Forum:Meanies

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Meanies

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6246 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I was searching google news to find some things about Uncyclopedia and came across this: [1], and thought, yay more press coverage! But being the person I am, I read the entire thing and, to my dissapointment, I found this: "The only limits to Uncyclopedia entries are no porn, no hate and no copyrighted material, said Gil Penchina, chief executive officer of California-based Wikia.com, which spawned Uncyclopedia." Thats news to me. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting what she meant, but if it was directed towards Uncyc then she can try to go fuck herself--Wit (tawk) 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, spawn is a very odd sounding word, sssspawn, just ick.Wit (tawk) 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a horrible, horrible quote. Also, we require our articles to be funny and/or satire, and prefer them to be somehow encyclopedic in nature (some exceptions for artistic license in creating humour are accepted, and some really random things have been written by prominent admins, including our founder). Also, it should be corrected that Wikia did not "spawn" Uncyclopedia. I'll send Gil an email about that... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He actually makes the "Wikia spawned Uncyclopedia" comment twice. Or else maybe the writer is just a hack and writes it twice. Also they wrote "The Uncyclopedia"... do we have a The? Not one I've ever seen. You can leave a comment on the story to clarify this glaring misstatement outright lie that User:Gil Penchina (hmm, redlink huh?) makes, which takes care of the net side of things. I didn't do that, but I know someone who wrote a letter to the editor informing him of this utterly ridiculous claim. Hopefully they'll run one of those "we fucked up" thingies about the story.

May I add that I personally don't like the idea of a person who, as far as I can tell, has never edited Uncyclopedia speaking for the entire community. No offence meant to our new high chancellors, but I think that we should maybe have some of the more seasoned Uncyclopedia veterans elect some sort of PR people from their ranks who could handle any type of publicity for the site. Meaning from that point on, Wikia would direct any sort of site commentary to these elected duped representatives. I'm not trying to bag on Wikia, but I don't think they should be speaking for us, either. We are perfectly capable of spreading lies about ourselves. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Gil is the CEO of Wikia. See that little "Hosted by Wikia" image/link in the lower right-hand corner? That's the company. He's a nice guy, too, and it's highly unlikely that he claimed anything that was incorrectly quoted in the article. This really just reflects on the amazing level of inaccuracy in the media. You can't trust them on things as simple and clean as this, but I've had second-hand knowledge of murders, suicides, and first-hand knowledge of incidents involving the police that were all over the news and in the newspapers. Their accuracy level is ~50% of the facts sensationalized to the point of being realistically incorrect, ~30% sensationalized fabrication, and the remainder are merely outright lies to spin the article for a certain POV. In my humblest, the fact it was this close to accurate is astounding. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You make solid points and I probably jumped the gun and placed the blame with the wrong party. You are absolutely right about inaccuracy in the archaic media — it's no wonder more and more people get their news online. Is that a fact? I'm not sure, but I hardly ever glance at a newspaper since I got online (and I was quite late to the party). So I'm sorry to have misjudged; thanks for the heads-up. But I do stand by my thought that maybe even the CEO of Wikia shouldn't really be the person to speak for us in the media, unless of course he would like to edit here. I know there are a few here (you might be one of them, Dawg?) who edit here and are involved with Wikia — maybe these are the people who should speak for us. No further offence meant to Gil, but if a reporter were to ask him something like, "What are some of Uncyclopedia's strongest pieces?" how would he answer? Would he know? Maybe he's done his homework, I don't know. Enlighten me. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just sent a message to the editor regarding the article, with corrections. Who knows, I might even get published, wouldn't that be lame? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Totally lame!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this correction should be sent to the entire US media, to run alongside a certain other correction about the whole saddamn mess in Iraq. "No, Uncyclopedia does not have weapons of mass destruction after all. Sorry for bombing you chaps, oh well... now may we have your oil please?" --Carlb 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess (and I haven't asked Gil yet, wrong timezone) is that Gil said "hosted by Wikia" and the dear little reporter decided that Uncyclopedia is the original monster of the deep and therefore had to be spawned. As Dawg says, reporters are notorious for changing quotes to sound better - whether that makes them less accurate or not. On the idea of Uncyclopedia press representatives, I think that's a great idea. Press often want to talk to the users and not the staff, and knowing who to go to would be useful. It's part of Gils job to get publicity for the wikis we host, a group he could contact to talk to the press would work well I think. -- sannse (talk) (Wikia community team) 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I got called by the reporter, so I had to say something :-) i would be DELIGHTED if there were Uncyclopedia spokespeople - who were annointed by the group, as I am not looking to talk to reporters about Uncyc, I just got stuck taking the call. Just leave me a message on my talk page - and make sure the spokespeople are willing to give me their email and phone # (as reporters are spoiled and won't learn wiki-markup) and I will run out of the way. As for "spawned - you stumped me! I wish I had a good enough education to use big words like that! Gil

