Uncyclopedia:Community Portal/archive4

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Effects of bans

What exactly happens when someone gets banned? Do they get a message when they try to access this website? Like "OMGWTF pwned"? Well, not like that, but I think you understand what I mean --Nytrospawn 03:09, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you're volunteering? Let me know for how long...--Famine 03:49, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Only if the ban notice says "you got pwned" --Nytrospawn 13:14, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Done. You just got yourself 1/2 hr. Granted you're probably not around, but it is done. ;) --Famine 13:36, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

09:04, 1 Jul 2005, Famine blocked #418 (expires 09:04, 2 Jul 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Nytrospawn". Reason "you got pwned".)
Heh heh. Should we let him back in? --Rcmurphy 15:38, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. --Nytrospawn 22:35, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

God damn it - are you back again? I effin banned you just yesterday...god some people just don't get the message... --Famine 12:20, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think attempted use of a sockpuppet to get round a ban is grounds for a extension isn't it?--Elvis 18:05, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I find that hard to fathom. I mean, all a sockpuppet does is make it harder to log in and edit, right? It seems that voluntary use of a sockpuppet should mitigate a ban, because a lower volume of damage could be done while wearing it. Unless it had fingerholes. --Famine 13:17, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
...until the gloves come off and the fight really begins? --Carlb 14:15, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Influx of countries

Does anyone know why we're getting all sorts of countries added to the database? I mean, it doesn't really make sense to me how it all got started. --PantsMacKenzie 12:54, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems like there hasn't been any other kinds of articles recently. And while countries are all well and good, it would be nice to have more articles on other subjects. Granted, I shouldn't be talking because I haven't written an article of any consequence in a while, but my opinion still stands --PantsMacKenzie 13:02, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm as confused as you. So I'm hiding, and pretending that other countries don't exist. My Amerikan training has come in useful once again!!! --Famine 19:02, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's getting out of control. In addition to Romania, now we've got to deal with rampant vandalism over at the Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia pages, and many of the actual "new" pages are just extensions of major country articles (e.g. the "What I Didn't Know About Romania" series, which at least was salvaged into something manageable). Gah. At least there are some new users who are helping out in reverting pages. Which is nice. --Rcmurphy 15:48, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Uncyclopedia is on a hiatus? --Nytrospawn 20:07, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure there are still a lot of other articles being written as well and the variouse country pages are starting to stabilise. --Elvis 12:37, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

What about the talk pages that are in different languages? Should we do anything about them? It kinda bothers me that I can't read them. --PantsMacKenzie 17:31, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)


I've consolidated the three dozen or so articles on Lithuania (many of them bios on individual political figures right down to the mayoral level) into one dozen, leaving:

--Carlb 16:01, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to block Lithuania for 1 week, until vandals will calm down?--Mirage 19:56, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Protected for now. I doubt the vandalism will decrease, but here's hoping. --PantsMacKenzie 20:11, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
This vandalism has already brought us Romania. I say unblock it and let the vandals do their thing. There's no need to apply the brake.
Since it's been five days, I'm unblocking it. --stillwaters/Talk 15:25, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

