Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive8

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


I started a HowTo namespace at uHowTo (hopefully it can be moved to HowTo, but there is an interwiki link there already). I am still working on the templates, main page, category, etc. but feel free to start a new HowTo.

I started it because most of the ideas for articles I was having were already taken. The idea is to have a list of HowTo articles, similar to wikihow.

While I have your attention, I had some technical problems that I was wondering if anyone can solve:

  1. I want to have a div tag with a background image, but MediaWiki doesn't allow this (probably to keep WP users from hotlinking images from other sites with it). I could probably change Monobook.css and add a class (probably what I will end up doing), but it is something I might do again so I was wonering if there is an easier way.
  2. Is there some way to remove the HowTo: interwiki link? Because it would be nice if we could use that as a fake namespace.

--Paulgb Talk 22:58, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

1) You can sorta cheat using tables, check Template:Purplespleen and Template:Jingoism and this dialog about them.
2) JasonR might be able to rename it for you, ask him in #wikicities
--Splaka 23:06, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Splaka. I used that method and got the result I wanted. I will bring the namespace issue up next time im on IRC. --Paulgb Talk 00:12, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If all else fails, perhaps How2: would be a possible pseudonamespace? --Carlb 13:52, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)#
I quite like the idea of How2: if only becaujse it reminds me a British Kids telly program wikipedia:How_2 --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM [email protected] (Petition) 09:38, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Angela deleted the interwiki link for me, everything is now at HowTo. Check it out, I think it has potential, even if I have to create all the articles myself.

We are very silly people.

The featured WikiCity ballot is as funny as any article. Great job, gang! --Savethemooses 02:02, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like how they have to make special notes to Uncyclopedia users. We're like those people who jump off bridges, then sue because the railing wasn't high enough. Or that guy who tried to spread the word of god among the lions in the zoo. Only Wikicities doesn't have as many teeth as a lion. --Spintherism 03:31, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's like they think our wiki has padded walls, and no sharp objects or shoelaces, and one telephone call a month... waaaah! --Savethemooses 03:47, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You mean our wiki doesn't?
Yeah, I could've sworn it does. --Nintendorulez 21:20, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they like our insanity spilling over into their perfectly serious wiki. Almost all the rules are directed at us, yet we were the only ones bright and mathematically-inclined enough to bend them. Sadly, I came in late and I always follow the rules, therefore I used some bigness, bolding, and lame ancient humor. Good job, guys! http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:34, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The best part is that the creator of Uncyclopediais the only one who hasn't voted for it. God, I love this place. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:40, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How could you vote for your own creation? That's akin to voting for yourself. Clearly, the creator is far above such childishness. http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Note that the other creator hasn't even registered on Wikicities. --stillwaters/Talk 20:53, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Scorched Earth

I'm implementing a Personal Scorched Earth Campaign for the next 12 hours. Just thought you'd like to know.--Sir Flammable KUN 19:26, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

no kidding! .. enjoy! --Splaka 19:32, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: Famine has been on a quest to remove swaths of Ballmer/Kanye quotes (see below), and I've been Category:Move to Undictionary and deleting them when they expire. When you get done with the vandals, feel free to flex your ban/rollback/block sticks in other ventures. --Splaka 19:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Articles you wouldn't know about unless they were posted somewhere prominent

How about a section of the front page which features orphaned (or partially orphaned) articles, so they get noticed and edited. 12:52, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There's a link to a list of them right there on the home page. Just click, surf, and enjoy. http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 12:12, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

American Users

Parody is the best form of flattery, don't you agree? Dawg 20:39, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not true --Paulgb Talk 21:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) (see below for my other opinion)

Innovative template abusing

I've been abusing the {{lowercase}} template these days. This template, like its Wikipedia counterpart, was designed to show a title started with a lower case character. However, I am abusing it in multiple ways.

  • George W. Bush: I am using to it link to Neanderthal. It's a political statement but I guess it's still funny. I created Neanderthal later.
  • 7-11 and 7-Eleven: The two articles now link to each other in a creative way.
  • Cream of Wheat and cow: Link to each other because I said C.O.W. is the abbreviation of "Cream of Wheat". At least I think it's a funny twist.
  • Intelligent design: On the surface is says intelligent design = bible, in fact it links to bullshit. Another harsh editorial but consider it a calculated ambush.
  • McDonald's: OK, it's holy moly abuse. The template says: "so pretend it says Burger King or Pizza Hut or whatever that's not McDonald's." I, personally, find it funny because I am using it to link multiple pages. However, you may disagree it.
  • Charlie Brown and Michael Brown: It's an innovative joke. Charlie Brown points to Michael Brown and vice versa. A likeable loser links to a fuckable loser.

Like it or not. My abuse of templates is much more than pasting Ballmer quotes all over the place. Each abuse was calculated. You may revert my edits. I will not revert back. I won't do the same trick again. And by the way, my Intelligent design edit was much more than adding a template. If a revert is required, don't mark it as a minor edit. -- Toytoy 15:30, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Here's my Batman template abuse:

