Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive12

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


The "Get Chron's Ferrari fund" is now at the top of the Main Page. I didn't put it in MediaWiki:Sitenotice because that would only be annoying and not amusing. Note how the Fundraiser graph is actually hooked to the Wikpedia fundraiser total - David Gerard 00:45, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

When are we

Getting our own feature in Newsweek, like how Wikipedia did in like April? --Savethemooses 16:36, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"When the grass grows red, the sun goes out and the oceans turn to yougart." --Nerd42 19:54, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Grass will grow from your cheeks before Uncyclopedia gets a Newsweek feature. --Isra1337 04:38, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Shott's Almanac

We get a mention therein (Some Websites of the Year, page 190): [1] --Gay2.gifIMBJRGay2.gif 12:25, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) Really? Wow! That's really awesome. And I feel like I'm pretty much a huge reason for our success. --Savethemooses 16:36, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Merry Neutral Day of Celebration

Ho ho ho!!! --Savethemooses 22:28, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

HO HO HO --Chronarion 22:53, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ho ho, Ho.--Bradaphraser 03:02, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

parishilton3qj.jpg parishilton3qj.jpg parishilton3qj.jpg -- 03:07, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ho Ho... that's awful. Happy Generic Winter Holiday.--Sir Flammable KUN 15:52, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)



Vote for Gwax!

K g campaign.gif

And give Dawg a cookie for his amazing poster. --KATIE!! 00:50, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Those 'r frekkin awesome, doyathink they might go well on Wiki Administrators? --Nerd42 05:21, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with them, man. It's all good. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:38, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Still shows under my IP address...

Sorry if I come across as a Noob, but is their anyway whatsoever to get contributions you made before regestering to show up in your "My Contributions" page? I wrote this page: http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Run-on_Sentences Before I regestered. I assumed since it's the same IP address it would convert to my screen name once I regestered. I may have been wrong on that count...--Sgore

There is no way to merge them easily afaik, but I just signed my name on the talk page saying I wrote it for all my old articles, and then found my old ips I used and on the user page wrote "This User Is User:Insertwackynamehere" or something to that extent. --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world.gif CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 00:32, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

List of Netflix distribution centers

The excellent Hacking Netflix blog noted today that the so-called experts have a wikipedia:List of Netflix distribution centers. Now, I'm a happy camper, and my movies arrive about 10 seconds before I add them to my queue, so I can't muster the appropriate bile to create an Uncyclopedia version of the list. Could someone with more imagination perhaps do some investigative work and find out Where Netflix Movies Really Come From? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 17:42, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'll jump in one of those folders and ship myself off. See you guys in a week. (Nobody order The Family Guy Season 2 disc 2 unless you live near San Francisco. Thanks) --Spintherism 16:41, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Probation Template

I just created the probation template, and thought I should explain my intention and why I think it is necessary. The probation template is basically a WIP tag for an artice that isn't a WIP, but should be. So, it's sorta like, "Hey, the article is toeing the line for VFD, but it looks promising. Better get worked on some more though.

In my opinion this is really more of a community template and not anything of mine. So if others see a way it should be improved, by all means do so. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

  • This looks like a more direct-to-the-point version of Splaka's {{NRV|~~~~~}} tag. The NRV (No Redeeming Value) tag has the additional advantage of creating an entry in Category:Worthless Articles with a time-sensitive numeric indicator. When the digit flips and the page is still NRV'd, it's huffable. I wonder -- could we add the cheekiness of {{Probation}} to the functionality of {{NRV}} and let their powers combine to create Captain Planet a real crap-killer? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 17:00, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
mm, yes, perhaps. I was thinking this would be used more on VFD articles, but you have a point. I was inspired to make it when I voted that a VFD article qualified for deletion, but that we should put it on probation because it had promise. I think combining the two is a good idea, the NRV template is pretty boring. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)
The template is actually Algorithm's (though I suggested the weekly rollover timestamp code, and he wrote it). See Template_talk:NRV for a list of templates that might get the weekly or monthly rollover timestamp code. --Splaka 22:34, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Gaaah! No! At least use an image that doesn't conjure up such evil. That is sick. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:00, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess using Andrea Yates in a template that implies slaughtering of the young and helpless might be a bit tasteless. Though I thought that was the point. Anyway, there are plenty of other iconic images we could turn to:
  • Charles Manson (all the admins get together and go on a killing spree)
  • Lorena Bobbit (sorry, it's too short, we're cutting it off)
  • Albert Fish/Jeffrey Dahlmer (your article was eaten...)
  • Hannibal Lecter (... with fava beans and a nice Chianti)
Maybe you could have Hannibal on the left, and a nice pic of Jodie Foster on the right, glaring at each other. I'd suggest one of the pics from "Nell". -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 17:01, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Um, what's wrong with throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Most of these substubs are stillborn anyway. --Carlb 05:52, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Main Page link

The Dump isn't linked from the front page. Should it be? - David Gerard 11:31, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, the idea never even struck me. I'm guessing Wikipedia or some other wiki has a link to their Village Pump on the front page and I don't notice it? I don't care either way becuase I think the main page isn't funny at all and should be deleted. I don't know why Famine undeleted it. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

Hm. I think we have enough links on the main page already. The community portal is good enough. --Chronarion 18:16, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. It occurred to me and I wasn't quite sure whether it was a good idea or not - David Gerard 23:49, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a VD link to Talk:Main_Page, just to be redundant. I've gone ahead and added a VD link to Talk:Main_Page, just to be redundant. --Algorithm (talk) 09:18, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Redundant templates

I think it's the time to have a "content warning" template purge, as well as split the template category "Content management" into several smaller ones: for crazy articles, confusing articles etc.

