# Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive7

## Pee Review

I think we need a peer review page, for those articles you have a good idea for but need others to suggest stuff and fill out things for before it's suitable for VFH. To this end, I've started Uncyclopedia:Pee Review (PEE), so that others may come by and, like any editor, piss in it so they like the flavour better - David Gerard 19:01, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Baby Killing Genius. I love it.--Sir Flammable KUN 19:56, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## SVG images

I was wondering if Uncyclopedia takes images in the Scable Vector Graphics (SVG) format? 68.8.237.154 02:24, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not yet I think - Wikicities is still running Mediawiki 1.4 - but Wikipedia does now, so I presume Wikicities will when they upgrade to 1.5 or 1.6 - David Gerard 14:52, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Oscar Wilde's works

Our article on The Importance of Being Earnest is alarmingly inadequate, for an encyclopedia that tries to invoke Oscar Wilde in everything. People should rewrite this article and hopefully add some quality articles on Wilde's other works.

Also, there are some Wilde quotes that totally do not fit his image, even in a nonsensical manner. While Uncyclopedia has never been known for its collective literary genius, people should at least learn the stuff they're trying to trivialize and satirize; otherwise, we risk looking like a bunch of ignorant, iconoclastic amateurs when in fact we're supposed to be great comedians, ironists, and satirists. --stillwaters/Talk 02:16, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But at the same time, part of the joy is reading a Wilde quote which was obviously written by someone who has no idea who Wilde was, and has read none of his works. Or, reading a quote that was written to appear like that. But I do agree on Earnest. Needs a facelift. Or at least some lies to convince people that it is actually about Earnest, and not some wacky half brother of his. -- 02:25, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, but we have to keep in mind that Oscar Wilde is a popular author taken seriously by people, unlike Sophia who is just an ancient deity few people really care/know about or Oprah, a pop-culture figure who's taken far less seriously in general. I think we should try to keep a somewhat purist approach on official Wilde quotes at least, because outright weird quotes get old real fast and can seem like cheap, unfounded attacks. As a random critical contributor aptly put it, see the pic below (also linked here and here; yes, it's blasphemy). --stillwaters/Talk 04:18, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That discussion between them two folks about the Wilde presidency thing restored my faith in internet humanity. As for unfitting Wilde quotes, I don't see reason not to burn them with all the rest of the babies and bath-water on the other side of the fence. --Spintherism 05:17, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To that end, I vote we use the newfound Pee-review to touch up any existing "Official" Wilde quotes which people don't find work for them. Drop them there, and we as a group can suggest/make changes. -- 22:27, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like a Wilde quote that's actually based on a real one, e.g. on X Window System - David Gerard 23:02, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've rectumfied the situation with "Earnest"! ooh that was clever! Seriously I rewrote the Earnest article, merging Wilde's work to the idiotic "Earnest" movies starring the late Jim Varney.--slack 18:45, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Funny STD Pamphlet

Being in High School, the administration and the city feel it is thier duty to constantly throw pamphlets concerning STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) and safe sex to us. Today we got one we've been getting for the last few years, but it always cracks me up. It's on Chlamydia. There are 4 pages, each with a picture at the top, and thier description of chlamydia. The first is a teenage girl, with the quote Chlamydia, it's not a country. The second is another teenage of girl of African American descent and her quote is Chlamydia, it's not my name. The third is an athletic teenage boy who is also African America. His quote is Chlamydia, it's not my game. The final is of some white guy with tatoos and face peircings. Chlamydia, it's not the name of my band. Every single year, it cracks me up so hard. Also, the athletic kid who was number 3 is also on a bus ad for AIDS. I wonder if you just go to city hall, and get your picture taken for propoganda purposes in exchange for like \$20. Heh w/e, also it should be noted I'm in Philly, and I'm surprised that the second girl (with the name) hasnt been complained about and removed, it strikes me as kinda racist :P --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 23:40, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

They clearly stole that information verbatim from the 2009 print edition of Uncyclopedia. --Bouahat 00:49, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'll do the country. You can fight amongst yourselves over the others. --Spintherism 01:26, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Just so you know

I am planning to start from scratch and rewrite that crappy pun you call Blue Man Group, and get it the hell out of Undict., but I wanted to check here first, since nobody tagged it for rewrite.--Cheeseboi 21:04, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 21:22, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## WTF kitten

This image was so good I had to upload it (Image:Wtf kitten.jpg) in case someone has a use for it. Not just any old kitten vanity, I swear! - David Gerard 10:58, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Someone just added an article about the darling Chinchilla. Looks like a good place to start. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 21:23, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Math tag not working

The [itex] tag, he no work:

For [itex]G7m(55th^uj*6)[/itex] I get:

```WikiTeX: latex reported a failure, namely:
```

--User:IMBJR/sig 22:43, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You could always Report a problem. ;) -- 22:47, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Shall do. I forgot about that place! --User:IMBJR/sig 11:47, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Noticed when i was changing the formula on Nintenelevens. I was asking Fredrik of Wikipedia for help on the math, and while the formula worked on Wikipedia, it didnt work here, and Fredrik concluded it was a wikicities problem, and the only reason my old formula worked was because it was cached on the server. I join #wikicities and reported the problem to JasonR who wasnt aware of it --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 14:45, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Okay, the problem should be fixed, JasonR told me on IRC --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 01:51, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The chances that the problem has been fixed can be calculated using the following formula:
$G7m(55th^uj*6)$
-- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 14:27, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## The digg problem

These kids are coming in and doubling the amount of vandalism. Perhaps some hardcore bannination followed by a parody of their site for the front page is in order? General Specific 20:43, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And you've reported them to the Ban Patrol so admins notice and ban them? I don't keep tabs on every page, but that's one I check often. If you see someone vandalize a page, drop their IP and a note there and we'll take care of it. -- 20:48, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind some adminship... *wink* (Only 90% kidding). Seriously, though. Reported now. General Specific 20:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Uncyclopedias