Now, can you see I am abusing this template the same way you add a carefully written Oscar Wilde quote? I am singing Adam West's Batman theme music with this template. See it? -- Toytoy 15:41, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, as I hinted at on your user page, I don't see the humor in it. We have more than enough template abusing on this site - so much that it's fast becomming a bannable offence. Why you may find some of that clever, I'm really not all that impressed. In my opinion, a large number of your edits border on spamming. From spamming Image:Costal area (multi-purpose).jpg onto multiple pages, to your "New Tricks" and your recent template flood, your edits aren't all that impressive. While I applaud your war against the Ballmer quote, and your image uploads, the rest of your edits have been little more than spam. Please take the time to add some solid content to one page, rather than spending that time spamming multiple pages.-- 16:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That was actually a lakeside disguised as seaside. I tried it several times and found the trick boring. So I stopped using it. -- Toytoy 16:23, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey, templates are fluid, too! Very annoying cleanup may result in the future. I move for FREE LOBOTOMIES to those involved in this terrible template abuse. http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:38, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The only one I found funny out of those was the Dubya one because im democrat. The admins are really starting to get f<NAUGHTY!!!>king p<NAUGHTY!!!>sed of all the template abuse, so I suggest you revert before someone rolls back.(Foo21 22:23, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC))
Personally, I'm all for using templates in new/interesting/funny ways, in moderation and when they actually relate to the page. What annoys me, besides that these particular template uses aren't amusing, is the "look at me, I'm so original" attention whoring and the "if you don't find it funny, revert it, but I will still have made a significant contribution" mindset. And the overanalysis - why even bother explaining the GWB-Neanderthal connection? It's been done to death on...well, pretty much every single website on the Net. Yet another boon of Bush's departure from office in 2009 will be (hopefully) the lessening of lame, overdone-to-freaking-death political humor. Hah, yeah right.
I'm crotchety today. --—rc (t) 23:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's so original. I am so proud.
I explain the GWB-Neanderthal connection because it amazed me that Uncyclopedia does not have a Neanderthal article at that time. Someone created a redirect back to the Bush artice, I wrote the article later.
I explain the rationale to use the {{lowercase}} template to link "duplicated" pages because I want to teach you a new trick other than adding a "== See Also ==" section or ask someone to merge articles. This site is not Wikipedia. Some pages here are created to tell different jokes. My innovated template abuse provides a new way to send people to these jokes. -- Toytoy 09:25, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Toytoy, although I understand that your intentions are good.. There is no such thing as a universal joke. Mad libs are not incredibly funny, and neither are template wranglings. If you do find Mad libs amazingly funny.. well, good for you. Just saying, there's two sides to this, and some of us don't really find it funny. --Chronarion 06:13, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey. Anonymous Coward here trolling this discussion. Toytoy, this is stupid. When you turn 20, you'll realize it. And I'll tell you why. Humor comes from unexpected truthiness, to steal Stephen Colbert's word. Bush as a neanderthal? Cream of Wheat as C.O.W.? There's no wit here, nor humor. Nothing new, nothing unexpected in a clever way. Also, bragging about your "innovated template" is both incorrect (people have been doing it before you) and pompous. I mean, who describes their own work as innovative? Not anyone I'd ever want to go have a drink with. Anyway, sorry for the rant. If I were you, I focus more on developing new sites and then asking the veterans around here how you can make them better. Better yet, look at the featured sites and check out what makes them so damn great. Good luck. -- 05:55, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Microsoft claimed the iPod was a product infringing on their "innovative methods", and Apple is free to pay them to keep using them. Perhaps Toytoy is a Microsoft PR/marketing person. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13411878,00.html

Again with the flood of Ballmer quotes (among others)

The past couple weeks have officially killed what humor value there was in the (Template:Ballmer) Ballmer quote. I suggested here that we just scrap the Ballmer template and add the code to a few worthy pages, and Splaka mentioned that it could also just go into the randomquote and/or killquote templates. I don't know if other templates have been overused lately - it seems like the Kanye West quotes have mostly stopped - but if there are more that are just being plastered on every page in sight, for the love of Og, let's just kill them now. What was once snigger-worthy is now more mundane than an Adam Sandler movie. --—rc (t) 02:10, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I still snigger at the quote on Goggles. --Savethemooses 02:11, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I loathe the Ballmer quote, but I 100% agree on that one. -Famine
  • For deletion/restriction of template. --Splaka 02:20, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Template:Randomquote was changed (by me) to be a random quote - not a "killquote", which is what Template:killquote is for. All we'd have to do is cut&paste the Template:Ballmer text into that template, instead of referring to the template. In order to do this up right, I am FOR DELETION!!!!!!! -- 02:26, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • For deletion. Canned jokes are no fun. -- Toytoy 03:03, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The Ballmer quote is fitting on some pages. Especially the above-mentioned Goggles, which is coincidentally one of the very few funny short articles (mainly due to two of the three pictures). I'm for restriction of the Ballmer quote, though I still find the basis very funny and some use entertaining. --Dawg 19:19, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • For restriction of template. Dawg 19:19, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Against restriction I happen to like it. And if we're going to restrict Ballmer, let's also restrict Wilde while we're at it. I don't see why his quotes get special treatment over Kanye and Ballmer. -- Nintendorulez 20:54, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • There are many, many different Oscar Wilde quotes, but only one Ballmer quote and one Kanye quote. --—rc (t) 21:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And while I did set up our current Wilde project, I happen to believe that we have about 40% too many Wilde quotes at the moment as well. A major part of my irritation is that 99% of people just slap quotes at the top of the page. While I haven't spared many of the above quotes while on my revert/delete rampages, the ones I have spared were the ones that were tied into the article. Ones that people put some time and effort into making fit into the page. I don't understand how slapping a quote template at the top of a page suddenly became the height of comedic wit. -- 21:36, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • For, hell I say we go ahead and move every one-quote template inline with Killquote/Randomquote and any other articles they're in, then delete them. Anyone who can come up with a decent way of using these quotes is probably smart enough to figure out how to make one without the template. I'm willing to do this if noone else will, since it's bound to be a bozoboy-size pain in the caboose. --EvilZak 22:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • 'For removal of template. --Chronarion 07:04, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Removedish. I blanked the template, after adding it to Template:Killquote. I was planning to clean the remaining templates from pages, but just got called out for a bit. If someone else doesn't get to it, I'll do it in a few hours. -- 21:14, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I removed a few. I'll try to do some more but I don't think I'll get them all. At least I lightened your load a bit.--AlexMW 22:26, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, but there's still a ton more to do. I forgot about Template:Ballmer2, which I have also blanked, until I get a change to delete all those links as well. It will take some time, but I'm commited to removing this scourge from Uncyclopedia. -- 01:45, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I cleaned all the articles with ballmer2 in them except this page, the templates page, your user talk page, and an article I added to QVFD. --Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 06:34, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
A thousand blessings upon you and your house, sir. --—rc (t) 06:38, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Template:Ballmer3 --Splaka 06:41, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why that template existed in the first place. It doesn't anymore. --—rc (t) 06:55, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ballmer should now be completely eradicated with the exceptions of pages with killquote, talk pages, and user pages.--Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 18:44, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)


