often this is how it is being used, but with no clear guidelines as to when to ban nor for how long the field could be left wide open for bans on any arbitrary basis ranging from user called me a poopyhead to user said the emperor has no clothes to user actually complained in Uncyclopedia:Complaints Department to just plain just because. It's a disorganised hodgepodge; with no concept of guidelines or precedents, one admin might be banning page blankers for a day while another bans the author of some useless substub for a year. The tendancy to boast in userboxes or sigs about the number of bans issued by any one individual admin could come back to bite us, if only as a flag that some of the bans may be handed out a bit too arbitrarily. --Carlb 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*coughcoughcough*--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So why don't we collaborate on an actual ban policy? Something comprehensive and consesus based. We can use the Uncyclopedia:Policy page (minus the lame jokes) as a starting point. Input is welcome from everyone, but final decisions could be based on admin consensus? I'll draw something up at Uncyclopedia:Ban Policy / UN:BAN. Pitch ideas on the talk page under the relevant heading. --T. (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed so far—Carlb, Algorithm, Mhaille, and especially Elvis—and ask that others give their input. At some point, I'd like to see this introduced as actual policy, so disciplinary procedure is obvious to users and admins alike. Chime in at Uncyclopedia_talk:Ban_Policy. --T. (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • need policy that way if I get banned I can read in site policy exactly what I done wrong so as to not do it again. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Did you care?

In case any admin wants to go fix it, I've corrected the spleling erorrs and red links in the "Did you Care?" section, so I won't have to look at them anymore. FYI. [4]

Wikipedia invasions

It's so fun to watch Wikipedia attempt to fight off its inevitable pwnage by Uncyclopedia. Not that I'd advocate direct action -- I'm not for revolution, or even evolution: I say that due to Intelligent Design, Wikipedia will simply "become" Uncyclopedia. Anyway, check this out while you still can: wikipedia:Category:Policies that do not apply to Uncyclopedia. I can see why it's been marked for deletion -- it's redundant. I don't think any Wikipedia policies would apply to Uncyclopedia. But thanks anyway to wikipedia:User:Nintendude for trying. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a {{wikipedia}} type template on Wikipedia? Or something refering you to Uncyclopedia to the same subject for "unbiased truths?" If not, why isn't there one? -- – Mahroww a.k.a. AAAAA A. AAAAAAAAA  19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See The Life and Death of a Template. Carlb 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Psychobabble Club

The UPC met for the first time last night and it was a grand success. RC, Katie, Zombie and Algo participated. Keitei and I won a game each, earning the title of Psycho Warrior, and RC earned two awards: a cookie for knowing the line "Whuts with all these n00bs" is from World War I (video game), and a Psycho Warrior award for being the highest-scoring uncyclopedian in one of the rounds. Congrats to all!

The Psychobabble club will meet on an irregular basis. If you want to participate, go into IRC and see if a game is going on. Go to Popcap, then "All Games", then Psychobabble. The room will be designated in IRC as well. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

stop fooling around guys, thats what the uncyclopedia is for ;)--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 12:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is? I thought that we were a serious encyclopædia. Carlb 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've lost a funny page...

Does anyone remember which page had "There is nothing to see here. You see nothing" or similar, with either a MiniTrue or Crimethink template on it? I thought it was fnord but it's not... Alphax 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

{{blank}}? --Carlb 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It was Minitrue approved and all. Alphax 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
420? --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a few questions about the bot(s)

Is Hymie the only bot Uncyc has? And if not, what are the other ones? Also, would any of them be willing to periodically comb through all the games, especially Game Online, and make sure that all the pages have [[Category:Zork/Zork 2/Zork 3/Zork pi/Game/Game Online/etc]] added to them? Do I ask too many questions? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there wasn't enough money in the Uncyclomedia Foundation budget for a 'bot like ELITA-1, so we have to make do with Hymie. Nonetheless, it should be possible to spot the uncategorised/miscategorised game pages without a 'bot by using DynamicPageList:

Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 2.02 : Error: You need to include at least one category if you want to use 'addfirstcategorydate=true' or 'ordermethod=categoryadd'!

