From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Csm.grfD 00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) ,sknahT ?erudecorp taht ot knil a htiw em edivorp uoy dluoc ,ees I
Cool baby. This place is great, and I'll be alot more careful with the site from now on. Also I'm a gonna stop typing backwards to save alot of time (unless you have a backward typing program?). Thanks mate. Csm.grfD 07:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
First off welcome back. Wait did you go anywhere? All I know is that you are an admin from back in the day, and the first time I've seen you do anything it was scold one of the current nomminees for UGotM. So if I just imagined you leaving, you can imagine that I didn't welcome you back. Unless you acctually did leave.
Now to buissness. We seem to have both uploade that same image. I trust you will delete one, and adjust all links appropriatly. Image:FauxCounter.gif, and Image:Joke-Counter.gif are the same. -- 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- ZB ... Thanks for the heads up. I've now deleted Image:Joke-Counter.gif. --Ogopogo 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I saw that :D. Thanks for making the system work. -- 13:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I talk all this smack about you being our invisible admin, and then you go and delete a bunch of pages, edit a bunch more, create a new template. and then spam it across a dozen or two pages. You're killing my reputation for being in tune with the pulse of this site. I mean, my rep is just about trashed now. Next you'll somehow make me look all warm, fuzzy, and n00b friendly. God, how hard is it to just stay invisible and not ruin my image? I'm like protesting or something. 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry To Be A Pain.
I would like to take this moment to apologise for my recently "huffed" article titled: Kross. I freely admit to deliberately ridiculing another human being for entertainment purposes (a human being that has authored scores of pages devoted to Star Wars mythology, but a human being nevertheless).
P.S. (or BTW, as you computer / internet folks tend to say), not wanting to be unnecessarily nitpicky, but I believe that the word that you spelled as "dafamatory" is actually spelled defamatory. I imagine that "da-famatory" is perhaps comparable to being in "da hood".
P.P.S. The folks over at "that other" wiki site got a little bit upset when I didn't sign my name at the end of my discussion board topic. I don't know how to, so here's the unlinked facts (maybe someone could please teach me?): IncredibleJake, 5:02am EST, September 2nd 2006
good job! i've appended the template to the rest of the countries and fixed some links in the template that were redirects (ROC ---> Taiwan & South Korea ---> South Corea). -- mowgli 05:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Restore zones - They aid navigation and consulation of the template
- you should be grateful i did not revert you without consulting you first;
- you could have left me a message on my talk;
- there is a reason why wikipedia uses "asia." have you bothered checking out their several discussion pages? have you consulted the cia factbook (and several other pages, books & reference journals that you should be abreast of before beginning to quote from the cia factbook)?
- you are contradicting yourself but i've decided not to do the same. i've decided to revert your change 'cos your change is arbitrary, capricious, and more importantly, unforgivably unfunny. cheers. -- mowgli 20:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't turn this into the wikipedia debates that turn people off of wikipedia. Commonly called zones (though not an exact science - remember this is a fun site) help navigate. It's a large continent. Makes the template easier and more fun to browse. Now that you mention Wikipedia, I note that you wanted to add Kashmir (which I don't mind) as a fictional country (as you call it) to the template; the wikipedia doesn't list it on their Asia template. I realize the zones aren't perfect; and, by the way, I do notice that the wikipedia Africa template does have zones. By the way, add Kashmir to the wikipedia template and see how long it lasts. :) Cheers. --Ogopogo 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS, I took a look at your user page. You have a userbox there which says "This user is a scary stalker and is probably watching Ogopogo right now!". That is scary. --Ogopogo 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
My Dear Ogopogo,
i do not doubt the sincerity of your intentions, but i think you have totally failed to see why i am insistent on restoring the "zoneless" template. let me explain my POV step by step. i'll wait to hear from you before taking any action:
- initially, i was debating adding south asia as another continent, not as a zone mind you (in suresh's talk). in other words i wished to bounce the idea off some people before deciding. realize that south asia or the indian subcontinent is the only subcontinent in the world! it's because it meets the criteria of a continent: should be a distinct landmass (which the indian plate was before it crashed into asia), should exhibit all features: glaciers, deserts, rainfall, rivers, beaches, oceans, mountains, plains, valleys etc. remarkably the indian subcontinent exhibits ALL these in such a small space. Europe OTOH doesn't, for example. Europe is NOT a continent (it's a cultural homogeneous province and this is NOT a criteria for declaring a landmass a continent) but we can't or don't want to change history; we'd rather give in to those who feel aggrieved (indian subcontinent-ers or south asians, for ex.) as justification or recompense for this mistake. i had no plans of creating zones or regions within asia (notice wikipedia has another template for zones/regions within continents) for zones/regions have no fixed criteria and they overlap in cultural, ethnic, geography definitions .