In my opinion, the content of this article seems to be bordering on racial hate in places. I just restored it after a blanking, and I'm actually not sure I like everything I see in there. The first paragraph in particular doesn't seem to do anything except promote ignorant stereotyping. Thoughts? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:31, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Islam is nearly or equally as bad. People also joke at Jesus Christ, but that's done with a little bit insight. Most of the people here knows very very little about Islam and its people, therefore, a proper sarcasm fails to evolve. Not to mention the current hostility towards Muslims. I propose that we delete these articles. If nothing better comes out, delete the newer revisions as well. Some articles are written by those who are brain dead. -- Toytoy 19:18, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I hate to self-aggrandize, but this seems relevant enough, so here goes:
With help and advice from Famine (read the talk page), I've rewritten the Allah article, and I think this is the sort of humor we should be striving for in religious topics. Too many of them are hateful, sterotypical, or just stupid, and really aren't that funny. Truth is what makes good humor, so we should aim for that. Religion, like politics (and sex, to some extent), tends to generate plenty of real-life ridiculousness on its own. Instead of just making up crap that does nothing but offend people, why not try writing about the true aspects of these topics in a funny or sarcastic way? That way it's respectable and intelligent, in addition to being funny.
Thoughts? Comments? Divine condemnation?--Jordanus 23:34, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It takes time to brew funny ideas in unexplored areas. I suggest that we remove all offending materials and make these articles very short stubs. We can always regrow it. It takes a good Muslim to work out good Islamic jokes <--(The preceding statement deserves its own article. Mr. Television 01:30, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)) I think they do have a long tradition of self-review. I am living in a Buddhist country. There are so many such quality jokes. Personally I dislike geeky in-jokes (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek ...), but to some established cultural traditions, you need to learn from their in-jokes. If you haven't been to Sunday school, you can't appreciate most Christian jokes, do you? -- Toytoy 00:00, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Done that. Now Muslim and Islam are nothing but two stubs. If nothing comes out with a style, please keep them stubs. -- Toytoy 00:46, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Whoa... while I agree that the old "Muslim" article was crap, was it really necessary to stubify the whole Islam article? It was developed, coherent, and had some OK material. I'll go ahead and restore that article to its original version, just with the some of the more offensive/stupid stuff removed. And PS: If you want to get rid of a crap page like that again, just use VFD or QVFD. You can make edits, but you can't be a dictator (unless you're an admin, of course).--Jordanus 01:29, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And even then, us admins are dictators by committee, and often harass each other about our especially dictatorish decisions. As for the articles, Muslim, IMO is a pile of steaming crap. Islam has some redeeming qualities, but both badly need to be rewritten. I'd personally like to see them mesh with Allah to form a unified series of articles. I've been pondering if Allah was going above and beyond just Allah, and I think at least some of the material is more fitting to be moved into Islam. But I'll leave Jordanus to work his magic on that. ;) -- 13:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Awww shucks, Famine, it tweren't nuthin'. Anyways, I'd be hard-pressed to do anything that in-depth this weekend (I'm out of town), but I'll see if I can work out some basic stuff up starting early next week.--Jordanus 17:39, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Insane suggestion: dump it all and spork wikipedia:muslin. "Muslin is a type of finely-woven cotton fabric, introduced to Europe from the Middle East in the 17th century." The possibilities are endless. If my boss and my wife hadn't chained me to my cubicle, I'd write it now. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] http://uncyclopedia.org/images/e/ef/Prince%21.gif 22:47, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Users

I have created a category for Canadian users. I also made a template for user pages. I encourage you to add yourself to the list if you are Canadian. Also, I had a hard time choosing a joke for the template so if someone who is more involved with the Canada_(Nation) article wanted to add something feel free. --Paulgb Talk 15:15, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have created a category for American users. I also made a template for user pages. I encourage you to add yourself to the list if you are an American. I also had a very easy time making the template, "brass, flashy and annoying, just like us" -Splaka. Being a real American, I also took it upon myself to add some American stuff to the Canadian template and Category; I hope you like them. Dawg 20:34, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Nice :) --Paulgb Talk 21:31, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Its a good idea, I have added the American one to my page. Rangeley 02:00, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


The font is Arial in IE and Verdana in Opera. I know it's the standard behavior of MediaWiki and works this way on Wikipedia and all Wikicities, but it's quite annoying. Maybe we should finally change that? And if so, which font will become the one and only used? (I'd like it to be Verdana.) - Guest 11:53, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I vote for Webdings. --Savethemooses 02:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, webdings doesnt work in firefox. I vote Comic Sans (actually, I think I deleted that from my computer because there is no proper use for it). I think we should use Verdana, Opera probably has a problem finding Verdana and uses Arial as the next resort. --Paulgb Talk 16:52, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Why not just set it as the default "sans-serif" and let the client/browser decide?
I support this idea. http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:25, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I suck

Please help. Spudulax 22:36, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was going to move Spudulax to User:Spudulax but it got deleted by Zak too fast, heh heh. Just be sure when/if you recreate it to only put it on your User: page. Cheers. --Splaka 22:42, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It got deleted already. It was my attempt at humour. x.x Spudulax 22:46, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I moved the stuff from the deleted page to your user page. However, I can't help you with your problem. At least, not without a sizable reward. --—rc (t) 23:06, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'm not funny... Spudulax 23:07, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's okay, neither am I. Nor are most of the people here. (Oops, did I say that aloud?) --—rc (t) 23:18, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How can I be funnier? Spudulax 23:18, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Watch Kevin Smith's movies, then do the exact opposite of them. --—rc (t) 00:00, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Just do what I did. Wait around for a while and eventually somebody will accidentally make you a moderator, then people pretend your funny so you don't delete their stuff. --Spintherism 01:01, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
"Your funny?" My God, what have I become?--Spintherism 21:30, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Funny. --Splaka 21:48, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Check out the great article Examples of Very Funny Articles. --Savethemooses 02:26, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Finish, please

Could someone finish my article, Revert, for me, please? I got bored and didn't finish. Well, I did finish, but it needs to be longer in my egomaniacal opinion. --Cheeseboi 17:41, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

