Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Scary Stuff

Talk:Lithuania scares me.......--Elvis 10:25, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Current Romanian vs World War

Right now we are getting a spat of Romanian/Anti-Romanian articles. This isnt a private forum, for people to aire out their grievances. I wanted to ask if people will allow me to ban who ever involves themselves in this little childish insult festival. With maximum vengence --Nytrospawn 00:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've only been banning those that vandalise articles, if a page is shite then it'll get huffed (or use your dictatorial powers and huff it yourself), if you leave a note on the users talk page and they recreate that page then I (personaly) think thats grounds to consider banning, but I (again personaly) don't think creating an article a first time round is grounds for banning unless it directly attacks an individual (and even then we havn't banned whoever created Carlb). Finaly (and I hate to sound like the Cruft Committee) but they could be considered to be Constructively Flamming of course if what they create is unfunny and they don't stop after being asked to, ban em--Elvis 09:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry for the rambling nature of this comment. --Elvis 09:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Elvis is correct here. Don't ban if it's funny, only if it's really stupid. It can be considered a constructive flamewar. --Sophia

I really want someone to do a Romanian Uncyclopedia. There are articles here referencing Romanian personalities that I never heard of, thus I cant find anything funny about it. --Nytrospawn 03:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the same could be said about a US Uncyclopedia vs. a UK Uncyclopedia, certainly I have no effing clue who Toby Keith is , whats so funny about Rosie O'Donnell or many of the other US Pop Culture references, equally I'm fairly certain the Blue Peter and War of Lowry's Pinky go over most americans heads, but I'm cool with it. --Elvis 09:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should make some country-specific humor templates, to help indicate a joke that some people might not get. As you pointed out, I know who Toby Keith and Rosie are, but I do lack knowledge of Blue Peter and Lowry. If they had a [[template:British_Humor]] tag or something, I think people would be less likely to mess with them because they didn't get the joke. --Famine 15:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no such thing as [[template:British_Humor]] ... try [[template:British_Humour]]? --Carlb 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just read some of the oldest articles in Uncyclopedia and those would be comparable to what is currently being written about Romania. I suspect after some time the current wave of Vanity pages will disappear to be replaced by a new wave that will keep the Sysops busy. As to the countrified templates, good idea that is also funny --Repairman Jack 19:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are currently twenty articles and stubs in category:Romania and another fourteen on Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion#Romania-related_stubs at the moment? Some of this needs to be merged (for instance, we don't need three separate articles on Ţuică if one will do), much is likely unsalvageable and will need to be baleeted. Not sure if the approach of grouping fragments used in Communication in Estonia, Geography of Estonia and the like could also be used on the Romania mess - likely not yet, until the quality of these fragments improves greatly? --Carlb 04:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The original writers should be doing the merging/editing but I believe they don't care. I'll try to help out when I have time. Also good idea about the Romanian Category as I was going to suggest it! --Repairman Jack 13:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I started merging all the articles in catsub Romania verbatim into What I Didn't Know about Romania. Got to the 'C' so far. --Repairman Jack 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finished all in catsub Romania. What to do with Talk? Also should we delete the articles moved into What I Didn't Know about Romania? --Repairman Jack 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirected the old article to What I Didn't Know about Romania. Some articles were too large so I left them standalone. Opps, cleanup on aisle 5, got to go. --Repairman Jack 03:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Combiners! Transform!

Can someone merge the Robots category into the Technology category? --Nytrospawn 15:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forget it, I figured it out. --Nytrospawn 15:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you had in mind... do you intend to edit Category:Robots to add {{subcat|Science and Technology}}? or actually change the [[Category:Robots]] tags on each of a series of individual articles to put them in one of the Technology categories? --Carlb 19:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont rememmber what I wanted to do. But I did leave with a sense of satisfaction --Nytrospawn 14:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Well, at least you'll have a smooth transition into senility. --Savethemooses 23:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whats the term/tag for parody entries?

I wrote up an article for The Brothers Karamazov, and for the first segment of the page made it a direct parody of Wiki's article. I made sure to credit it parenthetically, but I know there is some sort of in house term/tag for pages like that and I can't remember it. Can anyone help me out? Just want to make sure that credit is given where credit is due. -The Werle

I believe you may be looking for the Spork Template. You would call it by saying {{spork|wikipedia}} and get something like:

Spork This page was originally sporked from wikipedia.


