Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive5

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

Favicon?

made that as a favicon. A simple parody of the Wikipedia W, if you want to use it cool, otherwise w/e just putting it out there --Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 21:28, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

We used to have a potato, but after the move it was taken off. Let's upload one? --Chronarion 00:35, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sequel to World War I (video game)

Behold my creation, World War II (video game). Only two edits so far have not been done my me. Does this make me a nerd? Of course it does! Does it qualify for any awards? Hell no! Does anyone care? Guess not. Oh well, it was worth a shot. --Dac1990 01:54, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we're accumulating enough of these for their own category - what with my Gulf War (video game) and Mooses' Invasion of Grenada (video game). Anyone want to undertake Vietnam War (video game), or Invasion of Afghanistan (video game)? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Good job. I added it to the World War template. I think that eventually, if we have enough well-done articles like this, we could start a category. "War Games" would be a good name. --Savethemooses 15:59, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• I think "Invasion of Afghanistan" was just one part of 9/11 (video game). Though I probably should have checked here first. But that would have been considerate and thoughtful, and if I wanted to be considerate and thoughtful, I'd have stayed in my old playground :) --BobBobBob 19:42, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New Policy?

Many of the "Forum" articles are filled with vanity and such. So, do we create a policy against makeing articles about internet forums? They are inherently non-notable because of the anonymous nature of these sites --Nytrospawn 23:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Kind of a grey area?... ZFGC has little potential beyond itself now, being about a Zelda forum (or some such) yet is not bad for what it is limited by. Irc users on the other hand has massive potential in its title to make fun of the various species of IRC users in general, yet is a piece of shit about a few friends (and vanity propagator, having links to top level namespace for its members, arg (RC did warn the two main creators, no reaction so far (and they are on Ban Patrol))). But something like Steam Forums is in between: mostly crap without much chance for improvement. There seems to be an edit war going on in there now over the section 'list of spamm0rs'. So in summary: I have no opinion. --Splaka 23:15, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I vote we (meaing someone with 1331 5|>i115) write the definitive Internet forum article, and redirect all other internet forums to that page. 23:40, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'm no fan of those kind of articles. They've got a limited audience, often descend into in-joke hell and tend not be particularly funny. And besides, they've got a whole forum for that kind of business. It's not like we turn up there and start raving about the virtues of Uncyclopedia, is it? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:51, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Denied. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia. I personally would prefer to keep forum style articles if they're funny to SOMEBODY. ONLY if they are funny to nobody, should they be deleted. Absolutely no special targeted policy can be instated, that goes against wikibelief. If it totally sucks, vfd. There's no point in writing a special rule or anything. Use standard policy.--Chronarion 17:27, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Its true some of those articles are have redeemable qualities. But what I want to have as part of policy is to have people understand that "Forum" articles are not the best vehicle for satire. If someone can make a really good article about a forum, without it delving into inside jokes and "spamz0rz", then thats fine. But I've seen many more that arent funny --Nytrospawn 00:24, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Or should I say more specifically, most of the articles do use inside jokes and lists of people I dont give a ratfuck about --Nytrospawn 00:26, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Pardon my being incredibly vain and self-promoting, but I already wrote a "definitive internet forum article" at Forum. I believe Famine called it a "sterling piece of work." Of course, how far can you trust a man named after one of the terrible scourges of humanity...? --Jordanus 05:56, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, shit. I forgot all about that. No wonder I was sure someone could come up with a good forum article. I already read it, and moved it to its own page. And apparently called it a "sterling piece of work." Some admin should go back and fix all my stuipd-ass comments about needing an internet forum article. I now vote to:
A: move Forum to Internet forum just in case someone ever needs to write a non-internet forum article.
B: redirect all forum articles to the appropriate section of that article.
15:16, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Heh. I didn't notice that you were the one who made that comment, Sir Famine (I'll have to get used to the title). I can't believe that you didn't remember the incredible saga of the rebellious anti-uncyclopedia-moving-the-chat-page anarchists. Anyway, your idea's fine by me. My article had a small section about the history of forums, but it was mostly a lead-up to a discussion about modern ones. I guess I could use that materiel to write an article about historic forums if you guys wanted; it'd be a stretch, though. If someone else wants to write a new non-Internet forum article that's OK too. I don't really care either way--Jordanus 16:59, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm in concordance with chron. Due to our established psychic link, I've come to back up his statement. Basically, we have things in place to completely nuke the things that make LALALALALA FORUMZ LOLOL articles suck. The "Inside joke" rule and content rules of HTBFANJS cover this, and unless they're something everyone can appreciate (which, in most situations never happens) there's not point in making a "magic bullet" rule--Sir Flammable KUN 17:34, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Flammable and Chronarian. If we start making blanket-delete policies just because 90% of some-subject-related articles suck, there really won't be much left. It's that 10% minority in every subject that makes Uncyclopedia what it is, and we don't want to inadvertently throw away any babies. --Spintherism 17:55, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I always remove from these types of articles any section that's just a list of usernames, sometimes followed by descriptions such as "He really likes penguins and cheese." or "Nazi administrator who bans everyone." Example of what I'm talking about. While I agree that we shouldn't delete articles just for being non-notable (how notable is something that's made up or non-existant?) these userlists are among the weakest vanity I've ever seen. Uncyclopedia is not a guestbook, hence I just throw away that shit on the spot. --EvilZak 22:42, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think some of these userlists are okay, but move them to vanity subpages. I thought it was slightly funny even without visiting the forum as a regular. Anyway, use your judgement. For this forum list, I think that making it a subpage (using the / thing so it won't be randomed) is perfectly acceptable. It makes them happy, no? I'm an inclusionist. Everybody should be represented as long as they don't hurt others. --Chronarion 00:38, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Every now and then, even a vanity list of names and in-jokes can open up to unintentional hilarity. The mixing of tenses and "we did this and they did that and we did this LOL" gives it a sort of James Joyce feel. --Monthenor 02:51, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nude (gasp!) photographs