Unfortunate that it limits us to a half-dozen categories maximum, but that should be just enough to get this particular job done? --Carlb 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones

AAAAAAAAA! was great. I mean really great. I choked with laughter the first time I saw it,and it still makes me smile. But, like an episode of Little Britain, it didn't take long for the repetition of the same joke to become really, really tedious. So, I'm opening a vote for the future of AAAAAAAAA!s offspring at Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/clones. Please cast your vote as required, and/or suggest alternative options if you have any. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I miss BBBBBBBBB! I mean, I agree that one for each letter of the alphabet is overkill, but one parody seems perfectly fine. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The only parody I might find acceptable would be ????????, and that's a maybe.--Bradaphraser 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
BBBBBBBBB! was crap. Sorry, man, but clones that suck get deleted. I'm tired of mindless crap everywhere I look. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, most of those aren't clones at all (morse code, ROT13, etc) - David Gerard 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that now. I just took them off the template at the bottom of the AAAAAAAA! article. However, they still represent the same thing as far as I can see; a "one-trick" gag that relies on letter substitution. Hardly cutting-edge satire as far as I'm concerned. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Morse Code and ROT13 are reasonable, as well as similar articles. Total nonsense clones of AAAAAAAAA! and similar should be huffed mercilessly. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

State of the Wiki Address

Bushtater

Well, we've been around for about a year now, and as the State of the Union speech approaches in the U.S., I think it would be a great idea to have a state of the wiki address here to recount on what we've done in our first year, and what we have planned for the future. Hopefully our Dictator-in-perpetual absence Chronarion could "deliver" it. Anyone have ideas for this? -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For! This is a great idea!--Bradaphraser 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For, but I'm worried as to how Euroipods would figure into the speech... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of a State of the Union/Wiki Address, is there someone that would be williing to whip up a US Presidential themed front page skin for January 31st? We're already running "strategery" as the word of the day and I think it might be nice to do things up a little more. Sorry about the short notice, but I just had the idea. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shitty image. For my own enjoyment: --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the reskinnings. We already have two for February and at least two others that don't have dates, and I think we need to space them out a bit more. Things like logo parodies I wouldn't mind people doing more often, but full-on reskinnings I think we should try to keep at least a couple weeks apart on average. --—rc (t) 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RC. The skins should be something special, or at least FEEL special. If we're always re-skinning, it loses it's value, and then you've done a whole lot of work for nothing.--Bradaphraser 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL Wikipedia: US Congress

Staff members of US House Representatives have been rewriting history on our time[5]. What's more, the article is talking about my representative, which means I know who I'm not voting for next election. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 13:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The worst part...the worst part!...is that the bastards are ignoring Uncyc, the real center of Truth and Beauty. What, we're chopped liver?----OEJ 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Man oh, man, it doesn't get much better than this: Wikipedia is looking into blocking all of the United States Congress (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress). Sometimes reality really is a Hell of a lot funnier than fiction. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that at least blocking Congress is far preferable to blocking progress. --Carlb 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who Deleted "Category:Nasty Left Wing Bitches" and Why?

It was hardly up long enough to have a disccussion about, much less a vote. If the name was too similar to "Nasty Right Wing Bitches" I could've changed it, but still to delete it so soon seems very hasty.--Naughtyned 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much of a left-wing conspiracy if they told you who was responsible, would it? --Some user 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Did it have fewer than 3 articles in it? Recently there has been a housecleaning of categories. If you have enough articles to go in the category to justify its existance you can talk to an admin and one of them might undelete it. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ned - You were an unlucky victim of what Isra mentioned above. You can recreate it without any ill will. Just populate it with entries and it'll be spared (not that mass housecleaning will happen again for a while). Have fun! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The cleanup is now finished. 559 categories have been removed since yesterday. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Being the student of wikibehavior that I am, and having nothing better to do today, I checked this whole thing out just now. The "Nasty Right-Wing Bitches" category goes all the way back to July 15, when it was applied to Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher by Curious Larry. (Evidently, people were having a lot of fun with categories back then.) Ned created "Nasty Left-Wing Bitches" three days ago, and categorized a similar number of pages (such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore). Within 24 hours those category-adds were reverted by Rei, putting it under what appears to have been a 3-article minimum to survive the category-deletion orgy that just ended. (By the way, thanks, Volte - I for one greatly appreciate all the work you've been doing!) Not all of the NRWB category-adds were hostile edits (Ned actually added it to his own Bill Bennett article that same day), but all of his NLWB category-adds were - I'm going out on a limb here - not fully welcomed by their original authors. I'm endlessly fascinated by all of this, and clearly I have too much time on my hands, but maybe this is a good example of the "first one's funny, second one's just being snippy" rule? ...Beyond that, I have no opinion one way or the other, other than to say that some sort of veiled reference to this incident might end up in an Unpsychlopedia article someday. Good luck, everybody! --Some user 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and help to all who responded here. I'm not sure that I'd call the NLWB additions "hostile edits." I know that some of the authors like those of the Michael Moore and Ralph Nader articles comically referred to their subjects as right wingers, so it might be considered an internal contradiction, but overall I didn't think they went against the spirit of the articles.--Naughtyned 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Newtonian Physics: nobody cares?