--Famine 22:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silly n00b question, perhaps

Hey, I'm Fairleee and as I write for an online satirical zine I thought I would join here to add my own poor efforts to this fine project. One of the pieces I've written, Census, has a rewrite thingy up. As far as I can tell, I think this is because it is thought that it is from somewhere else and could be a copywrite infringement. It isn't, I wrote it myself and any similarities to any other works are unintentional. SHouls I remove the rewrite thing, or is it there because what I wrote is shit? -- Fairleee 20:18, 9 Jun 2005 (GMT)

I wouldn't be too offended, for your article isn't all that bad. It could use some more depth - generally people around here look for a solid page of information. I mean, how many encyclopedia articles have you seen that were just a paragraph or two?
Personally, (and I have since I was looking) I would have dropped a stub in there, to indicate that a little more love, care, and vodka are needed to really polish up the article. It's a bit choppy, and doesn't have a really authoritive tone to it, just like my articles. ;)
Don't dispair - if your page is really crappy, it will end up on the Vote for Deletion page. If it's not listed there, you're doing ok. Keep editing, and don't take people's edits to your stuff too seriously. If it's good, keep it. If it's really bad, drop it. If it's borderline, discuss in the "Talk:" tab for that page. --Famine 21:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Remember that anyone can drop a rewrite flag. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's BAD. Some people are just very rewrite flag crazy. --Sophia

Dump files available!

Are the dump files available for the cur table? If so I can run stubsensor on Uncyclopedia's data and do a similar cleanup project: removing the stub tag from articles it does not belong on. Triddle 19:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dump files will theoretically be available at some point... Ask someone in #wikicities on freenode, and see if they'll help you :) UPDATE: JasonR says that they'll probably be done sometime tonight. Speaking of which, we need stub flags, ours are not automated. --Chronarion 23:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Down in the dumps? Here ya go... Welcome to the city dump!. One question: what did you have in mind as "stub flags, automated"??? --Carlb 05:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well... we have a bunch of like 10 word articles without stub flags somewhere. They might need stubbing. --Chronarion 23:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also sections

Wouldn't it make less sense, to rename the See Also sections of articles into Unrelated topics or something like that? Flyingbird 15:44, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

If it were done on every page, it would get less funny after a while, but on a few pages it would be a good idea. If you see a few pages that could use it, go ahead and do it. --Paulgb Talk 21:22, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
part of the point of those See Also Sections is that they actually tend to link to topics which are actually unrelated to the article that they're linking from. --PantsMacKenzie 15:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In some cases, including something as See Also does infer a relationship, for instance: George W. Bush, See also: Idiot --Carlb 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baby Jokes

We have a page named You have two cows already. Is there a similar repository somewhere for dead baby jokes? Or are we aiming for all-original around here? --Orborde 23:15, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

You have two cows was intended for original YHTC entries.. We don't currently have a DBJR, but try Comedy --Chronarion 00:15, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

Team Photo

Link to section in community portal

I was thinking of making a team photo for uncyclopedia. My idea was to have everyone who was interested send me a photo to put in. The photo does not have to be of themselves of course, that would be no fun. I am thinking pictures of presidents, cartoon charachters, animals, superheroes, etc. I will get started in a few days if there is enough interest. --Paulgb Talk 18:27, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

I'll leave you to guess an appropriate image for me :-)--Elvis 19:49, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Here's me. [1] --Chronarion 12:22, 10 May 2005 (EDT)

Ok, since there is some interest, I am ready to do it. Photos can be linked or posted here, or emailed to paulgb (at) gmail (dot) com. Also, I will double post this in the community portal because thats where I meant to post it in the first place. --Paulgb 18:53, 11 May 2005 (EDT)


Here's mine. [2]--Savethemooses 18:58, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

Me back in my singing days. [3] --Rcmurphy 21:40, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

It's not a very good picture. I'm the one on the left. (The far left.) [4] --Spintherism 22:31, 12 May 2005 (EDT)

Might as well use this: [5] --stillwaters/Talk 23:57, 12 May 2005 (EDT)

Ba ding ding ding ding ding woooooooooooooh *BANG* Media:Scaredfrog.jpg--Freebasser 18:49, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

You have New Messages

Perhaps You have un-old messages or something similar would be more in the spirit of Uncyclopedia?