The most obvious candidates for huffing, I think, are {{accurate}}, {{content}} and {{factual}}. I think they should be merged into a random template, similar to disambigs. You can add {{serious}} too, I originally intended it to play the same role as these three, but wasn't aware of their existence. - Guest 12:37, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A random on those templates would be way cool, actually. Please do - David Gerard 11:31, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Warning: Venting

<rant tone="annoyed">Good lord, why do we attract so many unfunny bigots. There are fairly clear lines between funny and stupid, and even clearer lines between humorous offensive and simple bigotry. "Send the white people back to Africa" = funny; "Let's lynch black people" = not funny. Oh yeah, while I'm at it, appending "and is gay" to a sentance is funny less than 0.1% of the time. I swear, the next time someone makes overt references to gay sex on an article that I like (and is unrelated to gay sex), I am going to be really pissed off. I don't think I was ever even half as bad some of these people are and I used to be a 13 year old boy with the internet. If things weren't so anonymous, I'd start tracking down the worst offenders and beating them up for detracting from my online experience.</rant> --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke.gif 03:55, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

detracting from my online experience. what, you have a hard on while looking at online gay porn? --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 14:18, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

touché --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke.gif 15:59, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Agree (with original venting) --Nerd42 17:55, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ehhh, I think you might have misread that, Nerd42! See, Gwax was saying he's against unfunny bigots who put stupid and needless "gay" references in articles having nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever. Since you're the worst offender on the whole site (and don't even bother denying it), presumably you meant to say you disagree with the original venting. --Johnny C. Raven 21:38, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Take your personal vendetta somewhere other than the Dump, you two, so the rest of us don't have to suffer through it. (Yes, Nerd, I know you haven't responded to him yet. This is a preemptory post.) --—rc (t) 21:45, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything more about it. Why do you think this is "personal," though? It isn't, at least not with me. Trust me on that one. --Johnny C. Raven 21:59, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to use a very constricted definition of "personal." --—rc (t) 08:36, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

n00b alert

Ahem, I was wondering how to attach tags. I saw the article on how to attach stub tags and crap tags, but how would one attach other tags? I saw a Communist tag that linked to the Russian Reversal page, and tags that have something like "this article may be offensive to...", as well as edited tags like the one on tourettes syndrome that has expletives randomly inserted. I would like to know how to get those, and was wondering if there was a tag to warn people of bad grammar, lack of punctuation, and gross spelling errors as well.

Most of our templates are listed in Uncyclopedia:Templates. Share and enjoy! --Algorithm (talk) 02:39, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
How exactly does one insert a template into an article? --Monkeyfetus 22:18, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
{{name of template here}} --KATIE!! 22:22, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Category:Humour and Category:Satire

Er, huh? Will we have a laugh track next? Perhaps a handy {{joke}} template which says LAUGH HERE? Hyuk hyuk wtf. - David Gerard 00:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

These categories are totally worthless. Everything on the site belongs in them, therefore they have absolutely no value. If something doesn't fit into at least one of those categories, it shouldn't be on Uncyclopedia. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:26, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Mild amusement
  • Category:I actually pissed myself
  • Category:I laughed out loud at work and got fired
  • Category:I orgasmed spontaneously. Oops.
  • Category:Fucking serious
  • Category:Would I shit you?
  • Category:LOL
- David Gerard 01:00, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Category:Page with joke categories

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 23:06, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Voice chat" empirically proven to pwn

"Voice chat" on the Motorola Brick.

For some reason I'd thought these people were smarter than a sack of hammers. - David Gerard 20:42, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I fear humanity is further gone than I originally imagined. That it took that long to figure it out and that it was believed means people clearly lack critical thinking skills, let alone true intelligence. Humanity is doomed. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:30, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
These are Americans we're talking about. If it was supposed to be FUNNY it'd be covered in SNOWY OWLS saying "O RLY?" LOL LOL LOLOLOLOLOL ROFL ROFLOFLOFLOFLOFL - David Gerard 01:04, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
That bit about the phone was pretty funny. Too bad we can't get that sort of writing talent here. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
We need to pay better. Beer and hookers only go so far - David Gerard 02:12, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
And by so far I'm assuming you mean all the way. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:52, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we need to stamp [[ruomuH:yrogetaC]] on their foreheads so they know what to do next they see a mirror - David Gerard 02:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Gentlemen and gentlewomen, I suggest an experiment. We post the voice chat article in forums around the internet, and watch what happens. I'll see how long Wikipedia will take to realise it's a joke, but sans the bit where the guy talks 1337. --Joachim22 06:04, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I already bragged in #wikipedia, but don't let that stop you ;-) - David Gerard 11:29, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Clap clap -- 18:12, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rehabilitating CVPs

I've written actual articles at O RLY? and 4chan. Let's see what happens to them - David Gerard 20:44, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We've done it before and we'll do it again! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:31, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Three thumbs up to Mcdeuce — that pic and caption on 4chan was a stroke of genius - David Gerard 02:11, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

UtarEmpire and Wheeling Jesuit University

Id like to submit the proposition to permenantly protect the Wheeling Jesuit University name space(in conjunction with the deletion of the article bodies), and all associated name spaces. UtarEmpire is being unfairly persecuted by his University for those articles, so, in all fairness to him, we should do away with those name spaces. --Nytrospawn 22:41, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No. He appears to be back underhis own username.--Chronarion 18:15, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

id rather write another usless post then search for your article or even link the title --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 14:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is Village Dump not "Jackass of the Hour". You keep talking like that on this page, and Ill give you an IP range block --Nytrospawn 22:40, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

touché.... how long will the block be? --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 01:16, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not as long as his, if he keeps making threats. He's supposed to be an admin, not a bully.--Chronarion 18:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the outburst. I expected civil discourse when I posted this in the Dump --Nytrospawn 18:31, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

LOL wikipedia part trois

Poor wikipedia just can't win, can they?

Wired News: Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio
Sleuthing into the accuracy of the open-source web encyclopedia known as Wikipedia has led to the door of its founder, Jimmy Wales.
Public edit logs reveal that Wales has changed his own Wikipedia bio 18 times, deleting phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site.
Wales has also repeatedly revised the description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes."

