Forum:Wikipedia doings on our page
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Wikipedia doings on our page
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3633 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
There seems to be a gutting of some of our information going on at Wikipedia, going as far as removing the link to this site in the external sources, changing the lede, and other aspects which seem to hurt this site. I'm not astute enough to know if Spike is going against us or for us (he may actually be defending data about this site, or maybe he is gutting us - the bottom of the talk page tells the tale), but other users are taking us on. Please take a look and see what's going down. Here is Uncy's article talk page (the last one was recently archived, I haven't looked at that as yet). Maybe Puppy and others could have a say in the present discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uncyclopedia Aleister 2:18 28-2-14
- Spike wanted to delete the stuff about the formation of the fork because he said it was original research. I left a comment of some sort. [1] Will look at the rest of it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 28 Feb 2014
- Nice work. And I tried to go back to the talk archives before the present talk page, which is only a couple of months old, and everything after 2008 is missing! Giant "Wha?" What may be happening, and this is just a guess, is this site is moving up rapidly in the search engine. On Bing it's number two (and why does wikia get all those extra articles listed on the search engines, which push this site down the page?) Aleister 2:46 28-2-14
- Missing? Missing how? This sounds weird.
- I left a further comment, by the way. I hope I have not just managed to jump out the window and land on broken wikiglass, but considering some of Spike's comments I shouldn't suffer anything worse than he did. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 28 Feb 2014
- Will read your new comments in a bit. We edit conflicted, and I had written "Romartus said recently Sophia wouldn't want the two sites to even talk about each other - well, Sophia would be quite peeved at this end-around to destroy the traffic flow to this site. As I said, and I don't know who did this, even the link in external links on the Wikipedia page to this site has been removed. Sophia, she no approve, me thinks." This stuff goes beyond partisan wrangling, this is a deliberate attempt to "take us down" when this site seemed to be rising in popularity. Aleister 2:58 28-2-14
- I have no idea what Spike's motivation is, and I don't care. He is editing with a COI, which is against wikipedia policy, and if he doesn't stop I really don't want to know what we do then. Actually, I do know, I just hope we don't have to go there.
- Sorry for the edit conflict. Try now? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 28 Feb 2014
- I was wrong about SPIKE removing this sites link on the external links. Another editor, Otterathome, was the one who removed it, seconded by another editor. There is quite a bit of discusson on the history page referring to the talk page, the talk page record which is now missing in the archives (but should be in the talk page history). This guy Otterathome says we have no citations to even prove we are notable. Anyway, enough for me for today, but this forum is no laughing matter. thanks Llwy, for your good work in knowing what to do initially (I love it how SPIKE put up a proposal on the talk page, and two days later decided by himself that the issue was settled and then removed much of our history from the Wikipedia page itself.) Aleister 3:24 28-2-14
- I just don't get how the fork is any less notable than, say, details of the blocking policy; both can only be cited to primary sources and both are included in the article, so what's the big deal? Admittedly I don't know enough about wikipedia's external link guidelines to make a judgement on this, but I don't think too much of not including the fork in the external links.