I'd prefer something like "You have a new stalker" personaly :-) --Elvis 14:03, 9 May 2005 (EDT)
I'm for it, is it possible? --Paulgb Talk 18:18, 9 May 2005 (EDT)
I checked, "you have" and "new messages" are changable seperatly, so somthing like what Elvis suggested would be very possible, but somthing like "New messages, you have" would be a little harder. --Paulgb Talk 18:21, 9 May 2005 (EDT)
No one has objected, so ill give it 24 more hours and then I'll contact some of the other mods and if everyone thinks its a dandy idea it will be done. Any objections? --Paulgb Talk 19:19, 12 May 2005 (EDT)
"You have lewd messages"? :) --Carlb 20:04, 16 May 2005 (EDT)
I'm still snickering about Carlb's "You have nude massages." he slapped on his user page. But in the general spirit of the place, I do like "You have a new stalker!" best. That or "Alert! Alert! Your Page has been Defiled!!!" --Famine 21:57, 27 May 2005 (EDT)
Just vote by popular consensus, but try to keep it reasonable. Nude massages is best, I think. Stalker is too vague.

Posted to The Community Portal for voting. --Famine 13:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of templates

Is there anyway to list the available templates or is there already a page for this, I've had a hunt round but can't find it anywhere?--Elvis 12:59, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Unsure, need to ask chron. Although... probably not. --stillwaters/Talk 10:47, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Went and did some thinking (thus am slightly light headed) worked out how to do it List of templates--Elvis 11:22, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)
ooh, so it does exist. Cool-o. --stillwaters/Talk 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Uncyclopedia:List_of_Templates --Paulgb Talk 18:23, 9 May 2005 (EDT)
(A manually-categorised list is now available at Uncyclopedia:Templates and its subpages. --Carlb 00:07, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC) )

Merging Categories

I want to merge the TV category with the Television category, how do I do that? --Nytrospawn 14:21, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Just change all the [[Category:TV]] into [[Category:Television]] on all the categorized pages, I think. --Paulgb Talk 17:44, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Gawrd, thats too much effort for me =/ --Nytrospawn 01:30, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Lazy barsteward. ^_^ I took care ot it. --Uvula Donor 15:04, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Eventually, i'll get off my ass and set up a bot. pywikibot usually works. --Chronarion 13:56, 19 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Uploading pictures

When you're updating a picture, simply upload it to the same location. Don't do "gwbush1.jpg", "gwbush2.jpg"; just upload to "gwbush.jpg". Old pictures will be archived on the same page (Image:gwbush.jpg) this way. If you rename new versions of pictures, it'll quickly clutter up the space and create thousands of orphaned pages (c.f. special pages -> unused images). --stillwaters/Talk 12:20, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Categories

I reckon the categories need filling up - if you notice a categoryless article then please add a relevant category tag to it. See Uncyclopedia:Browse for the categories which will be the mainstay of the categorification process and use those. In particular, if you find an entry about a person, e.g. Mr. Firstname Lastname, put it under [[Category:People|LASTNAME]]. That way all the names appear ranked by surname so it's easier for people to find what they're looking for.

If you decide to create a new category ask two questions: does it already exist under a similar name (e.g. Politics & Government vs. Politics, Leisure vs. Recreation) and, given time, are other people likely to add articles to it? Then, once you've ignored my advice and created the category anyway, please go and add some other articles to it. I will be culling categories with few members unless there's a particularly good reason for them to exist (e.g. if they're very, very, very funny)--Machinecurse 19:31, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I agree, the categories need fleshing out (at least as a framework for articles). I think it's probably a good idea to match the categories of Wikipedia as much as possible when writing about 'real-world' things. Ettlz 11:08, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Years

Who wants to catagorize the years? I have a shiny nickle for the person who does it --Nytrospawn 23:15, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

If i find some time later today I might get started. Is it just [[Category:Years]] or what? --Paulgb Talk 11:18, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Done.. There are a lot of crappy pages for the years though. I hope eventually we can make all the years pages as good as 1956 and 1929 --Paulgb Talk 11:51, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I'm going to poke around the year pages for the next few days, dust off the cruft and maybe add a few pix. --Uvula Donor 15:16, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia Themesong