OK, someone posted a nude photo (tasteful, but nude) of Cindy Crawford in the article of the same name. I reverted it once to take it out -- assuming that (1) people surfing Uncyclopedia at work probably wouldn't appreciate titty pics popping up on their screen and (2) copyright issues blah blah blah. But then someone reverted again to put it back in. I can't find any policy on Uncyclopedia regarding this. Thoughts? --Bouahat 06:56, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, since uncyclopedia is on the same network of servers as Wikipedia (like wikimedia, wikicities, etc), I would guess the policy is similar to (or at least as lenient as) theirs. I am guessing it should be funny, or at least be utilized in a funny manner (orphaned and unused images are periodically deleted). But I am a n00b, my 2 centage. --Splaka 07:11, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion:Remove the picture, then put one of those invisible <!--things on the page stating not to put it back. I don't know why I posted it here instead of doing it myself. --Cheeseboi 20:58, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The big problem that I see is that it just doesn't seem funny to me and I can't even see what the point was beyond posting a nude pic. If there was some way it could be made funnier (I dunno, maybe something with the Janet Jackson boob slip thing) then it would be fine to keep under the Wikipedia policy that Sir Splaka brings up, but otherwise it seems like it ought to go. -- ERTW MUN 23:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Explicit/nude pictures tend to be unfunny anyway, as most of them have been taken from non-funny sources like Playboy and whatever and don't really tend to contribute much. Unless photoshopped or originally intended to be humorous, nude pics really don't add much to Uncyclopedia. And unfortunately, non-original funny nude pictures tend to be the most popular pictures on the Intarweb, and as such are really not worthy of inclusion on Uncyc (unless we're trying to parody them). --stillwaters/Talk 23:54, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What about stuff like the picture at Hentaium? It fits with the article, but, well, it's pretty explicit... --Rcmurphy KUN 00:04, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

We could slap some sort of NSFW tag on Hentaium, but I'd say it's their fault for browsing to a page named Hentaium in the first place. Shock! Naked people on Hentaium?! I am teh surpized! Basically, I feel that if we don't have any problem putting fuck in bold italics, why fret over images that pertain to the article? --Monthenor 02:18, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I placed the picture on the Hentaium article. It is a public domain image that is available on Wikipedia. Did the standards of Uncyclopedia rise above Wikipedia recently? --KP CUN 03:25, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I personally would be shocked and horrified if Uncyclopedia became some cesspoolish repository of nude images. Especially since it is quite likely that they would be uncategorized and unrated, and thus contribute nothing to Uncyclopedia. If that ever happens, I pledge to spend my time browsing all such images, judging, categorizing, and making sure they are fit for Uncyclopedia. Any which aren't will be confiscated.

