Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive13

Two questions: Sigs ünd User Pages

I saw the rest of the page, but that didn't help me. I need want to know two things:

1. My current sig (Acid bitch at me 00:47, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)) is the best I could do at editing it. How can I make it beautifuler?
2. How can I put more then one page in my User Page?

Any help is appreciated. --Acid bitch at me 00:47, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to help through IRC, buuttt... umm... to add a subpage of your user page just create a page User:Acid_Ammo/ whatever. Um. I'm sure other people can help more. --KATIE!! 00:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's easy - Just avoid a sig like the one above, and beauty is yours! Bonus if you can keep it to less than 3 muted colors, no images! Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:44, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Is my image and color scheme that annoying? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:54, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Compared to most, no. But some of the admins' sigs here make me want to gouge my eyes out. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 04:08, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like Dawg's, I think it comes together well. I agree that most other sigs are a pain on the eyes though. I prefer to rock it old-school with my sig. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

I'm with Famine on this one; to Hell with fancy colors. --Sir gwax (talk) 23:49, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

MY SIG IS BEAUTIFUL AND YOU KNOW IT. --KATIE!! 00:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

So, the color tag in wiki is by numbers (like <color=000026>) or by names (<color=darkblue>)? --Acid bitch at me 00:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

<span style="color:#000000;">. Use the hexadecimal color values. There are other ways, but most people use that one. --KATIE!! 00:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Acid Ammo - Don't use <font> tags. Our site isn't even XHTML 1.0 compliant, but the less of the crufty HTML 4.01 we have, the better. color=[something] and style="color:[something]" can take any value that would usually work in X/HTML, which means hex codes and color names work. Either will work just as well, but using a name may cause it to render different in different browsers (aside from display variations) and using style= is more forward-compatible than using color=. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:45, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I have a new sig now. As Ariel as it is, here it goes: Boy Toy bitch at me 02:01, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Is it a "only admins can do it, n00b" kind of thing? And if not, how do I do it? Acid Ammo 21:02, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

If it's clearly vandalism or blanking, just go on the history and click the revision you want to revert to. Then click the edit tab and it'll tell you that you're editing an old version of the page and changes will be lost. Put "reverting" or something in the edit summary, check minor edit, and save. Anyone can do it. If it's not clearly vandalism, you can still revert, you just need to give a good reason in the summary or on the talk page. Thanks for your help! --KATIE!! 21:13, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, admins get the "Rollback" button which does it automatically, but it's a very simple procedure for users too.

• Click the "history" tab
• Click the date and time next to the edit you want to revert to
• Click "edit"
• Save the page remembering to include "revert" (or "rv" if you've got RSI / are lazy) in the edit summary)

...and there you are. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:15, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

All right, I thank you both for the answers ^^. Acid Ammo 21:22, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Votes for new skin?

Note: After saving, you have to clear your browser cache to see the changes: Mozilla: click Reload (or Ctrl-R), IE / Opera: Ctrl-F5, Safari: Cmd-R, Konqueror Ctrl-R.

Well, I made a new skin (to be set in Preferences) for Uncyclopedia. By "made" I mean "worked on it for 15 minutes, got bored and then sporked it from Memory Alpha". Nonetheless, I like it, but it needs some tweaking before being ready to release as a skin. You can find it here. To try it out, Copy and Paste it into your personal user CSS (User:YOURNAME/Monobook.css). Vote for it here.--officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:32, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Changing Undictionary Entry into Uncyclopedia Article

How do I create a new Uncyclopedia article on a subject that already has an Undictionary entry by the exact same title, to which the term is automatically redirected? (The title is "Kabbalah" if anyone cares. Yes, I could spell it a different way but that's the most common spelling today.) Would deleting the Undictionary entry, prior to creating a new Uncyclopedia article in the usual manner, be okay, or is that considered blanking? --Ialdabaoth 04:27, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, edit the redirect first, possibly by copy/pasting the undic entry there (use a {{construction}} or {{WIP}} tag if you don't want it insta-huffed), and then remove the undic entry with edit summary "expanding to full article"). --Splaka 04:32, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New CSS stuff

How do I put that little edit thing in the bottom corner of my page?

Zork

Zork page formatting has been changed so that links and lists are yellow. As long as you use {{Zorkheader}}, you don't have to worry about changing any css.

Underlined Links

You can use the new underlinelink and nounderline link classes to make sure a link is or isn't underlined regardless of what someone has set in their Preferences. To use: &lt;span class="underlinelink"&gt;[[Podcast|Underlined Link]]&lt;/span&gt;<br /> &lt;span class="nounderlinelink"&gt;[[Intillegent rotation|Not Underlined Link]]&lt;/span&gt;

Which produces:

Underlined Link
Not Underlined Link

Images on a colour background

I fixed something a while ago that made image thumbnails work on a colour background. I accidentally went on IRC when I should have been working, and I was asked to fix it. Never one to turn down a CSS challenge, I fixed it. Now if you want to put an image thumbnail on a coloured background, add this around the outside:

<div id="nonwhite">[[Image:Imagename|thumb]]</div>

Paulgb 00:54, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Additional. Paul and I devised a way to automatically and optionally make headers clear floating images. This is being utilized in Vote for Featured Pictures now, that had to have <br clear="all"> before. Now you can just use the global wrapper:

<div id="headclear"></div>

on any large lists of floating images, or articles that could benifit from such. Note now that you no longer need clear=all on VFP. Also RC and I devised a {{vfp}} template to auto-link to the image discussion page, making the vfp a bit cleaner. --Splaka 03:08, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

In reality, what "RC and I devised" means is that Splarka did all the code and stuff, and mentioned it to me in passing. --—rc (t) 03:22, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Splarka's inital edits were great but they caused the [edit] link beside the sections to be misplaced, sometimes appearing halfway down the previous nomination. After hashing it out in IRC, batting several possibly solutions around, we came upon a compromise. I modified the CSS on the edit link to force it directly above the header, and used relative positioning to manually force it down two character heights. In Internet Explorer, the edit links are smaller than other browsers so they aren't quite beside the header, but they are close enough to avoid confusion. In other browsers they should look similar to most other pages. If you encounter any serious problems contact Splarka or myself so we can take a look. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 04:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Pardon if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I've been wondering where the bottom-of-page hit counters went. Is this a measure to reduce server load? -- T. (talk) 12:23, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a side effect of the recent server freak out - like the fact that most of the Special:Specialpages are displaying no information. *looks hopefully in JasonR's direction* -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:28, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

<JasonR> We are running in "Miser mode" right now, which disables some of the more database -intensive pages. It should improve performance a bit.

IRC reveals all.