PEE! I've copied this there for you ;-) - David Gerard 18:41, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I've also finnished your article for you. Mr. Television 10:35, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

10 million page views

We have just had our 10,000,000 page view! Wooooo! --Darkdan OUN 18:35, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That's more page views than some small countries get in a year. --—rc (t) 04:37, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If I had a peso for every time we got a page view, I'd still be poor. --Savethemooses 15:25, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
But you would be less poor than that fellow who lives in dumpster. --Nytrospawn 16:28, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Wow. that's more pageviews than you can shake a stick at. Really, I tried! --PantsMacKenzie 19:20, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You're clearly not shaking hard enough. Shake it harder!--Sir Flammable KUN 19:21, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Ahm doon alla can. She cannae take no more! --PantsMacKenzie 05:23, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I shook a stick at a mime once. --Savethemooses 01:13, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If a tree falls on a mime in a forest, does anyon-- Look, A bunny!!! --PantsMacKenzie 05:23, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

fecking Slashdot again

Jesus, Chron, you trying to kill us writing articles that'll get Slashdotted? And I'm not just insanely jealous X Window System didn't get slashdotted. No, not at all. (mutter mutter) I expect Jason is getting some top-class experience at building a Slashdot-ready MediaWiki cluster! - David Gerard 22:06, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So I couldn't get to Uncyclopedia, at all. Needing to waste some amount of time, I headed over to slashdot and browsed the front page. 200gb Hack for iPod Nano read one headline. And with that, a slow feeling of dread crept over me. But now it's nearing the bottom of the front page, and we should see the server get back to it's normal, sluggish state within the next few hours, as it drops off the front page all together. -- 00:34, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Rather inconsiderate to hit us again, considering what they did to us less than a month ago. By the way, there's an offsite Wikicities status page here, if you ever have more trouble with Uncyc or Wikicities and can't figure out why. --—rc (t) 03:50, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
All credit to Chron though, of course. 77,000 views - finally overtaking Kitten huffing, probably our flagship article. --—rc (t) 04:01, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I win! One article in three months and one slashdotting for it! Go me. --Chronarion 06:44, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Make sure you read the Slashdot comments. I love the people who think they're doing everyone a favor by pointing out that it's not a real mod. --—rc (t) 06:55, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Now taking bets on when Wikia decides to drop us so their servers will stop melting... --—rc (t) 06:55, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That makes three Slashdot mentions in a month, if you include Slashdot.jp. kewl. The only frustration: my job is getting in the way of my post-Slashdot killing spree. There's no way to do both. Damn. It was such a good job. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] http://uncyclopedia.org/images/e/ef/Prince%21.gif 13:54, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Elite greet sheet, defeat repeat delete?

What would be the general consensus on changing MediaWiki:Newarticletext and/or MediaWiki:Noarticletext to include a warning like "If this page has recently been deleted, check the reason on the deletion log and start a dialog with the admin who deleted it before recreating it in the same form." ? ... Alternatively, is it possible to enable the "Special:Undelete" header on both pages for all users rather than just admin (like wikipedia seems to now)? --Splaka 09:19, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Spintherism 16:51, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I'm always annoyed by people who recreate the exact same page after it's been deleted. I think the second option is better - easier to check the reason for deletion - if it can be done. --—rc (t) 04:56, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I've just added the following text to both messages:
If you just created this page, wait a few minutes and reload in case of database delay. If this page has recently been deleted, check the deletion log and ask the admin who deleted it before recreating it in the same form.
That seems to say it simply and in a helpful fashion. Of course, like all such measures aimed at people who can read, this means we'll only get annoyed by a higher grade of idjit - David Gerard 14:21, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

images please

simple and probably silly question. i'm tryin to make my manifesto article, cant do that without some good images. how do i add images? do they have to be from the web, or can i upload from me computadora?

I think you have to register a username to upload images. Once you're registered, an "Upload file" link should appear in the left sidebar under toolbox. You can use image web addresses, but uploading them gives you more flexibility. --—rc (t) 04:51, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Preserving links through line breaks

Let's say I want to split a link into two lines. How do I use a line break while still keeping the link intact? I should probably know this, but I don't. --—rc (t) 04:09, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? If you just wanna manually split a wikilink in all circumstances you can use <br>: [[You|test<br />test]]. Or do you mean external? --Splaka 04:53, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I mean internal. So you can't actually break a a page title into different lines? I guess if you can break [[|this text]] and keep the link it's fine. I was just trying to split a straight link, which apparently you can't do. I should have thought of the other way.
[[Going to
Going to
Grazie, grazie. I mainly wanted to keep Template:Hitler from getting too wide. --—rc (t) 05:31, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, what you might try is restricting the width of the table, which will cause the links to wrap. In fact, good idea, I just fixed Template:Wargame thusly. Cheers for the inspiration. --Splaka 05:47, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled category

The category "Highly Vandalised Pages" should be spelled "Highly Vandalized Pages". Is the current spelling intentional or did I catch a mistake? --AlexMW 22:18, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It's non-american spelling. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM [email protected] (Petition) 22:59, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. --AlexMW 23:17, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This is from the British takeover of Uncyclopedia. 'Cos everyone here is subtly witty and funny and stuff. (c.f. Carry On, Benny Hill.) English-American Dictionary may help - David Gerard 16:25, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It is mispelled. It should be Highly Vandalised HAHA LOLZSTFU N00B!!!! I [email protected] --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world.gif CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 22:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
1337-0 This user has no idea what 1337 is and/or prefers to contribute using proper words.
- David Gerard 11:03, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)


What happended with this, I was waiting with baited breath for the grand opening, ready to order mugs with a variety of OW quotes and then nothing happened, me is sad!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM [email protected] (Petition) 15:49, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There's a shop down the street from me (in Walthamstow, suburban east London) that does pretty much everything CafePress does; there's gotta be shops like that all over the First World. I asked and they'll take JPEGs, PDFs, GIFs, Word files, you name it; it might be an idea just to put up high-quality PDFs for people to make their own mugs and shirts - David Gerard 16:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
What happened was that school hit me upside the head with various colored bricks. And thus, I had no time. RC had some good images up, I should try and get it going again. Possibly this weekend, if I have time. --PantsMacKenzie 02:17, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hopeless articles

Many articles here are hopelessly moronic. Can we delete them?