Well, he certainly should be more aware of our content requirements if he's talking to the press about us, at least. Call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that "the only limits to Uncyclopedia entries" were Be funny, not stupid, and Don't be a dick. "The only limits are... no porn, no hate or copyrighted material" can only reinforce the common misapprehension among new editors that we're "Uncyclopedia: A free grafitti wall that any monkey can spray random shit on". -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have plenty of porn!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tompkins! shush! -- sannse (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are Wikia's limits. This is another reason a UnPR team would be useful, to make sure things like Uncyc's limits explained too. -- sannse (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what the reporter says on the whole "spawning of Uncyclopedia" question - maybe it's just a mistake in what is just a minor bit of "oh noes, that big mean Uncyclopædia insulted our town!" piece of journalistic spacefiller - or maybe its not. The whole Forum:Announcement:_Wikia_&_Uncyclopedia/Things_don%27t_add_up epic started with Angela claiming "Wikia has been hosting the site since the start of 2005," utterly false as the site was founded Jan 5, 2005 as an independent entity. And then there's the whole question of CC-BY-NC-SA content that's been translated to other projects being misrepresented as GFDL (um, a translation of NC content is NC unless all of the original authors say otherwise). That one has plagued us for a year or more now. If he (Gil) did say this or something like this, it wouldn't be the first time Wikia has gotten some key aspect of this badly wrong.

It's unfortunate that, the moment we as authors release anything under any form of conditional free license, it seems there will be people who abuse this to either treat the content as unrestricted public domain or steal credit for it themselves. (And yes, one of the conditions of CC-BY-NC-SA, along with "You may not exercise any of the rights granted...in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation" [2], is "You must give the original author credit." Seems clear enough, no?) Nonetheless, it seems that much like Wikipedians have to deal with the likes of Wackypedia running GFDL text through automated valleygirl-speak software and dishonestly claiming copyright on it themselves, as Uncyclopedians we too have to deal with those more interested in twisting things to their own advantage than in respecting that we, not some outside entity, wrote this fine heap of foolishness.

If it's an innocent mistake, we should ask for a correction. *fingers crossed that that's all that it is, this time* --Carlb 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Me claiming it was the start of 2005 was just me misrembering it. I've correct that page to say May 2005. Angela 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too worked up about this. The article is pretty fair when it comes to Uncyclopedia. And granted, Wikia didn't "spawn" Uncyclopedia, but this site has its sources in Wikipedia's Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. And I'm not convinced that the reporter "changed the quote," because the comments from Penchina were paraphrased, and not all that earth-shattering. If the quote was "UNCYCLOPEDIA NEEDS IT NOW," then yeah. But "no porn, no hate and no copyrighted material" more or less sums up the site's philosophy.--Procopius 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its sources in WP:BJAODN or merely its roots? I don't think we're here primarily to recycle material which is already available on other sites. --Carlb 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Roots, sources -- whatever the word, Uncyclopedia was first founded as a way for those at WP:BJAODN to indulge in humorous writing. It's obviously evolved beyond that, but it's not wrong to point to the progenitors.--Procopius 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was searching for a trailer of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and found Sacha Baron Cohen on the Late Show with David Letterman. It was old but I hadn't seen it, so I gave it a view. As an aside, we really should send SBC an invite to edit with us, or offer him adminship. I love Stephen Colbert and all, but Cohen is a genius. Anyway, my point being, if celebrities sent their agents on talk shows to promote their work, nobody would care. We need our representatives to the media to exhibit our funny. Once again, no offence meant, but that news story struck me as somewhat bland and disinteresting. We haven't got a ton of press (hopefully, as Sannse said, Wikia will get us some more coverage), so what we do get we gotta make count. So, in that vein..

er

what is "sophomoric humour"? i'm serious....english is my 2nd language is it humours flashed with semaphores? humours spawned by sophomores of american schools? (if the latter, then what about "junior" or "senior" humours?) -- -- mowgli 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

sophomoric = Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment --Composure1 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

i c! so it has nothing to do with "sophomore" in one sense of it. you learn something neweveryday.