Judging by conversation in #wikicities earlier this evening I get the impression that page views are off permanately due to a new web proxy/caching application installed on the server in an attempt to speed up page requests. From what I gather, this has a side effect of causing Wikipedia actually not being able to receive and process a large number of the requests so the counters would be rather useless anyway. If I am wrong on this, somebody please correct me as this is all going by the conversation I saw. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 06:32, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

quote of the day

any one have any thoughts on replacing word of the day with quote of the day. Chosen from a article in uncyclopedia.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 05:50, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's such a good idea. It will take quite a lot of work to find a quote of the day for every day. Right now word of the day has a queue set up that's more than a few months ahead of schedule but you wouldn't be able to do that with quotes because things change on a wiki so you probably couldn't make a queue of more than a couple days. The need for a very quick turn around would also make a voting system difficult to implement. On top of that, I really like word of the day; it's small, elegant and I've sunk a bunch of effort into it. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:14, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Concur. It's cute and fun and annoying in its way; let's see what it comes up with and results in for a while - David Gerard 18:01, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I do like the idea of changing the word of the day section, though quote of the day might not work. Perhaps the 'subject' of the day could change every day to rather arbitrarily wacky things in the traditional Uncyclopedia style. Colour of the day, potato chip flavour of the day, monkey of the day, alkali metal of the day, etc. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:08, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I suggest calling this "Thing of the Day" or "Thing of the Randomly Indiscriminate Time Period" where "Thing" would change to be an absurdly specific category the thing is an instance of, or something. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:35, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the only difference between word of the day and random thing of the day is that word of the day rules out proper nouns. Random thing of the day also introduces the issue of there being a lot of things that are funny to list but don't make good topics, whereas very few words make bad topics. Additionally, we've got some pretty fun words coming up after we stop procrastinating (take a look). Also, feel free to drop us some suggestions. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:41, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

True, although it might work better if the random thing category was wikilinked rather than the thing itself, for example, Board Game of the Day: Risk. Alternatively, wikilinks could be chosen on a thing-by-thing basic. The purpose would be mainly for a quick gag rather than a link to an article. It might be feasible to split the "Word of the Day" box in half and have both (or at least, Word of the Day plus something else). --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 20:59, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• but the words are not funny by themselves. The things is more like randomly choosen crap featured article link. Also you wouldnt need a new quote every day just every couple of days or quotes could be choosen random from a list which is added 2 as suggested --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 03:10, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A randomly-selected link to a featured article is something which is already being built but, Do You Care? So far, nobody cares as the effort to create one Do You Care entry for each previously-featured article is currently only one-quarter complete at best so still easily several days away from being ready to replace the rubbish currently in the DYC section of the main page. --Carlb 20:23, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My biggest complaint with the idea is that maintaining word of the day already takes a bit of effort and it's not even particularly fancy; anything else will take even more effort. Right now I have committed to making sure that word of the day doesn't fall to the wayside because I like word of the day. Unless I find the replacement sufficiently compelling, you will need to find someone else to commit to taking care of it. If you can find a reliable person to watch over the replacement then by all means consider replacing it, but if you can't find a reliable person to take care of it, you will end up replacing word of the day with something that will eventually be defunct. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:45, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

how my idea would look / function.(minor formatting needed) --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:30, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Humorless foolishness wanted

I'm working on Something and need examples of humorless foolishness here on Uncyclopedia to quote and adapt. People's attempts to justify mutilating an article because it gores one of their favoured oxen. I already have poor Nerd42 on Red shirts and whatsisname on Fursecution, but need as much as possible - David Gerard 13:16, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

This edit might be the sort of thing you are looking for. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:35, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's along the right lines. Then claiming their mutilation makes the article funnier would be perfection - see Talk:Fursecution and look at the edits - David Gerard 22:38, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Two words: Tourette's Syndrome. --Carlb 23:58, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear God. Yes, that's just the sort of thing I'm looking for. More please. - David Gerard 00:51, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Would nominating Kitten Huffing for deletion qualify? Around the same time, {{cruelty}} was created IIRC. --Carlb 17:23, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

From Alternative Medicine [1]. Also from Wright Brothers [2]. The guy who wrote the Wright Brothers changes also wrote to my talk page demanding to know why I reverted his edit, but since he had an annonymous IP, I couldn't write back. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 01:15, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The alternative medicine edit in fact pastes John Gohde quotes. (First fuckhead I ever got kicked off Wikipedia. Ah, those were the good old days ... 2005.) - David Gerard 08:19, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to become an atheist has a wierd talk page, as does Euroipods (heh heh heh). Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but hey, a flamewar is a flamewar.--Bradaphraser 02:56, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, Nerd again. "Dude!!! Go look at most of the other articls on Jesus and Christianity and after defeating those (which are ten times more extreme) then I'll think about taking stuff that is actually funny off of my page for the sake of unbiased humor." Um, yeah. Johnny C. Raven provides just the stuff I'm looking for too. (Mind you, I laughed out loud at the Dead Serious Scrolls version and am tempted to VFH it myself. I like both other versions just fine too. Some people are just on crack.) - David Gerard 08:19, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to become an atheist is just crazy man - in Soviet Russia, complaint makes YOU!! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:37, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I am on crack. Angel dust is not crack. Get it straight, people. 07:09, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, the fuck shuts you up. --User:Spintherism

Perhaps, but on Uncyclopedia, post signs YOU!!, Spintherism --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 02:14, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia migration

Out of curiosity, has anyone else noticed that users who start on Wikipedia and migrate over here when they find it boring are often a whole lot better (for longer than a learning curve would justify) than users that come here first? --Sir gwax (talk) 23:33, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's the motivational power of bitterness - David Gerard 23:44, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's true. I never contributed to en.wp, but I read quite a bit and decided against it due to the level of rigidity. When I was sent a link here, I couldn't help but sign up and stick around! Infinitely more fun. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:48, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that same thing is true for me as well, Dawg. I read WP but never edited anything seriously before I joined here. And look how bad I suck! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 01:59, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's not something to be proud of.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 03:01, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious! :) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 02:17, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My experience was the same as Dawg's. I read WP a lot, but had no inclination to join or contribute in any way. Too stuffy.  :) Uncyclopedia pulled me in immediately. I signed up without a second thought, started writing Dwight Schultz, and I've been a junkie ever since. Kudos to Paulgb for noticing me. That was encouraging. -- T. (talk) 03:54, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant people like me, who are fiercely addicted Wikipedians but use Uncyclopedia for stress relief. I think part of it is having a very good idea of how to parody an encyclopedia, to whatever degree of verisimilitude. Hardly all it takes, but a useful skill - David Gerard 17:25, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Help me please!

Just a quick question, how do I nominate images?--Dangerandy

Add the picture to VFP. To find the name of the image, click on the picture. It'll bring you to the image's page. See how other people do it on VFP.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 19:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Three Quick Questions

1) Replying How do I reply to a message?

2) How do I add a table of contents? Or is it automatic?

3) How do I add multiple pages to an article?

1) Edit your talk page.

2) It's automatic.

3) Multiple pages are unnecessary.

--KATIE!! 16:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Actually, regarding 3) - Uncyclopedia Vanity policy states that: "Sub pages are allowed, as well as wikilinks to User: namespace for users that have registered nicknames".

