Forum:Uncyclopedia has far too many users

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Uncyclopedia has far too many users

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4807 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

... And Uncyclopedia is collapsing under the strain.

This site has been troubled for two years now, with many reasons offered as to why that is. I think we have been barking up the wrong trees. I believe the crux of the problem is that Uncyclopedia is overpopulated. This has been overlooked for so long I am in fact ashamed to call myself an Egyptian.

I believe we should convince new members to keep well away from Uncyclopedia. We are full. All welcome templates should be replaced with kind messages explaining why we can't afford to take on many more than 10 active users per day, why we cannot simply pamper to every Tom, Dick and Harry that strolls in. We need to keep these new users out for good. I propose the following additional measures:

1. The template at the top of the mainpage be replaced with a sign, of which the caption runs "Fuck off, we're full."
2. Disparaging messages sent via bot to the new user's talkpage each time s/he makes an edit. I suggest: "You're the tumour that is killing Uncyc" "You've only ever taken up space all your life" "Piss off"
3. General unwelcome attitude from current users. In short, only serve the local people

Now piss off. --nachlader 05:34, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Nachlader, have I mentioned lately how much I adore you? *huggle* 1234 ~ 08:27, 10 December, 2010

I couldn't agree more. Damn immigrants, let's deport them all back to Islamistan or wherever they're from. --Black Flamingo 10:47, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

 Against. Let new users in! Perhaps two or three a day. Spıke ¬ 11:59 10-Dec-10

What the fuck is wrong with you man? Since when the fuck do websites complain about too many people. This isn't China. Overpopulation is not our problem, and therefore I disagree with your beliefs. And furthermore, about half of the current users here are lazy and don't get on much or get banned. Besides, I love new users for 3 reasons: 1) they make me smile, 2) many of them have good ideas (minus the vandals) and 3) I get tired of seeing the same ugly faces everyday here.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 22:58, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

That is quite incorrect, you appear to be missing the point. If Google are prepared to lay off 2,500 of their employees, then Uncyclopeda can be prepared to make a stand for itself and declare "no, just no. This is enough and I won't take anymore." I personally don't see the "laziness" of the current users as a problem, but I do see the rather depressing influx of new users an impediment on the progress of Uncyclopedia. Most new users are about as funny as inoperable cancer, VERY few of them even know a decent idea and the status quo of Uncyc users are the most charming crop I have ever seen before. You seem to be bent on the self-destruction of this site. --nachlader 23:21, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

I do agree and disagree with you on the above statement. Some new users are very incompetent and stupid, yet there are some who could be future Unyclopedian of the Year and even a future admin (even though we have enough at the moment) and turning these special users down would be pretty shameful when they create a parody site thats better than us because we refused them. But the main problem that I have is that this is a wiki, and has the statement, "the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If we prevent new users from joining this site, that would ruin the purpose of being a wiki in the first place. Uncyclopedia should be a place where people can enjoy reading funny articles and using there creativity skills (if they have any) to make humerous articles on there own, and taking away the latter would be a Nazi thing to do. Also, I'm not bent on the self-destruction of this site, only to become it's "Eternal Dictator" for many generations to come.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 23:47, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

You have taken the words right out of my mouth, all new users are nothing short of incongruent with the Uncyclopedic ideal that we promote here and we certainly don't need any more admins than we do. I personally believe that the motto "anyone can edit" is a sham. No one is truly capable of such a free decision in life and we may as well deny new people from taking up fully-fledged user status to cement their own position on the site. It is a massive waste that we give such privileges to people who are clearly incapable of free fluidity of their own direct influence and dextrous command. I am calling Godwin's Law on your comparison to Nazism. Don't be absurd. --nachlader 23:59, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

 Quit indenting! Anyone can edit? Let me tell you, I've been watching Special:RecentChanges all afternoon--something that, like sausages and laws, we all benefit from but you're better off not watching it be made--and I can assure you that Anons cannot edit. And Godwin's Law? I raise you Occam's Law, Gresham's Law ("Bad editors drive out good"), and the law of unintended constitutions. Spıke ¬ 01:22 12-Dec-10 as corrected by Mn-z

Instead of preventing new users from joining, we should instead prevent all the new users who are idiots and keep the good ones who show signs of actual humor. Most new users here are idiots so just getting rid of them who help with this so called overpopulation you are telling us about.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 18:23, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've got a scone and I'm going to eat it. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. 1234 ~ 18:25, 12 December, 2010