I've noticed that, on the list of uncyclopedias in various languages, there are some other English language uncyclopedias listed besides the main English one. There's Bl: (Blog), Simple: (Simple English), and Ch: (Suisse); and there used to be N00B. Is it going to be OK to start articles with the Bl:, Simple:, and Ch: prefixes in the title, e.g., Ch:Blue, even though a Blue article exists in the main uncyclopedia? --Ogopogo 19:46, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC). P.S. Made-up Blogs could also be fun, e.g., Bl:George Bush. --Ogopogo 20:03, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. That has the potential for awesomeness. Especially with the outstanding blog entries bound to be written about legal troubles, etc. Imagine the Bl:Sadam Hussian and Bl:Paris Hilton possiblities. Damn. Once we get a couple, we can add links to the Blog project on the community portal. -- 20:21, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Those different languages are only used on the headers of the templates on the main page --Nytrospawn 19:52, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Those three you listed were used for the front page on special days (International Blog Day, the Fourth of July and some Swiss holiday). I don't think they've been used as real namespaces before. --—rc (t) 20:02, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like your blog idea. Having a series of Bl:[famous person] pages could be good. --—rc (t) 20:06, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been toying with the idea of one or more famous person blogs for a while. It would be great if such blogs could have the whole word "blog" in the prefix, i.e., Blog:XXXXX instead of Bl:XXXXX. The "Simple:" prefix also has its utility for noobie tone articles, though not necessarily written in the simple English of the Simple English version of Wikipedia. --Ogopogo 20:16, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
There isn't anything stopping anyone from starting up a quasi Blog namespace. Just preface all your blogs with Blog:George W. Bush. In fact, it wouldn't be too hard to yoink a template or two from the Wilde project. -- 20:29, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The Template:Lj (livejournal) template also looks interesting as a blog header. --Ogopogo 20:51, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Unification of GameFAQs Forums

As part of Uncyclopedia being besieged with horrible forum cut&pastes, I'm taking some time to try to set up a system for rabid forum-boys to post their lame-ass comments from their forums into hidden corners of Uncyclopedia, so that we don't have to see them. My plan is to structure at least the GameFAQ forums like this:

Under the GameFAQs page list the forum as a state. Drop a description of the forum under [[GameFAQs/ForumName]] and place the lame-o cut&paste of all the crappy forum posts under [[GameFAQs/ForumName/Literature]]. And it just occured to me that we probably should have a [GameFAQs/ForumName/Citizens]] bit for all the fanboys who like to post lists of users.

If this is a horrible idea, let me know. I'm trying to cut down on all the discussion time we spend in VFD debating the merit of forums, as well as all the delete&recreate of them once we VFD them. If all the GameFAQ forums can be tidied up and put in one place, perhaps the world will be a better place. Bare minimum, it takes less admin time to move a page (which automagically makes a redirect) to the correct place than to VFD, discuss, delete, delete again, warn recreators again, etc. -- 18:25, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As an example, see GameFAQs/Random Insanity. I'm trying to help form it into a semi-coherent article. Thus you may need to check the history to see what it looked like before someone came along and pasted crap into it. -- 20:05, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Oscar template

Until Sept. 28th, the Oscar template used to be different from the Wilde template in that it didn't require the subject of the quote, only the quote. The Wilde template requires both the subject and the quote.

On Sept. 28th, user 75th Trombone modified the Oscar template so that it, like the Wilde template, requires the subject. The effect of this change is that is screws up existing Oscar-template quotes in articles. It makes the article look shitty and would require revision of each article where this problem appears.

For example, in the Oz article, the Oscar quote now reads:

“I remember the happy days of Oz, the only thing you had to remember was to not Drop the soap".”
~ Oscar Wilde

I would suggest that the Sept. 28th edit to the Oscar template be reversed. I would reverse it myself but I don't know if 75th Trombone made the edit with consensus support.

--Ogopogo 00:20, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. Having more than one OW template is kind of confusing, though. --—rc (t) 00:26, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Indeed it is. The issue is multiple templates needed for consistent formatting in the Wilde space, combined with the depreciated Template:Oscar. We could phase the Oscar template out, but it's easier for new users to just slap that template on a page instead of making an actual linked quote in the Wilde: space. At the moment, there's a ton of pages which use the Oscar template, and I'm not ambitions enough to convert them all to "official" wilde quotes. -- 14:33, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How about changing the contents of Template:Oscar to: {{Wilde|{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}} (or, if you can see what I am try to doing, do it so it works) --Splaka 20:19, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A) I think that would break the existing templates on pages.
B) That sort-of duplicates one of the other templates.
C) Not sure what you're trying to do.
-- 21:41, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Tex version number

```This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
```

Umm is that a joke? (Its pi with 5 decimal places) --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 14:10, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Whenever he releases a new version, he adds the next digit of Pi at the end. The TeX guy is funny like that. --Chronarion 19:56, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that TeX will never be truly finished. Each new version will more closely approach the ideal, but will not get there. Thus, the versions of TeX approach π (but never get there exactly). Similarly, LaTeX approachs e. --KP CUN 21:02, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Wikistats is bak

Looks like wikistats is working again, unfortunatley that bastard splaka knocked me off the podium. We are also officialy the mack daddy of wikicites havig surpased those geeks at Memory Alpha (we love you really), although the other geeks from Star Wars are snapping at our heels! --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 23:32, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap. Sorry! I'll take a vacation, give you a chance to catch up. --Splaka 23:44, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but that doesn't count deletions, restorations, etc., does it? You're probably still on top when all that's figured in. Maybe. I lost two places since last time...I need to get it together. I note, however, that I am still the most senior member until you get to Chronarion. When do they let you retire with a pension, anyway? --—rc (t) 23:51, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Humm...and here I thought I wasn't editing as much as I used to. Was feeling like I wasn't contributing as in days of yore. I wonder how many places I'd drop if they discounted talk pages and the Uncyclopedia: namespace? -- 01:30, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I thought that's what "Other Edits" is for. It says edits on discussion pages don't count towards rank, in any case. --—rc (t) 04:20, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I have a new purpose. --Savethemooses 14:10, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)--Savethemooses 14:10, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Guys, we shouldn't be fighting amongst ourselves for the top spot. (I swear I'm not just saying the chances of Splaka passing me are far greater than the chances of me passing Carlb.) Instead, we should be working together to fight the other wikis. If we don't watch out, those evil bastards at FSATribe or schoolcomputing might knock us off our number one perch. --EvilZak 17:13, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Community-Vanity/Injoke pages, with satellites