Note: This only applies to vanity pages and/or pages within your userspace. As Keitei pointed out, there shouldn't be any need for the average article to spill over onto subpages. If you do need to create a page as per the above, simply add a forward slash and the subpage title to the page name - e.g: User:Codeine/links. But don't do it to regular articles! -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 19:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Note that Zork and its sequels are an exception to this rule, each game uses a large number of subpages. --Carlb 23:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Expanded answer to 1): The table of contents automagically appears after a page has three or four headings, I can't remember which. You can force it to appear with fewer headings by using __TOC__ or make it go away for good with __NOTOC__ (include the underscores). --—rc (t) 03:23, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Four. :) -- T. (talk) 04:16, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Enemies/Disliked

While I'm not a fan of the recent proliferation of colourful signtaures, at least I don't see any harm of them. Regarding this trend of users, ranked members, and even sysops having subpages containing names and notes about who they dislike and why... honestly, I'm embarrassed. What are you thinking? What do you hope to achieve through passive-aggressive game play? If you have a problem with someone, approach them directly. Leave a message on their talk page. Have a rational discussion with them so you can come to some understanding. And if that's impossible, okay. Ignore them. But don't lower yourself. And don't cop out with some it's all in good fun bullshit. I read a lot of what goes on around this entire site (and only comment on a portion of it), and a handful of entires are in good fun—some are even placed there by the user—but most are not. That being said, I'm happy to see a few examples of people making lists of who they admire, and why.  :) More, please. -- T. (talk) 15:14, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with this sentiment. I don't see a lot wrong with the occasional admin having a list of "quasi-vandals to watch", because it is our job to keep tabs on this site and the people who use it. However, I'm 100% against "people I dislike" lists. I'm not overly fond of "people I admire" lists either. Regardless, I motion to apply the IHF (Instahuff flag) to all "list of people I hate" pages, because they don't help this site's community, image, and because they are lists. And I hate lists. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"People I like" lists are okay, but I would say "people I dislike" pages are in rather tactless and unneccessary. If I ended up on one I'd probably be pretty pissed; moreso than if the user simply told me to stop being an idiot. In the defense of the the only sysop I know who has one of these lists (Dawg), he (and everyone else for that matter) has made desperate attempts to get through to these people but to no avail. So at least it's not like talking behind their backs or anything. Discourage them strongly, but don't delete them. Animosity between users is going to come out somewhere, and it might as well be in someone's User namespace. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 19:44, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I completely support lists for tracking vandal edits by nick/IP. And I don't have a 'favourite persons' list because the people that I like already know it. But I'd rather have people praise to others by lists than not at all. :) -- T. (talk) 15:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It is morally reprehensible to modify a user:page -- it is evil, despicable, cowardly, kitten-hating, stinky, and causes Jebus to weep. But would it not be the Wiki Way to modify "people I hate" pages...since they are not the user's primary self-identification page? ----OEJ 17:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I maintain such a list entirely for my own use. It is so that I can quickly thumb click on a bunch of links to see what various users have been up to recently. I tend to be rather forgetful so it serves as a way for me to separate users in my head without having to remember them. The negative side is used primarily for tracking vandals/possible vandals. I certainly don't go flaunting it and if there were a way for me to hide it from people's What Links Here, I would. --Sir gwax (talk) 23:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I love each and every one of you. Except when you write bloody stupid shit. Particularly on talk pages. But I don't write a "People I Dislike" page ... I add the quote to the Cat Piss Man article I'm working on right now - David Gerard 23:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally that having enemy / "people I dislike" / hit lists looks terrible for the image of the site and the community, and I know what I'm talking about based on my being an h2g2 researcher. h2g2's site/community image is very important (I'd almost say fundamentally important) to them and you'd never catch their admins pulling any of that kind of crap. Wikipedia isn't a very good example in that reguard but better than some places. Uncyclopedia's community in general is, based on my limited experience, actually rather bad at the whole community image thing - partially/possibly because some of the articles don'e make the site/community look good either. Basically people frown upon n00bs in general around here. I've suggested before that we setup some kinda welcoming/hospitality committee or something to help out new members the way some other wikis do. (and as one would expect, make fun of the other wiki's welcoming committees at the same time) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 02:09, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've nuked my list. --Sir gwax (talk) 02:55, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Adopt a Noob. --KATIE!! 12:17, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Unstory

I've created Unstory, a clone of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikistory

New! Improved! A++++++++

Some crazy admin posted an endorsement on Euroipods, so I did too. I suggest we all immediately post eBay feedback on Euroipods. - Nonymous 21:18, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Proposed VFH Reform

A few of us were kicking around ideas in the IRC channel and we came up ith this proposed reform for VFH to reduce crud levels.

New Rule: If a page is being self-nominated, it must be X days old - we were thinking 7. Nominating someone else's work would still have no restrictions.

This would filter out impulsive self-nominations and give new users some time to see what sort of quality level they need in order to be featured. We could also put a note on the page that a good way to get a nomination from someone else is to get an article polished and then put it in the Recent Article Template.

This system would weed out a decent amount of crap and it would probably be mostly self-policing. Users would respect the rules without admin supervision because they would want to be featured without problems.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:46, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Is it that much of a problem, statistically? (Barring my own cases of course *AAAAAHEM*) I actually tend to spot new nominations by going through the "Recent articles" box on the front page, assuming anyone SMRT enough to edit that might be smart enough to write an article that isn't shite. I'm not convinced VFH is drowning in crud. Unless Rcmurphy says it is, of course - David Gerard 00:56, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

What you do would still be fine. In fact it would be the encouraged way of getting a nom. We would have a note saying to put things in the recent articles box and hope someone else nominates. Only self-noms would have the waiting period. Anyone could nominate any article reguardless of age if it wasn't theirs. And yes, IMO, there are too many hopeless nominations that get there without much thought. ---Rev. Isra (talk)

If Peer Review was being read and commented on, as it was intended, there would be a viable alternative to the clay pigeon shoot we've got now on VFH. I've tried to direct some traffic there, but frankly... to what? Even my shit stuff gets no comment. Will the people who are sick of VFH kindly line up and offer some advice over there? And anything not VFH grade could easily be copied over. Thoughts? -- T. (talk) 01:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right system, but i think a system needs to be in place. I am thinking either a shorter highlight, or possibly more than one highlight at a time, and just do it kind of like they do vfp. Idk, just a thought.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

for the record there actually is ONE featured image at a time. it gets half of the page views with the other half being random. Pictures actually get featured less frequently than articles. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've instituted the proposed vanity regulation (self-nommed articles must be at least a week old) after discussion and general agreement on IRC. --—rc (t) 02:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nice, me likey.--abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvWXYZ(talk|contrib) 15:44, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It might help to empower the administrators (not that we technically lack any empowerment) to make judgement calls about whether or not something ought to stay on VFH. It seems that most of these cases should be relatively clear-cut, and if a page is unjustly removed, it would probably be eventually refeatured. I'm very tired, so forgive my poor phrasing, but I'm sure you get the pint. --S P I N N I E 07:29, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Different VFH format