But seriously, I for one won't abide by any prudish policy which would make us more Puritan than Wikipedia. A little titty isn't a bad thing here. We have far, far more offensive shit on this site. As Jon Stewart said about America, The Book, (roughly paraphrased) "They banned it in Mississippi because it had nude pictures of old people in it. Not because we used the phrase "teabagging a hooker" in it." Really, tasteful nude images are by far the least shocking and offensive stuff on this site. While the image in question isn't really funny, I don't see the fact that it's nudity as a reason to dump it. If/when we get a funnier picture, great, let's use it. For now, I'll put that on my favorites list to head to when I need a pick-me up. ;) 22:09, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to be prudish or offended, but just wondering aloud whether it's a good idea to have gratuitous nude photos on Uncyclopedia. I like to surf the site at work when I have the occasional break when I'm not doing something else. And it would be not a good thing to have passers-by seeing naked pics on my computer. But I've read the comments here -- and have concluded that it would be far easier for me to just not surf this site at work (or surf the site very carefully) rather than to try to impose my conditions on the whole site. --Bouahat 22:29, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If an occasional page with boobies on it would bad for you to stumble across at work, I'd highly recommend not browsing sites which allow anon edits and don't have any "regularly scheduled" moderators. There's nothing to really stop someone dropping a dripping snatch into the "did you know" or "in the news" templates and having that splashed across the main page. Or doing that to just about any other page here.
Personally, even though I'm an admin here, I'd never browse this site at work. According to our usage policy, there's a fair amount here that could potentially get me fired. Even if I stay away from those parts of the site, this place can change literally by the minute, and you never know what you're going to stumble across. We admins are here when we can be, but there's no set schedule, and we don't have "rounds" or any real method to how we keep this place looking good. We just put out fires where we see them. If you browse this site at work, beware. 22:49, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

heh if Wikipedia can do it I think we can (NSFW) --Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 19:13, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

SOLUTION? here I made these to be placed at tops of articles/image descriptions: Template:NSFWArticle and Template:NSFWImage --Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 02:38, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have made it so 500px of margin space are below it. it doesnt work well for images unfortuantly where the description is already below the image :P --Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 02:53, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Sweet. I'm going to place that at the bottom of every page which has any chance of ever becoming NSFW. Which I hope someone does a good job on. -- 01:15, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Heh its best at the top because it has a 500px margin at the bottom in order to sort of cut off the stuff (doesnt work on my screen 1280x1024 :P) but I dont want to drive 800x600 users insane :P also I love that idea of having your sig in a template--Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 21:58, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Damn, I hate always being too clever. My point was that I plan on subverting a working notice to make it useless. On purpose. It's the Discordian in me. Mom's side. -- 22:35, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Oh haha sorry kinda tired. I like that idea :) I'll edit the margin thingy --Insertwackynamehere 00:12, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of being more provocative I have doubled up the image. -- ERTW MUN 00:29, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

What if we simply tag images with nudity with words such as (nudity) in their filenames? Then any sensible Firefox users can simply adblock such images. It's pretty trivial to install Firefox nowadays, and if your workplace favours another browser (e.g. you work for Microsoft), you can grab an alternative skin to fool your boss/supervisor. --stillwaters/Talk 01:33, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

And for the rest of us home users, it will make searching for those images all the easier. I'm for that idea. -- 22:35, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Stillwaters -- that is probably the best idea yet!
1. Tag images with words such as (nudity) in their filenames
2. Limit access to Uncyclopedia PLUS! members
3. Gouge Charge a reasonable fee to view nude photos
4. ???
5. Profit!
--Bouahat 21:21, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

So who’s volunteering to look at all the images to find nudity? --KP CUN 21:49, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

1...2...3

NOT IT!!! -- 22:41, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Insertwackynamehere is off labeling them now with his NSFWImage template. When he is done you should be able to find a complete list at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NSFWImage (or Category:Not safe for work). Can images be moved (renamed) by Administrators? Or does the action require database manipulation? Would redirects be put in place? Also, I think a better file scheme would be (for example) Image:Jenna.jpg --> Image:(NSFW)-Jenna.jpg. --Splaka 23:58, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
heh yup, but I'm probably gonna miss a bunch. I was just looking around vaguely based on a few articles that sort of interlink, but the best idea is, you see an image, tag it. also we could run searches for famous actresses/pornstars/etc I'm pretty much out for tonite i think though, and I have school tommorow :( --Insertwackynamehere 00:34, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New Image!

I think this fits nicely, all the aquaball stuff gets kinda old :P --Insertwackynamehere 01:42, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Would a 'pedia about Boston be called...