- africa. africa is an unfair comparison. asia is shaped in such a way that you can't use south, north, east, west & middle to demarcate. see how Wikipedia's subregion has more than one way of creating zones. and despite the claim that they are geographical, some are actually cultural.
- in short, subdividing a continent is (i) will be taken seriously by some people who may take offence and find it divisive (my initial fear), (ii) it's better to deny the south asians their alleged another continent status and deny the zone-mongers their zones here. less controversy that way. unlike wikipedia, here we have to ko keep it simple or simpler unless complicating it makes it funny (which it does not here - it makes navigation easier but this convenience IMO is better dispensed with to avoid needless controversy). when in doubt, follow/spork wikipedia.
- i thought "kashmir" was funny. plus we had an article on it. but you are right, i contradicted myself. i'm deleting it. it will offend indians. just because i'm indian, it does not mean that i can be insensitive to indian sentiments especially when it does not result in something outrageously funny.
- my "stalker" userbox. LOL. blame User:Sannse for it - she designed and gifted it to me a week or so ago.
- looking forward to your comments. -- mowgli 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- look Wikipedia:Southern Asia for an idea of how ill defined this area is. the UN defintion of zones that you have used includes afghanistan & iran in "south asia." thus, for one, you are not being consistent. i add only "afghanistan" to it 'cos part of "afghanistan," i.e east of the "hindukush" mountain range that divides afghanistan is located on the indian tectonic plate. the rest of afghanistan is located on the eurasian plate. same for pakitan! the definition of a continent is purely geographical -- socio-political, cultural, ethnic, religious considerations have nothing to do with it. europe as a "continent" is considered the "traditional" view or the socio-political definition of a continent etc. etc. europe is technically considered a subcontinent of eurasia today! creating zones within asia and treating europe a continent (WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE) is NOT FUNNY!!! -- mowgli 06:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mowli, I have to get to an appointment and am running late, but I'll try to answer quickly.
Firstly, I point out that, at wikipedia's article on South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) they say: "South Asia consists of the following territories:
Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka"
and they go on to say " The United Nations subregion of Southern Asia (see Subregions of Asia) includes the above plus:
So, "both" are right.
I say we keep zones for the Asia template and, for those zones, use the United Nations subregions of Africa at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subregions_of_Asia. Using the UN subregions is what wikipedia does for the Africa template which has zones. I already have those five zones on my version of the Asia template but with slight variance in what countries are in which zones. So, I therefore suggest we harmonize with wikipedia on this point and tweek the placement of the countries between the zones so they correspond with the UN subregions of Asia, even though some of them are not what I would intuitively agree with, per my original selection of what countries are in which zones.
Third, I say keep Kashmir; it'll go well with Tibet, which I have included, even though not technically a country. Uncyclopedia is not already politically correct (we're cheeky): we are a humour/entertainment site: the average reader would expect to see Kashmir and Tibet on the template, for example. And besides, like the wikipedia template, my version of the Asia template does say "Countries and territories of Asia".