--------

i would have said "unNew" but you know it's cliched. (Breaking UnNews - I'm a cliche with two legs and two arms that walks, talks & types.)

- -- mowgli 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sophomore as in 10th grade or second year of college comes from being immature :P It was made as insulting name, same with freshmen, because they're fresh as in new. Upperclassmen have the good names --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For

Score: +10

• Definitely. Our public face oughtta be represented by people who capture the humour, spirit and madness of our wonderful corner of cyberspace. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yea. We should speak for ourselves, not Wikia. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely. The best people to comment on the site are those who use it all the time. Duh. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, both of me agree with this sannse (talk) / sannse (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, Wikia is prepared to pay for and arrange distribution of press releases, if you are willing to write them (yes, "Wikia" would be on them too - this ain't all a free lunch you know) -- sannse (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I suppose we will have to make our own press releases without them if that is their policy. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd really be that opposed to a section mentioning wikia as the host? In return for professional PR paid for by Wikia? I'm surprised... again (and now I don't know which sig to use, I'm surprised as a user as well as Wikia staff... oh damn it, I'll go for the shiny one) -- sannse (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised that Uncyclopedia's PR should be about Uncyclopedia and not serve as a venue to advertise Wikia. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I'm commited to ensuring that Wikia's PR serves as a venue to advertise Uncyclopedia. If we can do something that benifits both the host and the hostee, then I'm all for it in both my roles. -- sannse (talk) / sannse (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a misuse of our PR to advertise Wikia. It is in Wikia's interest to have their PR advertise us, we are their best success story by most accounts. They will tout us as an example of "just how great their software and service is." But Uncyclopedia has no reason to advertise Wikia, and doing so is not in our interests. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess we are at the "oh yes it is"/"oh no it isn't" stage of this discussion. So I'll bow out. I belive that this will be mutiually benificial, or I wouldn't have suggested it. I understand that you have a different point of view. -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• For. Hell, I'll even volunteer, so long as I don't have to put any more effort into that than I put into adminning.--<<>> 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For Not a bad idea.... and Rangeley, what do you have against Wikia? It would be one thing if Uncyclopedia was selling itself out to some evil, unrelated corporation, but Wikia certainly doesn't fit that description. --Composure1 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Uncyclopedia should sell itself out to anyone. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it "selling out" to allow the people who own the servers we're using to affiliate themselves with the site in exchange for handling corporate relations - which they invariably have more experience of than we do. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not serve the interests of Uncyclopedia to advertise Wikia in our PR, which is one of many reasons that we should handle our own PR as suggested in this poll. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How does it not? I fail to see how establishing a strong relationship, founded on mutual respect and communication would be non-beneficial to either Uncyclopedia or Wikia. We're using their software on their servers after all, and they've made it perfectly clear that they will not interfere with content or site management. Please, tell me if I'm missing something inherently bad here. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They will build a strong relationship by not plugging themselves at every opportunity as appears to have been done in this article where it is claimed that they "spawned" us. Placing themselves in our PR is interfering with Uncyclopedia's management. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it interfere with Uncyclopedia's management from our position? And what exactly are "our interests" that you keep mentioning? No offence, Range, you know I like you, but all I see here are bold statements with little in the way of concrete evidence to back them up. And we can't be certain how much of that article is directly quoted from the Wikia CEO, as pointed out above. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think that Rangeley is totally missing the point. We are associated, let's use our association to our benefit. The endorsement (and mere implication thereof) of no less that Jimbo Wales is worth any disclaimer that Uncyclopedia is hosted by Wikia and some additional information about Wikia. Really, it's in our best interests. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PR for Uncyclopedia would have to portray Uncyclopedia in a correct, appealing manner. It is for the good of the site to have people out there to talk to those interested journalists and present our site in this way. People who go here are best able to speak about Uncyclopedia in my oppinion, they go here, they know the site, they know the people. This is the mystical "interests" I am alluding to in this discussion, the goal of presenting us positively. Advertising for, or plugging Wikia is not something that helps us acheive this goal, and would be at best a distraction, at worst would lead people to go somewhere else. Our PR should be about us, not other places, and should be put together in a way that benefits us, not other places. As to the second part, I do not know and may never know if this CEO directly said they spawned us or if it was on the Journalists side that the error was made, but with a PR team made up of Uncyclopedians, if this ever happens again we know that the error will definately not be on our side. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I still believe that association with Wikia will ultimately be beneficial to us, but I'm also very grateful that we have differing opinions expressed here. That's what keeps us from being naïve or complacent. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not under the belief that we should cease all association with Wikia, but what I am saying is that in this particular case, it serves us no good to advertise them in our PR - which is essentially made to make us look good for all the eager press folk. There are perhaps places that talking about Wikia can be beneficial, this is simply not one of them. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what, at the bare minimum, mentioning "Uncyclopedia.org is a collaborative project hosted by Wikia, Inc" does to hurt our image. However, incorrect information regarding our site does hurt our image, so the fact Wikia is willing to help us is a good thing. Of course, since I don't speak the other languages that Uncyclopedia is written in, I couldn't reasonably comment on those projects, nor would I probably know which are or which are not Wikia-hosted. But with a piece like this one, it's a no-brainer to talk to an Uncyclopedia admin or user. Mentioning that the English Uncyclopedia is over 18,000 articles, that there are sister projects written in many languages, and that we have parodies of the entire structure of the Wikimedia Foundation are things that could have been brought into the article. Think of the increase in the size of the Spanish Uncyclopedia if you mentioned it in a Tuscon newspaper... Really, saying "Uncyclopedia.org is a collaborative project hosted by Wikia, Inc" in a press release or newspaper article is well worth the publicity. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all Uncyclopedias are Wikia. Not all Wikia are Uncyclopedias. Entirely possible that Wikians and Uncyclopedians might give completely different answers to even simple questions like whether anyone owns the word "uncyclopedia" or exactly how many languages we have this week. Ask any questions about the history of the project (an independent website of a little over six thousand en: pages well before any wiki in this set was Wikia hosted) and, if someone outside Uncyclopedia is attempting to write Uncyclopedia's publicity, odds are they'll draw a blank. --Carlb 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawg. What I have said is that advertising Wikia in our PR does not help us portray Uncyclopedia in an appealing manner, and noted it as "at best a distraction, at worst would lead people to go somewhere else." PR is not meant to be a time where you mention everything that made Uncyclopedia possible, from your computer maker, internet provider, power company... its where you talk about how great Uncyclopedia is. Saying its hosted by Wikia doesnt help towards this end. The PR should be concise, direct, accurate, and portray us as the appealing site that we are. Thats what Public relations is all about. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• For. Free service? Isn't it the reason why we are hosted by wikia in the first place? More free services? Yeh, sure! Mentioning wikia for doing so seems a more than reasonable exchange. Don't let your anti-wikianism (whether justified or not) stop you from recognizing an obviously good offer.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For I'd be willing to do this, and I'm a crossover person, so I would mention everything. I believe that you can barely mention one without the other, especially if the conversation is based on Uncyclopedia and not Wikia. Wikia would exist without us, but we would have struggled to exist without them. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my opinion out there (surprise, surprise), I see no harm in mentioning that Uncyclopedia is hosted by Wikia in a press release. Like Dawg mentioned above as he put me in my place (thanks for that, by the way, as I sometimes jump to stupid conclusions like I'm playing a game of Idiot's Hopscotch and can always use someone scrawling "You are being a moran" in big chaulk letters), Wikia is mentioned at the bottom corner of every page here. Like it or not, they are a member of this community — some here write, others 'shop, people organize, format, etc. Wikia hosts us. That's gotta count for something. If Wikia is offering to pay for and distribute press releases for our community (if people here didn't like their articles mentioned in the media then we probably wouldn't bother having those "this article was mentioned in such and such newspaper" templates, right?) and all they ask in return is a mention that they host us, like I said, I cannot see the harm in that. But that's just me; others are just as free to hold their opinions as well. At least until a totalitarian world government rises up, at which point we're all fucked. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Uncyclopedia's Public Relations should be about portraying us as the great site that we are, and mentioning other things does not help us reach this end. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• (Subsection moved down - see Spokesmodel below)