Ok, when the convo came around last time I mostly ignored it as someone-else's-problem, but now it is my problem too! Damn you pants. So anyway, things like these: Zonatuning, Bukkake Brigade, Irc users, Steam Forums, Random Insanity, LUe, (Fyx Whisperblade Warfinisher Virus002)? VFD the ones that refuse to not link to userspace for satellite pages? Keep if they shape up? I mean, a good example was ZFGC, and a bad one was: Endless Online. BTW, I am maintaining a personal list of these type of pages here (but feel free to add to it). --Splaka 02:44, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

My point of view is as follows:
• If it's funny to the community, and the community is greater than 10 people
AND
• They keep their fancruft TO THAT PAGE, and subpages of that page, it's OK.
I personally LIKE fancruft. If it's funny to a small community, keep it, it doesn't hurt anyone. In the case of Whisperblade et al, they need to move their cruft to one page, and make it actually funny. --Chronarion 05:00, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I have redirected Whisperblade et al to Alpha Clan and local-ized all the links, as well as left hints and notes all over the header as to proper proceedure. Shall I do that for some of the more annoying others too? --Splaka 05:45, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Please.--Chronarion 19:46, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Will do when/if I get back. Unless someone else does, hinthint. --Splaka 20:21, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

My general philosophy feeling is that if a page has appreciative visitors or active contributers, no matter how bad (to an extent at least) their sense of humor might be, there's no reason to delete it. I don't believe server space is in that short supply, and as long as somebody cares about a page, and it doesn't harm others, there's no pressing need to obliterate it. In practice, though I'm an elitist humor nazi who could care less about preserving the innocent fun of others and wants to maintain a high standard of my own subjective funny. --Spintherism 06:36, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• How about if someone creative (which would exclude me) could create an {{injoke}} template? Something to the effect of:

Hello, and welcome to our little world. If nothing looks familiar, you probably don't belong here. Just take the next [[Special:Randompage|exit]] and hang a right. Thanks for visiting!

But I don't want to be the one to bell the cat. I've already got a lot of killing to do. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 14:29, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I suggested the same thing in an old discussion of ZFGC. I stole the Template:Donate code to make this quickie:
 This appears to be vanity. It does, however, have to potential to be funny. Please edit it until it is, or it shall die a terribly lonely death. If this page is not fixed in 30 days, it may become a candidate for deletion.

This page references [a website, etc.]. If you're not familiar with the website, you won't find the inside jokes here amusing. So go away.
If we're going to allow vanity pages, I see no reason not to warn people who won't care that they won't care. --—rc (t) 17:54, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## QVFD vs. MTU

I'll admit it up front: when Sir Splaka bestowed the coveted Burninator honor upon me, it went to my head. I'm like the Full Metal Jacket guy now, with a peace sign and "Born To Kill" etched into my mousepad. When I watch the Special:Newpages page and see tiny helpless kittens appear, I want to blast them! But gentle Splaka, clearly a Sensitive Guy, carefully marks them as "Move To Uncyclopedia" and saves them for another day.

Problem is, though... that day ain't coming. When I look at 'Category:Move to Undictionary, there are four pages of 200 entries -- almost 800 gems of Unencyclopedic information like Windows 57: "Windows 57 rocks!". There are some gems in there (I thought Whale vagina would suck, but I've bookmarked it! w00t), but as it stands there's an excellent chance that it's a load of crap.

I would propose two things:

• More aggressive QVFD, especially for new, short articles by anonymous posters. Not automatic -- I agree with Sir Spla that Snickers is funny.

AND

• Cleanup of MTU (Category:Move to Undictionary), with many if not most entries going to QVFD. That way, those intrepid souls who want to perform the MTU dance can pick a more comely partner.

Your thoughts? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 14:59, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue cleanup of MTU, we have to a certain extant been using MTU as a "holding cell" to see if the article improve, I wrote {{MTUsign|~~~~~}} so that we could see how long stuff has been there so maybe go through What links to normal MTU to start. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:05, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This list What links to normal MTU is a lot shorter than Category:Move to Undictionary, which is great... though I can't figure out why an item is in MTU but not "what links to MTU". I'd be happy to walk through either forest swinging my axe (pleeeeeeease turn me loose!), but I want to get a feel for the community's opinion before I disregard it and post a laundry list of MTU articles on VFD (if redeemable) or QVFD (if condemnable). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!]
I'm pretty agressive. I also search through Newpages and delete anything that isnt funny. Basically, heres the idea. If it looks like a bit of work was put into it, I will leave it alone, or MTU it, even if I think its stupid because I feel bad. If its a funny one liner I MTU it. If its an ok one liner I MTU it. But mostly if its a stupid few paragraphs with obviously no thought, or a stupid, obnoxious, obvious one liner which isnt funny, its deleted. For example, say you create an article and call it Foobar. The content is, It's a foo, that bars! Who cares? It's probably not funny (almost anything in that format is obvious/stupid with few exceptions) and it takes up space for someone who may have a great idea for a Foobar article but are too meek/shy to rewrite the crappy one liner that's already there. At least thats my outlook :P --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 20:06, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's say I go for it (as if you could stop me! bwa ha ha! oops, sorry). I go through the MTU entries and sort them into three bins: QVFD, VFD, and a new one: [[:Category:Really Move to Undictionary]]. The lucky entries in the latter bin will temporarily (we hope) receive this great template: Template:MTU-really Once the hundreds of candidates are whittled down to the ones that strike my fancy (bwa ha ha), someone will find the damned MTU Fairy and put him in a windowless room, converting the pages to Undictionary entries. The Move isn't so bad -- it's the manual insertion of the tags in the Undictionary pages that seems like a load of crap. I don't want to do that, I just want to kill. KILL! KILL! (sorry) -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 20:30, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I am adding to the MTU in protest until someone builds an MTU bot. Actually, I have been going through the Special:Lonelypages and any that have a 7+ day old MTU tag get huffed (unless they are quite funny). I think, if a page hasn't been moved by the author in 7 days, then we shouldn't be highly responsible for moving it (especially if it is an orphan). Exceptions for funny ones. As a test, I started a list here thusly: Category:Move to Undictionary, if some people add to the list, and others move/delete from the list, it could go quicker. QVFD = delete on site, VFD = add to VFD, etc. Thoughts? --Splaka 21:39, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Me like-um. Me no smash-um. Yet-um. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 14:37, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I may have just found a solution to the problem of manually editing the Undictionary pages. The only problem is that it would involve my ripping out everything that's there and replacing it with something that should work... uh oh.

