Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive14

Best. Reskin. Ever.

Where will the current front page reskin go when man uncyclopedia is finished as a feature? - David Gerard 12:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It will stay available in Tx: for a while probably. --Splaka 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is to be deleted at some point, you might as well just move it to my userspace at Isra1337/Tx. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant the css pointer in MediaWiki:Uncyclopedia.js that creates the page-wide black background and green text. It is slightly obtrusive javascript, and we're pondering disabling it for things like Aa: EBay: and Tx: when not needed. Tx: the page can stay forever as far as I care ^_^.

Whining

I miss the counters we used to have on the bottom of the page, and I don't like how the TOC look now. ...wah -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

• Counters are off because of a caching system running on the server now (i.e. off for a good but irreversable reason), and you can probably modify the TOC in your uncyclopedia.css if you really wanted. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I need the counters!!!!! BRING THEY BACK!!!!!!!! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I BEG YOU!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

IRREVERSIBLE?!?!!? WTFF!!!!!!!! WHO I KILL FOR THTIS?!? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WHY LIVE ANYMORE?? --KATIE!! 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I SPEAK INGLIS --Nytrospawn 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I want the wikistats back. WaAaaaAAaAaaaaHhHHhHhHhhHhhh (etc). Seriously. I think I'm going snakey. I'm a postage stamp away from becoming a card-carrying member of the lip-twiddlers club. --T. (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorised template problem

Hymie's attempts at adding all uncategorised templates into this category appears to have had the effect of causing all the LangName babel templates to display incorrectly, showing the full language name instead of the abbreviation in the babel box. I've rolled the edits back for now, but maybe this is something that requires further investigation? I'm not an expert on how the babel boxes were put together. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just the language names that were reverted? If so, may be best to leave them reverted until the time comes to put them into Category:Babel templates or wherever they go. Another thing to check is whether any of these categorisations have added any blank lines at the end of the template? --Carlb 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

{{user}} and {{IP}} were broken by the categories due to the <noinclude> having two line returns. Hymie should have appended it directly to the end of the text in all those templates without any line returns, probably? --Splaka 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I shall deal with him when I get home. --Carlb 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

MPEG! DIVX! - David Gerard 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilde gone Wild

Due to this edit by gwax to {{Wilde}}, I think we no longer need: {{Wilde2}}, {{NWilde}}, {{NWilde2}}. All these can be simulated using {{Wilde}}. Eg:

{{wilde2|Blah blah blah|Your mom}} -> {{wilde|Blah blah blah|the [[Your mom]]}}
{{Nwilde|Blah blah blah|Mom|Your mom}} -> {{wilde|Blah blah blah|[[Mom|Your mom]]}}
{{Nwilde2|Blah blah blah|Mom|Your mom}} -> {{wilde|Blah blah blah|the [[Mom|Your mom]]}}

I fully support this. I hate fixing redirects made back to pages, by people trying to be clever in making a wilde quote, but not knowing how to get the link to link back directly (not knowing about Nwilde or Wilde2). Carlb: If agreed upon, can hymie change all the links for us? --Splaka

PS: On further thought, {{Wilde}} could be meta-ized using {{Q}} (which was de-linked before). Algo? What do you think? Would it work in the same way, yet letting the third parameter be optionally blank (without duplicating the code)? Would it be breakable? {{q|{{{1}}}|Oscar Wilde|{{{2}}}}} ? --Splaka 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not, algo, but I can answer. Wilde could be altered to perform different things based on how many non-blank parameters are entered, but in that case you wouldstill have to have blank parameters on most uses. The same as how you need to type {{Q|blah blah|Author|}} instead of just {{Q|blah blah|Author}} when you want to leave off the "on Subject" part when using template Q. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Yes, replacing the text of Template Wilde with {{q|{{{1}}}|Oscar Wilde|{{{2}}}}} will work perfectly. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From Carlb@irc (paraphrased) "All we need to do is change the contents of those 3 quotes to adapt them to Wilde, then I can run Hymie to subst: them all in, after we can huff the templates, much simpler. Also I like pancakes. Hymie, on the other hand, prefers 10W40."

• {{Wilde2}} changed to {{wilde|{{{1}}}|the {{{2}}}}}
• {{NWilde}} changed to {{wilde|{{{1}}}|[[{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}
• {{NWilde2}} changed to {{wilde|{{{1}}}|the [[{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}

Should be correct? --Splaka 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Also: the damn quote marks

If we merge these 5 templates into 2, they will all need the same quote mark code. Currently they use 3 or 4 different ones:

1. “{{{1}}}”
2. "{{{1}}}"
3. “{{{1}}}”
4. "{{{1}}}"

Which ones are the least obtrusive? Some break on some browsers. --Splaka 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

the non defualt (") ones suck on the web, i like the good old typewriter quotes. sorry but they just look so weird, on MSWord the ones they use are ok, but here they look like 2 little slanted ticks not quotes. --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once {{Wilde}} has been subst'ed for the others, just edit the one template and they'll all change together. Try one, if you don't like it, revert. --Carlb 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So who here likes pancakes?