I've set up a demonstration of a different way VFH could work. Thoughts? - Nonymous 23:08, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

too decentralized, IMO. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:17, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's the wonder of it, with the {{}} brackets there can be a central page which automatically populates with all the votes from everywhere. It'd look exactly like the current page, except the edit section links would point to the individual voting page instead of editing the actual VFH page. If the admins give me a go-ahead I can set it up. - Nonymous 23:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they could all APPEAR on the smae page, but their wouldn't be a single edit summary. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:51, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• No green light from me. In future, I'd strongly suggest setting up these pet projects in a subdirectory under your user page, rather than playing in public space. -- T. (talk) 18:13, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose this for the same reason as Isra. Also, I don't particularly understand how this works differently. It seems the same as it is now, only a lot more work. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:15, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • It's less work because all someone has to do to nominate is add {{VFHS|Article name}} to the list. As a result, the VFH page isn't a total mess. I was just being italic, my bad. - Nonymous 18:17, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, less work to nominate it perhaps, but that's not exactly a gruelling process as it is. Easy to maintain is the important thing, and this doesn't go very far to help that in my opinion. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:19, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Well IMHO it is easier to maintain, if only because each vote is tied to the article it's for (prevents vote hijacking) and with a simple visit to the Feature nomination category admins can, I dunno, do admin stuff. It encourages voting because if a person is reading a nominated article and finds it amusing, they can vote for it right from the page itself, the changes of which are then propogated to Uncyclopedia:VFH automagically, as you can see from the Jewish Kings and WWJD nominations. - Nonymous 18:21, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • It's very important that a total edit summary exists so votes can be monitored and such. Segregating it in such a way removes that and forces an admin to view the edit summaries of several pages rather than one. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:26, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • I guess it's up to you to determine but the reason to do it, the way I see it, is that people can vote from two places - VFH and the page itself, which may or may not be a fair tradeoff for a single edit summary. - Nonymous 18:36, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this off VFH. Mainly because it was fucking up ALL the section edit links, and the TOC. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 19:01, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current system needs an overhaul of this type, partly because of the decentralization issue and also because it's just not really necessary (VFH may have problems, but I don't think this in particular is a step forward - voting is already pretty easy). And like Todd said, testing in user subpages is usually for the best, but it's not a big deal and I'm glad you're trying to help. --—rc (t) 19:46, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

HELP

How do I edit a series or group? For example, the apple group:

    Apple Product Range  

iPods:	iPod - iPod Shuffle - iPod Yocto - iPod Lo-Fi - iPod floppy - iPod chair - iPod Car - iCan't Believe It's Not iPod - Euroipods - Neuroipods
iDevices:	iMac - iPad - iNuke - iRon - iMath - iHamster - iPoop - iOwa - iRaq - iRan - iEyes - iBladder - iClothes - iBrows - iRack - iDiot - iCarly - iHop
iHardware:	iGraters - iSpell Key - MacBook - triPod - ehPod - YouPod - IHenge - iEarth - iPhone
iSoftware:	iTunes - iMovie - iLinux - Mac OS X - Mac OS 10.5 - Mac OS Y - Mac OS Z
i3rd Party Mods:	iPod Nano 200gb Instructions - iTrip - iHack
iGaming:	iGrievous
iOthers:	Apple Store - iFraud - iCult

Template:Apple

How do I edit it? --Sparky2002b 20:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• at Template:Apple. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • but it changes every instance of it, so don't screw it up. ;) ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:06, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Proposition!

Bleeding eyeball award. For people who make our eyes bleed with their sucking. Nominations submitted, admins pick every two weeks.

Suggestions? Improvements?

Template is being worked on as we speak.

KATIE!! 17:33, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wait... Are you Propositioning me? All of Uncyclopedia? In that case, I think I speak for all of us when I say, "We accept!". Now, what time shall we pick you up for wine and cheese? --PantsMacKenzie 14:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. :^OBlindingMask 18:43, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Vote for award

You mean for people with obnoxiously colored sigs with stupid-ass images in them? Good call! I bet we can hand out lots of those awards. And I know a certain someone who's overqualified to make the template... Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:35, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to wait every 2 weeks? To give away one award? It'll take years to catch up. :) -- T. (talk) 14:08, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'm Making a Vanity Page (but for someone else)

So, being the loser who writes to many Uncyclopedia inside-joke articles that I am, I began writing a page about our lovely admini Keitei. Though she isn't actually the person writing the article, it is obviously a vanity page in the first degree. I think it looks like it has a lot of potential however, and just wanted to know what everyone else thought. The page, found here documents the continuing debate of whether or not Keitei is actually a she. It's definitely pretty stubby, but I think there's a lot of room for growth. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

I feel popular. I think. KATIE!! 04:07, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I love Keitei as much as the rest of us (except that guy that bitched and got her a bastard admin award) but I just don't know if being an admin makes her exempt from the vanity policies; that's kind of what user pages are for (please note the FH in my sig). --Sir gwax (talk) 04:28, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

What Gwax said. --S P I N N I E 06:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Me too! --AOLer 06:25, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Vanity pages, whether dedicated to the author, an admin, Your mom or anybody else, are still just that: Vanity pages. It's fairly amusing that a large percentage of Uncyclopedians seem to be falling over their own feet to lavish attention on Keitei since it became common knowledge that she's (shock! horror!) young and female, but if you want to pledge your undying internet love and admiration, please keep it to the appropriate userspace. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:27, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, um, yeah. Yeah. KATIE!! 16:43, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I made a vanity page , a very large one in fact, about myself. It wasn't huffed for months on end even though I think it received 1k hits. Of course, 3 months after I was admined I huffed it. --Nytrospawn 16:41, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Further proving that Adminship not only degrades one's sense of self worth, but causes one to develop suicidal tendencies--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 23:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Retarculous

It seems lately that people are under the impression that VFH and VFP are discussion pages. Well, they're not. Sorry. So do we deem it worthy to allow people to discuss nominations? It is simply faaaar, faaaar too unwieldy to have everything on the voting pages. So I'm just gonna ban people for arguing, and if you guys want to discuss an alternative here, go right ahead. KATIE!! 15:17, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Stopgap ban, then point them here or VF*'s talk, maybe. Put a big blinking label at the top of VF* to label it as NOT DISCUSSION. Comments are still okay, but not large-scale discussions.

OMGZROFLBBQ, Flam is pwned by Fool! Seriously though, I agree with Kei but I really don't want any red blinking labels (the blink tag is the devil). --Sir gwax (talk) 16:05, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I added a subpage, Uncyclopedia:VFP/Discussion, as a location to discuss VFP without bogging down the voting page. There's a link to it in the GIANT RED TEXT on VFP. Thoughts?--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 16:54, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think it's missing a marquee. Also maybe something similar for VFH. KATIE!! 17:06, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ooky ooky. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discussion. Comments are still welcome. KATIE!! 17:17, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Can we ban anyone that tries to start another stupid discussion on VFP and/or VFH? I have an additional idea for VFH/VFP: Only allow admins to nominate images and articles, then delete noms & ban anyone else that does in the future. This would hopefully keep the signal to noise ratio within reason. Thoughts? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:18, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think restricting to admin only nomination is a very bad idea, but maybe we could implement a wikipedia-esque semi-protect policy or something that would let us revoke people's nomination/voting priveleges after three bad (and warned about) nominations. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:24, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Warn them and move the discussion to the talk page. Be gentle with bannings, even for a short while! Diplomacy first, unless they're vandal/spammers. --Chronarion 03:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said! Maybe being the founder of Uncyclopedia does infer some form of moral-intellectual superiority after all. --Johnny "The Wikinator" Raven 03:16, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I still want to know if we could implement a ban from specific articles system. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:30, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

When sigs go too far

So, we've had a big surge in the area of people making signatures for themselves, ok, but some people are doing some things wrong. There is no good reason to replace text with an image containing text; a lot of these sigs could be made with some CSS and no images at all or with a couple small icons and then some text. The fewer/smaller the images we use the better things will be all around, system resource-wise and doing things right(TM) wise. If you can manage the CSS on your own and have a fancy sig using images, please fix it, if you can't manage the CSS, I (or many other people) can help if you ask on our talk pages. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:09, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My sig is awesome. And not gay. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 19:21, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I just learned something new today! Thanks, gwax. I couldn't figure out how to make an image a link to something other than the image information page, and now I know how. Handy! » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:01, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I get it... Sig changed ;_; officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 12:27, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