See what sort of trouble you get in when you violate the Vanity Policies? tsk, tsk. By the way, Slashdot has picked up the story as well, and by coincidence I happen to have five Slashdot mod points. Suggestions for mod-worthy postings (esp. those mentioning Uncyclopedia, which remains true to its mission of disinformation) are welcome. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 21:19, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I loved those Bomis Babes. 'Specially the busty ones --Nytrospawn 22:27, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Jimbo Wales part of the "anyone" in "anyone can edit?" I wouldn't be suprised if President Bush was accused of editing Wikipedia:George W. Bush considering how much vandalism it gets lol. That would be kinda weird actually ... --Nerd42 17:57, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Modification

I took the liberty *ducks* of rearranging the Main Page just a bit. The former version was annoying me because WOTD wasn't well-integrated. What is your opinion on the change? Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 09:42, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

How about a vote --Splaka 09:51, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
maybe you both should go back to the drawing board. I see potential in a mixture of your ideas

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 13:42, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Separate pink box

Main Page

  • For. I like it in a separate pink box. The pastels remind me of Smarties (the US version, not those M&M-like things they have in Canuckistan). Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 09:51, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Separate internal pink box

See it here

All in one box

See it here

  • I liked this best. DYK reduced to one line. --Splaka 09:51, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • IV. It keeps the number of different multi-coloured boxes to a minimum. --Carlb 23:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

DYK/Fortune/WOTD/ITK all separate

See it here

  • Against. Too many of these begins to look like one of those "This article has too many templates. Please add more" pages. --Carlb 23:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Tremble in fear

I hate pink!

No, really. Dump the gay pink color. Goto green instead. I'm not joking - I did it. --Nerd42 16:41, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with gay pink colors, feel free to have a long talk with my banhammer. --Gay4.gifGay5.gifS P I N N I EGay5.gifGay4.gif 22:43, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Uncyclopedia Puzzle Potato Notext.png

Donation meter.png

"Wikipedia-approved parody of itself, featuring dry and tepid Aspie wit."

can it go at the top of Here, here and here, then sign Here

Also the main page looks a little something like this with out the ugly useless empty space. For--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 12:12, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

LOL --Nerd42 16:23, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

woot! We have more money than last time I saw the template! --Isra1337 21:34, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This should be on every page! --KATIE!! 10:42, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Guys, someone needs to overhaul VFH so it's not as horribly unwieldy as it is now. Any ideas? How does wikipedia do it? --Chronarion 09:01, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

With layers of bureaucracy THIS FUCKING THICK. You don't want to do that. Mind you, it only works even then because Raul654 holds it together well as Featured Articles Dictator. Does Rcmurphy have any ideas, holding the same role here? - David Gerard 01:28, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I sorted it based on date of first vote, thinking that is what Chron had intended the other day (and RC said it made his job much easier). I think having it in order of nomination is easiest for him. --Splaka 01:35, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
It does. I was happy with the sorted-by-nomination method because it made it much easier for me to sort through old articles that hadn't accumulated many votes. --—rc (t) 03:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I think a clearer rule for removing failed nominations might clear things up. For instance: An article has 2 weeks to get at least 4 votes. If after two weeks it has fewer than 4, then it gets removed. A quick survey shows that implimenting that particular rule would immeadiately remove one quarter of the current list. --Isra1337 01:56, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I do have loose guidelines for removing nominations, but I've avoided posting exactly what they are because they've changed over the months and will probably continue to change. For example, several months ago, one vote would give the nomination ten days of immunity. That would be insanely lax now. Also, while removing old/failed noms does help (and I'll try to pick through them tonight), there are a lot of articles that have six or seven votes, which, for an Uncyclopedia article, is extremely positive. One thing is that we don't have enough people voting against nominations. I encourage everyone to VOTE AGAINST ARTICLES that you don't think are front-page material, even if you don't think they're bad, per se. And I will try to be quick about removing failed nominations. And I'll try to think of a better overall method for VFH as well, though I can't think of anything offhand. --—rc (t) 03:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that the guidelines change. I was just thinking that a public rule might make your job easier because other people could do the weeding out. I suppose that could be difficult to police though, so nevermind, I guess. --Isra1337 03:48, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's kill our current method all together. We shall have a Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday featured article. Each day gets a heading, and articles are listed under each. On Tuesday, the one under that heading with the most votes is featured. The rest are purged. Ditto on the other two days. Each user can have one nominated article - it's probably wisest to pick the furthest-away day, so as to get as many votes as possible. If it doesn't get the votes, it gets whacked. If you just dump your article in there as a lark, vote for it yourself, and then nobody else touches it, a week later (max) it's gone.

I think this will do three things:

A) We'll have a lot more turnover, and won't be drowning in articles.
B) We no longer have to have an "x-vote minimum" for featuring - if one article has 2 votes, and the rest have 1, it gets featured.
C) Less articles to consider mean that we're more likely to get people actually reading them. I know, scary stuff there.
Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 02:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Clarification? By "Each user can have one nominated article" do you mean that each person can nominate one article per week, or do you mean that each writer can be nominated once? --Isra1337 03:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This seems too complicated/"scheduled" for the typical Uncyclopedia user. Look at the colonizations - they worked well for a few weeks, but now they're not getting nearly as much attention even from established users. I think it would break down since everything is purged periodically. And we'd likely lose out on featuring a lot of good articles as well - fail one nomination and it might never get picked up again for VFH. --—rc (t) 03:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
wouldn't this make it way too easy for my articles really stupid articles to make it on the front page? --Nerd42 03:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Shortening the highlight time?

A suggestion: if we have a backlog of articles nominated for VFH, and many of them are worthy, would it make sense to feature articles with few votes for a day and articles with many for two days? Presumably all of the VFH-worthy articles could be templatised and codes similar to the ones used to automatically display anniversaries on the front page each day could display the highlighted articles, so this doesn't have to manually be changed every day or two. If an article is to be featured for more than one day, just create two anniversary-style template entries (one of which is a redirect) and point both to the same text. --Carlb 00:00, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

3 week cut off

if a article isnt featured in 3 weeks lets just remove it from the list.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 01:00, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If you do that, you would be tossing out a significant number of articles with 8 or 9 yays and no nays. It also wouldn't significantly reduce the size of the list. --Isra1337 01:24, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Some quality articles take a bit of time to gain a following. On the other hand, some flash-in-the-pan articles which are overly promoted and overly gimmicky get a lot of attention quickly. The VFH page should allow articles to slowly build audiences if need be. --Sir KP GUN 00:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What to Do With Self-Referential Humor

Nerd42 wrote earlier in the Dump that "You know I kinda like doing Uncyclopedia parodies of ... itself." I also enjoy self-referential humor on Uncyclopedia and have written a few such articles myself: The Uncyclopedia drinking game, and Canned quotes (which I consider to be one of my finest articles). I'm not sure if such articles should be featured on the front page though, since most visitors passing through the site won't appreciate the humor, they are in-jokes after all.(Except in the case of Uncyclopedia Plus, because that was a parody not just of Uncyclopedia, but a common internet phenomenon.) However, I also think a lot of the pages are very well-written and of high-quality and it would be nice for them to get some recognition.