--Ogopogo 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
if you wish to "harmonize" with wikipedia then you should use the "asia" template wikipedia uses. use of UN sub-regions in the "africa" template is no justification for its use in the "asia" template. it maybe that there aren't enough africa-centric users in wikipedia to point out this anomaly-- the UN & CIA versions just aren't reliable enough; we need the world geographical society's (or some such scientific body's) version but they have meanwhile totally subverted the meaning of "continents" (and use a different plate tectonics system) and are least interested in helping us sharpen our useless, ambiguous & vague classification of continents.
try changing the asia template in wikipedia and see what happens. i'll do it according to the un sub-regions and leave an erudite comment too and post the results. i'm sure (at the very least) a couple of iranians will come swooping down on it. iran is NOT in south asia and who cares what UN thinks -- it's plain stupid. iran might have been in south asia when afghanistan was a part of it! iran, afghanistan & greece might have all been in "west" asia or europe had alexander still been alive. russia is not in central asia. "central asia" is a politically correct term for the poor balkanized states of the soviet union excepting russia -- russia is in europe. the russians will kill me if i change that template. on second thought do you want me to die? i'll wait to hear from you before i carry out the wikipedia asia template change as per UN sub-regions. -- mowgli 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- the obvious anaomaly is that fitting countries (a political definition!!) in a continent (a geographical definition!!!) is like putting a square peg in a round hole. better to play safe. better to follow the wikipedia intellectuals <--- my opinion. -- mowgli 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Return of template:asia
You really seem to enjoy wikipedia-like debates, but unfortunately, I find them rather time-consuming and boring.
I see that today you have edited the template again to remove the zones and to remove Tibet and Kashmir. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll try to explain things to you again.
First of all ... about Tibet and Kashmir. OK, they're not countries in the United Nations, but the template says: countries and territories. Besides, and more importantly, Uncyclopedia is NOT Wikipedia (don't you realize yet?): People here at Uncyc can be cheeky and not be politically correct. On an Asia template, they'll rightfully be expecting to see links to cheeky articles on Tibet and Kashmir, to see what spin is taken in the articles. And besides, it's fun to have the template itself slightly cheeky, by including those two territories - like a rebellion against the many pendantic people at Wikipedia. So, by removing Tibet and Kashmir, you're showing lack of appreciation that Uncyc is not Wikipedia.
Second ... about the zones. Come on now, every day, in the world news, reference is made to a country or countries not only being in a continent but to a subregion within the country; e.g., East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia. And academic departments and academic area studies at major universities are often named along subregional lines, e.g., universities have departments of East Asian Languages or East Asian Studies. While not everyone will agree to exactly what countries are in which subregion, people do know that the People's Republic of China is clearly in East Asia while India is clearly in South Asia. Continent templates function as an aid to navigation and browsing of articles; subregions on the templates help further, and further encourage browsing by country neighbours. Asia is a large, spanning continent with numerous countries.
Initially when I set up the zones on the articles, I assigned countries based on my gut feeling, later you changed a couple or two of them to reflect your gut feeling. That's fine; we could have discussed. But then you decided, oh no, nobody can agree exactly, so let's not have zones, even though most people can relate to them and many people have a strong mental picture of Asia in subregional terms. Therefore, in order to use something that at least is independently-established, I revised the template to reflect United Nations Asia subzones. That still didn't suit you. Just because pedants at Wikipedia don't for whatever reason (I don't know nor need to know) have subregions for the Asia template while they do for the Asia template, doesn't suddenly justify you removing zones from Uncyc's Asia template, when many people would find them to be a good way to process information (even if the countries in a zone don't match country-for-country to the person's ideas).