What this place really needs is Userboxes! It's all the rage now! And I do mean rage! I say userboxes for the rest urv oxes! Fool 16:18, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Forget that, we've got Babel boxes. --Sir gwax (talk) 16:58, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of the extension of that, into everything you could conceivably not want to know about the user. Whereas before, you'd actually have to write out "I LIEK MUSHROOM SOUP! I LIEK SQUIRRELS!", with these handy new templates on Wikipedia, it's now more easy and convenient than ever to tell everyone what a total git you are. It caused a bit of an uproar when someone tried to Burninate them. Heheh. Fool 17:27, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, check out the Babel talk page (we do need a bit of a cleanup though). --Sir gwax (talk) 21:54, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wow, wikipedia has some awfully silly userboxes. Let's steal them all! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dude, learn to use interwiki links. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:23, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

WP- user

This user steals userboxes from Wikipedia. May their soul be illegaly imported into Hell.

WP- user

I thought I was the only one with ridiculous userboxes... --theRealSheep 14:58, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

YOU ALL MAKE MY EYES BLEED!! T_T *cry* --PantsMacKenzie 20:51, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Colorful Sig

Were Ogopogo and I the first ones to create this trend? --Clorox MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 20:01, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not!? --IMBJR 18:50, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I believe Ogopogo had the first truly colorful sig. I had the first obnoxiously-colorful/gay sig. Now mine isn't as obnoxious nor gay because someone stole my design and it wouldn't do to not be unique. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:10, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Conformism is the non-conformism of tomorrow. Yours in bland signess, Sir gwax (talk) 21:01, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Your sig is not as bland as it could have been, gwax. Bah! --Splaka 22:36, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Conforming to non-conformism is the non-conformism of the day after tomorrow. --S P I N N I E 22:39, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

i prefer the traditional grey, black, and blue--abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvWXYZ(talk|contrib) 17:49, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I prefer red. Fool 21:37, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ya -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy»

’Tis the gift to be simple,
’Tis the gift to be free,
’Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
It will be in the valley of love and delight.

--Sir KP GUN 05:55, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Simplicity is overrated.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 18:08, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

When true simplicity is gained,

To bow and to bend we shan’t be ashamed.

To turn, turn will be our delight,

’Til by turning, turning we come round right.

--Sir KP GUN 19:20, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We are the last bastions of semi-reason. --—rc (t) 00:52, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I was a bastion once, then someone brought in siege weaponry and my walls fell, kind of like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, or maybe that was Shaka. --Sir gwax (talk) 07:26, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Shaka when the walls fell! I was just thinking about that episode. Get out of my head! ---Rev. Isra (talk) 07:50, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'll make my sig colourful... As soon as I can be arsed. Isn't there some kind of "colourful sig" machine somewhere? --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 16:31, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just look at User:(username)/sig pages and steal what you like. That's how I did it. --S P I N N I E 19:06, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You will also want to go to your Preferences page (link at the top right), go to the User Data section, check the Raw signatures option and put {{User:[yourusername]/sig}} in the Your nickname box. (I wonder how taxing all of these user signature templates are on the site, oh well) --Sir gwax (talk) 19:30, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not as taxing as all 17,311 shitty articles --S P I N N I E 19:38, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Come now. I'd bet we have at least 50 decent articles in the lot. That's almost 0.3% quality. --—rc (t) 19:40, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm with KP and Rcmurphy on this... the colored tags look dumb. You guys are being individuals... just like everyone else. :p--Bradaphraser 04:01, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And as I said before, you're refusing to individuate in order to assert your individualism. Just like everyone else. --S P I N N I E 19:26, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's me. A fierce, militant conformist. Power to the thoughtless majority!--Bradaphraser 19:37, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

heh --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 05:37, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My eyes bleed.--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:00, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'm trial-testing a hieroglyphics sig. Seems a bit too large in height, or not. Needs some work probably, or a revert. --Ogopogo 02:16, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wik or Unc?

Here's a fun holiday game: Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia?

No fair clicking the link before you make your guess.

Fan death is an urban legend that was originally primarily confined to South Korea, but has spread to other countries in the Far East. The legend states that an electric fan, if left running overnight in a closed room, can result in the death (by suffocation, poisoning, or hypothermia) of those inside. This belief also extends to air conditioners and the fans in cars. When the air conditioner or fan is on in a car, Koreans are apt to leave their car windows open a crack to avoid "fan death".

The article goes on to quote a newspaper article:

The heat wave which has encompassed Korea for about a week, has generated various heat-related accidents and deaths. At least 10 people died from the effects of electric fans which can remove oxygen from the air and lower body temperatures....

Make your guess: is it Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia?

Boast your success or failure below, if you dare. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:27, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I vote BOTH --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 10:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia. It wouldn't merit this post else-wise. --Spintherism 01:50, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Remind me not to go to the movies with you. "Yeah, slimy bastard is going to kill DuAAA! I've been shot!" On second thought, what are you doing Friday night? Speaking of delightfully morbid thoughts, I should fess up that I only found this "fact" thanks to the Morbid Fact du Jour, an absolutely essential reference. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:32, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm busy on friday. --S P I N N I E 18:53, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia? Cunt (1999) is a novel by Stewart Home written in the form of a journal kept by a novelist from Aldeburgh called David Kelso (who also has a false passport in the name of Kevin Callan). Kelso, who has already published a number of books (for example novels entitled Desiring Machines in the Australian Bush and Fuck Your Mother Up the Arse, but also non-fiction), is in his thirties, several times divorced, a heavy drinker and, according to his own description, a "sex beast". As a writer, he says he has no intention whatsoever of using his imagination; rather, he wants to chronicle his present life, which in turn is fuelled by his most ambitious literary project so far, the completion of a trilogy entitled Countdown to Chaos. In order to be able to write the final part of his trilogy, Kelso wants to track down and have sex again with all the girls he "shagged" when he was in his teens -- in reverse order. He always carries his laptop with him to be able to record each of his sexual encounters immediately after it has taken place. Although he says he wants to record all events exactly as they happened, he does embellish his story again and again. On his way through Europe -- England, Scotland, Austria, Finland and Estonia -- he has sex with all willing women and girls that cross his path, "asserting my inalienable right to freedom". 80.195.22.150 20:08, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