Anyway. Take each article that is really worth MTU'ing, move it to Undictionary:Whatever, and go ahead and replace {{MTU}} with {{dict}}. That's the easy part. The next step is supposed to be "Edit the main dictionary pages {{def|Article}} in the appropriate position. That's going to be a pain, especially for 500+ new entries.

So instead of doing it manually, how 'bout the wiki does the work for me? I'll add the {{dict}} template, and then let Category:Undictionary generate the list of articles. With a little sorting and modification in NoteTab, I can create all +/- 26 {{def|Article}} pages. Whether they are correct, though... may be a question to haunt the ages.

Any objections to this latest plan? Caveat: my boss may interrupt me, in hopes that I might actually do some work. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 15:58, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that User:Carlb's bot hymie did that, if it dosn't then I've been very naughty.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:33, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think it used Template:dict's what links here --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:35, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
BTW Bob^3, please only add them to the lists on Category:Move to Undictionary (especially the QVFD list, but probably the others too except "Definitely move") if they've been tagged for at least a week. I notice many added today haven't, like ACDD. --Splaka 23:04, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't notice. I can't lie, I saw that the dates on some were less than a week old, but I quit looking. I figured the chances of anything actually happening in less than a week were pretty slim. Thanks for keeping me honest (or at least trying). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:59, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Instead of trying to infer it from the above, I'll ask directly. Any objection to me deleting vast swathes of bad MTU articles? --Spintherism 05:24, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not from me, but you knew that already (bwa ha ha). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:59, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Unless they are really bad, try to wait for their 7th unbirthday, as per the terms of MTU taggage. Orphan (nothing links to it) and dead-end pages get priority. EXTERRRRMINAAAATE. (You would make a good Dalek) --Splaka 20:26, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## PA Evolution trial

Someone make an article about the lawsuit against a county in PA for forceing teachers to teach Intelligent Design, its ripe for the pickling--Nytrospawn 01:43, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Fuck

Someone took a very funny Fuck article and replaced it with a significantly less funny and shorter article on 25 Sept 2005. Can someone with the power of reversion please revert it? Thanks. --Bouahat 21:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Done also everyone has the power of reversion, using history find the "correct" version, "edit" it and save, violla reverted, admins just have a shinny rollback button that does it a bit quicker (but not that much quicker). --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 21:39, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I also moved the other content to Undictonary:Fuck --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 21:40, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

NSFWed. --stillwaters/Talk 03:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The Undictonary:Fuck article is actually not a parody but is something one would see in a comprehensive Dictionary of Unconventional English. Just like that article, such dictionaries typically have an entry for "fuck" describing (with specific examples) the word's use in parts of speech (verb, adjective, adverb) and in word combinations (e.g., fuck up, fuck around).

By the way, that entry name has Undictionary spelled wrong, as Undictonary. :)

--Ogopogo 00:18, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## 1000 Uncyclopedians Typing Hamlet

I'd forgotten about this until it popped up in my watch list. If you have an extra moment to waste while deleting things, stick the contents there, and we'll prove once and for all who's at the top of the pecking order, the denizens of the internets, an infinite number of monkeys, or a dead guy with a pointy beard. --Spintherism 00:20, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have modified MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext to include a temporary link/reminder (to be removed when seen fit) to it, as a test. Thoughts? It might need rewording/formatting/reverting. Damn admin power is addicting :( --Splaka 01:19, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
One of the most entertaining things about Wikipedia is that even most admins don't understand the MediaWiki: space. So you can just, like, fix things without having to run it through the committee committee - David Gerard 11:13, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Spintherism (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups), you ain't admin?? I hereby nominate you. Good contribs, great interaction with community, great image edit skills. Plus, that way you can add to the project without bitching at us/them to do it. Vote here:

DENIED Lol just kidding, rofl. Yer a sysop now, Spinny, though the vote was close. --—rc (t) 22:33, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I demand a recount. --Savethemooses 00:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Upon recounting, the sysoperation actually goes to me. I can ban twice as fast and twice as hard now, and I'm impervious to some bullets. --—rc (t) 03:00, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think Splaka's chad was dangling. --Spintherism 05:30, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
My what now? I only voted 17 times, bah! --Splaka 05:45, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I just edited this to fix the typos (jeez!) and comment out the bit about how (c) violations are mostly tolerated. They may be, but fergoshsakes we don't want to SAY so!

(And here's to Fair Use for Satirical Commentary, which is Political Speech. God Bless America!) - David Gerard 23:32, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Codeine and I mostly edited it to put in a warning about porn/shock/gore. Cheers. --Splaka 23:36, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's absolutely clear and good. "If you upload this crap we will shoot it and you. We're not Wikipedia with committee committees." - David Gerard 11:10, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Blocking weirdness