Powerless as I am, all I've done so far is started the categery Uncyclopedia In-Jokes as the category for such humor. Category:Uncyclopedia was already on most of these pages, but that category is cluttered with a lot of non-humor related articles. Likewise, a lot of the articles have Category:Inside jokes on it, but that category is also pretty cluttered. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

This is profoundly weird. I was just thinking of this very same subject when I clicked on the Village Dump link. As for my two cents, I think we can live with a dose of such articles, but we sure don't want a wave of them. --Gay2.gifIMBJRGay2.gif 18:15, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
lol, I'm getting quoted alot these days. Probably won't be long until somebody writes a "Making up Nerd42 quotes" --Nerd42 22:32, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I've also been concerned about this trend. On VFH right now there are about eight self-referential articles about Wikis in general or Uncyclopedia in particular. Now I hasten to say that there's nothing wrong with most of these articles; they're all funny in their way. But it's a big world out there, full of things that are funny, or that can and should be made fun of. I suggest that people should seek inspiration for their articles before they log on. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:58, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... Wouldn't that depend on the makeup of our audience? (not trying to defend the articles I've written in this category here because I know you're not attacking them or anything) I was under the impression that most of the people who come here do so because they hear about us via Wikipedia's parody of us. So, people coming to Uncyclopedia are far more likely to be wiki-savvy than "normal" people, and would be in a better position to appreciate wiki-related humor than any other audience in the world. --Nerd42 05:35, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • You surprise me. I thought you were the champion of the "humour should be universal to be considered funny" POV. Look, all I'm doing here is offering a suggestion. If you want to ignore it, feel free. I just think we should broaden our horizons a bit. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:40, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, man. I'm all about trying to entertain people, not just gross them out or bore them or make them angry or confused. I'm not wanting to argue with you here, just discuss things, maybe reach a consensus. :) I don't really have a position on this issue other than my having written some of the articles in question ... which I think are pretty good ... and I think nobody's gonna understand the Main Page anyway who isn't farmiliar with Wikipedia because the whole main page is a frekkin parody of the Wikipedia layout anyway - but I also see that some of this "wiki humor" is kind of technical and maybe people who don't spend hours late at night on wikis like I have been doing will understand it ... yawn ... wow is it really ten minutes to midnight in my time zone!? where did all the time ... go ... Zzz.... --Nerd42 05:59, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Now does anyone have anything coherent to offer? --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:48, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind inside jokes or self-referencing humor, but I think we need to be careful about what we actually feature on the front page. A few days ago I looked through the recently featured articles (democratically chosen for the most part) and only two of about eight were articles that you'd find in a real encyclopedia, and maybe one more you'd find in Wikipedia. Not very parodic. Yes, it's hypocritical of me, but we need more "real" articles that are accessible/funny to your average person. That's why I'm reluctant to "feature" the main page, VFD, VFH, or articles specifically about Uncyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I find some of our self-referencing articles funny, but I don't think many of them should be frontpaged. --—rc (t) 01:31, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rcmurphy. I'm new here, but it seems to me the "internal business pages" don't belong in that part of the main page at all. And while I'd like to see Wikithug featured there (I did nominate it), and I certainly appreciate the nomination for Wikiphrenia, "over-featuring" that kind of material is just going to make us look snarky to the rest of the Wikiworld. To be honest, these articles I'm writing (the latest is Wikipoleonic Complex) are at least half-serious, if not more than half. I'm thinking the most appropriate thing of all would be to put together some sort of Wikipsychology 101 page, and recommend that new users (and a few existing ones) read it, just in case they get any particularly asinine ideas. --some other user 01:43, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'd suspect that many of the nominated "internal business pages" were nominated as a joke. Especially Main Page; didn't one of the Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse just delete that piece of rubbish not too long ago??? --Carlb 22:27, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Of course they were nominated as a joke! The whole site is a bunch of frekkin jokes! lol --Nerd42 17:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

call for help

wondering if anyone could take a look at Office-supply junkies and improve it. I created it, and I stubbed it because I did about as good as I could, making the base article. If you see anything that you think needs done, go ahead and edit away. Please don't nuke it though. I did my duty and created the article, because before, it was a link without a page.

  • Except that people actually read the village dump. --Paulgb 21:18, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Something's not right.

OK, just ... just look at this [2]

The Uncyclopedia:QuoteUnquote project just isn't happening. I'd do stuff with it but I'm kind of paranoid of being banned for screwing things up. --Nerd42 00:13, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Don't Ask Me...

Don't ask me how I found this, but somehow I did. Anyway, maybe we should start selling those things. Or even make our own line of Steve Ballmer action figures.--Jsonitsac 17:04, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

“That codpiece both frightens and excites me.”
~ Oscar Wilde

how about we adopt The Wrong Version?