There's too much technical stuff on this page, most of which I don't understand (check that, I'm too lazy to try to understand), so I thought a nice conversation about pancakes would be a good change of pace... -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pancakes are nice, but in every way inferior to french toast. --Monthenor 06:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Except in the area of taste. --—rc (t) 06:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever tried Snoqualmie Falls pancake mix? I can't get it in the store anymore, and I have this horrible sinking feeling that they've stopped distributing it. I used to make 'em every Sunday... It was the highlight of my week! --Some user 06:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Waffles are king. French Toast is Queen, Pancakes are just the knave. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Waffles are just pancakes with syrup traps that get all soggy. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 06:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Volte, but I agree with Isra on this one. I've never seen any pancakes by that name, Some user. What made them different? Who forgot the crepes? I like crepes over french toast, but it's a toss-up between them and waffles. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew what made them different! The perfect ratio of sugar to flour, maybe? I bought 'em on impulse because I'd been there once (on a Twin Peaks pilgrimage, natch), but they were fantastic. I used to prefer waffles too, but they actually changed my (admittedly diseased) mind. I should stop before I'm accused of spamming, though. Eventually I'll just have to order the stuff online... --Some user 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Crepes are #1. After that, French toast. For some strange reason, I only find European breakfast foods tolerable. Does that make me anti-American?--Bradaphraser 19:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ported Linux to a pancake? I understand it works on toasters and coffee cups now - David Gerard 12:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So Pancake theme for shove tuesday anyone? (I think the logo will work well as jif lemon bottle)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the awesomest pancake/waffle/French toast/etc. things I've ever had was a "The Big One" pancake (recipe at the back of the computer game Fallout 2's manual). The things taste about halfway from pancakes to French toast and are about 6 inches thick. Anyone else know what I'm talking about or tried them? --Sir gwax (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Kansas is flatter than a pancake. Seriously. Check it out.--Jordanus 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My pancake matrix is misaligned. I checked all of the parameters, but the flux capacitor still gets nulls for the prime checksum! And, as if this weren't bad enough, the OS on my frying pan keeps having kernel panic when the boolean input rate is greater than the root of it's initialized butter driver settings. AAAHHH! --S P I N N I E 01:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

When I was stationed in Kuwait, the chow hall had french toast, that when drenched in syrup and melted butter, was possibly better than sex. Then there was a war and I never had that toast again. Pancakes have never inspired the same love in me, so I must side with the French-Toast-is-better crowd. — — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Template categorization

One of the extraordinary new features that came with the upgrade is the addition of the <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags, which allows content to be placed on template pages without it being included when the template is referenced. Because of this, templates can now be placed in their own categories. I've begun the work at Category:Templates, but I'm going to need quite a bit of help sorting through everything. Please help! --Algorithm (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Any possibility that any of this could be automated? For instance, a 'bot could take every page listed on Uncyclopedia:Templates/Deletion_process and toss them into <noinclude>[[Category: Deletion_process templates]]</noinclude>? --Carlb 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the templates are really badly grouped right now. A lot are miscategorized, and most aren't even listed at all. I suppose a bot could handle a small portion of the work, but I think most is going to have to be done by hand. --Algorithm (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'bot could throw them initially into the categories listed (where applicable, based on Uncyclopedia:Templates, the list of awards or the list of Babel boxes) and toss the rest into the oxymoronic (as opposed to just plain moronic) Category:Uncategorized templates? At that point, the ones in need of manual recategorisation would be much easier to spot. --Carlb 22:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a bot automatically go through and delete all the templates. All of them. It would save us tons of time and effort. Then if we only allowed, say, Admins to create templates, we wouldn't have so many useless effin templates. Just a thought. I'd go through and delete all of them by hand if I had more time. Perhaps when I retire or something. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Change of skin name

I've changed the defult skin name on this wiki from "Monobook" to "Uncyclopedia". In MediaWiki, skin names are closely related to the filenames which are used to generate the skin, and so using the Monobook name required patching the Monobook skin files. This causes problems every time we want to upgrade MediaWiki, since we need to migrate the patches. Many wikis hosted by wikicities have these kinds of patches, and they are poorly documented, which is why so many things broke in the upgrade. Breaking the uncyclopedia skin out to a separate file in the common skin directory will allow for a much easier upgrade in the future.

I've changed the default skin, and all users who were using monobook have had the skin switched to Uncyclopedia in their user preferences. You can change it back to Monobook if you prefer, to get the default Wikicities skin.