WickedPedia? --Savethemooses 00:52, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nah, man! Wha's wrong with you! It's like hella lame and shit, dude. It would be hella better to like totally do something else, like a. uh, like a like, I don't know, whatever, you know?
What the fuck is hella? You kids and your slang, Im gonna kills you.--Nytrospawn 16:59, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hella is a particularly annoying slang from Northern Californa. Chances are you can spot a long-time Northern Californian by their use of it. (Yes, I am a native NCian (yes, I use hella without thinking about it (yes, it sucks))). --Splaka 19:56, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Vandals! Zounds!

SOMEbody vandalized my masterpiece Open-Heart Surgery for Dummies. Who possibly could have done such a thing? --Savethemooses 17:31, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Someone named Gerald Carter, apparently. HTH. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 19:23, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, the VFD page looks all screwed up, the last 6 hours that is. Ballot stuffing and sections deleted? Or were Gazmo and Riemann_hypothesis reprieved without any archival of the votes? --Splaka 20:33, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Reminder to add to Template:Recent

I added the note about about the beginners guide to the bottom of the edit window, I was just wondering if it's worth adding a reminder once an article is complete to add it to Template:Recent so we can all laugh at the author article, if so suggested wording? --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:22, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I approve of this idea, as I always forget to put my new articles on there. As for wording: "When you think your article is complete, remember to add it to Template:Recent so the vandals know they have a new target." --Monthenor 20:44, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
See? Without Godboost's presence in the template, I doubt our esteemed vandal population would have even known it was there, and then they could not have blessed the world with their great wisdom. --Monthenor 17:51, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
There's a recent template? Damn, now I'm REALLY in line for the n00b of the month award. I guess I sorta-knew that long ago, but damn, I forgot all about it. 01:04, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Steve Ballmer's Hitlist

Well in honour of Steve Ballmer's recently publicised bout of insanity I have put together the following template: {{ballmer|the Village Dump}} Is it wrong that when I read that article the first thing that popped into my mind was that the quote would work well alongside the Oscar Wildeisms at Uncyclopedia? -- ERTW MUN 22:25, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

How would one go about killing a search engine? Pull the plug on its Boolean operators? --Savethemooses 01:57, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, but Ballmer says he's burried search engines before. -- ERTW MUN 03:28, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The way that guy looks, Id be hideing under the floor boards if I was Google. Thats if Google was a person and not an intangible electronic medium--Nytrospawn 13:54, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You know, we've traditionally had a vast deleteable amount of "xxx should die" or "xxx on yyy's shitlist" articles. I think we finally have one that's worthwhile. Balmer meshed with Oprah as her hitman, with their list of past and future victims could make for a decent article. I'll sit here and think about that, while someone else does it. 16:11, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But xxx should die. Seriously. xxx needs to fucking DIE. Same for yyy. --Savethemooses 01:22, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
xxx is now on the hitlist, unfortunately there is no yyy article to put on the list. -- ERTW MUN 04:38, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If yyy should die, but it's already dead, then it's a zombie. You have to shoot it in the head. IN THE EFFING HEAD! You dumbasses never get it right. That's why the zombies always eat your brains. --BobBobBob 19:50, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Templatyness

I don't know who requested this, or if anyone requested this, but here's a template for slanderous pages. No offense, Elvis. Template:Slander --Cheeseboi 19:50, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to put my language Nazi hat on, but when it's written down it's libel not slander. --IMBJR 20:07, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Darn it, IMBJR is teh right.
Stolen Quote: Recently the difference between slander and libel has become less distinct since speaking on public television or radio amounts to libel because of the public dissemination of the spoken words. For this reason defamation through television or radio is considered libel in countries like Canada, and may be handled as libel in the United States where laws differ from state to state. Posting false and defamatory information online also amounts to libel, not just on a website but also in the context of a discussion in a USENET newsgroup, listserv or IRC chat room. Several libel lawsuits in various countries have been brought against parties for Internet libel, somtimes referred to as cyberlibel.
So much for slandanity. But libeldanity just doesn't have the same ring. Hmm, one could also hardly call things like "fcuk u hmo" as written, since it is more accurately dictated by lobotomized monkeys. Using defamation is probably best... (Defevanity has a nice ring, like defecated defaming vanity) --Splaka Bur. SG CM © 20:25, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT (oh well I'm postong this anyway even if it now makes no sense) It wasn't so much slander but slandanity I was looking for, Something like "Just because you think your mates a Dick, we don't give a shit, both of you are insignifcant little turds that are not fit to shine my shoes - Sir Elvis", but funny :-/ I'm sure we can find a use for {{slander}} however :-)!--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 20:30, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have a skill for that, especially with Flammable. I am pondering adopting a title like Anti-Admin Edit Conflict Bastard. Or maybe I should just automatically be banned for 30 seconds whenever an admin hits 'edit'. --Splaka Bur. SG CM © 20:55, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I could move it to Template:Libel if you want, IMBJR. (BTW, Sir Elvis, I didn't know slandanity was a play on words. I have a somewhat limited ability to distinguish puns and normal stuff.)--Cheeseboi 21:01, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Current VFD usage of these appears to be $slandanity = slander + vanity$and $V.A.I.N. = vanity + attack + inside joke + nonnotable$--Carlb 21:56, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I sort of didn't read everything above, but slander can mean negative and false statements in general (written or spoken), it's only when legally speaking that it's used with along with the word libel to differentiate between written and spoken aspersions. (I just verified with dictionary.com and noticed that they have a wikipedia-based thesaurus function. Interesting.) --Spintherism 22:33, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