- We need to get more notable, by the way. We need to do something. If we're not notable, how is anyone going to find us? This is not good. Not good at all. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:35, 28 Feb 2014
- Wikia was left in the external link, and it is an external link, not an article. External links don't have to be notable, just relevant, so that can be put back easily (and first on the list as it was before). The Wikipedia page on uncy had about 7,400 hits in the last 30 days, quite a good traffic flow. As for notable, I've thought for a long time that we need to do a very large promotion in the news media, with real news releases this time. Onward and upward! Aleister 3:58 28-2-14
- Who's going to do this news thing, and how? I might help if you show me how. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 28 Feb 2014
- Ah, that's a longer discussion, many ideas as to how and what. Maybe that will start if Funnybony's Abby Martin page is featured, and she references it on her news program (Funnybony has contacted her about the page and she liked it). Maybe...oh, not now, sleep is calling me, either sleep or sheep. As for jumping right into the fray on the Wikipedia talk page L, you carried the banner well and true. Aleister 4:05 28-2-14
- Looks like the "original research" tag has been put back onto the article, which could go either way in gutting the article, maybe even removing the part about the content warning if it cannot be sourced with an "independent and reliable" source. Apparently a third party source is not enough if it was contributed to by members of the Uncyclopedia community. Indeed, it was a Wikipedia editor who claims to have never edited Uncyclopedia, or else no longer edits Uncyclopedia, who insists that no members of the Uncyclopedia community, either here or at Wikia, should have any say in the content of the article. My reason for bringing up the Sims on the Wikipedia talk page in comparing it to the Sims series was that if a similar stance were taken on the Sims article regarding unreviewed Sims expansion packs without third party mainstream media sources, so many editors would object who play the Sims games (since there are more Sims gamers than Uncyclopedians), there would be an outcry and the stance would be reversed. I don't see our position as editors or readers of Uncyclopedia as substantially different from that of a game player editing the article on a game. Administrators on the other hand, are much more involved, and I disclosed my COI for this reason, though I edit here too. Spike only removed the part that he considered original research, but what could be considered original research by Wikipedians who have never edited Uncyclopedia could be a much larger portion of the article, including policies and descriptions of the site that are only referenced with links to Uncyclopedia. Soon the only information they will have about Uncyclopedia is what could be found by searching media news archives. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 09:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that's a longer discussion, many ideas as to how and what. Maybe that will start if Funnybony's Abby Martin page is featured, and she references it on her news program (Funnybony has contacted her about the page and she liked it). Maybe...oh, not now, sleep is calling me, either sleep or sheep. As for jumping right into the fray on the Wikipedia talk page L, you carried the banner well and true. Aleister 4:05 28-2-14
- Who's going to do this news thing, and how? I might help if you show me how. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 28 Feb 2014
- Wikia was left in the external link, and it is an external link, not an article. External links don't have to be notable, just relevant, so that can be put back easily (and first on the list as it was before). The Wikipedia page on uncy had about 7,400 hits in the last 30 days, quite a good traffic flow. As for notable, I've thought for a long time that we need to do a very large promotion in the news media, with real news releases this time. Onward and upward! Aleister 3:58 28-2-14
- I was wrong about SPIKE removing this sites link on the external links. Another editor, Otterathome, was the one who removed it, seconded by another editor. There is quite a bit of discusson on the history page referring to the talk page, the talk page record which is now missing in the archives (but should be in the talk page history). This guy Otterathome says we have no citations to even prove we are notable. Anyway, enough for me for today, but this forum is no laughing matter. thanks Llwy, for your good work in knowing what to do initially (I love it how SPIKE put up a proposal on the talk page, and two days later decided by himself that the issue was settled and then removed much of our history from the Wikipedia page itself.) Aleister 3:24 28-2-14
- Will read your new comments in a bit. We edit conflicted, and I had written "Romartus said recently Sophia wouldn't want the two sites to even talk about each other - well, Sophia would be quite peeved at this end-around to destroy the traffic flow to this site. As I said, and I don't know who did this, even the link in external links on the Wikipedia page to this site has been removed. Sophia, she no approve, me thinks." This stuff goes beyond partisan wrangling, this is a deliberate attempt to "take us down" when this site seemed to be rising in popularity. Aleister 2:58 28-2-14
- Nice work. And I tried to go back to the talk archives before the present talk page, which is only a couple of months old, and everything after 2008 is missing! Giant "Wha?" What may be happening, and this is just a guess, is this site is moving up rapidly in the search engine. On Bing it's number two (and why does wikia get all those extra articles listed on the search engines, which push this site down the page?) Aleister 2:46 28-2-14
- I read the Wikipedia talkpage. My knowledge of how stuff gets done on Wikipedia is rather lacking, but I find it pretty funny that things which are clearly facts (e.g.: the fact that this site exists) have been called into question simply because the news media doesn't report them. -- The Zombiebaron 10:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Having checked the history of the talk page there I can report that Wikipedia has a moronic robot who keeps archiving the talk pages into "Archive 1" while ignoring archives two to four. Maybe not for this forum, but how about opening a forum for ideas about press publicity, HowTo:Get Media to Report on This Site, things we could publicize, etc. After well over a year of bucking the "big boys" at Wikia this site has earned its place. And again, maybe someone should link it back into the external links on the Wikipedia page, as well as in the infobox where both sites should be linked. Oh, and SPIKE did a Wikipedia no-no by outing Lwyr on the article's talk page, although only by her uncy name. Aleister 13:13 28-2-14
- I believe I already outed myself in the interest of disclosing my COI. Whether that was the right thing to do I don't know; it certainly gives Spike - in his mind - a free pass to disregard everything I say.