Last night I blocked 203.26.206.130 (TalkContribs (del)Block (rem-lst-all)WhoisCityProxy?WP Edits) for blanking Allah and its talk page. This morning I got an email from a guy, Lemming2005 (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups), who said he was blocked for blanking Allah, presumably because he shares the same IP - but he told me that his IP is actually 203.122.245.191 (TalkContribs (del)Block (rem-lst-all)WhoisCityProxy?WP Edits). Any thoughts? --—rc (t) 17:17, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I unblocked the IP for now, pending any more vandalism. --—rc (t) 17:28, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of proxying? --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 18:22, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Look at the WP talk page for more details. --stillwaters/Talk 18:56, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The issue as I see it is the balance between the work required to revert vandalizm, and the loss of an innocent user. While the wiki style would probably be "revert until the vandal gets tired", my personal position is that we ban by IP, and thus if you share one that gets blocked, you either need to get your own IP, or suck it up. Bare minimum you should be complaining to whoever provides your connection that their crappy setup is causing you to lose access to parts of the internet. -- 22:07, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can post now, but yeah, I think it may be a proxy problem with my ISP --Lemming2005 22:22, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Lemmy: What does this site say? --Splaka 22:24, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly an annoyance. I suppose you need to find a balance between the benefits of blocking an IP and the costs - some people (e.g. dorm users) don't have control over their IP, so if someone on the same address gets blocked, it's game over for the rest. Sometimes, like in this case with Lemming, it just doesn't seem useful to block so many people because of one instance of vandalism. But then, if it continues, at some point you pretty much have to do something more serious than just revert their edits. --—rc (t) 22:44, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Creepy

Sophia appears to be happy with me. How the hell did this happen?--Cheeseboi 23:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Divine intervention? --Chronarion 05:39, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Uncyclopedia:Vote for awards, decorations and honours

New page for nominating and voting for new Uncyclopedian awards, seeing as how the list is getting quite big, and voting might be a good idea for new stuff --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 01:58, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Incidentally, I had an article recieve a vote for an honour, before I got round to voting for it myself, then logging in, however I wrote it before I had an account.... Can I use the title Commander? I am quite pathetic, and need the recognition --Tinned Stoat 16:18, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yep go on then, BTW which article? --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:35, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I could have sworn I left some links to it lying aroung somewhere. Personally, I thought that I've done a few better ones, but I'm not arguing with public opinion --Tinned Stoat 17:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, technically, you don't get the bump in status until your article's actually been featured. Looks like it's well on its way, though. --—rc (t) 20:36, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
See thats what confused me. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 21:10, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to confuse you in order to create a distraction so I could steal your wallet --Tinned Stoat 13:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Template:Recent redone

I have redone the recent articles template using this meta template I created. Now, adding new articles should be easy, always have the proper " - " in between, and the list will NEVER GO ABOVE 25 ARTICLES! It may go beyond that in the background, but on the front page it will never start to look insanely long. Check it out :) --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 00:22, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Works great (I just stuck Blonde in it, and it didn't hurt a bit). Should something similar be done for Template:DidYouKnow, or is that a bit too complex? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 20:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## All images NSFWed!

I ran through EVERY IMAGE on Uncyclopedia (by going all the way back in the Special:Newimages gallery) and think that I have found and tagged everyone which is Category:Not_safe_for_work. So yeah, enjoy :P --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 18:51, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure Image:Bearded lady.jpg needs a NSFW, as there's no tittage or twattage or anything else vaguely rude on display. --User:IMBJR/sig 13:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Is that bearded lady, or "vomiting black ichor" lady? -- 15:10, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to remove it, I was overdoing it, because its easier to decide later it doesnt need it, than to go all the way back through for something you later think does --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 19:25, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'm not offended, I just can't really tell wtf the black stuff is. She got a bad kitten it seems. -- 19:57, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Revenge of Carlow Crab

Taking a cue from Our Beloved Leader, I finally broke out and wrote something. Er. Well, actually, I mostly just arranged stuff that other people had written. But regardless! Carlow Crab has been renovated, with 87% more biblical goodness. I took nearly all the text from Talk:Carlow Crab, Flammable's talk page and Splaka's talk and integrated them into the Greatest Story Ever Told. And for the record, I don't think One-eyed Jack is a demon, but I wanted to fit something Satanic in there and he happened to be handy. Enjoy, because it took me a bloody long time to sort through everything. --—rc (t) 07:41, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## 63.19.*.*

OK. I have banned the entire subnet of 63.19.*.* for one week. --Chronarion 21:04, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT BAN 63.19.148.114 (TalkContribs (del)Block (rem-lst-all)WhoisCityProxy?WP Edits); I AM GIVING HIM A CHANCE! IF HE DOES SOMETHING VANDALIZING THAN BAN HIM BUT DO NOT BAN HIM UNTIL THEN ok that didnt seem to work :P

If you see any vandalism/stupid articles by anyone with this guy please report it. He has like so far 10-15 incarnations of that IP and does nothing but wait for me to roll his vandalized articles back and ban him for 576 hours. If he keeps doing this and I get the heads up from the higher up admins, I'm gonna make his time a couple of years since he simply wont stop. Anyway end of public service announcement --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 02:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

EDIT:

```<wackaway> wow are those all him?
<Splarka> no
<Splarka> but those are all the RDU6 ones
<Splarka> 63.19.128.* to 63.19.159.*
<wackaway> cool
<Splarka> and 63.19.192.* to 63.19.223.*
<Splarka> should ban him
<Splarka> that is approx 16,000 IPs
<Splarka> and, I think would require 64 individual blanket bans
<wackaway> wow
<Splarka> but is much better than blocking 64000
<wackaway> thats awesome :)
<Splarka> all his 3rd levels should fall between 128-159, and 192-223
```

List of IPs: User:Insertwackynamehere/Temporary#63.19_Guy

Update. Splaka here. Having looked at this, and having converted his IP ranges to binary:
```111111000100111000000000000001 to
111111000100111001111111111111
and
111111000100111100000000000001 to
111111000100111101111111111111
```
It looks like only 13 significant binary digits are required to block him, so I think the proper blanket ranges would be:
```63.19.128.0/19
63.19.192.0/19
```
However! I am not sure. Really not sure. Might be better to do 64 individual bans like:
```63.19.128.0/24
63.19.129.0/24
...
63.19.159.0/24
and
63.19.192.0/24
63.19.193.0/24
...
63.19.223.0/24
```
This would be the minimum, Worst case would be 63.19.0.0/16 which would block 64k IPs --Splaka 04:47, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

http://www.csc.fi/english/funet/calc/laskin2.html according to that we should do these I THINK, I AM NOT SURE

```63.19.128.1/ 32
63.19.128.2/ 31
63.19.128.4/ 30
63.19.128.8/ 29
63.19.128.16/ 28
63.19.128.32/ 27
63.19.128.64/ 26
63.19.128.128/ 25
63.19.129.0/ 24
63.19.130.0/ 23
63.19.132.0/ 22
63.19.136.0/ 21
63.19.144.0/ 20
63.19.192.1/ 32
63.19.192.2/ 31
63.19.192.4/ 30
63.19.192.8/ 29
63.19.192.16/ 28
63.19.192.32/ 27
63.19.192.64/ 26
63.19.192.128/ 25
63.19.193.0/ 24
63.19.194.0/ 23
63.19.196.0/ 22
63.19.200.0/ 21
63.19.208.0/ 20
```