It didn't take as long to eat as I thought. Not the most substantial of scones - sure - but the quality was fine. I'd do that again, I really would. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:30, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm also hungry. 1234 ~ 18:33, 12 December, 2010

I'm not as hungry as I was. I've just had a scone. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:35, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get a scone. 1234 ~ 19:35, 12 December, 2010

BOOBS! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:27, 12 December 2010

I once saw a naked woman in a book about science. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:28, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

This is a really big bowl of popcorn. 1234 ~ 22:35, 12 December, 2010

I'm afraid you failed at properly parodying the recent flood of bad suggestions. While the idea of "too many users" does properly parody the non-existent "problems" many are attempting to remedy, your proposed solution would in fact deal with your satirically proposed "problem" reasonably well. However, if you'll read the recent bad suggestions, you'll noticed that their propose "solutions" that will in fact generally exasperate the "problem" they attempt to correct. While you attempt at parody is appreciated, its failure to properly mock a major aspect of its subject causes it to fall fair short of its potential. I suggest you correct this by drawing uncyclo-tan pregnant and yelling "BUTT POOP!!!!" at random strangers. --Mn-z 03:11, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

What in the hell are you on?

A wiki subsists on the users who contribute on it, and Uncyclopedia is no different. Do you see any of the rest of us bitching about the new users coming in? If we actually want to keep crap off our site, we should get to nominate several active users who would make good admins. By raising the admin count, we have a smaller filter to better keep those unfunny asshole vandals off the site. Anyone agree? --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 22:46, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't work. A wiki is like a ship; and when a ship gets too full it starts to sink. Uncyclopedia is overcrowded and taking on water and we don't have enough planks to walk people off. So let's take up the anchor and leave new users on the shore. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Or, just maybe, we could use the Mirror Uncyc to house some users. Using your terminology, "We have another ship, why don't we use it?" --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 22:54, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with having multiple ships is maintenance costs. One of the ships will undoubtedly become rusty and provide uninspiring cuisine. Better to have one ship with Lionel Richie entertaining, than two with Bobby Davro if you get my meaning. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:57, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

And not only do we have way too many users, but the damn thing is almost full. So we should be discussing how many articles to pick at random and just drop, in hopes that it would lighten the load and give the servers maybe a few months more of life. In fact. . ./runs to edit article Aleister 23:00 12 12

The only way this has really been done before anywhere is just picking a letter from the alphabet and deleting every article that begins with it. This kind of action would maybe allow limited new users? mAttlobster. (hello) 23:04, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Or we could increase the strictness of ICU, VFD, or QVFD. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 23:06, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely - but that would be in addition to immediate action. From a brief look through, 'f' seems like it could be a good candidate for the article chopping process. mAttlobster. (hello) 23:08, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe give all the new users about 1,000 old articles to edit, and then as they're working we can move all these articles and users to an island server, change its name, and isolate them. They may not notice for a year or so, and by that time Uncyclopedia will be so far away in time/space that they will never find it. Aleister 23:42 12 12

Vote: Delete all articles whose title begins with the letter 'f'

 For. May seem a little drastic but would cure the immediate problem. mAttlobster. (hello) 23:25, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

 Against. I like f's, especially if you add uck at the end. Instead, let's get rid of all the articles that start with the word "Homo" as I think they are a pile of shit--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 23:35, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just get rid of everything. 1234 ~ 01:14, 13 December, 2010

Gay--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 03:12, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'm glad you noticed. *bats eyelashes and prances off* 1234 ~ 03:18, 13 December, 2010

Anytime.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 03:20, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Assume all new users are sockpuppets

 For. Because "it would be fun" for those of us who aren't admins to guess who they are sockpuppets of, and react accordingly. Plus the admins could have fun managing the resulting chaos. Besides, n00bs are tasty, especially in a roast. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 04:05, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Don't we do that already? I'm Hyperbole, by the way. 1234 ~ 04:33, 13 December, 2010

Whoever put that in is just jeolous because your not as awesome as us usefrs are. Moron, sheesh. lol--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 04:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

trolls be trolling

seriously though just ban all anons - they can't write for crap.

Whoops! Maybe you were looking for Crap?

I have nothing to contribute but I still want to make a new header

--Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 07:53, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. 1234 ~ 20:34, 14 December 2010

It's a good header, and it's a GOAL! mAttlobster. (hello) 21:19, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually

Uncyclopedia has a lack of lacking new users. – Preceding unsigned comment added by FishDish (talk • contribs)

You should still sign your posts. Four tildas, mon. 1234 ~ 03:53, 17 December 2010