At elvis's request... Template:Slandanity --Cheeseboi 17:15, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I played with it slightly hope thats OK?--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 20:29, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's A-OK, Elvis. Long as I have your approval.--Cheeseboi 22:55, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Links to foreign Language Uncyclopedias

Now we have http://desencyclopedie.wikicities.com/wiki/Accueil (Sorta the French Uncyclopedia) and http://uncyclopedia.de/wiki/index.php/Hauptseite (The German Uncyclopedia) can we come to a consensus about linking/sister project boxing them (given the ED mess I thought I should check first) we already have some that are tagged with a link to desencyclopedie (because they are translations of original articles from there, which is fair enough) but what about translations of our articles (and spooky ones that have no connection whatsoever but have the same name/topic) on these two?--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 19:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

 Cet article, basé sur le texte Uncyclopédien Uncyclopedia:Village Dump, est disponible uniquement sous licence CC-BY-NC-SA de Creative Commons.
Dunno about .de (as that site still looks rather empty) but the situation on dÉsencyclpédie regarding translations of Uncyclopédia is an exact mirror image of the {{dÉ}} tag on translations of their stuff here - dÉsencyclpédie is a sister project (as part of Wikicities) and is filled with templates with li'l potato icons and links back to the original English-language articles and images here. See for a list of Uncyclopedia articles which have French-language translations. Use {{dÉ|nom d'article...}} or {{Uncyclopédia|article name}} to link there or link back here, respectively. The question of unrelated article/same topic hasn't been looked at, and so far the original article (in whichever language) doesn't link back to any translations of that article (the links point to the original), but I can't see it becoming a major issue. --Carlb 21:44, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Mediocre User for Fake Adminship

I am retiring from Uncyclopedia now, after a short career marked by mediocre contentent. In exchange for my half-hearted services I would like a superfluous, meaningless title, like, "Junior Fake Administrator in Charge of Doing Nothing." I feal that I deserve nothing less from you, who ate away so much of my time that I could have been spending productively if I hadn't been wasting it here. And I certainly deserve nothing better from you, due to my horrible, horrible editing.

Ciao.

--Cowation 04:25, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

As long as I can be a Senior Fake Administrator in Charge of Doing Nothing, just to get the point across that my penis is larger than yours, you have my full support. --Spintherism 05:14, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Fake administrator? Administrating isn't fake! It's just staged. Sure, the storylines and such are predetermined by writers and all bans and deletions are choreographed. However, all the "fake" 3-second-long bans are real bans, and if botched someone may wind up banned for 3 years. If you don't have the training, then please, don't try to administrate in your backyard. (I support Cowation being a fake administrator as long as "The Cowating One" puts me over at AdministrateMania 22.) --EvilZak 21:12, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hah! I happen to know that EvilZak is, on a regular basis, lip-syncing when he is deleting QVFDed articles. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 23:32, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I believe we could kill two birds with one stone here by just dropping the template:Inactive Sysop on his page. ;) Not that Cowation isn't deserving of the title Junior Unadmin in Training. --Famine 00:47, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

User:Brephophagia

Take a look at this guy's edits: Brephophagia (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups). Do we consider this sort of thing vandalism? I can sort of see where he thinks it's funny to claim that every city in the world is in Texas, but I dunno... it seems kind of obsessive to me. I left him a message on his Talk page asking him where he was going with this and he stopped. Opinions? -- Codeine 22:53, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty funny to me, and even if I'm in the minority on the funny, I don't think that sort of thing should be considered negative vandalism or penalized. --Spintherism 23:19, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Doesnt seem so bad. Just make sure he doesnt go destroying stuff or whatever --Nytrospawn 01:51, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia in New York Times