- As for that bot, it sounds like its moronicness should be reported to whoever runs it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:47, 28 Feb 2014
- Having checked the history of the talk page there I can report that Wikipedia has a moronic robot who keeps archiving the talk pages into "Archive 1" while ignoring archives two to four. Maybe not for this forum, but how about opening a forum for ideas about press publicity, HowTo:Get Media to Report on This Site, things we could publicize, etc. After well over a year of bucking the "big boys" at Wikia this site has earned its place. And again, maybe someone should link it back into the external links on the Wikipedia page, as well as in the infobox where both sites should be linked. Oh, and SPIKE did a Wikipedia no-no by outing Lwyr on the article's talk page, although only by her uncy name. Aleister 13:13 28-2-14
Hello. I seem to be involved in this, despite having avoided that article due to my own non-NPOV relating to the topic. I don't really want to be included in this. However, it might be worthwhile looking into User:Otterathome on Wikipedia. (Not the sockpuppet here, despite that fantastic user page.) Nominally Humane! 09:42 28 Feb
- You have avoided that article? That's news to me. Perhaps you are now, but in the past you edited it a fair bit. I thought your edits to it were quite good actually, but I don't know why you say you avoided it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 28 Feb 2014
- Probably better to say that since my last edit there I've avoided it. Main thing I tried to do back then was substantiate the statements made in the article - and bring it a little more up to date. Nominally Humane! 10:57 28 Feb
- Good enough for me.
- What are you implying about Otterathome, if you don't mind my asking? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 28 Feb 2014
- I believe Puppy meant to draw our attention to this. Seems Otterathome doesn't like us. -- The Zombiebaron 00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- That - also the request to demote that article from "good" status, the request to remove Uncyc from the iw links from Wikipedia (where he has a valid point, but also claims we're all just vandals), and his attacks on users related to Uncyc (not all of them, but a few). Nominally Humane! 01:18 01 Mar
- (edit conflict) I saw your comments on irc and I agree. This to me begs the question, why should this prove that the fork is less worth mentioning than the wikia? It doesn't, that's how. If we're going to include one uncyc, why not the other?
- As to the comments about vandals and such, there is a clear and simple explanation for that: Uncyclopedia is not so rule-riddled, strict, buttoned-down and laced-up a place as Wikipedia and so it is easier to get blocked there than here or at least the offences are different or more well-defined, and if you are used to one wiki adapting to the other can be hard. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 1 Mar 2014
- What I am taking away from my research into this topic so far is that we need to get some sort of reputable source to report the fact that en.uncyclopedia.co exists and in some way state what it is. As such a thing does not currently exist Wikipedia policy deems this website not notable. We should probably work on getting somebody somewhere to publish something about the new site. Ideas anyone? -- The Zombiebaron 02:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Aleister said something about getting us into the news, but I'm not sure how we do that so I can't help out. I could put stuff on my website but I doubt they would regard an attempt to include a link to that as anything other than COI/link spam.
- As I understand it, sites otherwise not considered reliable sources can be used as sources on themselves, and the press release page we have floating around could by that logic serve as a quite sensible source, but I think there are differences of opinion as to that. Sorry, can't help with this, but I hope someone can. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 1 Mar 2014
- (deindenting to previous comment) The fork should be mentioned there - it's notable when referring to this topic, and verifable as existing (by linking to the main page here). There was a paragraph that referred to the rationale behind creating the fork, and the verification for that was referring back to forums - which rate on about the same level as blogs for verifiability. Linking to historical pages (either by referring back to logs, edit histories, or through external sources such as wayback machine). As such, linking to a forum to say "we moved due to the content warning" doesn't really support. Linking to a historical copy of the site showing the content warning, or the creation log of the content warning, does support the statement. (Much the same as the SOPA warning prank needs a better primary source.)
- AWA also has a little about the rationale behind the move, and Lyrithya's blog post about the issues encountered while moving can also support, but only as secondary sources.
- A rationale is always a hard thing to get concrete evidence for though. The incidents behind a rationale are much easier to prove. Nominally Humane! 04:03 01 Mar
- Why does the rationale matter? I just want a link to the new site from the Wikipedia article. -- The Zombiebaron 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The rationale makes people realise that this place is nice and spiffy and the other one isn't. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 1 Mar 2014
- Or this place is spiffy, and so is the other… or something
- I think the rationale is unimportant from that perspective, but "There's also a site at en.myuncletouchedme.co." with nothing else makes it seem a neglible thought.
- For the purposes of illustrating notability, if it were me, I'd add in the significant differences. Most of the difference is ill-defined - even I have difficulty when asked what the difference is. So focus on the concrete difference. ("The site at … has eschewed the corporate ownership of domain that was created when the domain was sold to Wikia foundation. Instead the domain and owned by a conglomerate of users and admins…" blah blah.
- I thought I said I was avoiding this. Sigh! Nominally Humane! 07:32 01 Mar
- Nothing wrong with writing up proposed text, just you probably shouldn't stick it in the article without consensus. And remember, just because Spike thinks one person's opinion constitutes consensus doesn't mean it does. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 1 Mar 2014
- Hopefully when we get some notable person to publish a document about us that document will outline some facts about the new site. We could then include these facts in the Wikipedia article, as they would be sourceable. -- The Zombiebaron 08:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- But it does mention the fork now and has a subsection about it and says that there are several addresses in the infobox. Isn't it enough? Looking at the talk page, Spike is the one protecting the fork and there seems to be only one user who objects, but he probably won't be able to do anything. Anton (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what talk page you're looking at but SPIKE is definitely not protecting the new site. -- The Zombiebaron 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that since the start, Spike was for neutrality. He thinks that uncyclopedia.co deserves a place in the article and the only pieces he deleted were those about the reasons for the forking (Original Research). Anton (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia entry has gone through a number of edits since January 2013, when a certain Aimsplode first messed around with it. After a battle, I thought the current entry was fair enough - reflecting that a split had happened and without going into personal details about who did to what and behind which bike shed. --
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fairness enough includes a link to this site in external links, which keeps getting removed. I guess we need someone to get a vote and discussion going to include the link (at the very bare minimum), and I think both links ought to be in the infobox as well. Then when publicity comes this sites way the other inclusions can be made - but an external link is far and away acceptable Wikipedia policy. Aleister 17:07 2-3-14
- What's wrong with 'Several: see text'? Also, I would argue that the reasons for the forking are not original research, as they can be cited (as I believe I've already stated somewhere), and also I would go so far as to say that Spike's saying they are original research is probably related to hi own failure to understand them and belief that this site is an impostor. I'm not saying he knows what he's doing and is out to mess up the article, but precisely the opposite: he doesn't realise that's what he's doing. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:14, 2 Mar 2014
- Anyway, these reasons deleted or not won't boost or decrease the fork's popularity. External links could, possibly, so this is the only thing that needs to be taken care of. Anton (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Writing good stuff, as Frosty said on this very site, will boost this place's popularity or not. Going into regular anti-Spikeathons won't. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)-
- The topic was putting a link to this site under the external links on the uncyclopedia Wikipedia article, which will increase visits to this site and was taken out of the article, with no editor arguing for it to stay. Aleister 21:05 2-3-14
- The pre-split entry had one link, that got replaced by a link to this site, then links to both and the Carlb version and finally, none of them. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The pre-split entry had one link, that got replaced by a link to this site, then links to both and the Carlb version and finally, none of them. --
- The topic was putting a link to this site under the external links on the uncyclopedia Wikipedia article, which will increase visits to this site and was taken out of the article, with no editor arguing for it to stay. Aleister 21:05 2-3-14
- Writing good stuff, as Frosty said on this very site, will boost this place's popularity or not. Going into regular anti-Spikeathons won't. --
- Anyway, these reasons deleted or not won't boost or decrease the fork's popularity. External links could, possibly, so this is the only thing that needs to be taken care of. Anton (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- What's wrong with 'Several: see text'? Also, I would argue that the reasons for the forking are not original research, as they can be cited (as I believe I've already stated somewhere), and also I would go so far as to say that Spike's saying they are original research is probably related to hi own failure to understand them and belief that this site is an impostor. I'm not saying he knows what he's doing and is out to mess up the article, but precisely the opposite: he doesn't realise that's what he's doing. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:14, 2 Mar 2014
- Fairness enough includes a link to this site in external links, which keeps getting removed. I guess we need someone to get a vote and discussion going to include the link (at the very bare minimum), and I think both links ought to be in the infobox as well. Then when publicity comes this sites way the other inclusions can be made - but an external link is far and away acceptable Wikipedia policy. Aleister 17:07 2-3-14
- The Wikipedia entry has gone through a number of edits since January 2013, when a certain Aimsplode first messed around with it. After a battle, I thought the current entry was fair enough - reflecting that a split had happened and without going into personal details about who did to what and behind which bike shed. --
- I thought that since the start, Spike was for neutrality. He thinks that uncyclopedia.co deserves a place in the article and the only pieces he deleted were those about the reasons for the forking (Original Research). Anton (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what talk page you're looking at but SPIKE is definitely not protecting the new site. -- The Zombiebaron 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- But it does mention the fork now and has a subsection about it and says that there are several addresses in the infobox. Isn't it enough? Looking at the talk page, Spike is the one protecting the fork and there seems to be only one user who objects, but he probably won't be able to do anything. Anton (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hopefully when we get some notable person to publish a document about us that document will outline some facts about the new site. We could then include these facts in the Wikipedia article, as they would be sourceable. -- The Zombiebaron 08:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with writing up proposed text, just you probably shouldn't stick it in the article without consensus. And remember, just because Spike thinks one person's opinion constitutes consensus doesn't mean it does. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 1 Mar 2014
- The rationale makes people realise that this place is nice and spiffy and the other one isn't. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 1 Mar 2014
- Why does the rationale matter? I just want a link to the new site from the Wikipedia article. -- The Zombiebaron 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I am taking away from my research into this topic so far is that we need to get some sort of reputable source to report the fact that en.uncyclopedia.co exists and in some way state what it is. As such a thing does not currently exist Wikipedia policy deems this website not notable. We should probably work on getting somebody somewhere to publish something about the new site. Ideas anyone? -- The Zombiebaron 02:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Puppy meant to draw our attention to this. Seems Otterathome doesn't like us. -- The Zombiebaron 00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Probably better to say that since my last edit there I've avoided it. Main thing I tried to do back then was substantiate the statements made in the article - and bring it a little more up to date. Nominally Humane! 10:57 28 Feb
Ohdear
If anyone asks, it was the guy who was that guy... I blame wikipedia's PHP... kthxbai -- 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- What? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:14, 2 Mar 2014
Wikipedia policy on sources
New header as the first one is in danger of becoming a quantum singularity.
It might be worthwhile to read this policy on self published sources which specifically relates to Internet forums. This is the only justification I can see for OR being slapped on the article. While most points in the article can be supported by site logs, or independent links, the areas that can't are the areas of contention. That includes (IMHO) the rationale for the fork (supported by forum), and the SOPA prank (supported by that page, and no external sources).
Adding the fork/independent site to the external links and/or the info box shouldn't be an issue, except for the argument about notability. Linking to the site shows it exists, but you'd have to use something like Alexa rank to support its notability. Nominally Humane! 09:16 02 Mar
- Ok I see... '[...] self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable'. (Emphasis mine.) I also found this, though, and that's what I was thinking of when I said that the rationale for the fork was citable. It's this I'm thinking of.
- I've found the alexa ranks for uncyclopedia.org and uncyclopedia.co and the latter one is higher and seems reasonably high in general, but I don't know if uncyclopedia.org actually tells you the rank of uncyclopedia.wikia.com or of other subdomains of uncyclopedia.org - the only such subdomain I know of that doesn't redirect to a .wikia.com is de.uncyclopedia.org and considering that and the fact it says 'uncyclopedia.org' is popular in Germany seems to say that it's actually telling you the rank of de.uncyclopedia.org. If that does not verify the rank of uncyclopedia.wikia.com, nothing can, so there is no comparison. I believe the article as it is cites the alexa rank of wikia.com as a whole, which includes uncyclopedia.wikia.com but that is probably only a small fraction of wikia's traffic so I think including this rank is inappropriate and irrelevant. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:43, 2 Mar 2014
- Open Wikis... isn't like... wikia a wiki or some shit? IDK man, this... this coffee... dude... I'm telling you guys... program Java, not Scala or Groovy, Java, in IntelliJ IDEA, whilst drinking coffee... That shit'll fuck you up good... But seriously though, if it says Open Wikis, that should include wikia, no? But seriously... coffee+Java. -- 01:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)(Go, go do what ye want with muh chode, jus get the fsck away from my coffee.)
- So...you're saying that someone is trying to use wikia as a source? I don't see anyone using wikia as a source, so I don't get what your comment has to do with anything. Unless of course we could somehow use your coffee to further discussion. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 3 Mar 2014
- The Alexa rank is problematic for the wikia based Uncyc, as it looks at the overarching domain (which is huge, being wikia), but in the stuff below it shows the rank of subdomains, of which Uncyc was 13th last time I looked, which is around 1.1% of wikia traffic. (Haven't looked at it for a few months, so I may be out of date.) I would avoid Alexa rank as a comparative measure for that reason, and instead use it purely as a sigifier of the independent site's notability.
- The press release is - arguably - still a page on an open-wiki, and is definitely a self-published thingamajig. If it had been picked up by any press, it may be a different factor. (And I'd be linking to the press extract, not the press release.)
- Keep in mind that you're not trying to edit that article to placate Spike, but you have Wikipedians like User:Otterathome, who will use any perceived weakness in that article to try and demote/devalue/delete it. Such an outcome would be contrary to the needs of either/both sites. Nominally Humane! 07:21 03 Mar
- I suddenly want a coffee. Nominally Humane! 07:23 03 Mar
- Uncyclopedia's percentage of wikia's traffic is 0.78 from what I saw. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:54, 3 Mar 2014
- Fwiw I think the Otterathome account here is called 'disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point', though we aren't quite so tied in knots about such things here so I won't hold it against you. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:59, 3 Mar 2014
- So...you're saying that someone is trying to use wikia as a source? I don't see anyone using wikia as a source, so I don't get what your comment has to do with anything. Unless of course we could somehow use your coffee to further discussion. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 3 Mar 2014
- Open Wikis... isn't like... wikia a wiki or some shit? IDK man, this... this coffee... dude... I'm telling you guys... program Java, not Scala or Groovy, Java, in IntelliJ IDEA, whilst drinking coffee... That shit'll fuck you up good... But seriously though, if it says Open Wikis, that should include wikia, no? But seriously... coffee+Java. -- 01:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)(Go, go do what ye want with muh chode, jus get the fsck away from my coffee.)
Guys
Can we stop worrying about wikipedia references or whatever and just get back to writing articles? Thanks. -RAHB 21:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is the writing articles aspect of uncy, and there is the promotional aspect of uncy, which quite a few of us should maybe be focused on for awhile. At least some of our focus. We've got some good talent here, for both tasks, imnho. Over 240 people look at the Wikipedia uncy article every day and the only link to the site those people have a choice to click goes to Wikia's site. This can be seen as both problematic and as one of the priorities when it comes to public outreach. We just need someone to put it up for a Wikipedia community discussion, because all we are talking about now is a link in the external-links section, which has a lower bar than a factual assertion in the article. A link, once clicked on, provides the proof of this sites existence immediately with no need of a discussion or reference. Aleister 21:00 4-3-14
- I imagine that the proof that this site exists will take precedence eventually with or without our intervention. Making a public spectacle of it is just making us look bad. -RAHB 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just talking about the link in the external-links section, that doesn't amount to much and whoever removes it is a dick and should be called on it. External links in Wikipedia articles are pretty important, and that's all I'm talking about. The rest will take care of itself when some credible media reports about the site or the two sites, which will likely happen during some of the ideas being discussed now. Al 21:20 4-3-14
- I'd love for Uncyclopedia to be a public spectacle. Nominally Humane! 10:03 04 Mar
- If I had $506.32 every time RAHB told us to go write articles ... I'd have enough money to treat everyone on uncyclopedia out to lunch at the classy kind of restaurant we all deserve to go to. --ShabiDOO 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Public spectacles are awful. Every time you want to read something, somebody else is already wearing them. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- But you're missing the important point - are they tinted? Tinted public speCtacles are a different thing entirely. Nominally Humane! 04:38 05 Mar
- I guess my comment below didn't matter. Probably best that way. And 3d spectacles are even better, at least if you're looking at a 3D thingy. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 5 Mar 2014
- But you're missing the important point - are they tinted? Tinted public speCtacles are a different thing entirely. Nominally Humane! 04:38 05 Mar
- I'd love for Uncyclopedia to be a public spectacle. Nominally Humane! 10:03 04 Mar
- Just talking about the link in the external-links section, that doesn't amount to much and whoever removes it is a dick and should be called on it. External links in Wikipedia articles are pretty important, and that's all I'm talking about. The rest will take care of itself when some credible media reports about the site or the two sites, which will likely happen during some of the ideas being discussed now. Al 21:20 4-3-14
- I imagine that the proof that this site exists will take precedence eventually with or without our intervention. Making a public spectacle of it is just making us look bad. -RAHB 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd like to make a thing or two clear.