I think we are mature enough to have our own themesong --Nytrospawn 18:41, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I vote for REM's End of the World, not sure why but it feels right --Pnorf 20:03, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Banana Phone by Raffi (and not the crappy sped-up version thats been going around) --Paulgb Talk 20:59, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Oh wait, are you looking for an existing song or are we to make up lyrics? --Paulgb Talk 20:59, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Lets make up lyrics, just like we make up everything else --Nytrospawn 13:34, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Soramimi Cake! http://www.animelyrics.com/anime/azumangadaioh/soramimicake.htm --Chronarion 15:05, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I agree! ...But that might be because I know all the words already and won't have to learn new ones... ^_^;; --PantsMacKenzie 23:35, 11 May 2005 (EDT)

YES! *joygasm* --Nytrospawn 23:00, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia Action Squad! Go! --Savethemooses 10:53, 8 May 2005 (EDT)

ECMS

Okay. Who wants to be head of ECMS (Elite Category Management Squad)? They would have complete authority over our categories. --Chronarion 00:57, 3 Apr 2005 (EST)

I'll give it a go, it'd look good on my resume. If ye pick me, I'll do us a "browse by category" type page in the same style as Wikipedia which ought to make it easier to, er, browse.--Machinecurse 15:00, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Kind of like this --Machinecurse 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Very nice. If nobody else wants it, you shall have ECMS Emperor Title.. --Chronarion 00:04, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

little help pl

ok, i'm a bit of a noob with the whole wiki concept, but is it normal for changes not to appear even after i have made edits? 'cause it happens. a lot. --Oobie 12:18, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

We have a small bug with the browser cache, I believe it is due to the time zone differences or something. Clear your browser cache after editing. --Chronarion 13:05, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

I've seen this more than once. Holding shift and clicking "reload" forces (most) browsers to reload all page content, and fixes the problem. --Famine 17:09, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

pleasePLEASEhelpME

aaaAAAaaAAaaaAaAAaaaA! how do you create a new page??? i'm gonna start pushing small bamboo shoots under my nails now.... --User:Oobie 13:24:44, 1 Apr 2005 (IND)


My favorite method is to make a link to the page you want to create, in your User or Talk page, then click on it. --iMacThere4iAm 10:34 1 Apr 2005 (GMT)


cool. that's just what i did. thanks. --Oobie 05:07, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

You can also just type in the article name you want in the serach box. --Gartogg

Content

Although we're equal opportunity offenders, hate speech isn't really what we're here for. I mean, if they really wanted that, perhaps they should try SkinheadPedia or something. Delete with vengence. --Chronarion 14:44, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

I have instanced google ads because I am getting 2gb/day in bandwidth usage, and well, that's not gonna be pretty.. --Chronarion 12:32, 14 Mar 2005 (EST)

Morbo demands more Google Ads to pay for the pitiful bandwidth utilization of this puny website. --Person of No Account 07:49, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)

Q&A

Q I have a somewhat funny picture I'd like to include in an article but can't figure out how to upload it. Please help. It's funny, not just somewhat funny. A riot.

A: You have to create an account or log in....

Oops, am I a putz for not realizing this on my own?

Q What does VFD stand for?

A: Votes for Deletion

Q: O great Uncyclopedia Administrators, I just created a new account about 10 minutes ago, and I was editing my skin preferences when I got this:

Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class skinmonobook in /homepages/43/d116280534/htdocs/uncyclopedia/skins/mb.php on line 25

Now, the error appears appears every time I'm logged in. Can I get a prefs reset? My username is "Wil" and you can email me at the address in my profile if you need to confirm.

A: I have deleted your account thing. Please remake. That should do it.

Q:I kindof wanted to know if there was some place we could request feedback on something we wrote. I spent a bit of time on The Rock, and think it's funny (especially if you follow(ed) wrestling) but would like feedback from people doing this longer than me, with more attuned tastes.

Possible A: I genral ask for feedback on the talk page of the article, of course that assumes that people actualy see the article in the first place, I guess you could but it on VFD and/or VFH, that would certainly get you some feedback (not sure it's such a good idea however).