Blessings from His Noodly Appendage, Uncyclopedia was referred to in the same sentence as Wikipedia, not to mention before Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia. --stillwaters/Talk 18:05, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo! The takeover has begun! Venganza.org also linked to us again a couple days ago after I emailed Prophet Bobby about the FSM being our featured article. --Rcmurphy KUN 18:23, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Haha! Brilliant! My monkey armies are poised to strike! --PantsMacKenzie 21:54, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I have a feeling that Uncyclopedia being listed as on equal online encyclopedia grounds with Wikipedia will be rather frustrating to those folks.--Spintherism 01:17, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, serves them right, for making such a blatant parody of Uncyclopedia. :( --Splaka Bur. SG CM © 01:33, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

And frankly, what does wikipedia really have to offer? Facts? Ppppth. I can make up better facts than they have on any of their pages. You could write wikipedia just by watching the news all day, and writing stuff down. I choose the road less traveled, past the raven, and through the haunted forest. Uncyclopedia beats wikipedia pants down. Soon all news media will forget about wikipedia, and Uncyclopedia will rule the web supreme. </crazy prophet> What? Where am I? Who said that? --Famine 02:02, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I love you, Famine --PantsMacKenzie 01:49, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust. FSM forever! --Nytrospawn 02:28, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans is sinking, man

Can we add a donation link to the Red Cross or something on the front page for the victims of Katrina? I know it's not Uncyclopedic, but it's really, really bad from at least Ocean Springs, MS to New Orleans (and it looks like it's getting even worse in the latter). I'm away at school now, but my home is (or maybe was, I don't know yet) in one of the hardest-hit places, and I have a lot of family and friends from New Orleans and other places on the coast. Some of them stayed to weather the storm and I haven't heard from them yet. I feel really useless being out of town for all this and I'd like to feel like I'm doing something. Who knows if anyone would donate, but there's certainly a chance. --Rcmurphy KUN 03:04, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Why not just edit the existing Template:Donate to put your disaster-related message there? Nothing there now but silliness... --Carlb 08:27, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
We can do it like Wikipedia. They spam headline messages everywhere for important news. And I of course support adding a link to a reputable group that is doing stuff to aid New Orleans (and other places). Slashdot says they might need 9 weeks to pump out all that water, and we all know Slashdot is always right. Too bad we don't have a village pump to spare, but we can link, perhaps also on the side bar. --stillwaters/Talk 10:08, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
There will soon be hundreds of charities seeking donations for New Orleans. I think if we start taking donations or a link to a charity, we'll only be adding to the noise factor. On that basis, I am mildly opposed. On the other hand, if it could be done in a funny way, go for it. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 11:09, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
How about just an image link to a Red Cross donation site? And some little guilt message. Basically a charity ad banner, but uncyclopledia style. Mr T saying: "Help fund construction of New New Orleans, Foo! Donate to the Red Cross" or such (what does the red cross have to do with construction...well you know what I mean). --Splaka Bur. SG CM © 11:23, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Is there not a Disasters Emergency Committee (http://www.dec.org.uk/) link organisation in the US, of course not wishing to sound unkind but there are larger disasters going on and have gone on that we havn't done anything about, perhaps we should include links to them? (new version of Template:Donate comming up)--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 13:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)\

If you find {{{1}}} or its sista projects amusing, please consider making a donation to help the victims of the War on Terra:

1. Red Cross relief for Hurricane Katrina, to build a New New Orleans
2. DEC Niger Crisis Appeal (recommended for Mediocre Britain taxpayers)
3. ICRC, various including Sudan and Iraq
What do people think, any more to add?--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 13:22, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe relate it to the War on Terra, with a message from President Cruise to stay the course, show our determination to beat the Terra-ists, and promising to support the growth of democracy in Louisiana?
I suppose this then raises the question of whether we want to link to the related Uncyclopedia articles for these places, like:
</td>
 If you find Uncyclopedia or its sista projects amusing, please consider making a donation to help the victims of the War on Terra: Red Cross relief for Hurricane Katrina, to build a New New Orleans Disasters Emergency Committee Niger, various (recommended for Mediocre Britain taxpayers) ICRC, various including Sudan and Iraq
--Carlb 16:21, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has just cause why the template should not be changed then speak now or forever STFU else by the Power vested in me by whoever it was stupid enough to make me an admin I herby change it.--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 16:28, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I like the template, and the mix of humor and seriousness, but it's not very visible there. How about this: we add a permanent Donations link to the sidebar (perhaps replacing the "Report a problem" link, since I think that was just supposed to be for the move to Wikia), move the Donate template off the main page and then add a small bar, maybe something like this:
"Hey cheapskate. How about making a donation to help [whatever cause]?" ~~ Oscar Wilde
across the top of the front page when a disaster like Katrina or the Asian tsunami happens. That way the template can keep the links to charities that serve other causes, like Elvis mentioned, but we can also alert people to "new" events (I'm thinking specifically of natural disasters since they often require lots of money within a relatively short amount of time).
I know I'm being reactionary here because the hurricane has affected me personally, and of course if other people think the donation thing is insensitive or inappropriate for the site we don't have to do it. --Rcmurphy KUN 23:43, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Report a problem is starting to get some use so I'm not sure about replacing it, how hard would it be to add a donate link to the menu? --Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 00:19, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What about a wikipedia like permant link to each page but utilising User:Algorithms random plugin to change between variouse causes, although I am slightly worried about getting into a bun fight over "worthy" causes, can we get a view from cron? --Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 00:22, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
My take on this is that i'd be willing to put a link on the main page somewhere, but I do not want a general donations thing. I don't want to make sidebar changes, but somewhere on the main page wouldn't bother me much at all. --Chronarion 12:55, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Why not leave it as-is but just change the background colour slightly so that it isn't lost in a sea of coloured boxes? If this is intended to be a response to specific disasters, it doesn't need to be a permanent link, just a mainpage notice that shows up in times of major disaster. --Carlb 01:52, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Image Problem

I have an image problem. Not what your thinking. I've uploaded quite a few images b4 without problem, but this one http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Newspiderman.jpg won't show. When you click on the history for the image you can see it though? Whats happening? Why does my head hurt? Please help....... Mhaille

The image works for me. Maybe you forgot to make the necessary one-pound flesh sacrifice to Kompútar, he god of all things computational. It’s also good to make a ritual sacrifice to Etherné, the goddess of networks and the internet. --KP CUN 23:30, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

And you might have forgotten to pay me your upload tarrif. It happens sometimes. Paypal me \$35 (78 GBP) and it should work just fine. --Famine 23:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha!!!!! I've gotten it to work. Looks like my Ad Blocking on Norton Firewall doesn't like something in the name of the file.......spider? Just shows the old adage "poke around long enough and it'll work" is true... Mhaille

That is bizzare. The adblock plugin for Firefox works wonders for me, and I have yet to have an issue like that. If it makes any difference to you. And BTW, if you look to your left, at the bottom of the navigation bar you will see a link called "Report a problem". Yeah. --Famine 23:55, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

THATS what thats for? Duh! :) Mhaille

Drama-rama

User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has blanked portions of Sherrod DeGrippo, Encyclopædia Dramatica, Frienditto to "avoid drama" and to "correct facts". I rolled the changes back and blocked him for 24 hours. I'd have blocked him more, but I wanted to check here first. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 16:39, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This is information that he included himself, given it's factual nature and that he included it I've unblocked him and reverted to his version, this is only an emergency response if other decide to re-block/revert do so --Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 16:51, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps he has received a legal threat for libel? That would fit with SD's M.O. I'm asking 2004 what is up, so perhaps we'll learn what is going on. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 17:12, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the rather rushed response then disapearing, my net connection was playing up and I only had time to unblock an revert before I had to go and this is the first time I've been able to get back online. As I've said I was under the impression that he was just removing contnent that he had added and I given the shennigans over there I didn't think it was fair for him to get banned (obviously MM couldn't have known this, as he hasn't been involved over there, so this isn't in anyway a comment on him in his shoes I would probably have done the same). Also if others want to add it back in on their own initiative thats fine by me (although I was never particularly comfortable with the borderline vindictiveness of it) --Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 22:06, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Ten four, good buddy. I really don't have an interest in ED at and all that, but I can't stand being pushed around (and by extension, Uncyclopedia), especially by someone or something like SD. My hackles are smoothed back now, so I'm happy to go along with whatever the group decides. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 23:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Apparently both wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:SchmuckyTheCat got the boot from WP for 24hrs for reverting too quickly (more than the 3RR per day limit), and the wikipedia:Encyclopædia Dramatica page locked, so perhaps he's gone into damage-control mode at the moment? Still, it is odd to see factual info blanked by the very person who added it in the first place. ??? --Carlb 16:58, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it is strange. Id have to agree with others that the deletions that the user made be might due to external pressure. --Nytrospawn 17:34, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon

Can someone tell me why this page totally disappeared?