Examples: Template:Skeith, Terror of Death, Phase, murder ... I guess there are thousands of them.

I tried to remove some templates. If a page tells some good jokes, it'll survive if we remove all boilerplates. Otherwise, it cannot be anything other than a miserable joke that insults your intelligence.

A joke is a story. You cannot tell a joke by posting brain-dead templates. -- Toytoy 12:02, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes some articles are hopeless ttm. -- DrFoster 12:73, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Bring 'em up at VFD or, for really short and hopeless ones, QuickVFD. --—rc (t) 15:54, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

yes -- DrFoster 12:62, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If someone makes a dumb article that's based on a legit subject (murder, phase, etc), just stick a "rewrite" tag ( {{rewrite}} ) on it. Some of my best articles (Pollytheism, Allah, Every Child Left Behind Act) have come from the crap called out by the great Mr. T.--Jordanus 03:03, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to customize favicons

On Firefox? --Savethemooses 00:44, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I tried about:config, and under browser.chrome.favicons all it has is a boolian value, which I assumes means on/off. I'm guessing that's where it would be, but there could be some other config buried in a text file somewhere. -- 01:03, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If you just want to change them for a mediawiki site for yourself, like on uncyclopedia (which I am assuming, since you asked here), you can fiddle with your user/monobook.js (Eg: User:Savethemooses/monobook.js), Add something like:

document.write('<link REL="shortcut icon" HREF="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/favicon.ico" />')

Voila. --Splaka 03:40, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Cream of Wheat

Where can I find info on Cream of Wheat and whatnot? Mr. Television 05:20, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia entry on farina. --KP CUN 05:35, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. Mr. Television 19:34, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for Extensive Rewriting, Deletion, etc.

Apologies in advance for this serious post—I won't let it happen again.

I'm a n00b here. By and large, I like what I see. There are a number of exceedingly funny, witty articles. (Conductor had me in stitches.) But of course, there's also a lot of garbage that just isn't funny. On Wikipedia—that shameless parody of Uncyclopedia—one is encouraged to "be bold" and clean up garbage, and the criteria for rewriting are pretty clear: to make all content factual, legible, with a neutral POV, and with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Here, of course, the criteria are murkier, since Uncyclopedia has the higher goal of actually being entertaining. I've read Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and other such pages, but I guess the problem is this: if I read something that I think is complete garbage and want to completely rewrite it, am I doing the right thing? It's possible that other people find it funny and I'm just not getting the joke.

What are the overall guidelines for editing something out, rewriting it, or nominating it for deletion, or what would be a good example of, say, a deletion debate that would point to the general disposition towards these kinds of things? Where is the line between stuff that's funny and stuff that's just plain dumb?

And a related matter...a lot of what passes for humour here are just, for example, lazy racial or ethnic slurs. There is some stuff that almost crosses a line but doesn't quite, and is highly entertaining— but a lot of this type of content seems to just be an offensive way to get a cheap laugh. Would a reasonable guideline be whether someone from that national/ethnic group with a good sense of humour would be able to read the article and laugh, or just plain be offended? (I guess the ongoing discussion at Talk:Poland would be an indication of what I'm getting at, where there seems to be a divided opinion among Polish readers regarding the article's merits.) -Fred 22:20, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I did the former intro section of Black People:
Black people are those people who George W. Bush doesn't care about. Since George cares about everyone including the iRaqis, none of us is black.
However, some of us could be purple, dark brown or green. They are the problem. George loves them anyway.
And then, I added a false disclaimer that says we licensed some misinformation from Wikipedia because I did not bother to rewrite the whole article based on this "none of us is black" logic. I think this is funny.
In my opinion, many articles are just too bloated and surreal to be funny. I prefer jokes that are as close to the facts as possible. Sometimes a small distortion does a lot. -- Toytoy 22:24, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I don't really have time to go into details, but for now, if you have a good rewrite idea, and you don't find the original funny, I say you should go for it. If you're not sure, you can always take a look at the edit history. If there are just one or two edits by one or two authors, it generally means nobody will care, but if an article has a long history you might want to bring it up on the talk page or here before doing your thing. --Spintherism 04:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If you:
1. Don't find a page funny
2. Don't see how any significantly large group of people could find it funny
And 3. Think you have a better idea
Then it's all you. Be Italic. Don't let your biases react for you (i.e. "I'm a Mormon and this page makes fun of Mormonism...MUST REWRITE!") and try to think about whether the article might, somewhere, have an appreciative audience, unless that audience is racists or pedophiles or fascist pigs. And what Spintheism said. And you know what, in general you can just follow #3, so don't worry about it. Your vandalism rewrite can always be reverted if need be. --—rc (t) 05:17, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that some people also axe-grind on certain hated subjects, which isn't funny. Something along the lines of: "I hate Mormons and this page has something to do with Mormonism...MUST ADD HATE!". I mainly see it with racism and charged subjects. I've given up on reverting or rewriting any page with current charged significance to avoid a revert war over it. I hate those people that smear our site with facts and half-truths. --Dawg 07:34, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all your replies, folks! --Fred 05:50, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes I find articles here are too unimaginative. For example, the earlier versions of government was treating its subject as a criminal organization. This is all too straight forward. Whoever has a keyboard and a billion monkeys can create such a work. I did a new intro and put all the "textbook" positive thoughts in it:
A government is formed by a group of educated, skillful, efficient, responsible, hard-working, God-fearing and respectable people who are elected and entrusted by their fellow citizens with the task to manage a nation. ... This is the miracle of modern democracy.
I think this is much funnier than a head-on attack.
I also almost restarted Harriet Miers. Some parts of some earlier versions read like canned gibberish. You can replace the name and use it for every person on earth. "She might be a ninja, but has killed everybody who has tried to find out for sure. She is a strong advocate of lesbianism and pirates, and especially of pirate lesbians."
To make that article readable, I recycled Wkipedia's article for Tom Hagen, the consigliere of the Corleone Family. In the end, I made her look like a battle-hardened private laywer employed by a Mafia Family. I guess that's pretty close to the truth. -- Toytoy 06:02, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Some articles are really beyond my comprehension of humor, such as Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz:
... are the letters of the alphabet, invented by the dark lord Sauron. ... but if you put that on rye, it's 15 cents extra.
This article has been here for three months and 263 hits, I still couldn't figure out which part of it is of any geeky fun. The "dark lord Sauron"? -- Toytoy 06:16, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I also find the "Fight Record" section of Godzilla boring and full of you know what. Last time I changed the outcome of all fights to "lose" and added "Anyway, Godzilla can't read". I guess I made that miserable section marginally funny because even if Godzilla had won some fights, we still marked him as a loser and he could not protest. It is now reverted. I still do not see what's so funny about "Godzilla vs. Samurai schoolboys (Loss)". To me, that's a pointless dry joke. -- Toytoy 06:26, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
George W. Bush was also not very funny. This article is supposed to be Uncyclopedia's flagship. We shall make that article beloved by Bush's haters and lovers.
I dumped the earlier basic information table because I just don't see it of any fun. I don't think placing Elvis in the vice president box would make anyone laugh. Nothing is funny per se. So I put mom, dad, his mother's private part, 4004 BC, WTF (his wife!) ... into these boxes because George W. Bush, in my opinion, is cronyism + theocracy. I called his political party "Let's Party" because Thomas Friedman used to cite Joel Hyatt's words: "the Bush team's philosophy since 9/11 has been: 'We're at war. Let's party.' " in his September 7, 2005 NY Times column.
I also rewrote many sections completely because I don't find "current God-Emperor of Mankind, czar of the United Dodgeball League Team The Washington Wankers, Grand Vizier of the Gay Supercowboy Alliance, as well as the biggest disgrace to France" very funny. One hundred clueless nouns put together don't tell you an interesting story. -- Toytoy 06:59, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lately, a lot of the admins here (and I *think* I speak for more than myself) have drifted away from writing and spend most of their time doing..admin stuff. I roll back a ton of crap every day, probably more than I should. The good part is that while I have a poor sense of humor, I have a I have a pretty fair sense of crap, and thus try to purge as much as I can. So, fear not. If you take an article that you think sucks and rewrite it, if it's better than before, it will probably stay. If not, there's a fair chance that an admin will come by and roll it back. If that happens, don't worry - try again. Us rolling something back is not a slam on you, nor does it mean we're pissed at you - often articles play off each other, and I roll back a bit of stuff that will make parts of the site at odds from each other. The other thing we try to do is keep pages formatted well. Cluttering them up with a lot of quotes at the top is my current pet-peeve, although there are a fair number of other ways to make a page look sloppy and hard to read.