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one is saying that Gil is as cool as they come. OK, so that wasn't quite a thousand words. But the picture says it all. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the advertisement for Wikia is required in this offer, than it is not worth it. Uncyclopedia's press releases, like all Public Relations, should be concise, direct, accurate, and portray us as the appealing site that we are. Plugging Wikia in an explanatory section in no way serves this purpose, and therefore is inappropriate for any form of PR put forward by Uncyclopedia. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to get in the rolodex (as I mentioned above). I'm not sure who else would want to answer questions about the site (chron would probably be a premium interview). STM, as he mentions below before I made this comment, would make a really strange and disturbing person to interview, but he'd probably reflect the site in a tone that would keep the alternative press and Johnny Foreigner entralled.

The canned text added to the end of articles are not bad, and they certainly don't detract from the article. As many of you might know, if you've had any journalism exposure, is that most articles are written in reverse pyramid form, because people don't usually read entire articles. You're freaking out over a single morning glory mixed into twenty tons of spring hay...

My recommentation for the canned end-of-article text is: Uncyclopedia is a global collaborative project written by contributors with the guiding tenets of being encyclopedic, funny, not stupid, and not a dick. Uncyclopedia is hosted by Wikia, Inc, which hosts wikis on a wide array of subjects.

Take it, leave it, hack it up, whatever. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's press releases are meant to make Uncyclopedia look good, and advertising for Wikia in no way serves this purpose. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we still voting? Cuz if so I say yes. And make me the head so when a New Zealand papers asks me why we condone bullying, I can say "Go back to fucking sheep, sir or madam." -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that as far as PR people go, we need people who have exhibited an ability to communicate with others in a constructive manner and definitely not those who: A. Have shown a bit of a mean streak when dealing with other users. B. Love nothing more than talking about themselves. C. Are dicks (see your own rule three or whatever). By these standards, I hereby unofficially nominate the following users — RC, who I think has been here for a really long time, has mad writing skills (see Poo Lit winners), can photoshop like a dervish, is funny and not the least bit stupid, and as far as I've witnessed is helpful to others. Same goes for Mhaille. And Brad. Those would be my top three representatives. I know Brad has offered his services, but we haven't heard from RC or Mhaille on this, so obviously if they want no parts of it, we'll just have to thrust the honour upon them. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you, I'm great with people. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is why I love stm...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow... nice wordplay. That actually was just a general statement, or else I may have indented it to illustrate that it was in reference to you or even mentioned you by name, good sir moose-a-lot. Not to mention, I was sorta talking about myself, just to disqualify me from the whole PR scheme because I know that everyone was about to suggest that I do it, seeing as I'm so loved 'round here. But I'm quite saddened to see that you think of yourself as an egotistical dick. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was making a general statement, too. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh good — then everything is generally alright, at least as far as statements go. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck STMs. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'd vote FOR. But if we do end up with a PR "team" we need to have some kind of consensus of what messages we want to put out there. As a lot of users can't even agree what Uncyclopedia is in the first place that may be a tad challenging. Having people who can action responses to, for example, the recent Antipodean School media frenzy would be great though. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

*For* Uncyclopedia really needs a good Public Relations department and Press Relations. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For --Roger The Bum Full sig!

<a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>

CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Against

• Ehh, maybe it's just because I'm twice the age of most of you, but assuming we're talking about the mainstream media here, have any of you considered the effect of having people from the general public visit our site and find things like Rough Gay Wolf Sex, Fuckable Animals, and Jesus Hitler? I have nothing against those articles, mind you, and you can call me an old fuddy-duddy if you want, but this is not something I personally wish to contemplate. Now, if these efforts are confined to the independent/underground media, then fine - but press releases aren't the best way to get accolades from that quarter, even if they might have some effect occasionally. Anyway, sorry if I'm raining on anyone's parade... I'll just go back to my evil Bond-villain compound now, and continue working on my diabolical master plan to destroy the world, etc. etc.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the change wouldnt necessarilly be one of getting more press coverage, but instead having a select group of Uncyclopedians be our PR people rather than the CEO of Wikia, who would talk to the press when they are interested. Uncyclopedians likely know the site better, and have better information on its nature than someone who is not part of the community, much less even edited a page. So this is what is up for the vote, the idea of our own PR guys. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To continue Rangeley's argument, saying ignorant things like giving completely wrong rules for the site will lead to the same problems as, say, talking about how we're a social networking site. Ignorance will lead to more problems than honest, yet positive portrayal. Letting everyone know we're a more-or-less no-holds-barred forum for humor, proper or not, beats a bright, shiny, and child-friendly description of Uncyclopedia would lead to the wrong clientele.--<<>> 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, if you say so... But I'd say our efforts would be better directed at simply trying to impress upon Wikia's CEO (who, in his defense, is new on the job) that word-choice is important to us, and "hosted by" is really the only phrase to describe the relationship that's generally acceptable to us. It's not like we're going to stop the media from talking to Penchina, or force them to talk to us instead - if anything, they're always going to want to talk to a real person regardless, and most of us are completely anonymous. And Bradley, I'm not suggesting we try to portray Uncyc as "child-friendly"; I'm sorry, but you're twisting my words. I'm just saying it would be best to avoid having articles about us start appearing in major dailies or on cable-news channels — but any organized PR effort might naturally tend to want to score the "big points" by making that happen. But hey, I could always be wrong, I guess.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... I wasn't saying you WERE saying that. That would have been really stupid of me, since you referred to three articles that were pretty clearly NOT child-friendly. Sorry if I came across as saying something that was obviously not true. What I was trying to say is that an over-arching image that Wikia will want to portray of its wikis won't fit us very well, and probably never will, as our relationship is still more "alliance" than "partnership."--<<>> 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia belongs to the intergalactic Jimbo-fearing alliance of wiki, along with wookiepedia and wikia, creating the most powerful wiki alliance the galaxy has ever seen! » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Apathetic To This Whole Thing