Worthless Posts

  • There are lots of worthless entries that we need to get rid of. Ive seen a pattern of horrible humor comeing from a few IP's. I believe we need to deal with this, with extreme vengence. --Nytrospawn 22:48, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)
Add them to VFD. --Chronarion 23:40, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • I do, they just spawn as fast as rabbits =( --Nytrospawn 23:53, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)
Agreed, worthless pages are growing faster than they are getting destroyed. Maybe there should be a seperate page from VFD for pages that are so worthless ("LOL YOUR MOM STFU!!!" type pages) that they should get deleted without VFD? --Paulgb 07:10, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)
Sure. That's what SysOps are for, really. Feel free to start one. SuperVFD or something.

--Chronarion 12:32, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)

Here it is: QuickVFD --Paulgb Talk 09:38, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • I deleted a few very short (<25 bytes) pages by IPs. Bonalaw 11:17, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)
Coolies. --Chronarion 12:32, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • Perhaps we should limit creation/editting of articles to registered users. Most people posting worthless stuff are here and gone in 5 minutes, and probably wouldn't bother to create an account. Just a thought. --RadicalX 14:25, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
It was discussed before and voted on, and it was decided that the uncyclopedia would be left open for unregisted users. It is not much of a problem anymore though, these pages are usually taken care of pretty quickly, and with more people wanting to be sysops, it should stay that way. I would be in favor of moving requested articles to their own page, because they are the most commonly vandalized articles as far as I can tell. I dont know if the wiki software can be set to only let registed users create articles while everyone else can edit, but that would be another possibility (Personally I'd be against it though). --Paulgb Talk 14:39, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • How about a better way to flag worthless posters? Particularly the "stub factory" users (here's a recent example: Scott Gall). Something like an inverse "patrolled" flag ("found to be lacking"). Possibly an auto flag if you make more than say 5 articles under 200 characters in one day --Jebus 22:02, 25 Apr 2005 (EST)

minor change on main page

[[AUTOMAGICALLY]] should be replaced by [[Automagic|AUTOMAGICALLY]]. Izwalito 13:27, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

RFC

made some rewrites and additions to Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. Izwalito 14:46, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

What in Sophia's Name?

Some guy is linking to some not funny .tk websites. Even though the sites themselves are jokes, they really arent the funny variety.More to come when I finish lunch, but in all likelyhood Ill forget about this after watching my porn --Nytrospawn 13:52, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I noticed that too, its cleaned up now and he is banned for that and some edits to Jew that went unnoticed. --Paulgb Talk 14:34, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Marking Of Deliberate Spelling Mistakes

So far I've had two deliberate spelling mistakes corrected by well-meaning fellow contributors. Is there a way of discretely marking something as deliberately misspelled? I'd think it would have to be discrete so as not to lessen the joke of the bad spelling. --IMBJR 08:17, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I probably did one of them. How about addinng (sic) after the mispeling (sic)? --Repairman Jack 12:29, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)

It's a tricky one. You don't want to be obvious about it, but you do want to ward off unrequired corrections. I shall keeep (sic) in mind for next time. --IMBJR 05:15, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

You can always do some sneaky wiki or html markup that is visible only when you try to edit the article. --stillwaters/Talk 05:35, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Looks like HTML comments work here. I shall use them instead of sic. --IMBJR 10:33, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Policy vote

Vote ended.

16-12 final. No clear majority, so i'm leaving it Anon for now. Points are well taken, and so far, I think i'll leave anonymous edit in.--Chronarion 00:57, 14 Mar 2005 (EST)

I am currently considering limiting edits to logged in users only to decrease the amount of crap. Previously, when our volume was low, it was much easier to keep the signal to noise ratio fairly decent. However, the amount of stuff that's really not funny is quickly overwhelming the actual humour of the pages. I'd like a policy vote on whether to eliminate anonymous editing. It will go into effect Sunday, March 12th 2005.

Vote here, and leave a signature at the end of the message by clicking the second button from the left above this box.