License

I am considering switching from CC-BY-SA-NC to CC-BY-SA. I actually read that Kuro5 article from way back. Firstly, the former has too many letters. Secondly, there were concerns before about getting t-shirts with oscar wilde shirts that I actually do want. Lastly, it makes sporking from wikipedia kind of confusing. If this were to be implemented, I would dual license for a while, perhaps a year or so and then the older material considered "merged" into the new license. Comments? Ideas? One reason is that I want to do this now before it gets ummanagably big. I think for now it is safe to assume the important contributors are still around and can pull their content if they wish. I don't forsee a big issue, since wikipedia contributors are popular here, and wikipedia does not use an NC clause. --Chronarion 22:53, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we create our own lisence, the documentation of which would be several dozen pages of the Vandalism article. 71.126.167.121 01:26, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support removing the NC license restriction, provided we verify the ability to use contributions that were submitted prior to the removal of the NC restriction. The time limit also seems reasonable. Every time the thought comes up in IRC of making something based on content here, I mention that I wish we had a BSD-style license, which this seems close enough to. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:21, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Why not just adopt GFDL? - Guest 04:32, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For one reason or another, I really do not like Richard Stallman. My non excuse is that the CC license is closer to the original CC license and thus less likely to cause axe murder if the one year 'tick' expires on old content. --Chronarion 05:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Legally, you can't just declare the old stuff has changed its license - it's owned by whoever wrote it. Buh. Though I and I expect anyone else here would probably be happy to relicense. Dual- (or triple-) licensing with GFDL is also a good idea in general IMO. But then, I like weak copylefts. A license change on a wiki is a major PITA and not something you ever want to do more than once. - David Gerard 15:47, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This I understand, and thus if I change licenses, I want to get it done before it gets horrid. Under wiki, it's very strange how it works. How long before edits 'merge' the changes into a new license? New material added is definitely safe, but it's this sort of dilemma that makes me want to think about this *now* before it gets into an even worse problem. I can safely assume that any author that re-edits an article would authorize the change to non NC. Other than that... I suppose a disclaimer like WikiNews uses might be a good idea. --Chronarion 21:08, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's probably actually easier on Un, because most articles are quite definitely almost entirely one person's work, and backing out everything else is really easy. Some have a wikilike author list, e.g. Benedict XVI - David Gerard 00:48, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

But sometimes that person is gone or identified only by IP. Something like Incompleteness Theorem or AAAAAAAAA! is forever NC. One year ticks aren't going to do anything, and new edits won't convert to the new license unless you're prepared to argue that the current version is not a "derived work" of any old-license contribution (such as in case of a rewrite). Fool 03:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the Non-Commercial restriction continue to exist. It makes me feel much more comfortable contributing here knowing that while the work will always be freely available for non-commercial purposes, I continue to maintain some rights over the content. I think that an NC license makes sense for a wiki which is primarily the result of creative works by single authors. --Isra1337 04:48, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the GFY license. GFDL lacks tact and grace. And I don't know what DL stands for. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Denis Leary. One of those wacky Irish curse things I guess. Fool 17:19, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Uncyclopedia is now 1 year old. Paulgb 14:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

crappy birthday uncyc --Nerd42 14:42, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Happy mirthday!--Bradaphraser 21:33, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

happy barfday! --Carlb 23:54, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Zork formatting

Today, as a result of the 1337 5k1llz of Splaka and Algorithm (and possibly someone else), the {{next}} template is no longer needed for Zork pages; plain links can be used. Blue links will appear yellow, while redlinks will appear red (previously, all of them appeared yellow).

On a related note, what about a page where users can post existing Zork pages with redlinks? - Guest 16:52, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A page like, say, Talk:Zork, perhaps? --Sir gwax (talk) 17:20, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Link featured images to relevant article?

How's about it? Although I like being able to see the full version, maybe we could have a little arrow or something linking to the full and the image itself liking to the article it's from. - Nonymous 05:32, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on any image should already take you to an image description page with the larger-size image and a list of pages which use the image. --Carlb 15:07, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

How to send messages

How do I send messages?! I just got one from another member and I don't know how to respond. (BirdEgal202)

Just edit my talk page, and try not to be too scared by what you see there (it's pretty nasty stuff). Or edit your own talk page - click on "My Talk" and edit that, and I'll just watch for it. --Johnny C. Raven 02:11, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The easiest method is to use the VVR plug-in. Go to the VVR (Virtually Virtual Reality) Uncyclopedia web page and download the plug-in. Many Uncyclopedia users maintain a VVR home page. You can use the VVR white pages to find individual users. (The white pages appear as a telephone book within the VVR environment.) Once you locate the person with whom you desire to chat, use a VVR plane, automobile, or other mode of transit to travel to the person’s home page. You can conduct the chat using natural spoken language. Once you have concluded the chat, you stab the VVR representation of the other person with a knife. This gesture will end the chat session. Hope you find this helpful. --Sir KP GUN 02:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Colonizations

Is it just me or have the current Colonizations been up forever? --Hobelhouse 22:13, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Y'all should either huff the entire concept or stop insisting that all the subjects be topical, real, and controversial. Humour collaborations are a totally different animal from factual collaborations, and nobody wants to risk offending some self-perceived expert on a risky topic. Besides, dealing with stuff like that takes actual research, and I say fuck research. - Johnny C. Raven 00:11, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

What? They just need to be changed. It says 'Colonizations for the week of the 24th'. It's Jan 2 now. --Hobelhouse 02:36, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

crappy new year!

bah humbug! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 05:07, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You certainly suck at this. Why not "Happy n00b year?" Or "Happy New Beer?" You really suck.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 05:13, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[Editor's Note: the previous statement was made before Nerd42 was visited by three ghosts and learned the true meaning of New Years. Now he is kind to Bob Kratchet and Tiny Tim and isn't going to eat that dip that the Ghost of New Year's Hangovers Future showed him eating. ]

AWESOME OWNAGE! Now, is everyone here to award the UGotM? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:10, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

OMG wtf lol I hella pqn all joo guyz at the new yearsad f1 go fuck yourselfes--S P I N N I E 10:43, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I love this UGotM award. As long as it's not me being huffed. officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 13:39, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

LOL pwnage -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:35, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Euroipods reformat

Go on, have a look. - Nonymous 00:28, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like, I like. I nominated it for VFH, so it's been needing a cleanup if it has any hope of getting on the front page. This is what it needs. officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 20:07, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've made Euroipods Crusade to answer those who thought a talk page shouldn't be on the front page. Feel free to make it pretty. THIS FLAMEWAR NEEDS TO BE ON THE FRONT PAGE!--Bradaphraser 23:38, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's much better than the article. However, the talk page images need to be fixed, they don't line up right. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:57, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

VFDYK

What does everyone think about creating a "vote for did you know facts" page so that we plebes could suggest DYKs? 71.126.167.121 00:19, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New in box, factory fresh. --—rc (t) 02:07, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do you care?

• Nope. Apathy takes its toll. Please deposit exact change. --Carlb 21:46, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Rate Your Adminatti

Come rate your admins on the things that are important, this is your chance to rate them as positively or negatively on things like: Friendliness, Approachability, Availability, and General Awesomeness. They want to know what you think so the admins can use their strengths to help other admins with their shortcomings. It's your chance to be brutally honest without getting banned, why not? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:58, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The admins are totally out of control and are ruining the very foundations that make uncyclopedia the virtuous source of fine comedic information. Their hypocritical methods are driving away great writers. Finally their complaining all the time and will probably complain about my censoring of my own post, thank you for your time.