It's a lonely page that is likely to get deleted because it is funny. (I had absolutely nothing to do with writing it, Scouts Honor) Perhaps Uncyclopedia could become a home for such a funny page? Yeha, I know we aren't running a Wiki orphanage. (lol, i still remember the Cursed Page fiasco) But I think this one really is rather funny. --Nerd42 17:52, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities Stats

Dear Jason Satan Santa,
I've tried very hard to be an ornery bastard whining pissant especially good boy this year. All I want for Christmas (or sooner) is Real Ultimate Power the Clapper the Clap an SQL dump so I know which n00b to nominate this month.
Love, Best Wishes, Kthxbye, -- T. (talk) 15:42, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Google custom page

Does anyone use the google customized home page? I already wrote a google desktop plugin, but I could write a google homepage plugin too if someone wants it. --Chronarion 15:02, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

who huh? yeah I got a googleh homepage. I have this special news feed on it that tells me all the latest google news stories involving monkeys. And I'm not kidding. --Nerd42 15:10, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Do we have an RSS feed now? I noticed the link for the google desktop plugin but not a direct link to a feed. There used to be one but it was slow because it was updated manually. I don't know if it is around anymore. --Paulgb 19:21, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
can you make me a firefox search engine pluging for wikipedia / uncyclopeida.now that would be very usefull. thanks --Whywhywhy 02:14, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Already exists, see the Mozilla site as it should be available with the rest of the search plugin files. --Carlb 04:37, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
[plugin] woot. i vote 4 it onto the front page --Da, whywhywhy:-:MUN BLK |_LG4  :: 11:12, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Idol

Uncyc idol.png

You know I kinda like doing Uncyclopedia parodies of ... itself. Like teh Uncyclopoly, Uncyclopedia 2 and Aidepolcycnu. Well today, I'm thinkin of starting yet another one in this totally rockin' series - Uncyclopedia Idol! Unfortunately, I'm not retarded enough to have ever actually watched "American Idol" so I kinda need some people to help me out with this. Anybody got any bright ideas? --Nerd42 15:55, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm Simon Cowell and you're William Hung. --Savethemooses 04:11, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I WANT TO BE WILL HUNG --Chronarion 05:50, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'M MORE WILL HUNG THAN YOU'LL EVAR BE --Sir Flammable KUN 07:39, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'M DRAMATICALLY MORE WILL HUNG THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 09:57, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't makes those claims in front of Simon. :P -- T. (talk) 14:42, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Against because we already know who's going to win the whole thing - Splaka, because Splaka sucks it. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
lol you vote against all my ideas --Nerd42 03:26, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is exactly the type of funny crap I had in mind. I put up an image request at Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's Corner for a logo. --Nerd42 15:06, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

well, maybe an uncyclopedia survivor? --Nerd42 21:53, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We feed one participant to a grue at the end of each week??? --Carlb 20:21, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know?

While the random nature of the DYK template can produce some funny bits, maybe it would serve more of a purpose if it took single funny lines from new articles, similar to what Wikipedia does. --Savethemooses 08:23, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I like it. A lot of edits on the template are self-referencing:
  • ...that you can get pregnant just looking at my penis?
  • ...that I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it?
  • ...that I am BEHIND you?
  • ...that your cell phone is ringing?
(Emphesis added)

Which just isnt very funny after you have seen it done over and over again. --Paulgb 23:51, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There was some discussion on IRC about changing DYK completely - maybe changing that section to highlight a particular part of the site for every day of the week (i.e. Colonizations on Saturday, DYK only once a week, and whatever else would fit there). I think it's a good idea, because DYK is hardly ever funny. --—rc (t) 23:56, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think we should do both Did You Know and Recent News the same way Wikipedia does them: protect them both, and link to a page to submit new DYKs/news items. Admins choose which ones go on the templates and which ones don't. That way, the good ones get a much-needed lifespan increase while "...that X% of statistics are made up?" never reaches the front page again. --EvilZak 19:21, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

are you volunteering to go though all the shit people come up with to pick out the gems? Because I do not think the admin want to do it... --RaRanax 07:08, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to come to a consensus on this. DYK is one of the first things a new user will see, and we don't want it to suck. I say we do what Wikipedia does, take "facts" from new articles and put those in. And that wouldn't be too much of a task for admins, so I would be pro-protect. Can we get a vote vote? --Savethemooses 02:09, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with STM and RaRanax, as long as they are protected or not on the front page. ^_^. --Splaka 02:15, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree take random facts --Whywhywhy 07:48, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think for a start we could try removing the edit links from the front page as this should cut down a lot of the mindless DYK's and news.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:04, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a final decision made on this. Every time I see the right hand side of the front page I get depressed. I say we vote: take random facts from new articles or random facts from featured articles. Then we vote on whether it should be protected, be admin-only, and take submissions on the template's talk page or something. --Savethemooses 18:30, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Facts from new articles

Facts from featured

Vote --Savethemooses 18:30, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vote Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:28, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vote -- T. (talk) 07:52, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Vote --Savethemooses 18:30, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote --EvilZak 20:45, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vote Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:28, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vote -- T. (talk) 07:52, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just get rid of DYK all together

if this is an option, I'm voting for it. DYK is crappy. I'd like to see a QuoteUnquote section on teh main page in it's place. Or something else, I dunno, just that DYK is kinda crappy. --Nerd42 22:18, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So are you. Against. We can work it out, we can work it ou-out. --Savethemooses 23:42, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For --Chronarion 02:01, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For And replace with something more funny-like. --—rc (t) 03:47, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For: /me never much liked DYK --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke.gif 04:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For One of the first things I noticed about this place was the irredeemable suckiness of that section. It's not necessary to mirror Wikipedia exactly. Replace it with something else entirely. I suggest we un-sell rotating advertising space (i.e. periodic bashings of various companies with a silly note like We can be bribed NOT to bash your company here) Fool 04:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For - It could be better used for something else. I like Fool's idea, maybe we could even get some bling so we can order a pizza for those long lonely nights fighting vandals. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:28, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Replace - with something like "Quotes to live by" & have a daily random quote from Wilde or Anonymous. 14:58, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For--Nytrospawn 21:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to make anybody mad by voting thus. And if it's replaced by something even cooler, then that's great :) I brought something up on Talk:Main Page that might help. --Nerd42 22:17, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)


I've protected the template and put a few lines from the Best of Uncyclopedia. Let's see how this works for a few days.--Savethemooses 17:34, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A little too static. Perhaps both "Did you know" and "Do you care?" should change randomly, or change based on the current date. The idea of pulling the first amusing line from every article that's been nominated/featured is a good one, but the box contents do need to change periodically (much like a kitty's litter box) to remain fresh. --Carlb 05:24, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Keep As Is

For - I typically don't use my registered name on this, as I normally do my edits unregistered (so I don't get associated with perceived crap or brilliance). However, I have to say that DYK is one of my favorite sections of Uncyclopedia.

