Forum:Joke

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Joke

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6227 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

i thought "famine" was a joke. i forgot jokes do not think they are one. i request "famine" to un-ban me for three days, after which i'd like to be banned permanently, failing which, i shall commit enough nuisance to make sure i get banned permanently (which is not an alternative encouraged here -- at least not from a "famine" POV -- so i hope i shall be left with only one option). i'd like these 3 days to wrap up my edits and hang around, in a registered way, to satiate my soul. i won't leave the site, duh! but i wouldn't like to be "registered" anymore. incidentally, how does one delete one's user page without deleting the contributions one has made - QVFD one's user page? please do not question why i wish to unregister. did you ever question why i wished to register? (yup; paradoxes = uncyclopedia = sheer fun).

well, let me just say that i wish to get on with life. i don't want to be an OCD type code-coolie to uncyclopedia and my decision to un-register is full of commonsense -- loads of it infact. feel free to boo and deride (but don't throw any rotten potatoes) - that's what uncyclopedia stands for. - mowgli --220.226.20.196 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Take your three day ban with grace and composure. Get some sun. Read a book. There's no need to make a rash decision; take your time. Uncyc will give you OCD if you let it get to you...if you don't have it already. Take a breather. Wait until you have an idea for a funny page or pic before you come back.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got the number of a great hooker if you really want to unwind. Mind you, that could just highlight how many better things there are in life than uncyclopedia... --Jamtrousers 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

jam, does she deliver? not deliver, damn, i mean "home" deliver? i can pay for the to and fro fare, no problem, and more if required. -- mowgli 20:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick- I meant "hooker[1]" as in the position in a rugby team (shifts eyes) --Jamtrousers 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

People should be allowed to QVFD their own user pages. Mowgli here was blocked for "blanking" - what did he blank? I don't see anything of that nature in his contribs, but maybe I just missed it...? If he didn't blank anything, and otherwise didn't behave in some obnoxious way or other, then he probably deserves an apology — which he won't get under any circumstances whatsoever, of course. It's Wikiland!  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mowgli, I have unbanned you, if you want me to remove any of those autoblocks too I can do that. I think Famine was a bit quick off the mark banning you, known good editors should at least be given a warning first if they are doing something ban-worthy (and this was hardly even that). I hope you reconsider leaving, and don't take famine's block to heart - everyone gets a block from him eventually!
You don't have to be blocked to leave though, if you don't want to stay (at least with that username) you can go or come back any time you want - everyone has a right to disappear. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spang is right. I was banned by Famine for laughing at one of Famine's jokes, back before I was an admin (although, that WAS less than three days...).--<<>> 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, have been blocked by him twice. I plan to celebrate the anniversaries every year by lighting the candles in my Famine shrine. We started a support group, U.B.U.F. (Users Banned on Uncyc by Famine), but couldn't afford a meeting hall that was large enough to seat all of us.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn you edit conflicting me, SU! And you Brad! And you MU, TWICE! Grr!

For the record, Famine blocked mowgli for three days for blanking unused templates before submitting them to QVFD. Several country-specific infobox templates to be precise, and despite having done a lot of work fixing up the single generic country infobox template to replace them (I think, anyway (I've used far too many brackets on this page)). To be honest, I've seen actual vandals blocked for less. Those edits don't show up because the templates in question have now been deleted. If I could apologise on behalf of famine, I would - I somehow doubt that anyone will ever get one out of the man himself :) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he didn't deserve a ban, I'm saying that bans happen, that he should learn from it and some time away from Uncyc to reconsider what sounds, to me, like a rash decision. Also, we didn't deliberately edit conflict you, although that would fit neatly into my master plan for taking over the world.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't give me that, I know you did it on purpose! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

...not since you disconnected the web cam.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it... Maybe we could see it as a simple misunderstanding of procedure, then? He does seem to have done quite a nice job on the generic country template (thanks for that, Mowgli!)... So maybe a three-day ban is really just Famine's way of saying "keep up the good work!"  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If only one were actually able to keep up any kind of work whilst banned... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's 3 days off. Without loss of pay. What more could a user ask for? A week off, with no loss of pay? I guess I could do that, but his work is so good on most of the other pages I think we'd lose out. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

it's nice to hear that quite a few of the above were temporarily banned at some point or the other (by none other than famine). that makes me feel better - after all, discontent is only relative. i have decided not to take any rash decision (you can breathe easy now...i was only trying to SUPPLIES!! earlier i guess). thanks spang for un-banning me. now let me go and fix the remaining templates. -- mowgli 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I was slightly perplexed by the first paragraph, but it seems to have been directed towards me. Having now consumed some coffee and looked into the matter, let me try to explain in clear english for those as confused as I was:

I went to QVFD and found several templates listed. I went to those templates, and found that they had been blanked. The point of QVFD is to say, "Hey, Admins, look at this crap - it needs to be deleted". As the deletors, we then look at the article, make a decision, and then it lives or dies. It is much more difficult to do this when the articles in question have been blanked.

