Forum:Top10 issues

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Top10 issues

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6301 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hmm... Well, I've closed the Uncyclopedia:Top10 06 voting to try to narrow down the list, and discovered that there are a lot of votes that are um... suspect. Users that only voted for one article, IPs that did the same, stuff like that. So I was thinking of making a list of the users that fit this criteria to do a checkuser on. Well, then THAT list got huge, and I asked for help from Angela. She suggested we only count votes from users with 50 or more edits by the time they voted. I asked Codeine if he thought that was a good idea, and he suggested I take it here. Does that seem like an effective deterrent against sockpuppeteering to everyone?

Sounds fine to me. --General Insineratehymn 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its the only way. I know Tompkins removed a lot of suspect voting and issued one ban. I'm FOR the proposition. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Perhaps an even simpler solution would be to just throw out the votes of users who did not vote for my articles. Or do this. Whichever is fine. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• For.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• For. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I start pulling out the non-contributors from the lists and use the scores before pulling out votes as a tiebreaker (on the off chance that some of the votes WERE legit). ;)--<<>> 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Captain Obvious is obviously not the best article of 2006. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is up there in the top 10. I can't decide what ought be #1... --User:Nintendorulez 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Uncyclopedia is the worst? --General Insineratehymn 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't decide between Uncyclopedia is the worst, Do NOT click any links!, Fisher Price, Water Polo and DRVHSNDOCBIVDSGFEHWFWCUDDBOSNLONI... --User:Nintendorulez 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Go with Water Polo with sharks! --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• For. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• For, I've lost interest...Capt Obvious getting so many votes killed my inner child, leaving me all numb and dead inside. And moist. Also there's a smell coming from in there that's making me woozy.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• I Approve This Message, 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The list has been edited and will be featured one at a time on the main page counting up from 10 to 1. The page for the Top10 articles of 06 is here (with some honorable mentions thrown in).--<<>> 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• for, blatantly. i noticed as well, a lot of votes from users i'd never heard of before - jack mort | cunt | talk - 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remember, though, many of those could be the result of us linking to the voting page from the main page. That's bound to result in a lot more votes from unknown users who might not normally take the trouble to navigate to other voting pages more experienced users see all the time. —rc (t) 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the day Fisher Price: A Retrospective gets featured...

We should blank the entire Main Page and just leave the text "go eat shit fuckers" and have it link to the article. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. I vote For.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For they'll never know what hit them. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Algorithm 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And face the inevitable wave of offended puritans? Oh, fine. —rc (t) 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Make this happen, pretty please with sugar ontop! --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but given how many people took the uncyc 2.0 skin seriously I reckon there'd be quite a bit of complaint from people unfamiliar with Fisher Price... --Sir Jam 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the fallout will probably be amusing to witness. For. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For, screw the complainers. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. When you do this, put a period at the end of the sentence that links to the main page.--<<>> 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

haha, period - jack mort | cunt | talk - 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

lol —Braydie at 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)