Currently 11-12. I have not yet cast a vote. --Chronarion 17:29, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)



Anonymous Edits I personally am against open-edit sites like this going to a registered-only model. Once the standard of quality is raised by simply attracting better writers to the site, the level of quality will automatically keep away idiots incapable of anything more than silly, pointless entries. Waiting until that point may be hard and require a bit of work to keep cleaning up the stupid messes, but keeping it open is, in my opinion, essential. Otherwise, it just becomes another dumb internet "boys club" where users are known by name and their name becomes identity, etc... Fact is, a lot of people enjoy writing for Wiki-style sites who don't care about their name being attached to it. I don't. A smidgen of credit (my IP address) is nice, but in general, I like contributing to the whole, what little I have. Wikipedia had the EXACT same discussion when it was getting big and I think, in the end, it turned out for the best they did not limit anonymous edits. If anything, I could see per-day edit limits or something like that (limits on how many new articles in a day, as well), but making it registered only just smacks of "same ol' same ol'." Give open edits a chance and I guarantee the site will eventually attract more and more interesting users. Also, getting tougher with the quick deletions of pure crap will also help. Also, registering names and all that is proven to not really lessen trolling and spamming all that much. Why bother with it?

Registered Only this site is getting more and more popular so we'll end up getting overwhelmed with unfunny people and dickheads, so having the barrier of having to register will be essential, otherwise. Registration requires so little personal data anyway (especially with disposable email addresses and such like), it's not going to put anyone off apart from people who simply cannot be bothered to register (in which case, they're hardly likely to put much time or thought into their contributions (and I do believe there's a comment somewhere saying that we should VFD pages that've taken ten seconds to make). As for anonymity... surely that could be incorporated into the system somehow.--Machinecurse 16:51, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Edits A ten-second obvious joke by a registered user was transformed by the anonymous commenter above into an enjoyable full article (Dune). I'd hate to see any barrier put in place that would reduce the chances of that imagination and wit being applied again.--Deltab 04:20, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Abstain I can see arguments for both sides. On the other hand, having usernames is definitely easier to dealing with a bunch of numbers, but on the other hand, the spirit of openness will be compromised by this. And there's no guarantee it won't turn out the few quality users that might come out of the anonymous masses. So, here's an abstention, which means "I ain't votin' but I'm votin'". --stillwaters 10:46, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Editing Its the ONLY way that you can get an honest entry from people. After all, if this is truly supposed to be a politically-incorrect wiki, the entries are going to be bordering on hate speech at times, and you're not going to want to associate your nick with some of the more down-to-heart honest emotional entries.

Anonymous Editing I would have never become involved with this site had it not allowed anonymous editing. Perhaps the front page could be restricted to registered users, but we definately need some way for guests to contribute. Realistically, this increases the security of the site about as much as showing IDs in airports does. Anyone can get an ID. Anyone can register. --Ohnodoctor

Anonymous Editing is what makes this site so cool. Requiring logins to edit the pages is more a privacy issue than anything--some people want their nick associated with some edits but not with others. This is a really great site because it allows anon editing--let's keep it that way. If you have to implement registered only--allow people to turn off their nick under edit history. --CompaqDrew

Registered Only, I voted. --Chronarion 14:53, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only I believe it would cut down some of the trolling if we allow only registered users to edit entries --nytrospawn 14:59, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only, and put a notice on the front page that says it will become registered only on Sunday (if it is gonna become registered only.) --Darkdan 15:33, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Unfortunately, open and anonymous editing is one of the biggest jerk magnets in the world. --Uvula Donor 15:38, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Editing No disrespect intended, but seriously what is the difference between the IP that you obviously can see and ban and someone who takes the 30 seconds to create a user name? You obviously prefer names so I made mine out of respect, but it seems like you have pretty firm control over what you want to be said here. --MitchO 15:42, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

The additional 30 seconds of effort is usualy enough to stop basic vandals. These include the people that just dive in, erase a page or fill it with crap, and then leave. Creating a username could optionally have an email verification (If I turn it on.), which discourage the most determined of vandals. I don't think i'll turn on email stuff, but another issue is basically just the time constraint. Someone who spent an additional 30 seconds to create a username is likely to spend more than 30 seconds writing an article, which many of these articles seem to lack. Regarding control of things being said, I wish the new stuff was funnier. That's mostly it. Some comments around the blogosphere indicate that we're uh, getting dumber. However, I respect your point of view, and initially, I wanted to leave it anon as well. --Chronarion 15:55, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Unregistered users have added a lot to the uncyclopedia, but the question is, if they had to register, would most of those people sign up or leave. I think most people would rather be able to try out editing before becoming a member, but if there was no choice I think that if someone had somthing to contribute they would sign up. Does wikipedia have this problem? Maybe it is the topics covered by this wiki that attracts vandals. --Paulgb 16:05, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia does have the same problem. There are even some that want "Registered only". However, it has so many users that most trolling is noticed, and then dealt with.

