Worrying influx of n00bs a threat to Uncyc's "worst" status
- By UU
After the flow of n00bs slowed to a trickle at the tail end of 2008, 2009 has seen the site experiencing a veritable tidal wave of new editors, enthusiastically bounding around the site like wide-eyed puppies that have yet to meet Olipro, tramping mud into the carpet, and leaving half-eaten IPs on the floor of the Village Dump.
How can you resist my n00b power of cuteness?
Worse still, many of these new arrivals show early signs of being dangerously competent: writing funny articles; giving in-depth pee reviews; voting on stuff; helping folks out - generally making the kind of contributions that could, if the community is not careful, lead to the site losing its coveted "worst" status.
Experienced editors queued up to condemn the invasion - "Very happy to see the influx in good new editors coming in, we've been devoid of that extra boost for far too long it seems" said RAHB, the bile seething from his every pore, while MrN spoke scathingly about "great additions to Uncyc".
But is it too late? With competition for the NOTM award at its most fierce for months (4 noms and none of them Rcmurphy at the last count), it looks like it may be too late to reject this transfusion of new blood. Is there any hope for the long-term future of the proud traditions of the wiki under this relentless onslaught of new talent?
A comment on Bullshit from MrN
As a well known protagonist of the noble and honourable art of bullshitting I felt it my place to speak out regarding this most tricky of issues. Much has been said of late regarding the consistency, and texture of what we at Uncyc consider to be suitable for our beloved wiki. As you know, normal traditional (un-specified) crap we don't want, but there must always be room for more bullshit on Uncyclopedia. Some will no doubt consider my last comment to be horse shit, which (as you may know) has a slightly thicker consistency. The dilemma we must then face is how do we categorise and specify the fine (if rather smelly) line between what is crap and what is bullshit. The study of bull-crap may also been of concern to some readers, but I feel it not my place to enter that arena. This article stinks enough as it is. However... When considering bullshit, I feel it important to point out our rigorously defined guidelines regarding the use of bollocks as I feel many of the important principles apply. If I may quote:
“Sometimes articles arrive at Articles for deletion which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, Complete Bollocks. This is not always a bad thing.”
I think that speaks for itself. Got it? So basically, we want more bullshit, some horse shit, and a liberal helping of complete bollocks. But NO CRAP. Unless it's crap which adds to the general stench of the article in question (assuming that stinking is what we want). Got it now? Well, look at it this way... There was a man who had three wives. No, that was Moses. Oh, so Moses comes down from Mount Sinai and says: "Well, lads. I got him down to ten, but adultery is still in." No wait. Sorry, that was complete bollocks. I'm drifting into the realms of pointless excrement, and what does this have to do with anything? Don't tell them that! So what was it I was talking about again? Oh, yea... Does anyone know where I left my slippers?
|From our logs:
- 13:25, 9 February 2009 Mordillo (Talk | contribs) blocked 126.96.36.199 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (1 day for blanking, 1 week for blanking a featured, 2 weeks for blanking a top 10 and the rest is a bonus!)
- 02:46, 8 February 2009 Roman Dog Bird (Talk | contribs) blocked 188.8.131.52 (Talk) with an expiry time of Judgement Day (Fer the love of Christ, you make me think I actually have a life. You've been doing the same God damn thing since the summer. Just fuck off already.)
- 16:41, 7 February 2009 Mordillo (Talk | contribs) blocked Luvvy (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of a purrr (And that's for flirting with another admin. Shame on you.)
|Biopic of the Week
DrStrange is one of these here stellar n00bs that we're wittering on about in that there main article. He's been here for a bit over 2 months, and in that time has won NotM and already been nommed for WotM. At this rate, he'll be WotY by about June. Good job he's funny and good at writing things really, otherwise we'd be obliged to hate his precocious guts.
|Gender confirmation of the Week
YesTimeToEdit astonished the Uncyclopedia community by admitting to being male. Orian57 continued in whale raping Yettie. SysRq consequently "won teh penis", granting him this most prized life-time achievement award. In the ensuing chaos, Sockpuppet of an unregistered user cut off Yettie's penis and went on a raping spree with it. Mnbvcxz still believed that Yettie was a girl and the latter declared his love and desire to be raped towards the former. SoaUU AKA Sockie admitted having a vagina, or did (s)he?... Mnbvcxz refused to give his/her gender... Will Yettie get his penis back? Who is pretending to be male and who is pretending to be female? Tune in next week! Same penis-time. Same penis-channel.
|Cajek ban smackdown of the week
- 02:53, 10 February 2009 TheLedBalloon (Talk | contribs) blocked Cajek (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of a voyage made in less than twelve parsecs (You want a ban-off, RAHB!? BRING IT!)
- 00:46, 7 February 2009 RAHB (Talk | contribs) blocked Cajek (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of a Kessel run (I shall not allow TheLedBalloon to dethrone my weekly Cajek-banning title!)