HowTo talk:Get Banned
ZOMG this is seriously subversive stuff[edit source]
I have some additional thoughts on how to get banned, but I am afraid of getting banned when I add them to this page. Please advise me on how to proceed. Just for the sake of argument (not trying to get banned), these are my ideas: writing articles in a different language than this one, abudnant tpyos, insisiting that you have imaginary grue for a pet (who's a clever grue then ey? You are, Wendy! Yes! Here, a ground borg cooky for cutest grue in the whole wide worldweb!) and pissing off our Belgian friend Chefke (aka Moneysign). --di Mario 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Writing in a different language will get you a {{Qua?}} at most (unless you deliberately recreate it). Typos? I've never seen anyone get banned for typos... Having an imaginary pet grue seems to be a thing for some of the chatters. Don't see why it would be a problem. And pissing off an admin is what gets you banned, yes. But that's because you violate rules and policies. Personal attacks are something I rarely ban for, provided they're not disruptive (as in repeatedly performed).
- Now I would like to know what you're playing at, Dimario. I've told you I'd rather not have my real name used online because I prefer to keep the two seperate. Yet now you've gone and put it here... Are you trying to lure me out of my cave and get me to react harshly? --~ sin($) tan(€) 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, wasn't Chefke the name of the city you used as a home base in Diablo?--<<
>> 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - Okay, Money, you are true to form. I deliberately put something here that imho was bound to catch your attention and hopefully make you react in a not-amused way. It worked. Mind you, this is the talk page, not the article itself. And since the whole point of the article is letting people know how to get banned, providing this information for them rather is in the spirit of the page's intention. It is a sure-fire way of attracting your ill-disposed attention. Bannination ensured! And before you care to ask, yes, I am messing with someones brain. I'll let you off the hook though, changed the ******* reference to Chefke. In hopes of unjust banning (for others than me), --di Mario 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, wasn't Chefke the name of the city you used as a home base in Diablo?--<<
<3[edit source]
“Someday you'll look back on all this and laugh.”
I love that I began this article over my frustration with the trials of adminship, but that it has taken on a life of its own now with the humourous contributions of so many authors. I'm at the point now where this is entertaining to read as a third party, despite the fact that I'm still an admin and the content is still true. ~ T. (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Heh. I fully agree. Srsly, we should do something about the way some admins ban over the most trivial things... --User:Nintendorulez 00:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Makes a note of Nintendorulez name for future reference.... -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- Makes a note of Nintendorulez name for future reference.... -- Sir Mhaille
Question[edit source]
Why would you get banned for nominating BENSON for WotM? --Micoolio101 (whine • vandalism)
- Ask Famine? --User:Nintendorulez 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- But why? Isn't he just like any other user? --Micoolio101 (whine • vandalism) 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
TOMPKINS[edit source]
TOMPKINS IS STRAIGHT, AND QUITE A PLEASANT CHAP OMG LOLZ
Put...[edit source]
Put this shit on www.totse.com. That is a known subversive site. 65.163.112.153 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No thank you, we would rather not.--
10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Add...[edit source]
38. Edit article This page does not exist. -MrBucket 09:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- We have that. "23. Create 'This page does not exist'." --AAA! (AAAA) 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Add this please.[edit source]
Hello, I've just translated this article to portuguese, and I want to ask someone to put [[pt:Deslivros:Como ser banido na Desciclopédia]]. On it. Please. Signed: Diamond Edge 200.139.100.5 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Add this one too[edit source]
Tell a Admin that they're not cool, helpful, sexy, attractive, nice at all. Tell him/her that "You are full of shit!". Good way to get banned. Secret Agent Man 03:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Another addition[edit source]
I made an edit to an article in my namespace, then I realized that I included two very harmless links. One of these was to permaban me, so I protected my edit. Should including such a link be added to the list? An-elite 02:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- yes sure, especially if it's in your signature. 99.240.156.249 (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Another suggestion[edit source]
For Admins: Replace MediaWiki:Common.css with that of Wikifur. 24.13.203.96 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this should be protected[edit source]
It seems to be fairly common and intuitive to replace it with 'Is this how you get banned?' or something along those lines. The answer to that question is most likely yes, but I dislike block-seeking because the punishment for it is also the reward, and besides, it's illogical. It's like cutting yourself except that you (usually) have to ask someone else to do it, which makes it even weirder. But we won't get into that. I suppose people would make a mess elsewhere if this were protected, but really, this is just lying wide open and I don't find it funny. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:28, 12 Jun 2014
- No don't protect it. For the same reason that I tried to keep Gay not protected for so many years when it was such an obvious target for attack. The fact is it IS an obvious target, so people who intend harm will target it. Because of that it makes it easier for those (of us) who wish to find and fix the harm which will be done somewhere. In this case I would much rather a vandal vandalise this page than make another change elsewhere which might not be so obvious to detect. Also as Gabriel Turner so skillfully just pointed out earlier, editing this page may be the only way to get a joke ban on the wiki currently considering that UN:FFS is closed. Presumably to prevent possible amusement. JFC 00:38. Jun 12
- Hm, maybe, I see what you're saying there. If we really need joke bans, though, shouldn't we reopen FFS? Since that's what you seem to be saying, unless I haven't read your words correctly. It wasn't really my idea to close it, though I did nominate it for VFD; you can thank or blame Bizzeebeever for planting the seeds of the idea in my head. My impression was that FFS was a place intended to be fun but often devolving into drama when there were disagreements due to being prone to misinterpretation by the less well-educated, but I welcome any attempt to prove me wrong. 99.240.156.249 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Through an understanding of the above Jesus F Christ believes that Drama is an inevitable, and sometimes productive, aspect of wiki activity." ... Personally, I blame Cajek. We simply did not ban him enough times. JFC 03:39. Jun 12
- And that led to ffs being closed because the joke bans did not be fruitful and multiply? Lazy IP address person 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- In the same way that a closed UN:RotM inspires people to review articles. By the way Cajek is the most "joke banned" user ever on Uncyclopedia. He is also (in my opinion) the best user ever on Uncyclopedia. So yes, joke bans do work. JFC 04:03. Jun 12
- Now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind reopening ROTM sometime because there have been some good pee reviews done lately. Cajek, OTOH, has never logged in and so can't ever be blocked again. I wish he'd come back if only for the reviews and writings he did. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:39, 13 Jun 2014
- A lot of Pee Review was basically set-up by Cajek and Under user with me helping out in the background. I don't think virtually anyone on Uncyclopeia currently appears to actually understand the real purpose of awards on Uncyclopedia. They can't because if they did these awards would not have been closed. The purpose of all awards especially RotM is not to reward people who have done things. The purpose is to motivate people who have not done things to do things. The fact that there may or may not have been some good reviews done recently is irrelevant. The rational that it's a good idea to close an award because there is less activity related to it is the most backwards reasoning possible in that situation. In times of less activity is when we need these things the most. Are admins worried that if a person wins an award easily it might de-value the achievements of previous winners? These admins do not understand the purpose of awards. If the same guy wins RotM 10 times in a row cos he is the only dude reviewing... Fair enough. Don't close the award, to protect the past. ... Not close them down because they take effort to admin. If we want more reviews we will open RotM. If we want more users we will start re-opening up some of the other things which the users like and have been closed in error by the administrators of Uncyclopedia. I have no idea why any part of Uncyclopedia is currently "closed". Please reopen Uncyclopedia so that users can come back and use it. JFC 17:41. Jun 13
- Start a forum why don't you. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:39, 13 Jun 2014
- Jesus does not create forums. JFC 20:55. Jun 13
- Start a forum why don't you. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:39, 13 Jun 2014
- A lot of Pee Review was basically set-up by Cajek and Under user with me helping out in the background. I don't think virtually anyone on Uncyclopeia currently appears to actually understand the real purpose of awards on Uncyclopedia. They can't because if they did these awards would not have been closed. The purpose of all awards especially RotM is not to reward people who have done things. The purpose is to motivate people who have not done things to do things. The fact that there may or may not have been some good reviews done recently is irrelevant. The rational that it's a good idea to close an award because there is less activity related to it is the most backwards reasoning possible in that situation. In times of less activity is when we need these things the most. Are admins worried that if a person wins an award easily it might de-value the achievements of previous winners? These admins do not understand the purpose of awards. If the same guy wins RotM 10 times in a row cos he is the only dude reviewing... Fair enough. Don't close the award, to protect the past. ... Not close them down because they take effort to admin. If we want more reviews we will open RotM. If we want more users we will start re-opening up some of the other things which the users like and have been closed in error by the administrators of Uncyclopedia. I have no idea why any part of Uncyclopedia is currently "closed". Please reopen Uncyclopedia so that users can come back and use it. JFC 17:41. Jun 13
- Now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind reopening ROTM sometime because there have been some good pee reviews done lately. Cajek, OTOH, has never logged in and so can't ever be blocked again. I wish he'd come back if only for the reviews and writings he did. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:39, 13 Jun 2014
- In the same way that a closed UN:RotM inspires people to review articles. By the way Cajek is the most "joke banned" user ever on Uncyclopedia. He is also (in my opinion) the best user ever on Uncyclopedia. So yes, joke bans do work. JFC 04:03. Jun 12
- And that led to ffs being closed because the joke bans did not be fruitful and multiply? Lazy IP address person 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Through an understanding of the above Jesus F Christ believes that Drama is an inevitable, and sometimes productive, aspect of wiki activity." ... Personally, I blame Cajek. We simply did not ban him enough times. JFC 03:39. Jun 12
- Hm, maybe, I see what you're saying there. If we really need joke bans, though, shouldn't we reopen FFS? Since that's what you seem to be saying, unless I haven't read your words correctly. It wasn't really my idea to close it, though I did nominate it for VFD; you can thank or blame Bizzeebeever for planting the seeds of the idea in my head. My impression was that FFS was a place intended to be fun but often devolving into drama when there were disagreements due to being prone to misinterpretation by the less well-educated, but I welcome any attempt to prove me wrong. 99.240.156.249 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
suggestion[edit source]
Add these to the page:
- Race yourself to see how much damage you can do without getting blocked. Bonus if you delete the Main Page.
- Hack the servers. And get arrested.
- Do the same things that people did to end up in UN:OFFICE. Particularly the last entry of the "banned" section.
172.112.210.32 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)