From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Zimulator should be on here
I think that Rev. Zimulator is hilarious, why isn't he on there, he did a great job recording some of my UnNews articles as well as many others, I think he deserves a space on this list - Uncle J
Why is Benson not on this!? BENSON IS THE MUST NOTE-ABLE OF ALL! Benson 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it should be in alphabetical order? Just a suggestion, please don't eat my face / tell me to do it. --04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, it would seem to cocky, since I would be the first. --Boy Toy bitch at me 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would be easier to find people, though. -- 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought u may want to keep a record of this over here. --Rataube 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Me too.
04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh my God, leave me alone! Otherwise... (Rataube charges his rifle)--Rataube 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
edit VFD flame war over Uncyclopedia:Bios
- Delete. Encourages vanity, slander, and ill tempers. --Algorithm (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP, for the love of kittens! --—Hinoa KUN 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Boy Toy bitch at me 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Move back to being a user sub-page. -- 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Erase from existence. Pointless randomness. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Boring as fuck. And I'm insulted by the lack of funny or effort in my bio. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Meh, I don't think it's vanity, no more vanity than the User List or the Admin List. 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Chillout Lance--Rataube 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Move to user page and expand to include everyone who voted on it here.-- 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or move - How can I be Jerry and George Costanza? This is going to keep me up until the red red wine she puts me down. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but moderate and make it a part of Order of Uncyclopedia somehow. I found the entry on me to be particularly hillarious, (at least, the version that appeared at the time I read it) and uncyclopedic. But I think there ought to be some kind of rules drawn up to prevent vanity, slander and ill tempers. -- 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Should a coup d'état arise as a result of this page, all the better. I find it amusing, and another incentive for users to work for some form of notoriety.
- Comment. ...another candidate for the Worst 100 series ? Mad "Not taking into account the absence of a certain user against him" Max 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ehh, keep - hey, I was amused (though I didn't actually snicker audibly). In keeping with Uncyclopedia best practice, I made a point of editing my own entry - David Gerard 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Check that again, David - I just proofed the whole thing and there was an edit conflict, and I might have overwritten your edit. (Sorry) --Some user 05:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Leave it be Someone has really bothered to find out that I and Ryoske make common edits.-- A. Suresh 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Lame. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, rewrite gently. Some of the "bios" are amusing, some are total duds. I think that it's a fun concept, even if it is all slanderous lies! I am not lonely! (sob) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or else I may cry. -- 16:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because what the hell? -- 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because I'm married to Bjork. Hubbahubba. -- 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Buurrrnnnn and laugh as you do it. --KATIE!! 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Quiet, Brian. -- 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought fixing it up would change my initial reaction, and it did at first, but I've reconsidered. Sorry... It's worth a chuckle or two, but it's too high-maintenance, and besides, Codeine still isn't on it. --Some user 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Killed There is an oprah-sized assload of funny shit that could be done for bios on the users and admins here. Unfortunately, this page had none (and by that I mean a negative amount) of it. I had expected to find a page of semi-in-jokes, bios based on edits, quotes, and behavior here, and some sort of internal logic. Instead I found a page of unfunny drivel, with no relationship to any of the peope listed. You could have changed the names around, and nobody would have noticed, because the descriptions were that vague and unconnected.