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 11:24, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I find they seem to abuse their power a bit. *cougheuroipodscough* Also, stuff gets deleted way too easily. Most the QVFD stuff deserves being deleted, but a lot of stuff on regular VFD seem to always have the chance to be expanded sooner or later, and has potential to become worthwhile given some time. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:12, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Delayed automatic revert bot?

basically the idea is to create a bot that automatically reverts back certain pages after a day. This would allow people to get their jollys out of a page like AAAAAA which keep getting B's inserted and then people wouldn't have to revert them and So we can make some room or pussy-footing around. Its something for jason, its thought it might be hard so i would say i would need YOUR support. --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 00:38, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Se we'd essentially be deleting any positive changes people could make on the page. I figure if a page needs protection, it can be protected, and if it doesn't, it shouldn't be. 'Tain't no room for pussy-footing around. --Spintherism 16:56, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the additional reasons for my argument :) o yer and obviously we wouldnt do it to pages that didnt need protecting

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 11:01, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As not to lose the original intent of my message (Spin, if you ever do that again....) It would essentially halt growth on pages that do occasionally grow. Every so often, AAAAAAAAA! and other high-risk pages have a brilliant addition. TO autorevert would make it difficult to maintain those changes, let alone spot them proper and keep them. You're basically defeating the purpose of this wiki if you create a bot that undoes user contributions.--Sir Flammable KUN 04:47, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the disagreements above. Let's not and say we didn't. IMHO, a method of catching vandalism would be good, but reverting automatically will not catch and remove only vandalism. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:56, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

yer and obviously we wouldn't do it to pages that didn't need protecting its not 2 stop vandlism its 2 allow vandlism and let people have fun. yer and obviously we wouldn't do it to pages that didn't need protecting Personally i wouldn't have the pages protected but admins seem 2 have done it to articles like uncyclopedia and AAAAAAA has been suggested so ima just offering up a alternative. yer and obviously we wouldn't do it to pages that didn't need protecting --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 06:11, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We don't want to allow vandalism. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:28, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We don't want to allow editing either. But we do, and allowing editing = allowing vandalism. That is the nature of wiki. --Splaka 23:54, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New Anti-Vandal Ideas

As a disclaimer, you probably know that I support either protecting all pages, or banning all users, because users suck for the most part. However, wikipedia seems to have come up with some middle-ground in the battle against stupid users. Their newest idea is Semi-protection, which I think has been bantered about here (in some form or other) before. Basically, some pages get semi-protected - users without X number of edits can't edit the page. This prevents vandals from hopping on and making a mess, yet allows established users to edit normally.

I think that Splaka and I were discussing (but I could be terribly wrong) wikipedia's "only logged-in users can create pages" policy. His point, which I thought was good, is that it's easier to catch repeated bad edits on existing pages, than it is to have to dig up new pages, which might be orphaned or otherwise buried.

Regardless, when we have access to these tools, what do we want (if any) to implement? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:36, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Note: I didn't know wtf I was talking about above. Wikipedia semi-protection (read it before spouting off, like I did) is:

The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular protection does now, except non-admins may edit a page, provided their account is not amongst the very newest, much like with moving a page. There is one additional level of protection:

0. Open

1. Moves Prohibited

2. Editable only by registered users not in the newest X% of accounts

3. Full protection (Editable only by administrators)

The barrier should be low enough that editors who wish to contribute constructively need only wait a short time (on en.wikipedia, the newest 1% of accounts last about 4 days) to be fully active.

(note that it is entirely possible to set X% to be 0%, thus disallowing just anon-ip edits.)

Wikipedia-like Semi-protection Policy

• Support -- T. (talk) 17:59, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Support --EvilZak 21:32, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Full suppost, two acres, and a mule I'd like users to be able to chime in on BGBU without it being at risk for significant attack.

• Comment My concern is that as the site grows, the amount of time it would take for a noob to reach a high enough percentage of experience would grow in preportion -- eventually resulting in it taking years to be among the (100 minus N)% of experienced users. Am I right? Or am I misunderstanding this? --Nerd42 22:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Only Support if it is used very sparingly and the edit/time requirement is set very low to weed out one-trick vandals. Otherwise Oppose. --—rc (t) 23:22, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Rcmurphy - It should only be applied to often-vandalized pages, featured articles, or otherwise extremely popular articles with high vandalism potential. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:57, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Support: But I'm not an admin so make that like a half a vote. --Isra1337 00:32, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Notice ~ Please read the policy in question before voting. It is a reactive policy applied to pages that have been vandalized frequently, not a proactive policy applied to high profile pages that might be vandalized. -- T. (talk) 03:25, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Wait, this is a proposal to follow Wikipedia's policy closely? I thought this was a vote for what Famine suggested - "Basically, some pages get semi-protected - users without X number of edits can't edit the page." (Yes, perhaps the section heading should have clued me in, but I'm stupid like that.) The Wikipedia page says that "Semi-protection of a page prevents the newest X% of registered users and all unregistered users from editing that page." That I oppose. Some IPs are frequent and helpful contributors. (I suppose it might be unfeasible for users but not IPs to be blocked - maybe the software judges newness by registration date instead of first edit, or something - but if so I'm still opposed.) --—rc (t) 03:45, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Re-reading their statement (posted above), it does look like anon-ip addresses would not be allowed to edit those pages at all. The question is whether or not we have to stick to that. I think it would be quite possible to simply set a "must have edited at least X articles before editing this article" limit, which would frustrate vandals targeting particular pages. It wouldn't help us with the "spam as many pages as possible" vandals, as they are non-targeting. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:37, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Support so long as the new policy isn't over used. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:02, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Support maybe with a coloration to articles created 2. also it should be able to over ridden if a noob comes into the IRC with a good idea --Da, whywhywhy:-:MUN BLK |_LG⁴  :: 11:01, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Rabid Support this can serve us in more than one way - we can protect much of the "Uncyclopedia:" namespace from 90% of editors, and only let those old-timers who know what they're doing make edits to it. This is less restrictive than normal protection. In addition, we can protect highly-vandalized articles from the bottom 1% of posters who cause 95% of the problem. As stated on the policy page in question, "on en.wikipedia, the newest 1% of accounts last about 4 days". So potentially, we'd have about the same lag - I'm guessing that our lower user-count would have a correspondingly lower account-addition. Anyone want to dig up the stats to see how long a new acct would have to wait? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:37, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Only logged-in users can create pages" Policy