I'll agree that LATELY, it's been rather dull. I blame the lack of linkiness and some of the self-referential stuff is dull.

All I'm saying is - keep as is. It should be the job of us users to delete the crap stuff from it and promote the good stuff. Some of the self-referential stuff can be clever. All things in moderation and whatnot. And IMHO, the current DYK is rather dull. But that's just me.

And now to go back to lurking, before I get flamed. --Champthom 02:45, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For - It's much better than this new crap. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian UNcyclopedia

I'm admin on hungarian Wikiquote. We would like to start an own uncyclopedia in hungarian language. Whats should we do? Thanks for the answers. NCurse 14:42, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You should look for a free wiki host (like wikicities, which hosts this wiki). Sometimes they come free with ads (like this one). There's a list of wiki hosts on Wikipedia. Then of course you should advertise it.--Luci S 05:06, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try. :) NCurse 08:34, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm vewy fwightened!

inspired by this thread

Over the last week I've been working on the NeoContract with America article. In it I wrote,

Bush conservatives believe that the State is its own justification. 
Thus the Bush administration has refused to tell the public who its 
consultants are, what it discusses, where Dick Cheney's secret fort 
is, why it is investigating you, how it gets information, what it 
does with people it arrests, and whether the president really does 
wear a radio under his jacket during debates.

Now, in the last 36 hours, we learn that Bush Himself ordered the NSA and the DIA to conduct thousands of illegal wiretap operations -- surveillance on thousands of Americans with no warrant or any legal oversight at all. The Bush administration refuses to comment on the specifics. It refuses to say why it is investigating you [and] how it gets information!

What if...What if other aspects of the lightheartedly satirical article I wrote come true!!!??

What if...it is revealed that the government of George "GeeDubya" Bush really IS arresting certain people without charging them with any crime, and taking them -- via, say, flights through Spain and Germany -- to secret prisons in...oh, I dunno...Romania or someplace!

What if satire become real-world TRUTH! OMGWTF!