While Uncyclopedia is the "Queen of Making Shite Up"™, for gods sakes people you need to make up shite that IS ACTUALLY FUNNY! And has some sort of flow, consistency, and attachment to the real world. I am ashamed that an article so devoid of humor, with a premise so potentially golden for comedy, has lasted this long on VFD. I draw the curtain upon it. There will be no encore.01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- mmmm... I count Keep +4.--Rataube 13:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, me too. It adds up to +4 to keep it. --Boy Toy bitch at me 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- We'll need to delete the template that goes with it (see my user page). --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think what the admins are saying is the idea/joke could be good, but wasn't executed well enough. If someone were to put this on a userpage, then go through edit summaries to come up with honest-to-god funny stuff about every person, this has a chance. As it is, it was just slandanity, funny for pretty weak reasons.--
19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- A legitmate way to encourage users to be notorious or shamefully plain slandanity? Humorous or unhumorous? To be or not to be? How to decide if the arrows of fortune should take it down or not? Isn't that what the voting is for?--Rataube 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Even though the score was positive, it was not overwhelmingly so. Besides, admins should have the final say over what goes in the seemingly "official" Uncyclopedia: namespace. --
23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Score one for Volte, score one for Bradaphraser. The Uncyclopedia namespace is supposed to be for actual, "official" Uncyclopedia stuff. This was not, at all. Additionally, it was poorly done. If someone wants to take a run at this, go at it. Invite other users. Make it up right. There is huge potential for a run of humorous bios, especially since we have at least an occasional tradition of making up user-bios. Remember, folks - quality, not quantity. Make a couple of really good bios, and all will be well. In fact, if they are good enough, users might actually want to paste them on their userpages. Make a page of piss-poor ones that don't reach a paragraph each, and watch them slip away into deleted-land. 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, it's RC whining again. "Etc., etc." will denote arguments that have already been made elsewhere and which I won't repeat in full for fear of making this post too long for the majority of Uncyc's reader base to struggle through. I don't have strong opinions about this page either way (hence I didn't vote on it), but I disagree with the unilateral removal, etc., etc. I do think it should not be in the Uncyclopedia: namespace, but moving it to "Uncyclopedia Bios" or "Losers With No Lives Bios" or something is easy enough, especially when the vote was positive. Sure, as Volte said, admins should probably have the final say in what goes in the Uncyc namespace, but admins are not the final arbiters of humor, etc., etc. And if it actually comes to that, that we determine everything that goes into the wiki, well, what's the point of the whole thing? Yes, I realize that exceptions should be made sometimes in voting, etc., etc., but I don't think this is one of those times. --—rc (t) 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't usually rock the boat like this, but I feel very strongly that this page is very much against the spirit and mission of Uncyclopedia. As Algorithm said at the top, it "Encourages vanity, slander, and ill tempers." Calling Nintendorules "Dick", and saying that he works for Sony, by being a dick on the internet and stirring up anti-Nintendo feelings is exactly why I don't think this article should live. It already contained 43 crappy bios, and with that sort of momentum, I see no way it could gotten any less vanity-filled or slanderous. For every user to have a decent bio, (more than a paragraph) we'd be looking at hundreds of pages of text. There's a place for these pages - it's called individual User-Pages.
- I fully support user-created bios done by other users - however, lumping them all into one massive page is not the answer. I suggest that a Category:Bios be created, and that bios be placed either on user-pages or User:ThatUsersName/Bio instead. It will prevent the massive page-fuck that this page was turning into, and encourage large-scale, amusing bios. As more people slapped their and other's names onto that page, it would have become impossible to do any real good work for any user. Potentially good idea in principal, bad execution. Bios need to be tailored and crafted, not mass-produced and dumped into a steaming heap together. 15:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should've created a Template saying "This page is a sketch. Uncyclopedia is a wiki. Feel more than free to edit it." and added to the page. Famine, the page was in its first days and you didn't even give it a chance to improve. As for the lenght of the page, it wouldn't be the first one. You have two cows can support it. As for the quality of the page, it's better then other articles that lived, such as EuroiPods (a futile fight to prevent it from getting deleted, which should've happened) and Fisher Price (think about it. You chose to keep a page that contained "go eat shit fuckers"), besides the lack of opportunity and time for its improval. I'm all for it being restored as one, perhaps not on the Uncyclopedia namespace (which I got permission by two admins), but at the least, somewhere, and GIVE IT SOME TIME to get better. --Boy Toy bitch at me 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Famine about Nin's particular Bios (see Uncyclopedia talk:Bios). Acid said he would change it if Nin requested. Nin not only not requested it, but he edited his Bios and left the Dick thing. So if he want to insult himself, we should advice him not to do so, but it's his choice. About the rest, well, I couldn't express it myself better than RC alredy has.--Rataube 15:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
|You have been cited in Uncyclopedian Bios.|
Apparently you are "notable".
Don't ask me why; I think you're lame.