On the previous discussion related to the fate of Newtonian Physics-related articles, exactly one user replied. After that, I reverted the Newtonian Physics article to the non-Time Cube-ish version (hey, don't look at me! I didn't write this crap!) and moved the Cube parody written from scratch, Newtonian Physics/other, to Slime Cube.

Currently, Newtonian Physics is apparently nothing more than a direct copy of the original Time Cube page. Even the "Slime Cube" jokes and parody images like "Oprah live here" were removed and/or moved to Slime Cube. I don't see how a verbatim copy can be uncyclopedic, but nobody cared to rewrite the article.

Also, the non-Cubeish version was sporked into Attempts at physics jokes that are not funny, an article that I hope won't survive VFD.

So, now I raise the question again: what to do with Newtonian Physics? Huff? Salvage the Time Cube version for parts? Write a new version dealing solely with apples, like Famine suggested? Or keep it as is? - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a boatload of "real life sucking the soul out of me" and thus only hop on briefly when I have the chance. Come late June, my time will once more be in abundance, and I'll put that on top third of my massive list of "things I would like to do sometime". The current Newtonian Physics article is ripe for a VFD vote - it sucks, and isn't funny. And it doesn't contain any physics jokes. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americans and Nazis, everywhere!

Anyone else annoyed at seeing race-hate propaganda and British anti-English entries everywhere?

No, I dont see any such thing. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

England is big enough and ugly enough to handle any mud-slinging from the perfidious scots or the deviant welsh, because when all is said and done we won and the capital is in London not Edinburgh or Cardiff. </shit stir>--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, New Scotland and New South Wales have remained staunchly loyal to the British Empire while New England has been overrun with blimey traitors to Her Majesty that've thrown the gov'nors blimy tea in the harbour. Bit of a damper, that. --Carlb 04:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In our defense, we did dress up as injuns before tossing the tea in the harbor. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL Wikipedia part ]I[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-01-10#Euroipods - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, looks like the shoe is on the other foot now --officer designate Club symbol Lugiatm Club symbol MUN NS CM ZM WH 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If it ever happens, it'll get deleted as vanity. It's just one of many ripoffs of Freeipods. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We're being deleted!

Linky. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This calls for REVENGE! --KATIE!! 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Revenge here. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Merge Has articles on many of the same topics. Suggest it be merged with Wikipedia. Jimaginator 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

  • That is one the funniest things I've ever seen, methinks.--Bradaphraser 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aw, Kim Bruning FCYTravis speedy kept it! And after I'd posted a comment designed to ruffle the right feathers ... - David Gerard 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, Jimbo himself gave his personal blessing of Uncyclopedia in #wikicities not too long ago... If that isn't worth anything, I don't know what is. Oh yes, we have been spared. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course he would, with this many page views and goggles ads! - David Gerard 07:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • JIMBO NOT ONLY KNOW ABOUT UNCYCLOPEDIA, BUT ALSO ENDORSES IT??!?!?!one!!11!! Holy, holy, holy crap. We should find out if he's made any contributions here. Somebody find out his IP! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The "IRC cabal"

It is my position that there are too many decisions being made on IRC without input from Uncyc. The particular instance that led to me posting this was Volte's sysopping, but it's not that particular decision that's the real issue, but rather the level of authority that comes from IRC. IRC is an excellent way for people to talk about issues on Uncyc and point out to admins things that need to be deleted or whatnot, etc., and it would be fine if everyone used IRC, but not surprisingly, they don't. IRC facilitates quick decisions. In some cases, that's great, but in others, especially cases in which opposition to a measure has already been shown, I personally think it is ridiculous for IRCers to automatically have the authority to carry out what they want. Not even all the admins use IRC consistently so in such cases they have no say in the matter. Speaking as an IRC user myself, the "IRC cabal," as Volte himself coined it (humorously), needs to be taken down several notches. --—rc (t) 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded. ~ Couldn't have said it any better than that. --T. (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! But this is really a decision that should be voted on by the IRC cabal. --Splaka 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. On VFS. If the page means nothing, huff it. --T. (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHA....ahhh... that was great. Anyway, I think the IRC makes great decisions everyday, most of them for the best. I personally agree with Volte's sysopping, but feel the same way as rc does about it being done over IRC. I think that as far as the deltion of articles goes, IRC is a good way to report that stuff. But on bigger decisions (i.e. Adminship) IRC should not be a place for voting, but merely a place to discuss and critique. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TINC!!!!!!!!!