The question arises: was it put on QVFD because it sucked, or because one idiot blanked it, then another listed it without checking the history to see that it had content before the blanking.

One of the top 5 rules that everyone on this site should know is, "Thou shalt not blank shit". It doesn't matter what it is, or whether or not it will soon be deleted. About the only exception to this rule is your personal userspace.

So, Mowgli, as angry as it made you that I banned you, don't blank shit. People who blank shit are vandals, and I ban vandals. If you want something gone, list it on QVFD, and we will look at it and made a determination on it. Just because you don't like it/don't want it anymore, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place, or won't be useful to someone else. For us to decide that, we need to see it. And we can't easily see it if you've blanked it.

Incidently, part of the confusion probably comes because I promptly deleted the handful of templates Mowgli had blanked, as part of my long-running war on templates. Yes, he had listed them to QVFD, and yes, nothing was using them, and yes, three days was probably a bit long. But blanking = bad, and everyone needs to know that. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 14:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

famine, did you ever read the comments i had posted against the stuff i had listed in QVFD? don't try to justify your laziness with two paragraphs of verbal diarrhea. the fact that i had blanked the templates with the message "dumped in QVFD" (and not just plain blanked them) suggested that you go check whether there was a reason proffered for their deletion in QVFD. usually their are QUICK comments posted for QUICK deletion in QUICK vfd - but succinct and self-explanatory enough for even a "..." my comment against each page put in the QVFD list was "redundant. no links." is that so hard to understand for a (good heavens!) template put in QVFD? you could have checked history were you in doubt? you could have checked my history were you in doubt about me? i double checked that the templates had no links BEFORE i put them in QVFD. i was inclined to list Template:Infobox Bhutan too but i balked 'cos it had links -- that proves i wasn't being insincere. -- mowgli 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the adding of those articles to QVFD - your comments were succinct, appropriate, and appreciated. I in no way banned you for adding those articles to QVFD - what I banned you for was the blanking. There is really never a good reason for blanking stuff.

As for my laziness - if I was being lazy, I'd have deleted them without looking at them, and I wouldn't have bothered to figure out who blanked them. Now that you are unbanned, you understand that blanking=bad, and you have gotten some of your emo out with childish insults, can life go on? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... I would conject that whilst blanking is bad, I think it also needs to be put into context; generalising blanking and banning people regardless? If that is the stance you want to take, then go code a bot to do that job; otherwise, use your human ability to discern between the different motives and consider the possibility that in this instance, recommending that QVFD'ing will suffice on the user's talk-page is enough. I think the fact that this thread even Exists is enough to point out that clearly a degree of discretion is necessary in these matters as opposed to blanket-banning.

However, on the flipside; mowgli; there's no need to get in a huff and have a whine just because you got banned, and opt for the extremist measure of getting uppity and leaving, so I suggest both of you take the time to rationalise and perhaps both compromise... I think that would show some growth, and allow everyone to carry on like one big happy family... aww... :P --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

it's been a while. i did regret my rashness the next day, especially 'cos i had done it before, elsewhere, and especially 'cos it's a vice, the uppitiness vice, that i am still endeavouring hard to get rid of. i should have listened to modusoperandi who was the first to respond and his message made sense the next day when i read it again. i also realized that i had been unbanned - which went to suggest that i had wrongly imagined that the whole of uncyclopedia (some 400 gigabytes of it) had come down on me in one heave. then i had been banned for only 3 days? more famous uncyclopedians had been banned before for longer periods. i did not wait to appreciate all this. people are just plain silly sometimes. and yeah, famine is a good guy. i can hear him mumble a sarcastic "yeah right" as he reads this but he's still a good guy. -- mowgli 06:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mowgli, please don't leave. However, had you glanced at all the other pages on QVFD ever you would have realized that we, the Uncyclopedia community, don't blank pages to let people know they are on QVFD, because we, the Uncyclopedia community, are lazy, and to look back in the history takes effort, and mouse clicks. So yah, maybe before you do something as drastic as blanking, you should conform to the practises which have been active and effective since they were created. --The Zombiebaron 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is Famine. To me, he really comes across as aggressive, hostile, and mean spirited. By treating every little violation of the rules as the work of a malicious vandal- not to mention banning for things that aren't in violation of any rule- he helps to create an atmosphere of hostility which undermines Uncyclopedia far more than a couple of vandals ever could. I mean, you can undo a vandal's work in a second. The kind of bad blood that acting like a dick creates (and that is what the issue here is, in my opinion) does long-term damage. He's out of control, he's arbitrary and unfair in the use of his priveleges, and the other admins need to do something. This site lives or dies because of the efforts of the users; if they're not treated decently they can find other places to spend their time. It seems to me that the number of good new articles has gone down substantially over the past few months and I suspect this kind of thing is one part of that.InfiniteMonkey 05:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