• Support -- T. (talk) 17:59, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I am of two minds on this. The "only logged-in users can create pages" concept has recently been adopted by Wikipedial, and it may deter some would-be vandals or abusers from creating pages. However, it is very easy to start an account under a user-name; it takes less than a minute and no email address needs to be given out, and most vandals or abusers would know that. This policy may just encourage such vandals or abusers to quickly open up an account, taking up available user-names that future uncyclopedians might want. (Ironically, the fact that a vandal employs an IP number instead of a user-name makes vandalism a bit easier to spot for the admins.) As well, it would have cause many responsible but single-occasion posters to take up a user-name that a future uncyclopedian might want. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; I just wanted to point it out. --Ogopogo 18:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose With suddenly few pages for me to huff, I'll go into severe DTs! Seriously though, I'd rather that IPs make 100 pages a day and 99 of them get QVFD'd than have that one good article not get made. Taking out the trash is already fairly easy with tools like Special:Lonelypages, Special:Deadendpages, Special:Newpages, and Special:Shortpages; I don't believe that we should cut back on content creation just to make crap chuckery a tad easier. --EvilZak 21:32, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Support (vote later cancelled, original comment said "until somebody thinks of something that might change my mind anyuways") -- I'm not one of Jimbo's Chosen People who believe in the One True Wiki Philosophy of Being The Sites that Anyone can Vandalise ... but I also see the concern that some really good articles could be lost. But the benefits for users of implementing this policy seem to far outweigh the possible drawbacks. I kinda think, if somebody is going to spend the time it takes to write a really good article, they'll have to spend the extremely short amount of time it takes to get an account. If we required email verification, then my vote would change to Oppose, though nobody cares what I think anyway --Nerd42 21:59, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Per EvilZak. --—rc (t) 23:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Against - See Rcmurphy. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:57, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Against - See Rcmurphy. See Dawg » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:57, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) --Spintherism 02:07, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Creating a login takes 2 seconds, and gives vandals more anonymity than exposing their IP does. --Splaka 02:08, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Cancels previous vote based on comment by Splarka -- You're saying getting a user account actually increases people's anonymity, making it harder to ban vandals? Maybe there are sides to this issue I hadn't though of / didn't know about / didn't consider. I'm withdrawing my vote on this - for what little it's worth - at least until somebody else rebutts that and changes my mind again lol --Nerd42 05:30, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly against There are some wonderful articles and valuable edits from annonymous IPs, and by the same token some awful articles and idiotic edits from registered users. I can't see how this policy would help much. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:05, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against - maybe if a spam bots start coming along but otherwise. --Da, whywhywhy:-:MUN BLK |_LG⁴  :: 10:55, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Mu It may surprise people, but as much as I hate anon-ipers, I'd rather we not get flooded with stupid usernames. And as mentioned, a login is more anonymous than a name. Let them create stupid pages - we can delete in less time than it takes to make them. However, one of the things talked about is a limitation on the number of usernames an IP address can make per-day. There was talk about wikipedia perhaps trimming it to three unless contacted by an administrator for a school or Uni which might potentially have more than 3 people on their connection wanting to make an acct. In this way, forcing logged-in new-page creation adds 2 minutes to a vandal's time, but he can only make 3 accts max. I still am up in the air about this, although I lean towards oppose. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:07, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

FYI, We're currently limiting Username creation to two per IP per day.--Sir Flammable KUN 20:31, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For --Chronarion 08:53, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• A'ginst, based on Famine's point that requiring logging in would result in even stupider usernames than "BobBobBob". For some examples, check out some of the latest permabans. I originally thought requiring login was a good idea until then, because most of the crap articles come from anon edits. But most of the articles, period, come from anon edits, so that wasn't a fair statistic. Remember, something like 50% of elementary students can't read at a 3rd grade level (because 50% of elementary students are in grades K, 1, and 2). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 17:08, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For! I am officially bored with Recent changes patrol, especially now that uncyc is at the scale it is.
• A'ginst, it took me a while..but after I read your comments I think it's better to get the articles. Although I don't know how many spamers are going to take the time to make a username...hmmmDarcken 11:17, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

nerd42 screwed up. Again.

• obviously you haven't read Lemony Snicket --Nerd42 05:18, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Nerd, I believe you've already been told more than once that it's inapropriate to turn votes into conversations. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:34, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

oh I'm sorry, I've been just a little confused on that ... first I see people "voting" (in bold) in the middle of what appear to be discussions/conversations/debates and then i sort of start discussing in the middle of VFH then I get told that you're not supposed to discuss things on VFH you're just supposed to vote and then shut up. So I get that directive but then I hear somebody else (flammable or famine or somebody) telling me what happens on VFH is irrelevent to the village dump and discussions always happen in the village dump so sometimes the lines seem to blur between votes and debates on wikis ... probably some WP guideline I don't know about. My gosh, this mediawiki stuff is a heck of alot more complicated than it looks. --Nerd42 05:43, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Related discussion good, irrelevant conversation bad. --Spintherism 07:59, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Other Comments

Dunno much about Wikia software, but is there a user-rating scheme available -- I'm thinking that an unregistered user would be unable to edit HOT-BUTTON articles protected under SECURITY FIREWALL LEVEL A, a registered user with multiple bannings on his/her/its record might be disallowed from editing somewhat frequently vandalized pages which are under NATIONAL SECURITY FIREWALL LEVEL B, etc. Essentially that requires implementing a user-rating system, at least a rudimentary one. Kind of against the Wiki freedom-of-speech = freedom-of-idiocy philosophy though.----OEJ 17:07, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think only allowing registered users to edit content would be a good thing, it shows a level of commitment (they've had to spend time adding details) before they actually get to edit/vandalise anything else. Of course its still open to abuse, but it might just remove a few of the vandals? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

STRONGLY DISAGREE. We don't want to be Encyclopedia Dracraptica. --Splaka 02:10, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

To MHaille: I somehow erased your comment, above, through thumbfingered stupidity. I apologize. It weren't intentional. Some kind person -- Todd, I think -- restored it before I got a chance to, or I would have restored it myself. Deep breath, OEJ, slow down, you are clicking around toooooo fast. Again, sorry, MHaille. ----OEJ 18:51, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No worries.... :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Are capabilities (for instance, the new Wikipedia semi-protection extension) going to be limited by the fact we're still on the old MediaWiki 1.4 software? --Carlb 20:30, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Probably. Any updates on what bugs are holding us back? Last I knew there was a horrible self-canibalization by mediawiki when 1.5 was thrust upon it, requiring a major restore to get it back working again. Do we have any idea what the issue is? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:58, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hey, wait a second here. Banning all people without accounts from being able to edit would result in our losing our ability to fool people into thinking we're really Wikipedia! And that would be a crying shame. --Nerd42 22:04, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm a member of a small minority of admins who get no real enjoyment whatsoever out of deleting lousy articles. To me, the loss of 2 good articles per 100 submissions is an acceptable tradeoff, and I agree that anyone likely to write something meaningful is probably also likely to take 2 seconds and sign up. In any event, it's great to watch this place catch fire over a good debate. I luv youse guys—but we'll dispense with the group hug. -- T. (talk) 11:54, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As a registered and mostly casual user, I have to say that if a policy of not allowing unregistered users to edit would have kept me from ever signing up, or making any meaningful contributions whatsoever, and I can't imagine my experience is all that bizarre. A would like to propose a more Uncyclopedic solution: randomly reject edits by unregistered users. Or run them through babelfish or something. Confuse peoplel. That's my inflated two cents.--Menace3society 07:21, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The proposal only restricts unregistered users from creating new articles, not editing. -- T. (talk) 16:11, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I was just responding to the suggestion by User:Mhaille. --Nerd42 18:01, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think unregistered users should be able to add comments to Talk Pages, but I'm not sure about the rest... officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 12:39, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

see my comments @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy/Archive4#Important_question --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:12, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

the "Uncyclopeda" approach

This is just a neat idea I came up with, but if someone can write an extension that allows "creative" punishments, such as those that open stuff like shock flash, stuff bouncing around the screen saying "READ HTBFANJS, BIOTCH", and may even go as far as crashing the vandal's browser. Post some ideas and comments.--abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvWXYZ(talk|contrib) 15:52, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Better protection policy

I propose a system whereby the regional governors have direct control over their categories. Fear will keep the unregistered users in line. Fool 06:46, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I would add punishment beatings and group lynchings as addition deterents..... Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

no taxation without representation! --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:18, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)=