I agree. This is a rather awkward situation for me to be in. Personally, I think IRC cabal can be rather useful for some things (i.e. things that can be easily reversed at a later time if there is a big problem) but decisions like this, especially when there has been vocal opposition, should be left more or less to democracy (or chronarion). --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
IRC is not, and should never be viewed as, a replacement for the functionality of Uncyc. It is however a useful tool as a focus of instant opinion. Often we are in a situation where the same key individuals vote for or against each particular subject. Most decision making is very slow. That is when IRC (as a function of the site) can be used to push more necessary things through. The case of Volte's sysopping is a good case in point, although we shouldn't focus this discussion on just that. Volte was nominated, and several votes were cast, so for, some against. The argument against was that we have too many Admins. This was "countered" by the fact that at certain times during the day there are considerably less, particularly the wee small hours whilst America sleeps. Discussion followed on IRC and a decision was made. The only thing that I feel was wrong was that the decision wasn't backed up with timestamped votes on the VFS page. That is the only issue. IRC needs to be utilised carefully, but we do need it to be backed up with Uncyc. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 01:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion followed on IRC and a decision was made. Yes, but by who? Certainly not an actual consensus. One of the main opposers, namely myself, wasn't there. I presume Todd (also cast an Against vote) wasn't there. Even Volte (who just asked to have his +S removed because of the dissension) wasn't there. Not to be suspicious, but that seems rather convenient. But again, this is about the bigger scheme, not one situation. --—rc (t) 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My comment on VFS (now deleted by someone) stated the inappropriateness of making this decision without timestamped votes (though I tried to express myself with some humour). It's my understanding that we need 7 sysops (?) to vote For for a promotion to occur. Which 7 (or 5 +2 already recorded) were present in IRC and cast votes at the time the decision was made? If they'd like to add/change their entries on VFS, and I'd feel better about this situation, though I'm still somewhat in the dark about how the site is being compromised by a lack of admins. Admittedly, I've not been on vandal patrol recently, but I did delete about 1000 broken redirects recently, so I can be hardly accused of being a lazy admin. I think I'm entitled to have my votes count for something. Kudos to Volte for showing much grace in stepping down.  :) --T. (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record: I was not a party to the cabal vote.
I also became a sysop in the same way (behind-the-scenes discussions on IRC with just a little on the site to back up what was going on). Although there were only a couple admins very active every day at the time and I helped create VFS, that's how I ended up being +sysop'ed (in fact, I'd be very surprised if I could get the required votes to become an admin even now). I'm glad to be one, but I know the questionable nature of my being made an admin will forever loom over me. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I hid the VFS comments from today, though they are still there in the page source code. As far as I can tell, paulgb is the only sysop to unofficially vote "for" that didn't vote on VFS which would put the score at +1; not quite the necessary majority. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I hate drama. Voting takes forever. IRC is fun. I'm really sick. Volte should be admin. Woo woo. --KATIE!! 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The IRC Cabal, huh? Well, I just want a way where we can all be happy about every decision made. I'm pretty much a reed in the wind. Whatever way the wind blows, I bend to it.--Bradaphraser 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The quality of #uncyclopedia has gone up immeasurably since Lir started hanging out there, trying to get people to badmouth Wikipedia.

(And I remember when #uncyclopedia was a ghost town ...) - David Gerard 09:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole discussion about whether IRC is an appropriate place for discussing decisions about Uncyclopedia is predicated on a fallacy. That is: that there is any "appropriate" place for discussing such decisions. There's nothing "appropriate" about Uncyclopedia -- it's not "appropriate" for work, it's not "appropriate" for young children, it's not an "appropriate" part of this balanced breakfast. For the time being, or at least the next five minutes, I'm perfectly happy with the current way things are run: everybody complains, either here or in IRC, and the admins (myself included) do whatever they damned well please. I don't know why it works, but it does, so I say Long Live the Oligarchy! -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Uncyclopedia because it's not a bloody bureaucracy like that other so-called encyclopedia site. The rules here seem to be: 1. Be funny and not just stupid. 2. Don't be a dick. Note that they're in that order. I like that, it's nice and simple. It'll probably suck in a year, but hey, it's fine fun for now and occasionally stimulates my creativity. - David Gerard 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Murphy's point. More voting. --Chronarion 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, IRC is not a very good place for important decisions. Only a small handful of users are on at a time, and not much of a consensus is obtained. Things can be too hasty, and when a major decision is made with the support of only one or two users rather than a consensus from the Community Portal, VFH, etc, chaos tends to ensue. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New namespaces implemented

We now have 5 new namespaces (10 counting the talk pages):

  • 100= Wilde:
  • 101= Wilde talk:
  • 102= UnNews:
  • 103= UnNews talk:
  • 104= Undictionary:
  • 105= Undictionary talk:
  • 106= Game:
  • 107= Game talk:
  • 108= Babel:
  • 109= Babel talk:

Wilde:

Mostly created to unclutter Special:Shortpages. --Splaka 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Babel:

This is a proposed namespace for foreign language content. -Spl

Proposed format is Babel:languagecode for the main page for a language and Babel:languagecode/pagename for the individual pages within the language, such as Babel:Ru/glasnost or Babel:Ru/perestroika. The Foreign templates can remain where they are for now.