template:Uncyclopedia for Wikipedia

Given that we now have {{wikipedia}}


For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about Community Portal/archive4.
do you think we should create a {{uncyclopedia}} template at wikipedia, or do you think it may just piss them off?--Elvis 09:44, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
heh heh --Savethemooses 12:25, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that uncyclopedia now has more users that wikipedia, I feel that it's entirely appropriate. Also, as we are such a valuable part of wikipedia, I feel we should be assimilated into their namespace, taking over the currently empty UN: namespace. Hell, I think we deserve at least a un.wikipedia.org slot. If the tightfisted bastards don't give us that, we can at least (re)create the {{uncyclopedia}} template there once a week or so. --Famine 19:16, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to create the templat just to see how long it lasts.......--Elvis 10:17, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would last or not. {{Memory Alpha}} did, but other templates, like {{Hrwiki}}, didn't. Angela 05:50, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Someone made this template on Wikipedia on 5 July, and it went on VfD on the same day. The consensus so far favours deletion. --stillwaters/Talk 12:57, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing how much debate they require for such a clear cut case for deletion. I like Uncyclopedia, and I like pissing people off, but Uncyclopedia does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, because it's purpose is directly opposed to Wikipedia. That being said, I don't think we should be linking there either. I think people know where to go if they need some real infromation, I doubt they go looking for wikipedia links here.--TheLibrarian 21:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Personally I don't think it's a good idea to link to us directly from article pages on Wikipedia. That's borderline vandalism, even if it's funny. --Sophia 11:44, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia vfd event should just go on the Uncyclopedia Wikipedia page. Did anyone really expect Wikipedia to want links to Uncylopedia? Get real. It is perfect to have links to Wikipedia from Uncyclopedia using the "so called experts" method. It is not a matter of people "looking for wikipedia links here". Uncyclopedia users might have a reason to link to Wikipedia. For example, sometimes good Uncylopedia articles parody a Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt 00:20, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command -> The Life and Death of a Template --Elvis 11:45, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

ummm..."Good" Uncyclopedia articles?--slack 06:32, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Look up Community Portal/archive4 in Uncyclopedia, the stupid and fictional encyclopedia


More on Community Portal/archive4 may be found in Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia parody.

Maybe we should have a template like that... More on Uncyclopedia may be found in Wikipedia, an uncyclopedia parody. ;) --Carlb 18:18, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)


This does not have more than wipeada

Mass reverts

Do we have a mass revert ability in place somewhere? User:Bozoboy two weeks ago did some damage. How do we mass revert in cases like that? Do we have a bot? --Chronarion 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With a tabbed browser, it shouldn't take too long to revert 200 edits (or perhaps I've just had too much practice). I would recommend that you append &bot=1 to the user contributions list before reverting though, since this will hide the edits and reverts from recent changes, keeping them more useful for other users (see Wikipedia). Angela 04:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, it was > 500 edits across two users. My impression is that we should have a bot that can auto revert. Especially when vandals can use a bot, we should have a counter bot of some sort. This isn't the first time... and cleaning up sucks. --Chronarion 22:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have Nude Messages

From The Village Dump, comes a discussion debating the merits of retitling our message banner. The idea has been blessed by Chronarion, who had this to say about it: “Just vote by popular consensus, but try to keep it reasonable. Nude massages is best, I think. Stalker is too vague.

Use the space below the various suggestions to cast your vote. --Famine 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You have un-old messages.

  • You have lewd messages!
--Famine 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You have nude massages.
--Famine 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Carlb 16:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--DWIII 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You have a new stalker!

(deemed too vague)

Sorry but I still like this.--Elvis 23:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You have no pants on. Also, you have new messages.

--Savethemooses 16:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--RadicalX 02:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Freibetalk 11:01, 16 Jun 2005

  • You have new sausages.

  • You have two cowssages.

--EvilZak 00:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • "You have nyookyular messages" - George W. Bush

--Mathew 12:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • "You have new messages" - Oscar Wilde
Oh, Oh Me likes (Should link to Making up Oscar Wilde Quotes of course) --Elvis 10:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--David Gerard 11:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) The canonical version, of course

--Savethemooses 12:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Paulgb Talk 13:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Abc 15:56, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it as is. Too confusing to new users.
--Chronarion 22:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--PantsMacKenzie 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The message system is already quite confusing to people who aren't femilliar with wiki, so this is a good point. I am voting for the Oscar Wilde quote because it is not too confusing. --Paulgb Talk 13:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Change between two or more of these at periodic (day or week) intervals.
Potentially more confoosing, but if we stick with one variant it may be become as repetitive as the "This article is a stub and the author's on crack" routine...