I have written my share of crap, and done my share of rewriting pages only to have them reverted. It stings for a moment, but hey, that's life. So fear not. If you don't like something, rewrite it. But check the history first, and make sure of two things: 1) that a loged in user hasn't spent a ton of time working on it. If they have, drop a note on their talk page and ask about it. And 2) that the current crap isn't a recent edit which killed an old, good page. We admins don't get eyes on every single page, and there are a lot of cases where someone just swings by and hacks the hell out of a decent page, and leaves a pile of steaming crap. Other than that, have at it. If you want feedback, ask on the discussion page for the page you're working on, or ask someone who has made some edits to it. -- 16:02, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments. So it seems clear that the large proportion of content on this site that is fairly crappy is not necessarily there because people want it that way, but because there are a finite number of admins busy with too many other things? --Fred 18:14, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's that there's alot of bad writers, and few good ones... plus, it's hard to keep up with slashing bad articles. Me, I write an article once in three months, but then it's pretty decent. --Chronarion 20:47, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, partly that. But a lot of the stuff that seems like garbage to most is limited to a certain audience (like most website/forum articles), and other stuff just appeals to a particular sense of humor. Personally I don't think a good number of the featured articles are very good, but that's just me. If enough people think they are humorous, that's what we'll feature. --—rc (t) 18:26, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Take Terri Schiavo as an example, a former reincarnation of that article starts with:
Saint Theresa of Schiavo ... is a saint of the Roman Catholic Church and former Yellow Ranger of Ultra Jesus.
I don't mind joking with Jesus but I really don't see what's so funny with this "Yellow Ranger of Ultra Jesus". It looks like if you're not a part of the game, you end up confused and not knowing what to do. Am I the only person on earth who does not know this "Ultra Jesus"? For God's sake, I used to be a user of Ultra SCSI.
These homebrew jargons are nonsense at best. At its worst, they made you unable to see the structural problems of a joke. You cannot stuff these empty words into an article and expect us readers to laugh. No, I simply don't find that funny. There have been a billion Jesus jokes. Why should I laugh when I hear this "Ultra Jesus"?
I find "Soylent Green is made of Terri Schiavo" funny but not very funny. I love that Soylent Green movie. It has been featured in a syndicated comic strip "Meg" last year and it made me laugh. But this Terri Schiavo → Soylent Green logic is just too straight forward to my taste. If I were the author, I'll say Terri's meat was rejected by the Soylent Green factory because they cannot process cellulose. Remember, Terri Schiavo is a vegetable which is all fibre and no protein!
Anyway, I rewrote the opening paragraph and marked the rest of that article "licensed from Wikipedia". I than added a picture that says: "Eat your greens and don't play with your food, son" in God's voice. A part of that article can be marginally funny but most of the rest is not necessarily so. Do you really think that "film adaptation" section funny? I find that part plainly boring.
I simply cannot believe this article has been featured. To me, a good joke tells a good story with ample amounts of brain teasing. Even if your story does not adhere to a particular format, it has to be readable. No, many articles here are not readable and also not enjoyable. -- Toytoy 21:56, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New Tricks?

I guess I invented some stupid tricks with links and headers.

First Man on the Moon I wiki-linked almost all possible words including those improper and totally unrelated ones:

ridiculous ones

even more ridiculous ones

lives of the rich or famous

totally distorted ones

I think some of these bad or misguided links are actually funny. -- Toytoy 21:57, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Kilroy was here Sometimes, you can create repetitive headlines.