no there is no doubt that i have realized that blanking = bad. there is no justification for my blanking. i've learnt it the hard way. but, yes, i do think i should have been warned instead but my quick un-banning was humbling enough and unprecedented (i have not been in such a forum before -- had i been through one before, i would not have been here. it's very hard for people to revert decisions and in moments of crisis, an entire administration suddenly turns into a monolithic one; people are always slave to something or the other: that's why i never protested). ergo, i do feel apologetic for having blanked the way i did - but, if there's something i can qualify this with...hmm, don't make the "you are banned" message (banning is humiliating, always) so sarcastic and unfriendly (you might want to re-read it -- actually it should be a humour free zone) 'cos it could turn pranksters into haters, or worse, turn them to Encyclopedia dramatica (they wouldn't hang around there for long but they'd still hate us anyways). -- mowgli 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, the "you are banned" message is a bit blunt. It's probably that way because 99% percent of the people who see it are horrible, childish, shitheads who think it's funny to anonymously mangle a wiki. It's the modern equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of poo at someone's doorstep.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I acctaully enjoy getting funny messages for being banned, and if in some kind of mixed up futur I am able to ban people here, I would strive to keep them laughing during their ban, and not crying/smashing/vandalizing wikipedia. I salute all admins who create and use funny ban messages. --The Zombiebaron 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another helpful suggestion from S.U.

ZB, you might be referring to the specific edit summary used by the blocking admin... I think Mowgli is referring to the actual system message, which quite frankly is a little sarcastic. If anyone is open to suggestions, maybe we could use the parsing functions to tailor the message, based on whether the user is an AnonIP as opposed to someone registered? And maybe make the one for registered users a little more, I dunno, sympathetic? Obviously it would be fabulous if everyone here was as thick-skinned as an elephant, but that's probably asking too much, I expect.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A message that varied based on the length of the ban, or some similar metric, would be a good idea...this way the 2 hour bans for "questioning the voting preferences of an admin" would get a happy message telling them that Santa will be a bit late this year, while the 3 month bans for buffoonery on an industrial scale would get a message that would make bad people cry. Bad, bad people.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be better... Some sort of "message-severity rating" would be almost ideal in fact, but I'm not sure that's technically feasible with the current parsing functions. MediaWiki:Blockedtext is really just a page like any other, and the parser assembling that page knows whether or not the user is logged in or not, and if logged in, whether or not a user page exists. But that's about it, AFAIK. The message could conceivably include/"transclude" the contents of a subpage under the user's userpage (i.e., User:Some user/Blockedtext), but then the rest of the world would be able to see the message, as well as edit it (unless protected)... That might be inadvisable. Interesting problem, actually!  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

i think registered users (or maybe non newly registered ones or "established" ones as wikipedia distinguishes - i don't know how they do this) should a get a different message. if a person has gone out of his his/her way to register, then chances are good that he/she has erred out of ignorance (but will get a ban nevertheless, albeit with a sensible message). when i first joined, i tried adding an image to silence and would find it mysteriously gone the next day. i kept adding it and tompkins kept deleting it. i had no clue as to who kept removing my image and this went on for three days. i thought the server was playing tricks with me until tompkins left me a talk message. i was almost ready for a ban right there but such a sarcastic message with the ban would have made me feel like shit (a vandal would have felt vindicated by the message on the other hand and had a good laugh!). in other words, i seriously think we should do this; for the sake of wikilove -- mowgli 05:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the ban text on the grounds of emo-pleasing. We're supposed to be a humour website, and it's pretty funny. By all means encourage admins to put in a decent explanation as to why they did it, but writing a touchy-feely note to the banned saying we're sorry they were pricks and we'd like to hold their hand seems a bit much. 07:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! no you don't necessarily have to write a touchy-feely note; all you got to do is get rid of the sarcasm and stick to the point. for e.g. you were banned for violating rules and this is what you can do... some of the people being banned may be ignorant newbies (or no-longer-newbies but ignorant nevertheless). lemme post two imgs from wikipedia (who seem to understand this subject better than us). from Wikipedia:Project:Please do not bite the newcomers -

Don't bite the newcomers!

Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive.

-- mowgli 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer to think of our n00b policy as being more like this...

23:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but it's not as though hoverbaby is in any real danger from the fossil. I mean, c'mon! It's hoverbaby!--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said hoverbaby is the n00b... that picture could be interpreted as: noob who thinks he's a baby-eating fossil takes on admin-masquerading-as-hoverbaby. Baby proceeds to lay smackdown on unsuspecting fossil. -- Soul101 ~_MA^REPENT! 10:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Now you all are just trying to confuse me. It's a n00b swimming at the deep end of a pool and the lights to the hotel are off. The n00bs life force is what is lighting up the picture. As the n00b drowns he is called to the depth of the deep end of the pool by the Titans. 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)