Huuuuuuuuuuuge amounts of spam

I'm not even bothering reverting all of this crap anymore untill they're banned. Ban patrol keeps getting rolled back too. --King Nintendoid 07:35, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Everything should be cleaned up now. --Algorithm 09:33, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Audio Articles

We should have audio articles like Wikipedia. We'd start with the classics, like Making Up Oscar Wilde Quotes or anything I've ever written. We could do them in funny voices! That would be 1337. Erm, I mean quite cool. --Savethemooses 00:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not into the recording of that stuff, but I would definatly listen to it. --Paulgb Talk 01:54, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On a similar note, I've just started adding "Pronunication guides" to a few of my undictionary entries. E.g. Undictionary:Gay Love Child --IMBJR 20:42, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slow day at the banana stand

Where is everybody? Helloooo???? Hmm. I think I'll run around without my pants on. --Savethemooses 00:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mooses got pants! I need some non-vanity picture requests to give me something to do, or at least something to ignore. --Rcmurphy 00:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's too hot to think. Not that I ever did. --IMBJR 13:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
zzzz.... I have a pretty good article idea methinks, but me to9 lzay to wit ir...ughh --Savethemooses 20:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel like banning Chronarion for 12 seconds... heh heh... --Savethemooses 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Would it do any good, assuming we're talking not deliberate vandalism on his part but merely clueless n00b posting? --Carlb 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
yeah, what a n00bz0r... we should pwn him. --Savethemooses 03:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have done you a favor and banned myself for 12 seconds. --Chronarion 18:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mailing list

Don't forget we gotta mailing list. http://lists.wikicities.com/mailman/listinfo/uncyclopedia-l - perhaps it'll get used for stuff. Bitching about YUO ARE A ROUGE ADMNIN AND MSUT BE DESYSOPED NOW OR I WILL SUE YUO IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY!!1! and so on - David Gerard 01:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what will it do? Maybe we can send featured articles by Email like what Wikipedia doze does. --Savethemooses 18:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since we don't actually pump out a feature a day, a mailing list might be an idea - probably not a separate one as yet, that one will do. Who updates the feature? They get the job (*tag*, you're it). I think the Wikipedia one is in fact not automated, and FrazzyDee actually sends the damn thing out by hand every day around 00:00 UTC, or at least loads it up to be sent - David Gerard 10:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article title

What would the best title be for an article about a fight between Oscar Wilde, Winston Churchill, and Mark Twain?--Cowation 01:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Most Quotable Smackdown of All Time? --Savethemooses 12:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...now that would be a wilde wrestling encounter, wouldn't it? --Carlb 16:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alright then
The Most Quotable Smackdown of All Time

Cat list

Is there a page that lists all catagories and subcatagories? --Cowation 01:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red Links/ Hymie the SpelChek™ bot

