Forum:The Nerve of Some People

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Nerve of Some People

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6469 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Have a toasted marshmallow, you'll feel better

Wow! I know I shouldn't care about this Morton devonshire thing, but it's like he's deliberately dissing me (and by extension IMHO, us) on this attribution issue because he thinks he can. If someone (Orion?) could please leave a note for this dude here, I'd appreciate it - I don't have an account on Wikipedia, I never have, and I certainly don't intend to start now, particularly not for something like this. (Note: to better understand the "see above" reference below, follow the "here" link above.)

"Dear Mr. devonshire:

I'm the author of the Uncyclopedia article Finding Your Inner Sock Puppet. First of all, let me state that the account User:Some Other User is not me. (I myself don't have an account on Wikipedia, and would rather not expose my IP address, which is why I've asked a third party to post this for me.) Second, I'm gratified that you appreciated the article enough to copy it; it shows you have excellent taste!

All I wish to say is that regardless of where it's posted, the article requires attribution to Uncyclopedia under the CCSAL. I don't think there's any nice way of saying it: Your recent removal of the attribution is a clear violation of that license. Nobody minds your copying the article as long as the attribution is made, and maintained, until the article is no longer recognizably similar to the original.

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not monitoring your actions on an ongoing basis. I don't want you to feel that you're being "wikistalked," since I know what that's like (see above!), and I don't especially wish to stoop to the level of those would do such things. I'm just asking you to please adhere to the license. Nobody at Uncyclopedia cares about Wikipedia's internal rules any more than we care about our own, but since we no longer exist on Google, we do care about outside attributions — even (perhaps even especially) in Wikipedia user pages. This sort of thing sets a bad precedent, to say the least. So yes, some of this stuff is important.

Thanks and God bless,

Some user @ Uncyclopedia"

 c • > • cunwapquc? 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did a little research on this, and it appears that he removed the citation because of Wikipedia's (unbelievably stupid) "no fair use except in name space" rule. The Uncyclopedia logo was removed from his citation box and he had to decide to claim it as his own, or take it off his userpage before someone else took it down. As such, he seems to have chosen to claim ownership of the material, and this, I think, should be pursued by Uncyclopedians with Wikipedia connections as a violation of our copyrights. If RC's logo can't be used at Wikipedia WITH HIS PERMISSION, then some guy with no permission sure as Hell can't post one of our articles on his namespace. What do you guys think?--<<>> 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't blame them, they don't have the (weak) umbrella of parody ^_^. A certain user here was amazed that "with my permission" on Wikipedia = QVFD when asking about their policies. Anywho, bugged someone in the know. See quote below. --Splaka 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of ass-covering at WP, incidentally; though some think it's stupid our policy regarding unfree images in userspace is stricter than the law just because it saves us a lot of trouble (arguing with thousands of users over whether their use is *really* fair or not != fun, and people aren't donating to have all their money go to legal fees :-P). As for the article, yeah, just not kosher; let me know if it pops up again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

“It will be dealt with!”

~ Wikipedia:Special:Listusers/sysop on An Administrator who wishes to remain anonymous

Mindspillage has dealt with it - it's now a link to the article. -- sannse (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks, Mindspillage! I just hope we all didn't come off as overly officious - I think the guy's heart was in the right place. Lots of people think IP licensing of any kind is just short of pure evil, but being a commercial SW developer myself, I guess I get carried away over it sometimes. Anyway, thanks again, and you have my permission under the CCSAL to delete this forum if you'd rather not keep it around.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh! No problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help me tweak the ego of Wikipedia

