Forum:Stop the self projection or however it's called...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Stop the self projection or however it's called...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4644 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I don't mean you're trying to get your self popular to people who are not related to uncyclopedia. I mean you all want to make every user here known to these people. Our job is to make people laugh and not learn about all the users who made them laugh. It's like making a nice stadium. People enjoy coming in and watching matches there or something but just a few people know who built it. Also, when people who are not related to uncyclopedia see articles like Fuck Chiefjustice wonder "who is this guy, why did they make an article about him, and why is insulting a man like that, funny?" (I don't say you insulted him but this is how many people who don't know chief or any other user, think) and finding these answers by your self is really exhausting cause you have to be part of Uncyclopedia to understand the joke. So, Uncyclopedia is being transformed to a close society where only users understand the jokes. And that;s not good. Yeah. Bye. --Mimo&maxus 05:48, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

also please delete my article UnBooks: Diary of an uncyclopedia user cause it's the kind of article I've been talking about. --Mimo&maxus 05:50, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

You mean the self-referential humor? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:59 Jul 26, 2011

Whatever. We all know I'm not good at english. --Mimo&maxus 06:02, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did not. I just wanted to clarify what you meant. Anyway, very few of our articles are self-referential articles. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:04 Jul 26, 2011

Except maybe users will want to find out who ChiefjusticeDS is and in the process of trying to find out they'll stumble across VFH or the Village Dump or something and see part of the community the wouldn't have seen before. I know that I personally found most of the behind the scenes stuff at Uncyclopedia when there was a reskin one day and I wanted to find out what the fuck was happening. -- The Zombiebaron 06:06, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Skullthumper: There will be more articles like that cause when I was active here, people like Lollipo, Cat and some other new users used to make articles with self-referential humor. I hope things have changed but we always must be cautious. --Mimo&maxus 06:10, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

New users are always creating self-referential articles, typically because they can't think of anything to write about. It's a stage some people have to get past, but everyone does eventually. Except possibly for UNmarine777, I'm still waiting for him to grow out of it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:14 Jul 26, 2011

You can't call Lollipop and cat "new" users anymore. If people keep making self-referential articles this will end in some kind of ...eh... fashion and all the new users will continue making this kind of articles more often. --Mimo&maxus 06:18, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Every time a user writes a self referential article, Uncyclopedia's terminal cancer spreads to a new part of its body. I believe the last self referential article (was it mine?) made the cancer spread to the brain. The next time lollipop writes a self referential article (and Lyrithya does a touch up or two) I think the cancer will spread to Uncyclopedias breasts and testicles which will deffinately mean the end of this website as we know it. Mimo....your warning has come too late :( --ShabiDOO 06:54, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can still call them new users, yeah. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 03:18, Wednesday 27 July 2011 -

If someone makes a shit article, it's shit. Shit gets flushed. There's good self-reference and there's bad. If it's bad, put a {{FFW}} on it. It's that time of the year. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 12:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

a not particularly subtle reference to something

Instead of writing vanity articles, how about being a sexual deviant in the forums to get attention? --Mn-z 01:57, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know a guy that does that. Hmm, if only I could remember his name. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:46, 28 July 2011

Is it everyone? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:00, 31 July 2011

Folks, there is a difference between self-referential humour and an in-joke. Fuck ChiefjusticeDS is an in-joke. UnNews:You Are Reading This Headline; About To Click On It is self-referential. Why?:Do a Pee Review has both in it. Schamschi, 18:59, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really tempted to write a big self-promotional article about my ongoing trip to Mars...--Coronium the Marstronaut 11:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

The one and only solition

To deal with this serious problem we should have a "Self Projection Month" where we only feature articles that are written by old timers, strictly about the website and the things that go on behind the scenes. The more a casual visitor (all 10 of them) is totaly confused by the article, the more it should be featured. Extra points go to those who: Insult admins, talk about drama (or better yet create drama in the article itself), about users who have left, aaaaaaaaa, grues and other uninteresting yet total inside stuff. Who's with me? --ShabiDOO 15:25, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I have always been against self-regarding articles and inside jokes on this website (what I call 'navelism') getting featured. The more we talk about ourselves, the more others not in the loop will edge away and make hand signals and asking nurse!.can you get this patient's medication QUICKLY... --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:44, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I think that, if these insider-articles really need to exist, they should be in a separate namespace. There they could also be featured like articles from other namespaces (if people really need that much self-affirmation), for instance Why?'s and HowTo's are also featured in their own namespace, and they wouldn't pollute mainspace. Schamschi, 21:12, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

"Solition"? Is that some kind of self-referential Uncyclopedia-only inside joke? Good God, man, are you trying to drive new users away?! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:32, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Sir Operandi, I was waiting for you to post here. So this means that you are still traumatized from the vanity of two of November 2010's top three articles? Schamschi, 22:46, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yes...you are both right...the 2 new visitors a day will read these self referential articles...and run away instead of join uncyclopedia and become valued contributors. When will the insanity stop!?!?!?! --ShabiDOO 23:32, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we're doing the public a favour, then. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:54, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't generally vote for vanity pages. Unless they're about me. Then it's okay. I'm really quite awesome. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:54, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

So I'm sitting In my room, thinking about my life...

go to hell. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 11:56, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

German pumpernickel bread

I was just thinking today that having a few slices of Parma ham and a bit of Swiss cheese (maybe edam) ontop of German pumpernickel is a great and affordable way to pack a snack when you are flying. Its a nice thing to eat while wondering what would happen if some fox decided to sit next to you and flirt with you...or if it was the last thing to eat before your plane colides with another one in mid air and you shower down into the sea allong with the pumpernickel. Curious! --ShabiDOO 00:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)