Whilst I think we all applaud Carlb (and his pet bot) and his rampage against bad spelling (of which I am a prime offender) and linking to existing articles, does Hymie have to remove all the red links in an article?
I always got the impression that one of the advantages of a wiki is that people see a red link, get inspired and write an article thats (hopefully) funny. With hymie wipping them all out people just won't do that. I know there can be a problem with over wikifying articals (again something I could be accused of) and there is a habit of some to write some crappy one liner to turn something from red to blue but we already have systems in place to dela with this and they are work (sorta) well.
Of course red links can be hiffed by non-bots as well but generaly people use some discretion which a bot obviously can't. I'm not been active on wikipedia before coming here so maybe I've blundered into a huge holy war against red linkists' and Anti-red linkists and I'm about to get flammed to hell and back but I just thought it could do with some discussion.
Cheers --Elvis 22:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What did you have in mind; leaving red links in place only where the article is on some list of requested articles, flagging deliberate broken links much like deliberate mispellings to be ignored during future copyediting, or leaving every broken link? Leaving 'em all would leave red links pointing to articles which may never be created or which are routine VFD targets like Main Page (already voted for deletion, but about a dozen articles link there for some unknown reason). --Carlb 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it OK to fool the SpelChek™ bot by inserting green links to random articles? It'll never find those... *wink* --Carlb 01:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that what the bots look for are links that are actually visually red?--Cowation 01:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The script (User:Hymie the SpelChek™ bot/editarticle.py) retrieves the article as both wiki text and displayed HTML, finds all the "edit" links (?title=Whatever&action=edit), those'd normally be red links, then only looks for the most basic matches [[Whatever]] and at best an exact match on [[Whatever|Whatever...]] but not most [[Whatever|Something or other else...]] links as it's pretty brain-dead at the moment. Off-colour jokes aside, perhaps the answer is that deliberate broken links, like deliberate mispelling and other items that may look like misteaks, should be indicated as such by HTML comments so they can be ignored or re-inserted manually? JMHO --Carlb 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought about the script. That HTML comment idea sounds quite sensible. Do we have a preferred standard HTML comment for an intentionally broken link?--Cowation 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally find a broken link as a good comedic device. It allows the reader a moment of awe as he or she thinks, "They want an article about this? What the heck!" well at the same time, delivering the irony that the page does not realy exist. The broken link is a cue beyond written words and may add to an editor's tone with a keen subtelty. I don't necessarily like the idea, for that reason, of programs that remove red links without even a thought as to the comedic effect of those links. Some broken links are stupid, but it should probably be put to human discression.--Cowation 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And as a side note, wouldn't it be fun if broken links were red and completed ones blue? --Cowation 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What, something like This link is broken. This link is not. It can be done, but if it were done everywhere then what's the point? --Carlb 00:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have proudly just brought the practice slightly closer to being done everywhere with my much-controversial article Red Link. Hate to shamelessly self-promote but there didn't seem to be anywhere else applicable to link to the article. --UnholySauce 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Carlb, I imagine the reversed colors would be a direct wikipedia parody. Our links would be backwards, you see. But I suppose that isn't funny anyway. Oh well. --Cowation 01:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A typical example of redlinking?

From Hentai:

The hentai is the outward symbol worn by members of the Church of Avian Transcendence. It is used as a symbol of faith and allegiance to their great prophet, Jim Perdue, who helped to bring to prominence the holy white meat and spread the word of Cluck.
It is said that the original hentai, the one originally worn by Jim Perdue, is kept in a hidden vault beneath they Tyson Chicken factory in Citgo, Pennsyltucky. Avian Transcenders routinely attempt to raise funds in order to finance an assault on the compound and reclaim what they consider to be their religion's most holy relic.

Not bad at all as a new article (one of the better ones), but out of seven links all but one are red:

Effectively a duplicate pair; if this religion only exists for use in this one article, linking to two more articles on it (neither of which exists) borders on overlinking.
Maybe... but if simply "prophet" (not list of prophets, one specific prophet by name, prophets in history or prophets in some specific religious group) were the full title of a whole new entry, it'd likely just be an ick!tionary definition as a 'pedia article?
Effectively a triplicate set of dead links, assuming Perdue is non-notable outside the meat-packing company.

Just curious... Which of these broken links would you folks huff and which would you keep? --Carlb 22:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personaly I'd huff or redirect Avian transcenders, keep prophet, keep tyson chicken, huff one of the Jim Perdue. --Elvis 07:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And personally, I'd just leave prophet. My reasoning is that if it is a wikiword that is likely to be wikified in some other article, there's a greater chance of it becomming an article than other, less common (Jim Perdue) wikiwords. So when I go a huffing, I leave things like prophet, Tyson and relic, and huff the rest. If someone doesn't get to those pages from here, it's likely they will from somewhere else, and thus we have 2x the chance of getting an article. --Famine 13:07, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Red Linking Madness

OK, OK given that this has degenerated (what a surprise), I propose the following motion:
A Recommendation that Bots and other automated scripts, DB queries, etc. should not remove red links, ghost links, what have you (you know what I mean!):

Aye These red links serve a useful purpose and they should only be huffed in extremis and by living animated humans mammals.

