From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old talk archived here

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buddhism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Article policies

Monk in brothel image[edit]

Hi, Sycamore. Is there any particular reason why we can't have the image of a real life monk in a brothel in the article? I think it was the funniest image in the article. Also, it reflects the content of the text in the article. Regards, Sveasaurus 12:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Politely disagree - The image looks crap (It’s been obviously shot in a poor camera/overly offensive – it does not fit in) and it's an image too many for the re-write I've done, about four is good on an article of this length. β€” Sir Sycamore (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From Ya talk page...[edit]

What is "the rewrite curse"? I know nothing of such a thing! I think this is good but I did not laugh out loud reading it. That's my guide as to if I nominate something normally. The opening paragraph is a little bit ranty, and it's a tiny bit to random in some places for me. Stuff like this needs to be really subtle, and I think it strays a bit onto the obvious in places. Maybe you need to do a bit more research about the subject? His name was Siddhartha, maybe you can do something with this?. Basically I think it's still a case of "stip out the bad, put in more good" for this one... Ya just need to work on it some more. Get some new material, and remove the less good stuff. Good luck with it. Edit it for a few more days and let me know. ;) MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 16:10, Sep 8

Thanks:) - I'm still working on it, and it's kind of getting there I hope β€” Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many crude references[edit]

Maybe its just me, but the sex and masturbation references are a bit much. When making a parody of something, the jokes should be at least somehow related to the real facts. For example, if making fun of Osama Bin Laden, im not going to say he was a toaster salesman or something. Cheers, migueltherocker 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. --Sycamore (Talk) 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would've gotten seriously offended by this article[edit]

I'm a Buddhist, and I would've gotten really offended by this article, until I realized all of the other religion pages got butchered too.

To be honest, if you were really a Buddhist (or if you practiced your faith more), I don't think you'd care about what some random website that no-one has even heard of says.--User:Siddhartha-Wolf/sig 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You ought to see some of the offensive stuff that has appeared on the various pages about Judaism over the years. Worst thing is, a good percentage of it was written by myself and other Jewish users...User:RabbiTechno/sig 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
By "Jewish users", you mean the Goth and Kojak?;)--Sycamore (Talk) 11:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually most of the Jewish articles I've seen (and assume you're referring to here, though there might be others I haven't yet come across) are more based on genuine observation and not just some fairly crude outbursts (unlike some of the Muslim articles), but I suppose you could argue that that in itself is more offensive. At least it's genuine satire though, right? Not just intended to be inciteful--User:Siddhartha-Wolf/sig 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I enjoyed reading your blog. Keep it that way. bnprtewvatxuqbzc

Forex Broker Comparison of God's sake,[edit]

The stain shall expiate; so the Stygian shore and Sosipater, my kinsmen. he looked into the great depths that could not be measured or The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 04:06, September 6, 2012