Maybe it sucked? --Nytrospawn 14:53, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Possibly, but there was never a vfd on it, so I doubt it.
See Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/archive10#Jeff_Gannon for the very brief vfd. --Splaka Bur. SG CM © 04:51, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You doubted that it sucked? Or that it disappeared because it sucked? Perhaps you also want to check out this page. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 05:36, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I can personally tell you why it disappeared, because I disappered it. It wasn't funny. It reads like a carthartic release of a great deal of pent-up hostility towards republicans and some deep-seated latent homosexual desires. To be frank, right-wing dick sucking has been overdone. Had you (or the author, but I assume it's you due to your concern) continued on the slow-pitch softball path, (and it was funny) I'd have spared it. Least you think I'm just a conservative dicksucker myself, I support all political parties - in the "support them being dragged out into a field en-masse and shot" sort of way. Short term limits for all electable positions are the only thing which can save this country.

Regardless, as I posted elsewhere on this site, I don't add a lot of content anymore, because I often don't have the muse to produce an article of sufficient quality. A large number of my inital edits to this site were whacked, and now I realize that it takes a great deal of time to produce something really worthwhile. To be honest, the phrase "gang banged him into submission" lacks the lingustically complex imagery of many other more suitable and amusing phrases. It lacked tact, grace, and solid satire. The content was moderately factual, and not really funny. Here at Uncyclopedia, we promote a Satirical Point of View, not a "I fucking hate all Republicans" point of view. Although the two can definitely overlap, if done well. --Famine 23:33, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it. Thank you for explaining its disappearance. For the record, its 79% pent-up hostility and 21% latent homosexuality. As for how much right-wing dick sucking is too much, I'll defer to you on the subject since you seem to have a firm grasp on the topic.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff Gannon

Wow, saying that on a Liberally tilted website is sorta...retarded --Nytrospawn 13:45, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't get that we are tilted toward the left. Maybe we are, I dunno. I see as many Gore and Clinton jokes as I do Bush jokes. I'm a registered Republican. I also happen to believe that my political party has been taken over by a bunch of sleazy crooks and religious nut cases. My actual political views are slightly more complicated than that, but suffice it to say that I think that Clinton was actually a better Republican president than Bush is, at least in terms of actions, not rhetoric. I guess that's what bothers me about the Right Wing in the USA. They are tilted over so far to the right that by their political compass, I'm a lefty. Or at least a traitor to the cause. ~MM

Can someone whip me up a right-wing dick sucker template for my user page? Humm...on second thought, skip that one. Anyway, thanks for being (seemingly) reasonable about it. Nothing personal, I whack all kinds of articles. Probably more than I should. But then again, we don't seem to be going backwards on our article count, so maybe I'm not trying hard enough. --Famine OUN Burninator 02:08, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think that the fact we're discussing politics in a serious discussion on Uncyclopedia is ironic. This place is to take a satirical point of view, not argue politics. Arguing politics is fun sometimes, but I come here to get away from that kind of stuff and just have fun. I think you'd all feel better if you didnt argue about it, I consider Uncyclopedia to be partyless anyway, the whole point is to not take anything seriously. And here I am making some stupid philosophical speech which also goes against Uncyclopedia, so I'll shut up now :P --Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFP 17:10, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But this is the Village Dump, so you're completely welcome to be a serious and self-important blowhard, boring to death anyone you can corner. I know I do. --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur. | Talk 09:56, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Holy Cow Sophie we've spawned another

http://uncyclopedia.de/wiki/index.php/Hauptseite when will the madness end --Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 00:17, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:_Uncyclopedia

The new version of wikipedia:Template:Uncyclopedia is up for deletion again, in anyone cares, it is but a shadow of it's formed self but it may be worth saving.--Sir Elvis KUN FIC Bur. | Petition 23:53, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Comment The creation of this template was not sanctioned by Uncyclopedia. Whether the consensus is to keep or delete this is up to the voters. Go vote if you want this template to stay. --stillwaters/Talk 02:03, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No offense to any of you folks with dual-pedia lives, but reading that page just reminded me of what a bunch of humorless tight-asses reign over there, and why I could never write anything there, nor hang about behind the scenes. In terms of fun and friendliness, this place wins hands down. So, I really don't give a shit about what they do. By the way, is it even possible to SEE the template? --Marcos_Malo OUN S7fc BOotS Bur.</small> | Talk 03:02, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)