  1. WTF is Kilroy?
  2. WTF are the Jews?
  3. WTF did you get this information? (I broke the fourth wall here.)

Condoleezza Rice

  1. He's not bald!
  2. He's talented!
  3. He's strong!
  4. He wears shoes!
  5. He knows where his ass is!
  6. He's got an U.N.C.L.E.!
  7. He's the cigar-smoking man!
  8. He's got a number!
  9. He's a star!

In this case, I wanted to exploit the sex issue, so I used "he" over over and over. -- Toytoy 22:04, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Okay... please... Don't do what you did to the Man on the Moon article again. It's funny once, but randomly wikifying every word that has a page causes pain to my eyes. I don't think I'm alone. Thanks for the contributions, though ^_^ --PantsMacKenzie 06:41, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I will not play that same trick again because it'll end up very predictable and not funny at all. -- Toytoy 07:14, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Blank Pages

NO MORE OF THEM PLZ. Blank article, Blank, and About:blank ok we get the joke. theres nothing there lol! --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world.gif CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 19:38, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to abuse my admin powers of deletion to preserve my monopoly on blank pages. --Spintherism 21:01, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quote Flood

I've been working on cleaning up our recent flood of quote templates, and have had some responses from some of you. Now I'd like some feedback from the rest of you. My major gripes are:

  1. Template:Ballmer, Template:Kanye, and Template:Rove are static quotes, and only the pagename changes. On a thousand different pages you only get 3 different quotes. Funny the first 20 times or so. Not so funny anymore. Compare that to Oscar Wilde quotes which are fairly unique, and serve as a humorous intro to many pages.
  2. Somehow the convention became "flood the top of a page with eight different quotes". Even if they aren't all the same, I'm having issues with people just spamming quotes at the top of 50 different pages, and adding no actual content.

My current plan of action:

1. Delete Kanye, Rove, and Ballmer quotes if they aren't really funny, or well tied into the page.
2. Delete or move more than one quote at the top of each page, unless both are really good there.
3. Encourage the use of Template:Killquote on pages where people INSIST on having one of the aformentioned quotes. It is randomized, and gives some variety. It can also be changed when one of the quotes gets really tired, and thus requires one edit instead of thousands to replace it site-wide.
3a. Except on pages where one of these quotes really fits, makes sense, and is somehow tied into the article.
4. Short Ban people who's only edits are to place quote templates at the top of several (4+) pages as it is a form of spamming. It adds little to the content or humor of the page, and isn't helpful.

Your thoughts? -- 16:22, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

These static quotes are not funny at all on most pages. They waste server time. Delete these templates and place the quotes inline on selected pages. If you don't use your brain, it will not be funny. There's no such a thing as mass-produced canned jokes. -- Toytoy 01:28, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

{{Ballmer|mass-produced canned jokes}} Template:Kanye Template:Rove

“But what is the greatest evil? If you are going to epitomize evil, what is it? Is it the bomb? The greatest evil that one has to fight constantly, every minute of the day until one dies, is Village Dump/archive8.”

~ Patrick McGoohan on Village Dump/archive8

“Wot? It comes in cans?”
~ Oscar Wilde on mass-produced canned jokes

Point taken, cuffed, and led out back for a stern whipping. All the canned ones are funny in this instance, but the Wilde one made me laugh hysterically, while the rest were merely small snickers. ----http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/c5/Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:47, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

More Slashdotting

So we've been Slashdotted again, on slashdot.jp... --stillwaters/Talk 23:04, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • The highest rated comment so far is "これFakeっぽいなぁ" -- nice of them to include one word I can actually read. Or, you can try Babelfish, but that would be cheating! Like I care... the comment noted above (which is currently rated "4 - Splendid Discernment") notes "With the connected photograph of iPod retouch is ill-smelling, (the mark of soldering is strange)" -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] http://uncyclopedia.org/images/e/ef/Prince%21.gif 22:32, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they've taken the 200gb iPodNano article seriously. Scary stuff. --Spintherism 23:21, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Polish Jokes

Having come of age in the 1980s, I witnessed the death of the Polish Joke. It died suddenly, when the punchline for "What do you call a Polish pope?" became "John Paul II". Few mourned its passing.

Now, as I watch the shooting gallery for new targets, Polish Jokes have returned. But now, they're jokes... in Poland. I have seen the phenomenon come full circle. (Cue music from ET)

My question (yes, I have one, I just had to set the mood) is what to do with these? Dziekanat and Klewki look like QVFD candidates in any language, but they do appear to reference actual locations in the fine country that brought us wikipedia:Solidarność and other words that end with "ność" instead of "ty". Or in general (I'm a n00b, be patient with me), is there a standard (heh) way to handle pages that are highly locale-specific? This is similar to the previous question about "Community-Vanity/Injoke pages", except that the obscure community involved is roughly the size of Poland. That makes it hard to distinguish the Vanity (Vaniność?) pages from the Polish Injoke entries. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] http://uncyclopedia.org/images/e/ef/Prince%21.gif 21:22, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If you can, move the pages to Pl:whatever, and put in a redirect from the original place in english namespace. --Chronarion 22:48, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

War on Terra

The Daily Show added a section called "War on Terra". Think it's taken directly from us?...--Cheeseboi
We should sue --Nytrospawn 19:15, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Those bastards. Now we know where they got their Emmy-winning material. --Savethemooses 23:29, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If so, I hope they read our artile on Jon Stewart. Thier manner of satire is pretty simmilar to ours though (at least to that of prominant contributors).--TheLibrarian 19:13, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