I'm heading off tomorrow for holidays for two weeks. In the meantime, put on your thinking cap, and tell me what listing of countries assigned to each of the zones of East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Western Asia might better alternative to the UN's assignments. Maybe some international organization's (other than the UN's) assignments would do the trick. (As you can see, I'm quite flexible on country membership in zones as the UN listing is somewhat different from my initial gut-feelings listing. The important thing for me is to have some more or less reasonable listing of the countries by zone on the template.) I'm sure we can work something out. Your solution of not even discussing subzone country memberships and simply rejecting zones at all on the template is NOT the solution, I must insist. --Ogopogo 11:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You really seem to enjoy wikipedia-like debates, but unfortunately, I find them rather time-consuming and boring.
- ?????? are you saying, a) don't talk back when i revert; b) regardless of what you say, i will still revert, or c) i am going to post a lengthy uncyclopedia type explanation & revert your change instead of waiting 2 days for a reply like you did, and please, don't bother responding with a wikipedia type reply: i find it rather time consuming and boring.
I see that today you have edited the template again
- i waited 2 days for a reply. what am i to make of your swift revert and a wikipedia type reasoning left here, within 30 mins of my changing it -- my changing it being on the assumption that, after 2 days, you perhaps had nothing further to add to the debate and were perhaps feeling less possessive about the template now. Or were you lurking in the hope that since mowgli had left a msg but hadn't changed the template even after 2 days, regardless of your silence, he perhaps worshipped it now and was resigned to NOT changing it? very smart!! thought like a true uncyclopedian
First of all ... about Tibet and Kashmir
- this is a dilution of my main objection. i have no problem with tibet or kashmir. i left them out 'cos i was only being courteous -- you had earlier raised an objection (or mocked) my inclusion of kashmir. i don't care about them.
Come on now, every day, in the world news, reference is made to a country or countries not only being in a continent but to a subregion within the country; e.g., East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia. And academic departments and academic area studies at major universities are often named along subregional lines, e.g., universities have departments of East Asian Languages or East Asian Studies.
- you are making "categorical mistakes" in your reasoning (and thinking) again and again. the more you perpetuate a myth, the faster it becomes a truth. a department of "east asian studies" in a university has nothing to do with a geographical "east asia:" the use of the term is in a "cultural" sense though a "geographical" reckoner is used to mark it. "oriental" studies is an oft used term in academia. "orient" is never used to delineate a geographical area - it's not possible! "cultural" markers are relative to POVs. geographical markers aren't!
even though most people can relate to them and many people have a strong mental picture of Asia in subregional terms
- who is "most people?" you? or me? or someone else? for the record, "you" have a largely incorrect "gut feeling" of how asia is divided. i tried to explain it to you using modern methods (tectonic plates) but you shy away from "wikipedia" explanations. you decided to hark to the UN version whereas you were actually thinking of the CNN version at the back of your mind. get a grip! UN is NOT a cartographer...but you don't care.
Just because pedants at Wikipedia don't for whatever reason (I don't know nor need to know) have subregions for the Asia template while they do for the Asia template, doesn't suddenly justify you removing zones from Uncyc's Asia template, when many people would find them to be a good way to process information (even if the countries in a zone don't match country-for-country to the person's ideas).
- right! the blokes at wikipedia are nitpicking pedants. that's why people come to uncyclopedia to "process information!" and we better give them the CNN version of asia or else they'll get lost or run away.
I'm heading off tomorrow for holidays for two weeks. In the meantime, put on your thinking cap, and tell me what listing of countries assigned to each of the zones of East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Western Asia might better alternative to the UN's assignments. Maybe some international organization's (other than the UN's) assignments would do the trick.
- that smacks of obduracy and plain thickheadedness - so much so that i've lost interest in the subject. you had no right reverting the template without hearing out my response to your msg (or waiting a couple of days for a response) and to add insult to injury, you proceeded to announce that you were leaving for a vacation?! the skies wouldn't have fallen if you had waited to return from your vacation before reverting the template and resuming the discussion (which, notably, you find boring!).
Your solution of not even discussing subzone country memberships and simply rejecting zones at all on the template is NOT the solution, I must insist.