I apologize, I'm not trying to "diss" anybody. When somebody asked me to place the attribution, I did it. Then somebody said I couldn't display the attribution images, so I deleted it. I feel like I'm squeezed in the middle of an Uncyclopedia/Wikipedia/Google war -- sorry, but that's not my fight. I understand intellectual property, and the importance of protecting an author's work -- but given the MontyPythonesque intent of Uncyclopedia, I don't understand why you would care about attribution. Honestly, I am shocked, and more than a little disappointed, that you are making such a big deal of this -- I had understood that Uncyclopedia was a fun place, built for the purpose of making fun of those Jackasses and their silly pedantic selves over at Wikipedia -- am I missing something? Like you, I think Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously, so I want to make a little fun of it. Will you help me, dear authors, to lampoon those self-important folks over there? Also, if you have a problem with me, please come talk to me on my Wikipedia user talk page -- I'm easy to get along with. If you leave a message here, I'll never see it. I plead for your grace and forgiveness. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT! You DARE, sir, to suggest that Uncyclopedians are not self-important dickheads? Now then my good man! I can only speak write for myself, but I INSIST that I am indeed a SELF IMPORTANT DICKHEAD OF THE FIRST WATER! And if you don't believe me, I will prove it by peeing out my nose. Only a dickhead can do that. Well, a dickhead or Henry James. I've heard tell that Gabriel Garcia Marquez can poop from both ears, but that's not something a real dickhead would do...more like a butthead if you ask me. But in all siriusness, hope your apology is accepted. You seem like a fine chap. Want to, er, go to the bath-house with me and some of the "boys"....? ----OEJ 21:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize again, this time for my oversight. Yes, of course, YOU ARE A BUNCH OF SELF-IMPORTANT DICKHEADS. Forgive me for this oversight. To make up for it, I will trump it, and say that ALL OF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN A MAGNIFICENT WORK OF SELF-MASTURBATORY FICTION. There, does that work? Do you feel better now?  : ) Morton devonshire 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Sure, but I just chimed in because I have neither clout nor breechclout on Uncyc. Over and out. ----OEJ 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now he flatters us with his flowery language......its too late, the damage has already being done. We all cry.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Again, I am remiss -- should've tried harder. Please believe me when I say that UNCYCLOPEDIANS HAVE BIGGER PENI/VAGINAE THAN WIKIPEDIANS. Pretty please, I really mean it this time.  : ) Morton devonshire 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I must say that I take umbrage at these recent comments. Personally, I believe that I am THE FIGURE STANDING OVER IN THE CORNER DOODLING ON THE POST-IT NOTES OF FUTILITY IN A MAGNIFICENT WORK OF SELF-MASTURBATORY FICTION. But nobody listens.--Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I agree that it's funny how, no matter what the community, no matter what the subject, there will always be anarchists and fascists. Yes, it's quite humorous that so many take being funny so seriously, but, conversely, it is also quite funny that so many take being serious as always being funny. Furthermore, we must strive to keep all parties happy at all times using any means necessesary. That is to say, you're welcome to camp out here and link to our stuff from wikipedia if you want. In fact, it's MANDATORY! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!--<<>> 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Most uncyclopedians actually like Wikipedia and even edit it. We just like uncyclopedia more. The two wikis serve different pourposes, but they complement each other, they are like two sides of the same coin. By mocking them, we are also mocking ourselves. It's true that some wikipedians lack the ability to mock themselves, but in general, WP is a great site. So if you are looking for people to go against WP in anyway I don't think you are looking at the right place. BTW, Brad, I find your comment very interesting.--Rataube 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe him! He's trying to lure you in and entrap you, so that you'll say something that will get you banned from both sites! Remember, the walls have eyes! Trust no one! Nothing is as it seems! Blah blah blah, yada yada yada!  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good interesting, or bad interesting?--<<>> 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good interesting.--Rataube 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, the potatoes have eyes! Trust no one! Nothing is as it seems! Blah blah blah, yada yada yada! --Carlb 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I forgive you

Thanks for dropping by and clearing that up, Morton! Don't worry, all is forgiven, everyone can go back to their homes now, nothing to see here...

But now, when you say you want to lampoon Wikipedia, what do you mean exactly? IOW, do you want to do this in a playful, nose-tweaking sort of way, or more of a hurtful, Molotov-cocktail-up-the-gazoo sort of way? Is there any particular aspect of Wikipedia that you wish to lampoon? Presumably you've already seen much of what's in Template:Unpsychlopedia and Template:Wiki, as well as the Wikipedia article itself. (Right now I'm sort-of working on Daniel Brandt, except that's now a redirect to Britney Spears for some no-doubt cabal-related reason, so it seems matters are being taken out of my hands at the moment.) Personally, I'd prefer not to take potshots at specific users unless I suspect they've taken potshots at me, and frankly, at the moment I'm under a bit of a "cloud," you might say. Still, I'll help in any way I can, though it does help to carefully choose your targets, rather than just fire away indiscriminately.

Long story short, careful choice of targets worked pretty well for me - I actually managed to convince them that I'm one of their most hated enemies ever, without even trying! It's like I didn't even have to do anything special, other than live in Iowa and write Uncyclopedia articles about wiki-derived mental disorders and sock puppets! Pretty cool, huh? I sure thought so.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - And by the way, do women really want to have big vaginas?

I purposely don't edit over at the Daniel Brandt spot, because I think those folks have a Paul Bunyon sized axe to grind -- they've really got it in for that guy, and won't leave him alone. Think frenzied shark attack. Same stuff over at Joe Scarborough -- they are so obsessively angry over there that they even posted the names of his children. Yikes! Morton devonshire 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You think that's bad, you should check out the Talk page for the Marshmallow article. People hurling accusations around, accusing each other of being "Nazis," comparisons to abortion, the whole nine yards and then some. "Have a toasted marshmallow," indeed! "Have a flaming marshmallow" is more like it! At least here at Uncyclopedia, we only get into conflict over important things, like... you know, websites that give away free iPods and stuff like that.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And how to spell the sound of a cymbal crash. Don't forget that. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there's no extensive record of the great cymbal crash flamewar depresses me. That was the funniest hour of people at each other's throats I've ever seen.--<<>> 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First time I've heard of it. Besides, doesn't everyone know that the sound of a cymbal crash is spelled "R-O-L-A-I-D-S"?  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)