--Elvis 09:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--DWIII 10:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
damn robots --Savethemooses 12:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--RadicalX 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Red links are responsible for some of my best article inspiration. I see a red link...think for a minute...then go...Aha! and....yeah, so..keep 'em.
--PantsMacKenzie 16:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I definitely believe the red links should stay. They give people incentive to write those articles.
I suggest to keep red links, and remove ONLY misspelled red links.--Sophia 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Red links tend to be good inspiration, but as our guidelines state, every word in a sentence should not be a link--slack 19:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Cowation 23:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)I like the idea of deleting mispelled links only, unless they have a particular HTML comment attatched
--Nytrospawn 02:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) The red links are a great way for newbies, like me, to get started in uncyclopedia. Even though Im not a newbie, but in fact a sysop.

Nay These red links are a menace and spoil my viewing of the articles and should be huffed by any and all means available to us!

Eh? These red links are, like all things except alcohol and sex, good in moderation. If more than 50% of the links on a page are red, delete them all, as they are in excess. If less than 50% are red, leave them, as they promote the growth of Uncyclopedia.

--Famine 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--There's a difference between red-linking to one or two potential requested article titles and the endless duplicate broken links from wikifying every bloody word (including all the mispelled ones) in the hopes that maybe one will come up blue. There's already more than enough of the latter. --Carlb 18:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I figure if 50% of the links are red, it's abuse of the wiki. If less are, the potential for useful growth is much higher. It doesn't solve the whole problem, but it mitigates it. Generally vast swathes of random wikification are less likely to be useful, than someone randomly adding tags to a word like wikification so that others can run with it. --Famine 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I should hasten to point out I'm only argueing against automagically huffing red links as it's a hammer to crack a nut (although thats not to mean that just because you are doing it by hand you should huff all red links regardless), I'm argueing that if needs eithier human intervention or a script a whole lot more advanced than any of us could be bothered with. I'm also not argueing that we should encourage overwikification.--Elvis 07:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I feel any automated process should count the links upon a page. If there are less than 5, ignore them. If there are more than 5, determine how many are "red links". If 50% or more of the links are red, delete them all, for that seems unecessarily spammy. If less than 50% are red, then the article has a moderately good chance of helping Uncyclopdeia grow. This is better than automatically killing them all, but helps prevent the STD of red link spamming. --Famine 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that, this may be a sensible comparise to the problem but (note: I havn't actual looking at the code for hymie or the bot it's based off yet) I wouldn't be surprise to find that it's non-trvial to add that sort of functionality, in additon I suspect that even now the instances of having articles with >5 links and >50% red or fairly small, thus making it not worth the hassle. Can anyone with knowledge of these bots comment? --Elvis 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The recipe?

Open-source (Python script) for SpelChek™-related nonsense is available at User:Hymie the SpelChek™ bot/editarticle.py and requires the base pywikibot installation, an external text editor (to do the actual SpelChek™ing) and the [www.python.org Python] interpreter. I'd suspect that counting the red links would be easy (as it's already printing a list of the broken links) but deciding which to keep when cooking up an Uncyclopedia article under this recipe would be less automatable:
Still filled with red links and half-baked ideas.
Just a little red in the centre or center.
No red at all.

Uncyclopedian of the Month

On a related note whilst we have the Noob of the month and the Writter of the month should we create something for those that spend so much time cleaneing up the place the general making it tidy, I'm thinking of people like EvilZak, Carlb, etc. I suspect we probably won't need to vote each and every month for one (we are still probably too small for that) but perhaps an Order of Merit or Cub Scout Badge?--Elvis 22:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here for edits one bearing the most honourable title of Uncyclopedia Cub Scout

I like it! --Cowation 00:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was think(ing) along the lines of: Csab.gif but with a potatoe BePrepared.jpg instead of the music score. (Unfortunatly my photoshop skills are nowhere near up to it) --Elvis 06:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... --Carlb 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant --Cowation 23:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK I therefore Propose EvilZak & Carlb as the first recipients of the Cub Scout Uncyclopedia Proficiency Badge, who'll second? --Elvis 07:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you'll want an administrator for that. But if you don't care, I second. --Cowation 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can identify 15 types of birds. --Savethemooses 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's realy cool, mooses. --Cowation 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)