Forum:I know how we can REALLY cut down on crap so we don't have to spend so much time huffing!
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > I know how we can REALLY cut down on crap so we don't have to spend so much time huffing!
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6077 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Remember the old John Seigenthaler incident on Wikipedia? I recall they implemented a brilliant new policy after that. Only registered users of 3+ days old are allowed to create pages. Damn, why haven't we implemented that? --User:Nintendorulez 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's brilliant! -- 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm for it. It should be noted that they can't create a page, but could still edit under said policy. Good idea. --
23:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm for it. It should be noted that they can't create a page, but could still edit under said policy. Good idea. --
Obligatory poll for this idea
Score: -13
- For -- 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- For--Winstanley1 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against Guests, those "good ones" who just haven't found their land legs yet should be able to create articles. Mr. Briggs Inc. 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
- Against I think this against the wishes of Cron. sorry--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against, but it might be a good idea in their welcome message to tell new users how to create a sandbox page within their user page, if it doesn't already.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Indeed, it has been brought up before and it was decided that this is not within the site's interests. We are a wiki, not a wikipedia.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - Against just as last time this was proposed, and the time before that, and the time before that... —rc (t) 02:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against Would never have stuck around if I couldn't attempt to write my own content--Witt,
of 
UNion Entertain me* 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - Against, because then I'd have to use my actual account to write articles about how gay my friends are. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:56, 10 Nov 2006
- Against. It's called Template:Construction. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--Jtaylor1
11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - No Before I bothered to register, I wrote several articles. (albeit mediocre) --no, yuo
chat 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - Against as per everyone above. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against per Cody, and everyone above — except for the people who voted for, which I'm naturally against. ~ T. (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG FUCKING AGAINST... NOW IMO GO PLAY FIND TEH SALAMI IN MAH ROFLCOPTER Marblefluss 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against Like Communism, sounds good "on paper"; but I doubt it would work in practice. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against I think my voting record proves to be consistent. -- 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme Lesbian Against. Yes, that's right, the word lesbian is an intensifier now, as in "Are you having a good day?" "Yes, it's been lesbian pleasant." Or "those flowers are lesbian much like Georgia O'Keefe's" or "don't touch that stove, it's lesbian hot!" That is the meaning passed onto you by your overlords. TINC. Good night. ---
Rev. Isra (talk)20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against When I aks WWBD (What Would Batman Do) this is not the answer. --Sir Zombiebaron 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain I haven't heard one single argument either for or against that really cuts the mustard. -- di Mario 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Monkey we should interwiki-link crappy pages with ED --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- FOR. Why ? A policy can be undone if it doesn't work. I would also like to set a policy for bitching about quality without acting, Maybe a 3 year hold of biatch rights. WTF is everybody so uptight about ? A sudden stop of new nooby material for your own work ?.--Vosnul 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against ridiculous! uncyc isn't as big as wikip. uncyc. should be thankful for new pages being created, however shitty they maybe (you can always huff them), at this stage. -- mowgli 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Against The only page I made, I made the same day I made this account. And I think it's at least semi-decent. Having non-users unable to create articles is good enough, as lazy random people won't do it. We can accept that Uncyclopedia is full of crap so long as we have the good stuff too. --Arzikl 07:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- For -- It worked for Wikipedia, and we're supposed to be a Wikipedia parody. --Starnestommy 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against. HowTo:Start a Religion, which you've said is one of your favorites over at FFS, was written on my first night, and I probably wouldn't've bothered if I had to wait. --
Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - Against: the debate over whether to sacrifice editing rights for quality control is a toughy. I'm gonna have to go with editing rights, but we should definitely look into some other alternatives to stop the flow of crap coming into Uncyclopedia. --EMC [TALK] 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does nobody check the dates on these things before posting? This poll is long gone, and only bumped because of the obsession with ridding the world of You-Know-Who. No, not Voldemort, the other one. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um, who? — Lenoxus 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