- I see You have two cows as an execlent example as to why we need to keep pages a managable length. It is so long now that as bad edits get made, and as really good entries get messed up, they don't get fixed. Nobody has the time and effort to keep a good eye on all the edits made to that page. And this is a page which doesn't encourage vanity and insults. I don't go messing with You have two cows because it doesn't really pertain to me - if people were writing smack about me there, I'd probably head in and muck around. The potential for hundreds of stupid/mean/vanity-filled edits there is low, as it's not an article built on flamebait, and it is not trolling lots of users. The potential for Bios to be that sort of page is really high, and the headache that could be a page the length of YHTC with that sort of edit mentality isn't something we really need.
- As a good example of the stupid, mean spirited editing that a user-list/bio page can stir up, just look at the edits to the various forums-pages posted here. I've been keeping an eye on RangerBoard (which I listed above) because of these exact problems - there's a list of users, and a couple of morons are making insulting and stupid-ass edits to them. While only a handful of people from that site are active here, they are being dicks on at least a small scale. The potential for ey aey aey aey aey aey aey aey ar on the list has the potential to run across that list of bios.
- I don't want to discourage making bios up - I just want to discoourage a massive clusterfuck of stupid edits, vanity and dickishness on a page that's too large to easily manage. Quality, not quantity. 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything Famine has said, and I'd like to maybe say that whether the decision to delete was "unilateral," "unfair," or any of that is up to gwax. He's taken over VFD and I'm sure he has policies about how things are run. As is, we don't really know how things are run in gwaxland, so I say he should have the last say. --KATIE!! 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are pre-gwax rules for VFD. That's the point of voting, so that other people can give their opinions on a page. As for slandanity, it's a simple matter for users to remove their bios if they don't like them, to ask an admin (or Acid) to remove them if they're worried about being banned for vandalization, or for one of the admins to remove it himself if he feels it's too inflammatory. Besides which, all else aside, does this not fit the definition for allowable vanity? --—rc (t) 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. BTW, Keitei, your "accept the
leaderadmin decition, do not protest, he knows better" position u are stating here and at the dump, scares me. Although I hate this kind of comparisions I must say it reminds me of "Il Duce ha sempre razone" (Italy, WW2).--Rataube 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. BTW, Keitei, your "accept the
- It's more laziness. I don't like dealing with VFD, and gwax does. Let him have his way. It's called sharing power and not being a pain in the butt. --KATIE!! 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- VOTING is sharing power.--Rataube 03:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit late to this conversation, but 1) bymy count the "move"s had it, not the "keep"s, and 2) it is now back as a user sub-page, which is how this page started. I am no fan of excessive admin power, but I think the admins should get to determine what can stay on the Uncyclopedia: namespace and they did. I don't see a problem here, specifically. --03:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- As far a gwaxland is concerned, admins are meant to be tools for the average user, not the other way around. Except that we're smart tools that filter user input and do the right thing™. Again, in this case I stick by Famine's decision and reasoning. -- 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- See, I told you I wasn't lonely... can I please get a hug?
- Seriously, though, it was somewhat flattering to be considered worthy of highlight (I'm just the resident QVFD craphound, after all,) even if the entries were somewhat... inadequate, shall we say. As far as slander goes, I for one can't imagine being offended by something like this - someone could have written, "King In Yellow (Lester P. Sinkhole of Scratchbutt, Arkansas) is a mink farmer/molester who enjoys bovine lemonade and dry-shagging the corpse of his male wetnurse every Thursday before bowling" and I still would have smiled. Hell, nothing on this site is worth getting rankled over, IMHO, and I'm always confused and somewhat saddened to see people failing to take a joke (even if it's a bad one, it's still a joke.) Ultimately I'm somewhat sorry to see these Bios go before we could all really sink our teeth into them and make it worthwhile addition. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 20:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write Brest, France. 01:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The devil take thee!
--09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
edit Well blow me down, Google indexed me unfinished harticle
Just for some fun and games, I looked up "cornelis van der decken" on google (surrounded with quotes, i.e. searching for the whole phrase instead of isolated words). Blammo! One hit, and it is my unfinished article (in my own name space) on whisky equivalence. I was under the impression that Google does not index the Uncyc. Am I incorrect, are they slipping, or am I just too manly for them ? -- di Mario 18:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
what do you have to do to get into this?
- Get someone to write a false bio for you, and post it. I'll do yours if you do mine. --YeOldeLuke 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)