--Insertwackynamehere | Talk 04:56, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Check it out

Click me --Savethemooses 01:46, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Haha awesome :) --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 02:19, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Neato! --stillwaters/Talk 07:51, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that's just the thing for Bullwinkle's Birthday, listed as 9/24/1961. Or was that the point, and I'm just blonde today? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 19:05, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Visual Aids

I think I'm getting too big for my britches -- I sure wouldn't try this in the presence of the so-called experts -- but I found a particuarly apt picture for this page. Unfortunately, it breaks formatting and looks ugly, so I hope someone who has a clue with more experience can help. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 21:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

fixed it up a bit --Insertwackynamehere 21:12, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Worst 100 Movies of All Time

Hey, all. I haven't been writing much lately, because I've been organising an overseas trip, and I won't be writing much for a while, what with being overseas and all. But I thought I'd leave you with this idea, based on IMDB's bottom 100 list. I've started it off; I expect to see it filled in by the time I get back. See you later, you crazy bastards. --Cap'n Ben CUN 10:47, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Most of the good articles in Category:Movies should be in here. Or any others with inspiring titles - David Gerard 15:14, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This one's pretty much finished. I've just put it up on VFH - David Gerard 19:01, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

## Hurricane Katrina rubbed someone the wrong way

An anonymous IP-addressed visitor eliminated the explanatory paragraph from the "Opportunist SOBs" section of the Katrina article. Their comment makes a good point: "Removed unnecessary, unfunny, accurate statement." But I saw it as funny, and even if accurate, it's over-the-top enough that it wraps around the infinite edge of accuracy to become negatively accurate. Here's the contentious paragraph:

The tragedy has also brought out the worst in stupid lame-ass no-good fanatic dumbasses who justify their retarded homophobia, zealousness and/or holier-than-thou attitude on Katrina, showing no respect, compassion or the faintest glimmer of brains - not just in the "let's blow America back to Allah" middle east, but from crackpots at home:

I suspect that the editor was actually more upset about the blanket statement implied by the paragraph. I'm a Christian myself, and it stings when statements like that hit home... but to me, that just makes the paragraph all that more essential. Not all of us use Baby Jesus as a threat, and we need to be aware of the damage done by those who do. Oops, I'm preaching again, and it's not even Sunday yet. Sorry. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 19:27, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I find it more bitter than humorous. If someone wants to rewrite it in a funnier way, while still keeping the seed of truth intact, then go for it. (Perhaps a parodic hellfire and brimstone sermon from a Fred Phelps-type about how the hurricane cleansed the sin from New Orleans?) Otherwise I think the IP was justified in removing it. Remember that we're not pushing any agendas here...Overtly, at least. --—rc (t) 19:39, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I agree with IP's sentiment. Too inflammatory, not funny enough. --Chronarion 20:23, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Kitten Huffing

Being a Russian, I found this article confusing rather than funny. A Google search reveals that "kitten huffing" appears to be some sort of a running gag, but I couldn't trace its origins. Can you please explain what this article parodies? - Guest 16:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's simple, really. In Soviet Russia, Kitten Huffs You! (oh, I'm sorry, but there was no way to avoid it) -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:57, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, in the Russia I live in (no idea how it was in Soviet Russia), nobody huffs kittens and kittens huff nobody... I'm so confused... By the way, the original question was meant to be serious. :) - Guest 17:01, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The article is parodying the problem of drug use in America. If you go onto Wikipedia and look up any kind of drug, you'll find an article similar to this. The funny thing is that this article contrasts the horrors of drug use with a cute, lovable kitten. It also doesn't explain why the kitten makes you high, or how you huff it. Apparently you just take it and suck it up your nose... it's funny because it's ridiculous and absurd.
As for the IN SOVIET RUSSIA line, that's an old American Cold War joke. A Russian-American comedian named Yakov Smirnoff used to make jokes mocking the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, like "In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watches YOU!" or "In America you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, the Party can always find YOU!" It's become an Internet phenomena to use this phrase in a completely unrelated way for comedic effect. Hope this helps. --Jordanus 21:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I know about the Soviet Russia joke, but thanks for the explanation. - Guest 01:53, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Hi peoples

I feel extremely bored today. I'm going to write a Shakespeare-related article. It will be quite longer than most of my articles. I don't know why I am mentioning it here. Oh well. Is this considered vandalism? I have a rash. It is on my buttocks. It hurts when I sit down, so I'm going to write that article standing up. I don't know why I'm mentioning that here, either. Maybe it has to do with my boredness. Entertain me now. I mean it. My cerebellum is sagging into my cerebrum. I gave myself a CAT scan to make sure. The cat bit me. I am more bored than I have ever been in my life. Yawn. I think I'll put down a template.

 One or more of the authors of this entry was terribly bored. They may be afflicted with Attention Deficit... hey, we should go fly kites. That'd be so awesome! We haven't flown kites, since, like, summer. Hey, summer is when birds come out! Birds are so cool.You can help by paying for their Ritalin, or finding them a kitten to play with.

Could one of you create that template while I'm writing my article? Thanxx.--Cheeseboi 16:22, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You asked for it. My first (non-sig) template, with the annoying animation seen on the VFD page. Enhance and/or huff as needed. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 17:03, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Infinite loop? Or language thing witty enough for us?

See ¿Por que? and Porque. Discuss.--Sir Flammable KUN 23:03, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The infinite loop quality makes the humor content of the pair of articles a mere 3.4 μKitH (a μKitH, or microkith, is one-millionth of the humor contained in one Kitten Huffing article). The Spanish pun raises the humor content to 4.2 μKitH.