Yer faithless despondent, old but perniciously flatulent OEJ, is veritably frightened to add to the NeoContract article. What if it all comes TRUE! OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!11!!----OEJ 00:55, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody and welcome to LameBlogopedia, the free Lame Blog that anyone can edit, where we have all your Lame Blog material covered. We've discovered that the main source of humor in the Universe is from people's Lame Blogs and it usually involves Bush and for some reason, former Senator McCarthy. If you're interested in helping with the project, please submit all articles from your Lame Blogs to the Uncyclopedia Village Dump and we'll be happy to read them. Your staggeringly funny lines about how politicians are spying on you will not only make everybody laugh but will become the new salvation of the human race. --Nerd42 23:57, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, what if rapper DMX really ends up being arrested? Oh goodness, I will feel so guilty! (As an aside, I thought you were currently banned, Nerd42? Did your latest ban -- I believe it's number 6 or 7 -- run its time already?) Well, the fact is, once again it is shewn verily and forsooth that satire cuts uncomfortable close to the bone. One can quote Mussolini and say it comes from neoconservatives, and -- goodness me, what a surprise -- Mussolini's famous fascist manifesto turns out to be the actual neoconservative philosophy. ----OEJ 00:06, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ba-zing.--Sir Flammable KUN 00:43, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to lighten the mood, and remind people that this is not a blog. --Nerd42 01:54, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you're trying to be funny! By the skidmarked knickers of Jenna Bush, I thought you were just being an asshole! And, since I consider myself not only an asshole but a fucking annoying asshole I was feeling, er, a tad bit disenfranchized. Feeling a bit like Jeff Dahmer would if somebody was raiding his 'fridge and eating the choice bits of his boyfriends, you see. But of course since the facts on Bush are the facts, conservatives have to resort to attacking the messengers. Did you know that waterboarding was invented by the Spanish Inquisition, and is one of the tortures recommended by Don Rumsfeld in his memos to craven underlings? Fact. Well, this is not a blog but it is the village idiot. I mean village DUMP. Sorry, it was a Fraulein slip. A lace slip, like those sweet little Republican songbirds Prussian Blue wear. Heh, heh, hehBURP. Sorry, man, I'm deeply into my cups -- ie drunk as a lord -- this fine evening. I try to keep it under control, but I really am an asshole. If you want to comment, at least try to be funny. Oh, you did try. Well, Nerd, try harder. ;) ----OEJ 03:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Nerd42 briefly compares OEJ's last post to his first post for comedic value ... attacking the messenger? Dude, this is not supposed to be a political debate wiki. It's supposed to be funny so people have a good time. This Lame Blog crap should be held to the same standard as everything else - either it's funny or its outta here. --Nerd42 04:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This coming from the man who objects to Red shirts on the grounds that it's unfairly sided, as well as the "Reasons not to be..." because it was immoral. Puh-leeze. Stop trying to wear the non-politicizing hat when you've clearly done so yourself. "Meh meh meh. I'm gonna complain about a page because I don't like it's views. Meh Meh Meh, look at me, I'm being funny by placing templates on a page to clearly label it as political humor, though i don't liek ti when they disagree with my own views. Meh meh meh. I don't like red shirts because I'm a republican. I'm christian, I don't like how intelligent design was written. Meh meh meh." Don't try to pull that crap with us. You're worse than he is. At least he's not ruining pages because they offend him. --Sir Flammable KUN 04:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
"This coming from the man who objects to Red shirts on the grounds that it's unfairly sided, as well as the "Reasons not to be..." because it was immoral." -- Quote me saying that. I never said that!! I said that I thought that a section of the article Red Shirts was not funny because it was too heavily propogandic. I think either you didn't pay attention to my actual position or you have me confused with somebody else, possibly neoeva88. This coming from the person who said, "I don't need to justify my vote to you." --Nerd42 21:48, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, I should give you a crown and dub you king of the non sequitur. What the hell does my statement on VFH have to do with what I just said? Your comment appeared to be an unnecessary defense of your work, and I responded appropriately. On the other hand, you're parading around as some sort of Balance Nazi (Forgive the irony). Fine, I confused you with neoeva on Red shirts, and misquoted "Anti-Morality" (becuase you're clearly going to win by nitpicking) but you're still guilty of making inappropriate and disruptive changes in situations where the content clashes with your ideals. I'm pointing out that you should be careful of what you say, given your track record.--Sir Flammable KUN 22:06, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
OK, ;) getting people mixed up happens to everyone (and me too) now and then. I hope this is not getting too far off-topic, but I want everyone to know I don't vandalise articles I disagree with and don't encourage anyone else to. All the things I've said about how I think some aspects of NPOV ought to apply even in humor, so far as setting up some reasonable boundaries are concerned, are/were just me expressing my opinion. I still respect people who disagree with my ideas, and if the community decides not to go with my ideas, that's fine, do/vote/argue for what you think is best for uncyclopedia. I can even manage to respect One Eyed Jack. Well, most of the time anyway lol. But, if the village dump becomes a mere extension of people's left-wing blogs, left-wing articles get featured on the front page every day and various conservatives disembodied heads on spikes become new featured images every day ... well, being an Uncyclopedian will surely cease to be as fun as it used to be, you see what I mean? I'm here for the actual humor. --Nerd42 22:29, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Wait a second, when did the oligarchy enact an NPOV policy? I thought such things were expressly forbidden on Uncyclopedia. Am I mixing this site up with some other site? Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 02:24, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the image idea!--Isra1337 01:38, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Let them judge you by your track record. By the way, when you say actual humor, do you mean the majority of the trite, derived, and otherwise uninteresting articles you've added to the uncyc, as well as your tendency to engage in administrative trouble-causing? Speaking of humor, I'm surpised that you don't understand the humor that OEJ was attempting to get at in his initial post. Plus, it's the first time he's posted here like this. Calm down.--Sir Flammable KUN 00:47, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
With reguards to Reasons not to be a devout Christian (links to history), what was wrong with that edit? I tried out something, administration disagreed and changed it back, so from then on I left it alone. Seems like a normal day on a wiki to me. On the other hand, Reasons to become an atheist (links to history) is currently being targeted by real vandalism and I'm considering putting it on QVFD myself even though some people think it's funny because I don't want to have to deal with a vandalism war for such a stupid article that has already made it's point. (that this type of humor sucks)
I did not vandalise Reasons not to become a devout Christian. I removed stuff I think is crap, hoping to improve the article. This is the precise problem we've had in the Did You Know section. We generate long lists of things, and nobody is able to delete other people's list items, so we get long long lists filled with crap. --Nerd42 19:20, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
No, you just changed it because it clashed with you ideologies. You whined about it on QVFD, and seeing that no one wnated to agree with you, you went and changed it yourself. I didn't say you vandalized it, I said you changed it for the worse becuase of your biases. I find the reprehensibility of that a shade lower than that of a vandal. By the way, you're non-sequituring again, perhaps with a bit of straw man or red herring.--Sir Flammable KUN 20:50, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points but one - I believe "intelligent design" is too truthful to be satire. I believe it should be treated as undeniable scientific fact complete with completely insane 'science' to back it up that is treated as infallable fact (and the opposite should be done for evolution - treat it as a religion (even though I see it as such, for the vast majority this might be funny (or it could create something akin to the Romania or Poland articles that people keep fighting over))). But that's just my opinion. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:37, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
(to Nerd42, not Flammable) *shrugs* This is not an article, it is the Village Thump. If somebody wants to blank this discussion, it is not worth a lump of frozen walrus piddle to me. Simple fact. Now we are back to the political satire thing. You simply don't understand that political satire always offends the party it satirizes...if the satire is any damned good.
Quite frankly, I write the shit that I write. If you don't like the shit don't read the shit. (D'oh.) However, you have not earned the chops to tell me I shouldn't be writing the shit. It's shit, I know, just like everything else. But you, sirrah, cannot tell me that I should not write it. You, sirrah, may flounce your lacy petticoats all you wish but you impress me not nearly as much as a barnacle on a baboon's booby. Nudge, nudge, wink, cough, gagggg, HURGHGHHUURRRGH oh damn I hurled my Ropa Vieja and Tecate all over the keyboard.----OEJ 04:57, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Last night I started a satirical Liberal Agenda For America. This morning the President of the USA and the Free World said that He in His wisdom finds it is necessary to conduct illegal surveillance of US citizens' private communications, and He said that He authorized it personally. And He said that He told some people -- but he did not say who -- that He was doing it. And He said that He is gonna continue doing it in certain cases where He has certain information -- that He declined to explain.

Pretty much like the NeoContract with America article said.

I will change the thrust of the LAFA article. As a thinking citizen of the USA I cannot in good conscience miss any chance to expose a President who has literally and factually broken his oath to uphold the US Constitution. There is a time to write silly stuff, and crazy stuff, and a time to write hard-edged humor. (Despite what marshmallows who can't stand the heat of the campfire think.)----OEJ 17:17, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"You simply don't understand that political satire always offends the party it satirizes...if the satire is any damned good."

  1. That's not always true. I voted for Bush and even I can laugh at alot of the Bush jokes. I've made a few myself.
  2. I am not offended by your bringing this up in the village dump. I'm annoyed and a little concerned that the village dump is being turned into a left-wing blog that also sometimes talks about Uncyclopedia. I was really only just trying to be funny in my "LameBlogopedia" post.
  3. I have not been arguing that all political humor should be removed from Uncyclopedia, or arguing anything at all about you personally.

"There is a time to write silly stuff, and crazy stuff, and a time to write hard-edged humor." -- who are you cutting with your hard edge? Couldn't it be a large part (or even the majority) of your audience if you're being extreme enough? And if you're out of balance far enough, the smaller part is probably not going to laugh. I don't really enjoy watching people get cut.