Proposed redirect format for languages which do not have their own wiki is (languagecode).uncyclopedia.info -> uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Babel:(languagecode) using an HTTP 302 to redirect to the proper place. Once a separate wiki is created for a language (such as désencyclopédie, nonciclopedia and the like), the redirect URL should be updated to redirect to the new wiki instead of to the Babel: project.

Oh, and don't click this link: http://grue.uncyclopedia.info

--Carlb 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Babel:languagecode/pagename. Any language that gets sufficient pages can get its own wikicity, and the uncyclopedia.info page can be re-redirected to it in the future. --Splaka 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Game:

This namespace was created emtpy for an experiment. It is proposed by Carlb, Algorithm, and myself to possibly move the following games and subpages into the Game: namespace:

And any other game-related series. Comments? --Splaka 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do it. People keep trying to write new games, but they are resisted as copies of these two; but if people keep wanting to write them, they may come up with something not teh suxxor in time - David Gerard 09:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Like Wilde:, this is intended as a means to reclaim Special:Shortpages for substub and pageblanker hunting. I think we should keep the naming convention to Game:Game/page ### or Babel:language/pagename for consistency and ease of redirection. --Carlb 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree re: Game, for aesthetic reasons. Game:PageXX >>> Game:Game/pageXX. Besides which, Game was the very first of its sort on Uncyclopedia; it deserves special privileges. --Algorithm (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How about Game:Page/XX? --Carlb 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, doesn't fit the flavor. It's supposed to be parodying a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Honestly, nobody's going to need the Game:Page XX pages for anything else. --Algorithm (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Zork Π

Looks like this one, if it is to be moved to the Game: section, will need to be dealt with manually; the oddball Unicode series naming will cause problems if using robot scripts invoked from the command line. Should it be moved as-is, abandoned or merged into one of the three existing books of the Game:Zork trilogy? --Carlb 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Ideally, it should be moved as-is, but I doubt we can find a human who isn't too lazy to do that. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Game

After some bitter arguments in IRC, it's clear we're not going to come to a consensus on this, so let's put it to a vote.

Proposed name 1. Game:Page ### 2. Game:Game/Page ### 3. Game:Page/###
Arguments for Most similar to the original format; preserves the concept that this is the Game With No Name (tm); no redundant Game:Game's Matches the format of all other games Shorter and more compact than Game:Game/Page
Arguments against Does not match the format of the other games; clutters top level of Game: Namespace Game:Game seems redundant, subpages in general seem against the spirit of Game Makes it seem like the name of this game is Page, which it certainly is not
Rebuttal to arguments against This is the very first game; as such exceptions should be made. The Game: namespace can be cluttered, being a custom namespace. Subpages in general seem against the spirit of Game. I'll leave this part to Volte (none)
  • Personally, I'm voting for option 1. --Algorithm (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is the easiest from my POV. --Splaka 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I just don't like Option 1 because it seems messy, like filling the User: namespace with user sig pages and such. True, the main namespace doesn't use such layouts, but it also doesn't have a large number of directly related, sequenced pages. As far as Game:Game being redundant, it could be called something different. Game:Choose/Page ### or something similar. I don't think it really matters. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How about Game:FlipTo/PageXX ? Option #1 still seems easiest to me, though. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's called "The Game", isn't it? So I'd have to go with non-existant option 4. Game:The Game/Page ### --T. (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you're thinking of the one that you just lost. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 5. Game:Adventure/Page ###. --Carlb 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would say unofficial options 4 and 5 and any future equivalents with Game:whatever/Page ### should go under Option 2. The format is the important part to vote on, not the name. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 05:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose naming things just "Game" or "Page" infers that this game has no name? If so, that is most unusual as every other article in the wiki has a proper name of some sort. What is the name of the game? --Carlb 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggest option 6: We give it an actual name. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]]!
  • Option 2 is the one that will be easiest to manage and simplest to understand for the people that have been making games in the past. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 5 or Option 2; they're just cleaner options. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 5 or Option 2. Scythe33 21:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects