Talk:Gay

Ethic Group

Aren't the Gays an ethnic group that rule France?

Comments

what about " gays are men who can't get girlfriends

lets shoot all the fukin gays nd make more lesbiens up 4 three sums "

... is a faggot and hearts cock

Uncyclopedia isn't a place for cyber bullying. Read the beginner's guide Sublimeone 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You left that in? not funny, not in keeping with the rest, out of place.... kill it/ plz?

Bunch of hershey highway riding mother fuckers. xD OMFGWTFBBQ!? lolzzz lvl 60 pall

I added a part on 'gaydars' and linked it to the gaydar article here in uncyclopedia and some sentences and phrases.--Espankeh 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The page is PROTECTED? That might be good if the article were in, say, a funny, quality state. No, no that still wouldn't be good. You've gone the way of wikipedia. Sad, pussies.

Dude they are more like niggers lol fucking niggers haha

gay people smelll funny

why already locked? :p

wat about asian gayz? LOLs

Not funny, and a waste.

This article is a waste of one of the most potentially funny articles on this whole site. Making fun of gays is simple straighforward funny shit, and its been locked. WHAT THE FUCK.

Calling something gay is the quickest simplest way to make fun of something. When we were kids we would call eachother gay if we did something stupid and foolish ie because even as kids we acknowledged how stupid and gay being gay was.

They negate the ability to have children by being gay and retarded then they demand the right to adopt kids! (in britain). Thats some fucked up shit.

Fuckin gays. Unlock this article, lets make fun of them.

And I'm sure if YOU rewrote the article, it would be hysterical.

Rewrite

I deleted all the shit bits of this article, there is not much left, but it's no great loss--Dantoller 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gay

It's gay that I can't edit this article on gay. I wanted to change the bit about "fags" saying that its ok to use the word "fag" if you are a fag, but not if your not (or that's what gays say anyways). But I can't cos some gay decided that it would be gay to lock the thing down (presumibly to stop gay comments). Gay, Gay, Gay.

Tim Minchin does a nice gag about a forbidden word being an anagram of "one 'n', two 'g's, an 'i' and and 'e' and an 'r'", with the resultant being 'ginger'. Anyhoo, maybe appropriate Demitri Martin's joke that it's rather selfish of gay people to have appropriated the whole rainbow.

Ok seriously. Whats the point of all this locking? If the point of the uncylopedia this is to have a laugh, and take the piss out of the wikipedia should we not allow edits on pages like this? Ok you will get some more serious "nasty" anti gay comments on here, but these can be easily removed by anyone who does not like them.

Surely it's important to prove that something like a wiki can actually work despite all the "nasty" stuff. So long as there are more "good" people out there than "bad" (I hope) the content will overtime become more funny and generally reflect the real world. If you can't handle a few homophopes on the uncylopedia where can ya? Locking the "gay" page on the wikipedia makes sense to me, but not here. We are better, I mean "more silly" than this...

“It's gay.”

~ Oscar Wilde on Locking the page on Gay

“This site is so much better than Wikipedia, you can, like, edit it..”

~ Anonymous

“Unless It's gay.”

~ Oscar Wilde on the comment by Anonymous

interwiki

Add it:Gay

Category:Things that God hates according to Fred Phelps

Why the hell isn't this in that category? Someone who can change that, please do.

Major Re-Write

Well, not that major, but I have ripped the hell out of it a bit... Hope I have not upset anyone that I would normally care if I upset... It just looked a little bit too much like it had been written purely from a "gay" point of view before, and did not really reflect the true usage of the word. I have tried to keep most of what I though was the "good" stuff, but please re-add if I removed anything of particular value which I took out. Hope ya like the changes... MrN 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, we've got like a mini-project to revamp this article until it's fabulous again. ~Fag x FS

Sounds cool... My idea is that this article is "balanced"... Before it was very pro-gay and therefore a magnet for vandals. I'm hoping to get it into a format where the vandals will not know if its taking the piss out of them, or Gay people... It would be good if Homophopes and Gays alike could find this page funny. I think this is something that we can do. If the vandals can't decide if the page is pro-gay or anti-gay they will have no idea what to do.... MrN 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking pretty fuckin' great at the moment. And the way it seems to fluctuate between beliefs 1. does what yew wanted it to and 2. adds to the humour. Could this soon be VFH material? ~Fag x FS

Not VFH yet Mr Fag... Leave it a while... We have much work to do... Put some more "good" links in. Look for the "better" quality gay (like straight men not too scared to try gay sex) articles in Uncyc, and add quality links to them if you fancy... I'm at work now, so had better run... MrN 13:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too Gay Now!

OK I had to remove "Although the genius and wit of the insult is without question, it seldom has anything to do with penises, vaginas or indeed anuses.. and therefore is redundant".

Come on Faggy boy. Let's not let this get too GAY now! We need to keep this so that the reader can't tell if the author's were Gay or Gay bashers. Let's keep obvious opinion out of it, that way it keeps the secret... Do you not agree? MrN 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude! come on! I have been looking at your edits, they are pretty much ALL GAY centric. I'm changing a few, we need to keep this "In balance" now... If people reading this can detect that the author was gay, this is not going to work... Let's keep it subtle eh? MrN 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight ya over the Wilde quote I did which you removed, but let me explain it in-case you did not get it...

“This is Gay”

~ Oscar Wilde

First of all. Obviously Oscar is probably one of the most well know gays in history. To suggest that he invented the concept of calling things "This is Gay" has got to confuse the queer bashers.

Second, Well, this article is gay. look at the tittle... I thought it was a good start to the article.

Third, you could perceive that Oscar was talking about himself. Declaring his own homosexuality

The idea behind the quote was that whoever reads it will interpret the quote in whichever way they choose. A queer basher will think, fair enough, I'm not going to change that probably not knowing that Oscar was gay, and those more educated might appreciate the irony.

I like the Shaw idea, but for me it looks too much like it was written by, well some fag!

We don't want "loads" of quotes at the top here, so I'm not sure what to do.... MrN 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

However, thanks to recent funeral services you can now find much of the gay scene in Brixton's underground What's that all about? MrN 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

yew really haven't liked anything I've put, have yew... ~Fag x FS

That's not true! Do some more edits to it! I was just a bit worried that you were "taking ownership" of the article a little. It was getting a bit obvious that the article had been written by, well... You! For example. Moving YOUR name to the top of the insults list? It was where it was because the list was in alphabetical order. Now it looks like, well, you put it there. Do you not understand what I mean? If the reader of the article twigs that it was "in part" written by a gay person the joke is not going to work. It's got to be subtle. And to answer your question. I did like some of your changes. Do some more edits to it! But don't just use this article as a way to tell the world about you, and how wonderful you are. That's what your user page is for. Enjoy. MrN 20:30, Dec 5

Sorry, but fuck that! The only true point there was the moving me to the top of the list thing... otherwise it was NOTHING to do with self promotion... I don't understand how yew think that. While some edits might not be great I do not self publicise in articles (other than that link + position but if yew want yew can undo that :P) ~Fag x FS

I really don't want to argue with ya fag. Or shout and get aggressive. I'm sorry you think I am being unfair. By self promote I think I meant more, on behalf of gays. Meaning that your mods were obviously done by a gay person. By "taking ownership" I meant that you were putting the article back to like how it was before I started editing it. You have to agree that before I edited it this article was VERY gay centric. And obviously written by a gay person. I wanted this page to be neutral. Not letting the reader know if the author was gay or straight, queer basher or liberal. And be funny doing it. My issue is that if you do not agree with my "over all" aim for this page then... Well this is not going to work, and I'm happy to stop editing it and leave it to you... I really don't want to fight about this, so perhaps that's the best thing to do. MrN 20:50, Dec 5

Oh no i didn't mean to argue... and I certainly didn't mean to take ownership of it. What i wanted to do was intersperse various "biased" comments from each viewpoint, each contradicting each other. I'm sorry I made yew think that... I'll think through my edits more. Oh and the brixton thing... that's basically a morbid pun i.e. "underground" can mean both something obscure or something literally under the ground (in this case buried). I'm sorry about all that... I'll look at it better next time ~Fag x FS

Youtube video

How about adding this vid(What What (In the Butt))? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

Gay Pee Review (if that's not a pun, I don't know what is)

Well a certain Fag and myself have recently given this page a bit of an overhaul. Hopefully we took the best ideas of the article as it stood previously and improved on it it a little. In my view before we started messing with it, this article was obviously written by a gay person. Not that this was a bad thing, but it was rather a magnet for vandals, and did not really represent an accurate reflection of the word Gay as used in society...

Fag and me have tried to rewrite this in such a way that the reader can not tell if it's taking the piss out of gays people, or gay haters. It is (we hope) also a rather searing attack on organised religion and the pomposity of people who believe that being gay is wrong.

Part of the idea is to confuse vandals when they come to this page. Do they blank the page or do they add to it because it's attacking gays? Hopefully it's somewhat funny because it's making fun of the vandals themselves.

I (MrN) hope that this article can be VFH one day, but I do feel that it lacks humour, it's more factual really, perhaps too much so, but I'm not sure how the message can be transmitted without so much fact. Obviously any ideas to help with the giggle factor would be greatly appreciated...

Also. Check out the box at the top, and the link to the sub page from this box. I hope you can tell what the idea is here. Any comments about this are very welcome.

If anyone is particularly religiously inclined and is offended by this article I apologise. The intention is more to poke fun, rather than to directly insult.

As always any suggestions will be gratefully received. MrN 00:06, Dec 20

Gay is being reviewed by CajekHi! Your Source for Fine Scented Pee And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him

FINE! I GET IT ALREADY! WWHHHOOOOOOREE   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 20 / 00:15)

Humour:	6.4	Avg of each... oh dear god. Intro [7] Ooh thanks for that hideous template at the top! Trim that down, for one thing. Oh great, this is going to be a list of gay jokes? I like the quotes. Believe it or not, when you posted this on my talk page, I was too distracted to look at it. Minus a point for the ugly ass template. 1 Modern usage [7] Nice! I was bordering on 8, but it's basically just a list! 2.1 The pre-history of the Gayites [10] User:Cajek#Favorite Lines 2.2 Here cums the God Squad [7] It's fine, probably necessary. 2.3 Hippies [5] I don't know if this is necessary. No LOLZ here. 3.1 Gayualismicness - a sin of Biblical Proportions [8] Yeah, cool. Condoms are lame. 3.2 The Speculation about gays that seems to Be True: [5] It's just a list, and not a very interesting one, either. 3.3 Can I bum a Fag off you Mate? [4] an even shorter list! Aren't you the co-author of UN:PRG? 3.4 Gay free zones / 3.5 Good gays and Bad gays [5] What the F is Brixton? / I... don't get it? 3.6 Ahh, almost forgot, the Lesbian thing [6] Lemons? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, I remember the heyday of this article, back in section 2.1, when you discussed the history of gayness.
Concept:	7	This concept is both okay and necessary for Uncyc. Here's the problem with this article: It's just about... gayness. As far as making fun of gay people goes, it did okay. It was way more tame than I thought it would be, however. Where's the section on famous gay people? Common gay occupations? What the world would be like if it was gay? The future of gayness? Come on guys, there's a million of them that you haven't tried yet.
Prose and formatting:	9	Way above average.
Images:	6	They're okay. I didn't get the "gay religion" or the "lemons" one at all, though.
Miscellaneous:	7.1	I threw a totally random number up here.
Final Score:	35.5	very slightly above average. I agree with this score very much so. This article isn't nearly in depth enough (see Concept score), and it goes too deep in other places (and makes them lists or British Humooouuuuuuuuuuur). The most important part of this review is the concept score. You need to look for more inspiration if you want VFH. I come from a town where a lesbian couple was suspended for kissing in public. You guys could be way more insulting! :D
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 20 / 01:17)

Well I will let Fag chip in his comments latter... Did you follow the Gay People & Current Sexual Status cajek? You get the idea with it I'm sure, we are trying to confuse the hell out of the vandals really. The template can be improved? Shortened? How? Any suggestions? Get rid of any unnecessary bits on that template at the top. Don't worry about vandals: they will find this article. You have to protect it from them by watching it. They won't read that damn template! - Some do! I have had quite a few people vandalise the sub page, and leave the main page intact! Obviously, this choice is up to you: are you gonna focus on the vandals or the readers? Either one makes sense, really. It would be best if worked for both I guess.

You don't like the Hippies bit eh? Hmm, will see what can be done about that...

Can I bum a Fag off you Mate? That's legacy stuff from previous versions... You should have seen what it was like before if you don't like it now! I didn't go through the history of the article. I never bothered to look at it until now!

Brixton Well, you will have to talk to Fag about that. It's a place in the UK which has had some troubles lately. Yeah, well, nobody cares. Or at least, I don't. And I reviewed it... so I should know...

Oh, I remember the heyday of this article - You mean it used to be better? When? Guess I will have to look through the history... This page has been hacked to pieces loads of times. The heyday of this article was that quote about the dinosaurs.

You guys don't know what lemons are? A lemon is a lesbian. Dam, what do you use for insults over there... And calling people lemons is a good insult? Pffft.

Some of the "lists" are legacy stuff left over from previous versions, I/we did not want to remove them cos they are kinda 'traditional' for this page I/we thought. Nothing is traditional when it comes to non-featured pages. Get rid of it or make it a paragraph!

The "gay religion" picture is legacy. I will scrub it if Fag has no objections...

I think we were trying to make this article more about the actual word Gay, rather than making this a general discussion on homosexuality, but I guess it's going in that direction. You think this should go in that direction cajek? Maybe it needs a "What it's like to be gay" section, I wonder who could write that... As well as a "How to be a queer basher section" :) This really should be a discussion of gay-ness, not just the word. It's more interesting that way. The Speculation about gays that seems to Be True: Again basically another legacy thing left over from a previous version.

Obviously we need to work on the images... Come on FAG! Help out!

Many thanks for the review cajek. Useful as always. WHAT DO YOU THINK FAG???? (he's probably got his mouth full) MrN 01:47, Dec 20

Actually, I'm formally asking permission from Mr Fag to write a "taking the piss a bit more out of gays" section. We need it. There has to be some mention of the things which straight people don't like about gay people, and cajek is right. We are missing that. Maybe you need to do a really pro gay section fag, and I can do a "why gays are nasty" section? Whatdoya think? MrN 02:12, Dec 20 The article might be best done as sarcastically anti-gay. SARCASTICALLY anti-gay.

Sorry, just showed up and had to comment. P-Town's that way! *points, then sighs at his own MAisms* - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:44, Dec 20

Add somewhere

Something I thought of while I was taking a piss. Barcode711 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) "Why do kids use gay as an adjective for things that are uncool? Well, for one, unless you're Freddy Mercury, there is no such thing as a cool gay person."

Gay#Modern usage Freddy was gay? You're joking. I had no idea. MrN 01:49, Feb 14

Another Pee Review after some more edits

Well, some of you might remember the last time I tried to get this page featured. It was not a great success. Maybe people missed the joke I was trying to make, or maybe I'm just an idiot. Anyway, I have changed this a lot since then, and a number of good edits have been made by other people also. Basically, I'm trying to make this more about the word itself, rather than hugely about the subject matter. There are loads of great articles related to this, and I have tried to list some of our better ones at the bottom. Anyone who thinks that bottom reference was funny can can not kiss my arse. So what do you think of it now? The article obviously, not my bottom...

Obviously any suggestions gratefully received. MrN 21:27, May 30 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Hey! I know that it says I'm doing another review but it's really long and I need to do something else before I die. I also know that you've asked SysRq to do this so if you have any strong objections... Well tough luck (or remove my template).

Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 01:10 31 May 2008

Obviously not a problem Orian. A review from you would be a pleasure I'm sure. I had a lot of help on this from his faggyness, and you might want to maybe take a look at the talk page. Most of what's on the talk page relates to it's previous VFH attempt, and I have toned it down a lot since then. Basically, my goal with this article has been to write it in a completely neutral point of view. Such that the reader can't tell if the author is gay or straight. When I started working on this page it had clearly been edited by a load of un-funny gay people, and I really want to keep it out of this kinda format. You get the idea I'm sure... Anyway, I'm not no rush, so take as long over this as you need. Cheers for getting involved. MrN 16:15, May 31

Humour:	6	Well over all it was pretty average but that’s because some of it was excellent and some of it was not so excellent. The introductory paragraph was very well done and funny but then you had several list sections such as “Why are people gay?”. I considered doing a whole article on the subject (abandoned the idea after I got a better one) and there is plenty of material for a decent section here, things like “It’s cheaper” you know because the lack of children, “there is much less responsibility” you know cos of the no kids thing and “you don’t need any condoms” you know cos it’s in that song. There are almost certainly other things you could do; I’m just throwing some ideas out there. Also a similar thing with why are people straight (though I’m not sure it really fits with the article) it need expansion and a better punch-line that “it’s less effort”. Either way, the listy sections need to be converted into some prose, seriously. The line before the “bible verse” kinda seemed a bit random. Why did he write it with a cloud? In fact why do we even need to know what it was written with? It seems like an unnecessary digression. The bible verse itself: Hmm, I got the joke but A) it wasn’t hilarious and B) I don’t think that very many people will get it unless they’ve read that bible verse (and it is a pretty obscure one). You need to be more inventive with this, maybe try something like a nakedly homophobic “verse” until the very end where god (or something) says “Oh, I do like your shoes!” or something. The lesbian thing at the bottom was also really good so basically you need to work with the ideas in the middle, sometimes the content of the lists is ok it’s just that it’s in a list and sometimes there is more that can and should be done.
Concept:	6	While I see exactly what you’re trying to do here I just don’t think it’s working brilliantly. Though I can see why “confuse the vandal” is a funny idea, it’s just confusing to the honest reader as well as instead of being neutral it actually came across like you were trying to have it both ways. The voice of the article slid from gay hater to gay almost randomly. Why not be outwardly making fun of gays but also have more subtle digs at gay bashers, so intelligent people will get it. You could do it the other way around (making fun of homophobes with the subtly making fun of gays) but gay bashers are almost too easy to make fun of and we already have homophobia amongst others. Though if you’re intent on the confuse the vandals thing, you’d need to try and make the switches between “gay author”/“straight author” more gradual so it may be construed as the writer’s internal battle or “Rage against the stereotype”. Or something. Also there are plenty of gay ideas you haven’t touched on. Gay occupations and past times is an area you could explore, for example. There are loads! After all you do have this under “fundamental stereotypes”, if you just want to talk about the word then you could probably get rid of that template at the bottom.
Prose and formatting:	7	As formatting goes, I thought it was pretty good. The template is very funny though if it’s not too much trouble it may look better in pink. You used “cum” a couple of times I’m not being a spelling Nazi, I’m simply saying I think that kinda cheapened the article. Also I noticed a few typos. As I mentioned in humour you have a few lists which are kinda disappointing and the others just don’t look nice. If you could convert them into prose it’d be better. This kinda comes under concept as but the voice of article needs adjustments, not just with content but style too as it ‘’feels’’ like it’s been written by several people.
Images:	9	The images throughout were exceedingly funny (due to the captions) and relevant. Although, considering the length of the section, you had one too many on the fag/cigarette double meaning. I suggest getting rid of the ciggs as it was the least funny (and I really liked the misunderstanding of the WBC sings).
Miscellaneous:	7	(averaged) you make a link to Fred Flintstone, though this is perfectly acceptable why not make it link to Fred Phelps instead?
Final Score:	35	I know you want this featured but I really don’t think it’s FA material yet. It needs a lot of work preferably expansion and sorting out the voice of the article. Oh my god, I’ve just looked at the top 5 list! It’s hideous! Now I know why you told me to take my time... Anyway should you like to thank/ask/insult me about anything and my grammar please visit my talk page.
Reviewer:	Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 07:39 1 June 2008

Many thanks Orian. A useful review. I think that most of your comments were from the point of view of a gay person, I wonder why? I don't know if you read this article last time (or the talk page) when I tried to get it featured, but it's actually been watered down a lot since then. It was called "cras" last time. People did not get the joke. I am trying to make fun of everyone. Gays and straights alike regarding their views on the subject.

I was a little surprised by your scores in the concept and humour section, but as they say it's what's said in the box that is more important. You really think it's below average? Dam! I have been working my arse off on this page for a long time now, and I'm just not sure what else I can do. The change in voice is intentional. I wanted it to have a mixture of comments from lots of different views. It would be easy to write this article from the point of view of Gay or Straight person, but I am trying to make it such that the page does not get vandalised very much because it's neutral. A fair amount of what's there was not actually written by me. Concept wise anyway. This page has had literally thousands of edits, and what's there now is what I think is a good mixture. If you don't mind, I'm going to take SysRq's offer of a second opinion up. Your review has been really useful, but I actually think there is not much more I can do here. If SysRq agrees with you on this not really being that good, I just might pass this article in your direction, as I'm not sure I can do much better. Great review. Thanks. :) MrN 20:14, Jun 1

Missed by a mile.

I came hear to read an article making fun of the gays, and instead I'm reading an article making fun of the people making fun of the gays. There's already a 'Religion' section, and a 'Christianity' section, and they both say everything included here, plus some other stuff (I did skim one of them). Hell, even the pictures are all of religious stuff. You're telling me that nowhere between pride parades and Liberace could any funny images be found? – Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.110.41 (talk • contribs)

Actually this article makes fun of everyone gays included. You just think it's only making fun of people who make fun of gays as that's your personal perspective, and so that's what you are sensitive to. Sorry if it was offensive for you. MrN 13:40, Aug 16

"You're actually getting screwed by a GAY page, literally."

No, you are not literally getting screwed by a gay page. You are figuratively getting screwed by a gay page.

--71.203.103.226 07:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Captain Smack

Dude you are figurativley taking things too seriously. :) ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 07:22 5 February 2009

Wow, I'm late to this one! So it should say figuratively not literally? I thought literally sounded more funny. Saying figuratively sounds over formal, and the vandals will not get it at all. That's the point. Also, mr IP, feel free to make edits to the page directly, you don't need to ask permission to edit this page, just go ahead and do it. Or... MrN 03:56, Jun 16

I am literallly so confused. Or maybe figuratively, or metaphically!    Orian57    Talk   03:59 16 June 2009

the attention vandals at the top

should it be attention vandals with ({{USERNAME}}) or ({{Good for you!})  ?-- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!)

Answer nomber 2. Not everyone who vandalises Gay has a username, that's why I reverted you. Apreciate your concern though. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 04:11 17 May 2009

thanks! i've seen it both ways so was unsure which way it was actually suppoed to go. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!)

Too many pictures

This article has waay too many pictures. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.166.235 (talk • contribs)

So... You just added another one? Um... MrN 16:03, Jul 23

Awesome

Simply awesome, since one can be more awesome than awesome. <3

<3    Orian57    Talk   20:58 22 August 2009

Suggestion

'Oh, we do practice gayness, but it's a little hard on the anus...'

Would that song line be useful in this article?--Garionepsilon 18:25, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Because straight men are frigtened by pain. They just don't understand. pussies.    Orian57    Talk   11:56 13 January 2010

Coming from a virgin ;P —talk 12:04, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've read things.    Orian57    Talk   13:11 13 January 2010

Quote

Oscar Wilde's quote at the top of this page actually came from Stephen Fry. Just an FYI.

Yes. We know. ;) Look at the pages which are linked in the quote ;) MrN 11:38, Feb 4

sorry. didn't notice that. just ignore me.

My quote doesn't fit the article, eh? Why, then, did it survive so many edits before being bumped off along with Oscar Wilde's quote? Scofield 12:37, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Can I add this?

the epitome of gay.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Gay. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

What is it? I mean no, but I'm curious.    Orian57    Talk   17:11 7 April 2010

No