• Meh. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Meh for me, too. Uncyclopedia is non-profit, not under criminal indictment or strong media scrutiny and has nothing to sell. I don't see what good PR would be.--Procopius 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As a solid writer (you, not me) I am surprised you don't see the benefit in good PR. I know everyone who edits here is already a multibazillionaire and all, but think about this: If a funny, funny, funny article were mentioned in a big, big, big newspaper (magazine, other media), sure we might get a lot of gomers coming in here messing things up. But other people, besides said gomers, read newspapers and magazines, too. Publishers read newspapers. Jon Stewart reads newspapers. President Shrubbish does not read newspapers, but we really don't care about him in this instance. Other television executives may see it. So might Regis Philbin. Sure, they might all just decide to steal your work, repackage it and claim it as their own, but they might also offer you a job as a, eek!, writer. Like I said, I know we are all extremely wealthy already, and would never dream of selling out our art to work for a TV sitcom, but being payed to do something you love sounds pretty tempting, no? Sure, this is but a pipe dream, but stranger things have happened. Like me mentioning Regis Philbin. Where the hell did that come from? -- Imrealized ...hmm? 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have dreams . . .--Procopius 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• What were we talking about?--General Insineratehymn 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Side Discussion regarding the word spawn

It just doesn't sound good, blech, spawn.--Wit (tawk) 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spokesmodel?

(Moved down from above)

• I don't really get a vote, but I'm FOR - for several reasons.

1. I'm the wrong guy to talk to the press about Uncyc. This reporter called and said he wanted to talk to me the SAME day, as he was submitting the article at 4PM, the same day. If I had any of your numbers available, I would have run for the hills

2. Let me clarify the PR offer. Uncyclopedians would get interviewed, we add some "standard text" at the bottom of a press release that say Uncyc is hosted by wikia and explains what else Wikia does. AT THE BOTTOM of the PR release that we would pay for - and I'm happy having you mercilessly edit our text that would be at the bottom till you're happy. Then we would use it every time with no changes

3. If you don't volunteer, I have to keep talking to the press as they call and they go nutty if no one calls then back, how spoiled is that? I agree that hosted by Wikia makes sense, so I can run with that - but I would MUCH rather if you guys want to do it yourselves :-) I want to spend that extra time getting my nose honked by my kids

Gil 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is a silly question - but would anyone like to volunteer to be a spokesperson? I'm still waiting :-) Gil 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I could do it – I’m almost certainly the oldest person here (at 44), my username is completely generic, I look sort of like famous movie actor Michael Douglas, I'm highly erudite, and I'm wealthy enough to afford things like separate phone lines and P.O. boxes to (hopefully) protect myself against cranks, psychos, and (possibly) Mormons. What’s more, it would be an enormous conflict of interest for everyone concerned, and at least three of our admins would leave Uncyclopedia forever if I were chosen! It’s ‘’win-win!’’  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I look like Douglas Fairbanks Jr and I think Some User is a great wit, or something. He'd have my vote, or something. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Really? Which three? That's certainly an incentive. 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I sort of figured Mhaille would be one of the three, so now I'm wondering if he's just trying to mess with my head. Or maybe the other two put him up to it! It's a conspiracy! I'm being framed! Waaaah!  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

Uncyclopedia Stealth Hat enables the wearer to blend in with the flora and fauna, whilst maintaining the wearer's sense of style and dignity.

• For. Hell, I'll even volunteer, so long as I don't have to put any more effort into that than I put into adminning.--<<>> 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You do Adminning now Brad? I'd volunteer, but only if the position comes with a hat. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
    • Bradley would be a fine choice IMO, but if not, would a baseball cap be OK? Or does it have to be a Panama hat or a top hat? I'd suggest a straw boater, but we're not allowed to buy those here in the States, at least not for export.  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • As the doc has proved time and again, nothing says funny and classy like a top hat. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)