Think of the pair of articles as a small 3-year old child. When the child keeps asking “Why?” to every question, it’s very endearing to the parents. Everyone else is annoyed.

--KP CUN 23:23, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Might as well move to Undictionary. --stillwaters/Talk 00:12, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good enough really. --Chronarion 04:58, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Public service announcement for users creating article titles or headers: It's "Foo bar whatever", not "Foo Bar Whatever".

Please stop fucking it up. --EvilZak 11:48, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What about Foobar Whatever? (for when foo and bar are already used) --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:51, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
You know, you could just make Uncyc non-case sensitive, although you would have to merge and/or redirect lots o' stuff. --Cheeseboi 20:06, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Aw, crap. I followed the Klingons from Uranus stylebook, which says titles are capitalized. Sorry about that. OEJ

## Neopoprealism

This page has been created and deleted three times; each time containing factual content from another website. The guy who was creating it petitioned me about the deletes, so I explained Uncyclopedia policy to him and said if he came up with a funny article we'd consider it. Yesterday, he put this on my user page; which whilst not being a spork, is still pretty much an advert for Nadia Russ' work. I think I already know the answer, but since the guy's been civil and forthcoming, I promised him a discussion here about it. Any thoughts? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:07, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Off with his head. --Savethemooses 12:00, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think he's tried hard enough that it's OK, but please help him along a bit more. Per se, uncyclopedia IS NOT WIKIPEDIA. There should be a much higher tolerance for vanity pages here than there. Personally, if a vanity page is FUNNY, then it should be kept. If it's funny to someone (more than 5 people), it should be kept. Thus, the private forum articles I feel should be kept. --Chronarion 14:38, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought it was an article about a joke artistic movement. I'm reminded of the people who write postmodernism generators - David Gerard 12:20, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Unlocked and redirect deleted. I'll see what he does with it and try and nudge him in the right direction. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:21, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaack... -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:49, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Designer Clothing

Hopefully, I'm posting in the right place.

Last night [Canada], I started an article "Designer clothing". Content was "Designer clothing is worn by well-off, often gawky people to emulate clothing worn by their poor but fashionable and cool counterparts."

I created it and marked it as a 'stub'. It was tagged last night by Splaka as 'move to undictionary or expand'. I was going to move it tonight to undictionary (rather than expanding, for now) and I noticed that it got deleted earlier today by David Gerard. It is OK for me to resubmit it, this time as "Undictionary:Designer clothing"?

Thanks! signed --Ogopogo 23:46, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Done Undictionary:Designer clothing --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 00:02, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! --Ogopogo 00:04, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment: I usually mark MTU based on size, formatting, and how much chance there is of it expanding anytime soon. Stub seems indicate that the author wants others to update it. If you plan to update it yourself sometime soon, you should tag it with {{WIP|~~~~~}} or {{construction}} --Splaka 00:05, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was doing newpages patrol and deleting wildly. (KILL KILL CRUSH DESTROY OH MY GOD THERE'S NEARLY AS MUCH SHIT HERE AS NEWPAGES ON WIKIPEDIA.) Usually I restrict myself to shooting bad-to-borderline anon creations, assuming if someone bothers creating a username then something borderline is likely to be improved - David Gerard 12:22, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Semiautomatic QVFD

While trying to live up to Sir Splaka's generous bestowing of the Burninator honor, I've noticed that while love and Ivory soap may be 99 and 44/100s percent pure goodness, new article submissions from anonymous IP address are 99 and 44/100s percent pure crap. My first thought was to rig the wiki to automatically huff such pages after 10 minutes (that's long enough for the high school kid who created it to brag to his friends), but there's still that 0.34 percent that may actually contain content, or at least the seed of something that could one day blossom.

Is there any way to configure a "Recent Changes" page that would display only newly created pages by non-signed-in users? Such a list would make the Burninators' task much easier (though it would make the QVFD maintainer's task that much harder). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 15:23, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You can use the tags at the top of the Recent Changes page. If you select "Hide Logged In Users", it will only display edits by anon IPs. I don't think there's a way to filter only new articles in the list (although my knowledge of meta-wiki is far from absolute); however, you can also go to Special:Newpages and just look down the list for IP edits. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 15:29, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Ooooh, pretty! That looks like a source for much huffage. Would anyone know, though, why some rows are highlighted yellow and some aren't? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 11:46, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Oh, you get that too? I thought it was just me. No idea why. Indeed, if you scroll the page about a bit, the "highlighting" changes. Most likely some kind of formatting bug in the meta, I'd imagine. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:09, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think the white ones are pages that have been marked as patrolled (someone (anyone) clicked [Mark this article as patrolled]). I don't know what this does or what good it is, so I ignore the color. I am an equal opportunity QVFDer. My only problem with special:newpages is it doesn't list new talk pages, new templates, new redirects, and etc. I find the best thing to do is manually tell the recent changes to show the last 2000 or so edits, and then search the page for `. . N` --Splaka 15:41, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Automatic huff is far too harsh. Some might even be funny, but computers can't exactly read them.. --129.49.7.122 11:37, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Above comment is from an anonymous IP address and must be huffed immediately. (in other words... I was kidding, geez!) -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 11:46, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Auto(erotic) huffing isnt neccessary, some QVFD stuff get redone into better articles. Although it would be useful to have a list of new annonymous pages --Nytrospawn 19:14, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't actually thinking of auto-huffing, although it sounds kinda kinky-fun, but now that everyone's talking about it... I just submitted an even dozen pages that were 1) new 2) anonymous and 3) under 100 bytes. If there were a page that summarized pages with those params, it would take care of an awful lot of the pointless vandalism. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 17:59, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Although it would require a recentchanges bot on IRC, would it be possible to adapt CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter from Wikipedia? Might be overkill for a site our size, of course! - David Gerard 12:26, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Having peeked into #en.wikipedia.vandalism I must say it is impressive, but the activity isn't very high, for a wiki that gets 100x the traffic of us. I suppose threshholds could be lowererd to allow more to get through? (You should come to #uncyclopedia, it has become a bit more active since the slashdotting). --Splaka 12:37, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Now that I have a j*b (fat contracts ++), it gives me lots of time to edit Uncyclopedia but none for IRC ;-) - David Gerard 14:51, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