I understand using humor to make people think, and even to pursuade them somtimes -- but it's the humor that is supposed to be the goal, not the pursuasion. And that the President betrayed the Constitution is not part of official Uncyclopedia policy, or have I not read that bit? --Nerd42 00:13, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Nerd42, if that is really your name, you're being a wuss. Watch:
"Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God."
ho hum, not nearly hard-edged enough. The Onion sucks.
"George Bush is a religious zealot whose agenda has lead him to literally and factually break his oath to uphold the constitution, which is an inconvenient piece of paper that keeps trying to assert those annoying basic freedoms."
har har, absolutely fucking hilarious, notice the comma and tacked on phrase which turns mere bias into hard-edged humour. Uncyclopedia rules.
And so you see, hard humour is so much funnier than that soft crud that conservatives keep writing. I commend OEJ, and in fact I encourage us all to get hard over George Bush.
Someone will now write an annotated version or something. Fool 03:37, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I thought the first one was better, though they both qualify as misinformation, the first one is funnier misinformation. --Nerd42 03:47, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Most of my articles are non-political. Two, maybe three are. I can't remember for sure. Quite frankly, Nerd42, you want an Uncyclopedia which never, ever makes fun of any conservative or religious issues, and relies on the literary equivalent of knock-knock jokes, go make one. Such a Conservativopedia would be, of course, a collection of cultural tripe and cowardly mush. Uncyclopedia is immense, it contains multitudes. Just like Wilt Whiteman said America does, interestingly enough.
You wrote, "...who are you cutting with your hard edge? Couldn't it be a large part (or even the majority) of your audience if you're being extreme enough?" I'm not interesting softening the message to avoid offending people. If you find satire on Bush offensive, then go pound sand up your....tonsils. That's not the point. The point is to use humor to point up hyprocisy, malfeasance, and cretinous stupidity. The point is NOT to avoid offending people with that humor. Did you ever hear of a guy named Lenny Bruce, Nerd42? Sheeshes and sheets, man, get a dam' Clew. ----OEJ 14:18, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) (Oops, first time I put in a siggy without being logged in...)
"The point is to use humor to point up hyprocisy, malfeasance, and cretinous stupidity." No, the point is to make people laugh, not to blatantly politicise articles on nonpolitical topics like Red Shirts. --Nerd42 19:20, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wilt Whiteman? I don't know if that's a joke or a misspelling, or maybe I've just never heard of him before. But anyway, Nerd42: We have systems in place to evaluate the humor of questionable articles. If you believe that something isn't funny, submit it to the VFD, and state your case there. If it isn't deleted through that system, you have to accept that you are in the minority among the Uncyclopedia voting community. This community, I admit, isn't perfectly representative of the readers of Uncyclopedia, but the current systems for evaluating the quality of articles are the only presently practical ones, and will not change or make exceptions in one person's (your) interest. The political content of any article or discussion is entirely irrelevant. Though there may be some correlation between politicization and poor humor, each article is evaluated on its own merits, and no generalization should be made in this case. I hereby use whatever authority I have as an admin to request that everybody involved lets this topic drop and does not bring it up again. kthx. --Spintherism 21:23, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to that. I should have forseen that my first post would spark an unnessicary argument. --Nerd42 23:26, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
A pointed joke, Spintherism. The American poet Walt Whitman wrote,
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
The point is, of course, that works like Uncyclopedia are large, can contain contradictions and in fact must by virtue of their great scope contain contradictions. Uncyclopedia is large, contains multitudes -- in our case, a multitude of comedic and satiric approaches and styles. Small-minded, even niggardly and small-souled fools think that they have an inside line on what "should" be in Uncyclopedia, and persistantly try to make the multitude of authors and approaches toe their line. That is all I will write on this subject.----OEJ 01:59, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I know you are but what am I. shut the heck up --Nerd42 16:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
At least let's keep this sort of discussion, unless it genuinely pertains to Uncyclopedia, somewhere other than the Dump (speaking to everybody here who might be politically inclined, not just Nerd/OEJ). If you have a problem with an article or whatever, or if you just want to discuss politics, keep it to article/user talk pages or VFD so that those of us who don't want the Dump cluttered up with rabid political "arguments" don't have to be annoyed by them. --—rc (t) 00:00, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
YES! AMEN! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY!! -- And Rcmurphy coming right out and saying it makes that point so much better and more diplomatically than my LameBlogopedia sarcasm post ever did. That is all I was really trying to say in this discussion. I am pretty sure ... that the "Conservative Talking Heads on a Stick" image idea has already been done ... several times if I'm not mistaken, by many different web sites, so I in no way meant to give you any ideas. I was merely referencing crap that I've seen on other sites. I don't remember where ... but some google image searches will no doubt come up with lots of images like that. --Nerd42 19:35, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Your gift of tactfulness and sense of appropriateness continue to amaze us all. STICK YOUR FACE IN THE GLUE!--Sir Flammable KUN 01:43, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Alright, political point aside, I'm not sure what you're saying here Spintherism, if that really is your name. If there's a lot of crap on a page which could be funny, like George Bush, we can edit it and replace it with something funnier. The original author(s) can take exception and revert, or partially revert. Is then VFD really the only way forward? Fool 05:08, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC) (PS: Nerd42, I was, in fact, mostly agreeing with you.)
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that point. By VFD, I meant to say the entire Uncyclopedia Quality Assurance System™, which includes, but is not limited to, VFD discussion, IRC discussion and talk page discussion. You've been a wonderful audience. Thank you and goodnight! --Spintherism 09:54, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new. And did Walt Whitman just call me a niggard? What does the colour of my skin have to do with anything, and why does anyone care what the person who gave us Mickey Mouse thinks about humour anyway? Fool 15:34, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a little bitterness here... can't we all just get along? I happen to think if one person finds something funny, it's worthwhile and should stay, but I am a n00b, so I might not have gotten the hang of pushing my political views on others yet.--Bradaphraser 23:48, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You are a n00b! On Uncyclopedia you should never create any articles that are only funny to one person, we have a policy against it, too. They will be deleted and people get banned for such things all the time. I find this an incredibly annoying political discussion because all sides are flaming closed-minded brainwashed idiots. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:09, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)