Forum:We should have a vandalize wikipedia day
it would be a day wher everyone would vandaliz it – Preceding unsigned comment added by B0n b0ns (talk • contribs)
- Err, no. We don't hate Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Dramatica, on the other hand...
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You should have put a more accurate title, I was totally expecting something different. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:41, 23 Mar 2007
- We shuld have a vandaliz Uncyclepedai day - they SUCK! Opps, ment to post this on ED!! Lulz. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Is it funny when vandals strike Uncyc? Then why would it be funny to do it to Wikipedia? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No but I vote for a vandalize Encyclopedia Dramatica.Scott 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, see, it would only be funny if we spent a day researching and contributed to Wikipedia using only solid, non-contestable research. Vandalizing them is so cliche.<<
>> 13:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, we would overload their server by contributing the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth? They won't be able to see it coming! Mwhahahahaha!
Dexter111344 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Get lost, troll. -- 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) It seems like fun, but we are too lazy to deal with the hangover. Therefore, I cannot support such an idea. Happy Weasel 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
but there has been a vandalize wikipedia day before, like a few months agoB0n b0ns 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)b0n b0ns
Are you not lazy enough to fix up afterwards? Thought so. Happy Weasel 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Good idea. 151.196.183.248 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We make lighthearted jokes about Wikipedia, but we do not hate it. How about "NOOOOOOOOO!"? —Another Pongo Flame Sandbox ☭ 10:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
We should replace their articles with our articles!--USERNAME 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Two problems with a vandalize ED Day: First, we'll all need ED accounts, which is evil as it is. The bad part, though, is the fact that no one can even become a new member anymore. Perhaps they're dying off from their own mediocrity?--Wondernerd2 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have to ask the Sysops to make an account for you now, unless you have sleepers left over. 70.59.139.16 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about a blank wikipedia's Cabal page day? --Leatherboundbooks 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no Wikipedia cabal. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Mandatory vote
- nom --
03:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC) - Vote. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:15, 24 Mar 2007
- Transparently toothless legal threat involving the DMCA by someone whose only knowledge of the legal system is that apparently people can sue other people when they're unhappy with them.<<
>> 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
WHICH IS FINE BY ME Happy Weasel 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against - I am a Wikipedian, and Wikipedia is my primary source of reference. —Another Pongo Flame Sandbox ☭ 10:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- For - I actually like Wikipedia, but I've decided to vote for just for shits and giggles. Besides, adding a troll brings the tally back to zero, a nice round number! --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I say against, but my stupid alter ego above says 4. lulz, so it evens out to 0 again. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- against Just say no to vandalism. --Hrodulf 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against trolls. Except that one under the bridge. He kicks ass. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- FOR - Lord Fluffy is angered by this dicrimination against trolls. Just because they're very large, dirty, odoriferous, stupid and bad-tempered doesn't mean that we should hate them. I, in fact, have several in my army. Better than grues for daytime surface combat. Ye racists ought to be ashamed of thyselves. --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- FOR - Must create BALANCE!!! --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- FOR If enough people are willing to take responsibility for it, my concerns are abated and my conscience is clear. Happy Weasel 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against per Lord Fluffy's previous comment. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I vote twice, too? or does rank come its privledges?Happy Weasel 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can only vote twice (and only in this poll) if it makes the score more like zero. So at the moment, no. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I vote to (repeatedly) vandalise the
uncyclopediaED page onEDuncyclopedia. First, it's shit, and second, it's retarded. It sucks so much it could suck a buffalo through a garden hose. (Gir. 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)) - For and Against ~
00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) - Forgainst
Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC) - Strong, Impassioned Against. Troll activities should never be Uncyclopedia-sponsored. If we happen to have troll users, fine. So be it. But if we encourage, or endorse, or anything, troll activities, then we lose our integrity as a website that is based on quasi-intelligent satire, and that integrity is something very important. Also, for the record, Uncyclopedia is far closer to Wikipedia than it is to ED, and we should never have to try to emulate anything they do. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For per the zeroing principle above, and per the exact opposite of whatever Squiggle just said. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Against per Squiggle ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong For. - We should replace their articles with our articles!--USERNAME 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Vote to have a vandalize the old elementary schoolyard day
- Nom and For I got graffiti! --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)