N Word

In case word of (foul)mouth has not filtered out about my triumphant return... The Mighty Slackmaster is back. My point, I have recently wroted the Article on N Word Its a horribly offensive word, that I hope I don't offend anyone with. I wanted to use it to parody professional sports teams like the Reskins who use racist terms for their mascots. Discussion? (Please read the article before flaming me as a flaming racist) There is an editors note with nearly the exact same text as my thread on the article--slack 16:56, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful satire. I've never understood why the term "Redskin" is fine, but the "N-word" isn't. Isn't that racist per se?--Spintherism 22:55, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There's also the word "Canucks", a slightly derogatory nickname for Canadians which is used by our local hockey team, the Vancouver Canucks. Shame on them and their local fan(atic)s. May the Calgary Flames pwn them every time. --stillwaters/Talk 03:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You Canadianians need to make fun of yourselves more. In the meantime, I desperately wish there was a suitable template that could be used on that article rather than the last paragraph. And now someone really needs to write the article N Word - David Gerard 06:49, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I have created N Word, or rather, *NWord...enjoy. --RadicalX

02:58, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

 And it's hilarious!-- 15:14, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Pratchett has defined it as Nevermore for all time. At least, that's all I can ever think of when I hear it. -- 23:17, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've just redirected Nigger (which was pointing at CVP) to Niggers. I've also tried to reword the closing para in the intro to make it suck less, hopefully it gets the point in early - David Gerard 10:53, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Umm, Thanks for dissing my work there Dave, thanks a pantload...mumble-cosplayer-mumble heh heh I Do like the manager's name tho--slack 01:55, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed it with my Holy Blessed Pee! - David Gerard 06:30, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VFH woes

There are currently almost 25 articles in VFH with four votes or more. At the current rate of highlighting, that's about two and a half months of worthy articles, which seems kind of excessive. Some of them have been languishing in VFH forever and, what with all the pages that quickly attain featurization (X Windows and the 200gb iPod article whose name I don't remember and which I don't want to look up, for example), they may never be featured at all. So. Two ideas to reduce the waiting time:

  1. Give older articles more weight so that they don't necessarily have to have the most votes to be featured. This, of course, wouldn't help downsize VFH, but it would give older articles that may have been forgotten their due.
  2. Reduce featured article time from three days to two.

I hate to reduce the time a featured article gets on the front page since it feels like cheating the writer(s) out of their glory a bit (especially since personal pride is so much stronger here than on, say, Wikipedia), but I also hate to see VFH bloated with dozens of articles that may never get their chance to be contenders. So what say you - should things be changed or are they all right as they are? Is VFH just more competitive these days? Pepsi or Coke? --—rc (t) 05:45, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Both of these. Prioritise older winners. Two days sounds fine to me.
A regular email summary of the featured article to Uncyclopedia-L would be a good idea too - would also remind people to come back to the site and look. - David Gerard 10:23, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had two that apparently were nominated so long they died of neglect. I agree with clearing up the logjam--slack 16:43, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, probably no matter what I'm still going to remove one-vote entries that haven't had a vote in a month, two-voters that haven't had a vote in two months, and three-voters that haven't had a vote in three months. That's probably what happened with yours. Anything with four or more votes will probably stay. --—rc (t) 16:48, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Remember to add them to "best of" anyway, when you remove them. --

Chronarion 18:03, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I fugured there was prolly a system... Now I know! and Knowing is half the battle...GI JOE!!--slack 18:48, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just redirect the main page to my user page? That should clear it up. --Savethemooses 22:34, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Two days should be fine; since the last five featured articles are linked to from the main page, you'd still have to not visit Uncyclopedia for twelve days to miss a featured article, and if you haven't visited Uncyclopedia in that time, then you suck so much that you deserve to read every QVFD candidate ever for your transgressions, no highlights for you you can look at the bottom of VFH (and the archives in case you have a coma) and see what's there anyways. The other thing seems like a bad idea, IMO. Getting eight votes in three days is way more impressive than getting eight votes in eight months, so to me it makes more sense to highlight the more recent article in the event of a tie. --EvilZak 08:33, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of true, but a page that gets a load of votes within a couple days is almost certainly going to be featured soon no matter what (because it's fresh and exciting and new, and will likely get more votes), whereas a page that gained a bunch of votes gradually but hasn't been voted on for months might never see the soft golden glow of the featured article template. That's my take on it, anyway. Maybe it's a little unfair to the new stuff, but seniority might determine whether some articles are featured at all.
Two days it is, however. I probably won't be here Sunday, so if someone could do the highlighting jive for me, that'd be great... --—rc (t) 15:51, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Also: what about non-signed votes and IP votes? The former I think I counted once for VFH, but...I think that was a mistake and it shouldn't be done anymore. And should IP votes count the same as username votes? --—rc (t) 15:51, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Okay, unless anybody objects, I'm going to start counting IPs as half-votes...give people some incentive to register. --—rc (t) 06:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Vote for a Featured wiki (VFW?) on Wikicties

Just found this wikicities:Featured Wikicity/vote (via a link of RC's user page to a discussion on MA about the Talk like a Pirate day slahsdotting, then general noseiness), and if MA got voted for I see no reason why we shouldn't, are do we now act all superior and snotty and disdain such things :-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM [email protected] (Petition) 02:57, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just voted. We can't let the furries beat us! --—rc (t) 17:47, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hail eris, I'm voting furries. --Chronarion 01:54, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You actually did it. I don't even know you anymore. --—rc (t) 03:11, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of our votes were negated because they were made by IPs that linked to Uncyclopedia user pages instead of Wikicity ones. They're going to force people to register with Wikicities in order to vote. Which takes like seven seconds, so get on it. --—rc (t) 23:18, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I assume our peerage crosses wiki-borders, right? Or is this like England where we can't be Sir Whoosisname in other countries? -- 23:25, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And while they will totally not appreciate it, I followed the rules and made sure my votes did not exceed 1. Who wants to bet that they change their voting procedure either after this, or mid-vote here? -- 23:39, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

More likely they'll just blacklist Uncycopedia permanently. What have we done, I can hear them wailing. --—rc (t) 23:50, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Looks like option #2: The rules did not mention negative votes -- either way as valid or invalid. They will now. What lame-asses. God do we have a sweet wiki here. I love the flexiability of our voting rules. They make so many other sites look like Nazi Internment Camps. -- 22:01, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Haha. They had to add a "what's appropriate for Uncyc might not be appropriate here" disclaimer. I take slight joy in knowing that we can disrupt our own vote on another site. Now I wish I had made my vote something less "appropriate." --—rc (t) 05:43, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)