## Starship Troopers, saw it again after reading a college essay about it

I dunno bout you guys, but I thought Starship Troopers(movie) was very funny, as it was meant to be. Voerheven(whatever his name) directed RoboCop and used the same satirical neo-fascist jingoism in RoboCop for ST. Now, it would be nigh hilarious if we had a satirical propaganda article about a ficticious military group mirroring say NATO launching attacks and with original pictures of propaganda posters, something like the "Crush the Germans With Your Mind" poster. How bout it? Im definately not gonna write it. --Nytrospawn 23:15, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Okay, I’m game. I need a couple of days of thought and research. (Yes, I really do research for Uncyclopedia articles.) I have a couple ideas for the fictitious military group: the Screen Actors Guild, the RIAA, NAMBLA (North American Militant Brutality-Loving Agoraphobics) or the reclusive Sony Empire. Any suggestions would be appreciated. (Note: Quantum Economics started out as a Village Dump discussion. There is comic gold to be mined here!) --KP CUN 03:57, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Make it seem very subversive with jingoistic overtures, like say have a picture of a "trooper" with a propaganda phrase like "We have the troops. We have the weapons. Do you have the guts?". The trooper has to look really young and very much desheveled. And etc.Same can be with the text, make it sarcastically fascist with a hint of humerous subversion --Nytrospawn

## Contest!!!

New Contest, whoever wins gets the cheesysatisfaction award. The objective: to be as random as possible. Whoever is the most random wins. Simple, right?... --Cheeseboi 20:02, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You're fired. Just kidding. --Chronarion 18:02, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

DEOXYRIBONUCLEASIC ANTANANARIVO PICKLE. There. Do I win? --Jordanus 21:44, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think I should win by default for not entering the contest. You see, by restricting the candidates for the award to those who enter, you're actually decreasing the inherent randomness of the context by a factor of several billion. You should, therefor, select as the winner someone who has neither entered, nor won, myself being the obvious representative of that group. --Spintherism 19:57, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

"The generation of a random entry is to important to be left to chance" --theRewittenSheep 09:26, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

So, Random = Funny now? Did I miss a meeting? Ah well, it'll halve the number of deletions. Bring on the 12 year old AOLers, I say. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:33, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Random ≠ Funny. Humor can be modeled using catastrophe theory. The behavior of subject can be modeled as a multi-dimensional manifold. A humorous event places the subject at a discontinuity within the behavioral space. As a result, an ambiguity is created regarding the subject’s future actions and interpretation of events. Along this discontinuity, the orbital in phase space becomes unpredictable. One trajectory leading to disgust may lie next to a trajectory leading to pleasure. The psychological effect of a prolonged existence within the discontinuity activates many centers of neural activity in the subject; since many trajectories out of the discontinuity are possible, and the brain must prepare for all of these possibilities. In this way humor is created.

Profit is created elsewhere.

--KP CUN 03:04, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. The above jargon really does make sense.)

## Unmerchandise (Take 2)

So, ah...any new developments? --—rc (t) 03:30, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... I owe an apology to everyone. I got to school and everything was hunky-dory. Then classes started. Now, I don't seem to have any free time ever. Essentially, I just need to put an OW quote onto the mug, but I can't think of one to put on there. That, and I need to either pay for the cafepress store, or open a non-premium one. They don't let you convert premium shops to non-premium, it's dumb. So, that's the current status. Sorry for the no info for a while thing. --PantsMacKenzie 04:53, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
No problem, I know how "real life" can get in the way...
What about perhaps the quintessential OW quote:

Template:OWQ I was messing around with it earlier and I came up with this: [1]. I also tried to put the quote on the one side and the potato on the other, but Cafe Shop screwed up my image that way so I don't know just how that would look. --—rc (t) 05:26, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Me likes --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 09:32, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, did you use their template for mugs? You could try to put the quote into multiple lines, 4 or so, and see how it looks on the side, instead of in the middle. I don't know. I'm kinda rambling. But, otherwise, It looks good. --PantsMacKenzie 14:18, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Here's one with the potato and quote on opposite sides: [2] I added the URL but of course it can be removed if needed. As you can see, on the bigger preview image the quote text looks pretty bad...I don't know if it's just because of quick and dirty image compression or if it would actually look that way on the mug. I uploaded the PNG file here. It can be overlaid on the Cafe Press mug template if things need to be adjusted. --—rc (t) 17:59, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I like that png RC, that is the best so far. I am wondering, can you, Pants, fiddle with the DPI of the image before uploading it to Cafepress, thereby tweaking the size without resizing the image? Or does Cafepress ignore DPI? --Splaka 03:20, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I too, like it. If it's up on cafepress, I'd volunteer to buy one and see how it turned out. Otherwise, I can put it up and buy one myself. But, it looks good. I don't know if it's something that can be cleaned up much, other than by increasing DPI a lot. But, I dunno how to do that. I'm not an Imaging Science whiz. --PantsMacKenzie 05:57, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
It's not online - Cafe Press will let you create something but you can't save it or sell it unless you register with them (which I haven't done, hence the cobbled-together imageshack pictures). --—rc (t) 06:15, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, Photoshop can change it easily (Image/Image Size... I think)... you just change the DPI but make sure to not change the actual pixels (there is an option somewhere, depending on version, to not resize image). Irfanview (free) will also let you change the DPI of many file formats (the ones that support it anyhow)... you just hit image info (I), and change the DPI (bigger DPI = smaller printed image, digital version of the image doesn't change), and save the file and voila. However, my old Iview version doesn't support the newer PNG formats, so it just corrupts that file, and I don't know if new versions will. Thank you for your purchase of DPI 101, a book on paper by Splaka. Please turn to side B --Splaka 06:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've been messing around with some other designs...mostly just the logo + quote/slogan/haiku, but there are a couple others. Here are six of them. I wanted to make a image of a Truth Fish getting eaten by a Parody Fish (you know, instead of a Darwin Fish), but, uh, I didn't. --—rc (t) 00:24, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)