My concern is that with Registered only, Uncyclopedia will never get too large.

Registered Only New here but I can definitely see how this could go wrong if you couldn't keep up with the inflow. It would be a shame to ruin such a great idea. LupusYonderboy 19:05, 11 Mar 2005 (CST)

Registered Only A bit of a newbie as well. However, I think having registered users would be good in order to give mad props to those who made my pathetic contributions so much better. Word. --Graciana 16:47, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Once we know their names we will be able to see into their souls. --The Lad Himself 17:19, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Agree with The Lad Himself -- seeing into their souls is a good idea. Email verification maybe not so, but that's a separate issue.

--Niko 19:01, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only It's not hard to register, so it won't significantly slow down anyone who wants to contribute, and as said earlier, it does force a new user to make at least that 30-second commitment, which might discourage trolls a little (tiny) bit. --Dltd 01:05, 12 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Editing I'm voting this way because of the nature of Uncyclopedia. The instinct behind trolling is the same instinct that makes people post "legitimate" stuff on the site. That spontaneity of posting that is so important to a site like this will die out once you introduce registration.

Registered Only If people don't have the balls to at least post behind a pseudonym that may not have any relation to who they actually are, then they're obviously the kind of proletariat scumbags who defile the integrity of false encyclopedic knowledge. Besides, most of the abuses that I've witnessed (save for one of my own) have come from anonymous users. —TheBuckley 14:18, 12 march 2005 (EST)

Registered Only What is the big deal with not wanting to register? Have some pride and take credit for what you are posting. It's great to find out who did something and give some suggestions to them for future edits if registration is required. --Lewis Moten 3:41, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Edits As of this writing, 18 of the edits on Recent changes are by anonymous users; that's 36%. Turning away 36% of this site's userbase to lessen vandalism by some mysteriously unknown figure is a poor bargain, especially considering it's loads easier to ban vandals than to get lost users back. --EvilZak 03:52, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)


Anonymous Edits I mean, really, anything that is not liked can be changed by anyone. I say give more social leniance to the person completely rewriting an unregestered edit and let it be. But, I mean, I'm new here. So, y'know, I honestly don't mind if my opinion is meaningless. Just wanna put it out there. --The Great Big Mulp 04:31, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)


Anonymous Edits Anything that really, really sucks will go quite quickly. So what does it matter? Besides, we all occassionally need to rant anonymously at the void. --BionicSheep 13:27, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)


Anonymous Edits I'm not sure I would have lingered here if I hadn't first got an anonymous taste. --Towr 10:04, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)


Registered Only As awesome as anonymous edits would be, we've been getting articles like "the fag disease", and that is like anti-funny. --Metaphysical 17:36, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Most of my posts so far have been anonymous but I'm willing to log in if it will reduce the crap. But I hope all my old stuff won't be deleted retro-actively? I just spent a bunch of time on Haiku before noticing this discussion! ooops... here it is --68.146.178.111 19:19, 13 Mar 2005 (EST) aka --Pnorf 21:00, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Registered Only Quality is better than quantity. Take it a step further and require users to submit to a funny-test before they can register ;-) And people who forget to sign their votes should be insta-banned (oops) --Gadgeophile 19:17, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Anonymous Edits I would second pretty much what everyone's said in favor of allowing anonymous edits. I cruised in here following a link from bbspot.com. I looked around, tweaked a little grammar and spelling, tossed in a couple of tidbits, then wrote an article (Abbie Einstein). At that point I decided I'd hang around a while and have some fun. If I had had to sign up before I could do anything, I most likely wouldn't have. Yeah, vandalism is a PITA, but all you have to do is revert it; whereas disallowing anonymous edits will almost assuredly reduce the quantity of good material coming in. IOW you can dampen the noise, but you'll be dampening signal as well, and noise can be dealt with in other ways. --Darguz Parsilvan 23:16, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Personal tools
projects