I did my best to be civil and not cause drama in my comments on WP:COIN, and Snarglefoop agreed that I was civil. I am not sure RAHB and Zombiebaron read my comments before telling me I might be blocked if I continued because I was making the site look bad and causing drama, as I do not believe I was doing that - but in any case it no longer matters to me what the outcome of that debate will be enough to comment further, so I will refrain from commenting further.
I realise you would probably not have blocked me anyway but I just want that clear.
Now I am glad you are talking about something else and I hope you do not return to the original subject, as it would be a bad idea to continue to discuss it publicly for reasons I do not think I should give here.
Thank you for your time and patience (or lack thereof; you are all good judges of these things). – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 5 Mar 2014
- That's not exactly what I said, but yes, good, everybody talk about something else. Like Patrick Stewart. Very attractive for his age. Do you think he'd ever go for a guy like me? I could cut my hair if it would make him less self-conscious. -RAHB 04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently nobody threatened to block me. Sorry for misleading anyone and besides I know I shouldn't say anything more so it's ok anyway. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 5 Mar 2014
- RAHB threatened to block up my bowels with a giant brick of cheese that he stuffed into my asophagus. Geeze this RABH guy is getting pretty agressive recently. --ShabiDOO 00:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- You know that I only did that to cure your osteoporosis. -RAHB 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whenever my kids come to me complaining about some minor pain, I punch them in the face so they have a basis for comparison. RHAB's cure for osteoporosis sounds remarkably similar. Nominally Humane! 02:16 06 Mar
- I wouldn't have minded if it were just a brick of parmesean cheese but RAHB took a hunk of cheddar and microwaved it for 15 seconds and shoved it in. It practically burned the roof of my mouth and then took forever to go down cause it was so stringy and pliable. I think I would prefer to just keep my osteoperosis than go through that again. --ShabiDOO 02:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Still better than his cure for erectile dysfunction. I'm still waiting for the hair to grow back. Nominally Humane! 06:10 06 Mar
- I usually do a better job than that, but I've never seen somebody pay a $2,000 bill with forty jars full of pennies before. On the one hand I admired your ingenuity, and on the other hand I got carpal tunnel. -RAHB 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- In Canada they have something called Kraft Dinner. It's little maraconi made out of shredded newspaper and theres a package of radio active orange chemical cheese powder. Maybe we should consider this. My osteoperosis is really starting to ache. I think it's spreading to my belly-button :( . --ShabiDOO 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- -- The Zombiebaron 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- In Canada they have something called Kraft Dinner. It's little maraconi made out of shredded newspaper and theres a package of radio active orange chemical cheese powder. Maybe we should consider this. My osteoperosis is really starting to ache. I think it's spreading to my belly-button :( . --ShabiDOO 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I usually do a better job than that, but I've never seen somebody pay a $2,000 bill with forty jars full of pennies before. On the one hand I admired your ingenuity, and on the other hand I got carpal tunnel. -RAHB 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Still better than his cure for erectile dysfunction. I'm still waiting for the hair to grow back. Nominally Humane! 06:10 06 Mar
- I wouldn't have minded if it were just a brick of parmesean cheese but RAHB took a hunk of cheddar and microwaved it for 15 seconds and shoved it in. It practically burned the roof of my mouth and then took forever to go down cause it was so stringy and pliable. I think I would prefer to just keep my osteoperosis than go through that again. --ShabiDOO 02:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whenever my kids come to me complaining about some minor pain, I punch them in the face so they have a basis for comparison. RHAB's cure for osteoporosis sounds remarkably similar. Nominally Humane! 02:16 06 Mar
- You know that I only did that to cure your osteoporosis. -RAHB 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)