User CSS and JS will have to be moved from Monobook.(css|js) to Uncyclopedia.(css|js). I'll move them all automatically if there are no further objections (Splarka complained for a while on IRC). -- Tim Starling 06:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And I will continue to complain sir! Anyhow. I've lost, move at will. *cries*. Anywho, post comments/questions here about it. --Splaka 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Script pages moved, skin moved, MediaWiki: moved. Report problems here. --Splaka 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty minor, but your "Note: Uncyclopedia's skin has been merged with wikicities, this may affect your scripts. See the Village Dump for help/comments." message messes up Sdrawkcab's {{title-right|sdrawkcaB}} title. --Keithhackworth MUN 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, I am so so sorry that using MediaWiki:Sitenotice, an integral and useful part of the MediaWiki wiki design (commonly on Wikicities, and on Wikipedia) which displays site-wide important news, broke a silly css hack (which only works on a few browsers perfectly, and badly or not at all on others) used on exactly one page. --Splaka 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The World's Tiniest String Quartet. Shown under an electron microscope. Scale is 100 pixels per Ångstrom. They are playing My Heart Bleeds for You.

Uncyclopedia Talk:Babel

I recently made some new "Babel boxes" and submitted them on the Uncyclopedia talk:Babel page, but the page is rather neglected and it doesn't seem like any of the templates will make the move from the talk page to the Babel page anytime soon. So I figured I'd post a link to the page and shamelessly mention my own templates.

Religion

Jewish

This user is , and probably controls Uncyclopedia in some remote way.

Mormon :)

This user is Mormon and believes all articles will be featured, but there will be 3 levels of VFH. They have a book that could change your life.

Catholic

This user is Catholic, and believes articles become featured through good works, not faith.

Buddhist

This user is Buddhist, and believes that an article can only stop being edited once it has reached Nirvana

Amish

This user is Amish, and probably shouldn't be using Uncyclopedia.

Muslim

This user is Muslim. They believe all articles become featured through submission to the will of Allah.

Pluralist

This user is a Pluralist. Because to them, religion is like a buffet, a chance to pick and choose.

Web Browsers

Firefox

This user believes the Mozilla Firefox could easily defeat Godzilla.

Internet Explorer

This user just uses "that e browser" that came with their computer.

Opera User

This user surfs the interweb with Opera, but is above petty musicals. Crack on.

Not bad, but the color scheme on most of them hurst my eyes. Paulgb 21:18, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to the religion ones or the browser ones? The browser boxes ones I tried to make match the logos of the corresponding browser. The religion ones I was thinking of messing with the colors a bit anyways. Thanks for the feedback. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

I'd agree with Paul. With the Firefox one, I probably would have loaded the logo into a graphic editor, eyedropper-sampled the lightest blue, used that as the background color, and stayed with black text. It's hard for me to read the small white text on a harsh blue background (though I'm still using the template on my page). -- T. (talk) 14:48, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

How about something for Avant? It kicks ass. --71.225.128.237 15:02, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, just so you guys know, I don't feel especially territorial about these Templates (well, maybe the Momon one, but that's it), so if you guys want to improve on them in anyway, feel free too. I think Todd's suggestion for the Firefox one is excellent, but someone else would have to do it, I'm no good at image stuff. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

What about Orthodox Christians and atheists? - Guest 16:02, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, any reason why "I can walk into the chemists' shop anytime I like and say 'John, I would like you to sell me a condom for I am a Protestant'" didn't even make this list? --Carlb 16:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I had big goddamn thing type up, but my fucking computer lost it for me, so I'm gonna just write a half-assed version of what I wrote before. Another guy has already designed an atheist template and a few others, which was the reason I didn't make an atheist one. For convenience I'll post the raw script below (he hasn't put them into actual templates).

Creationist

This user is a Creationist. ...who believes that all decent articles are created by one, and only one user.

Evolutionist

This user is a Evolutionist. ...who believes that all decent articles evolve over time, through various users.

Inteligent design

This user was taught Intelligent design. ...and believes that all decent articles are too complex to have evolved.

Atheist

This user is an Atheist. ...who couldn't care less where the decent articles came from, as long as they are funny.

theRealSheep (the creator) suggests that we find a better picture for the atheist and creationist templates, I agree. I also think the satire on the atheist template is off and should be moved to a nontheist template. The atheist template should probably be more like, "This user is an atheist who doesn't believe that there are admins who manage Uncyclopedia." Or something like that. As a matter of personal opinion, I prefer the "classic" Babel boxes to the ones that look like the nationality boxes. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

But how many people will actually add those religious ones to their pages? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Did these monkeys ever learn that creationism and intelligent design theories are the same thing?

Technical Question

Is it possible to configure the server to allow sound files other than ogg to be uploaded? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:15, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. According to this Wikimedia document (see also this section), LocalSettings.php needs to be edited. I would be interested in expanding the allowed formats to include MIDI. I believe there may be some problems with MP3’s (licensing issues). I am responsible for various ogg files around Uncyclopedia. --Sir KP GUN 07:10, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're not planning to start putting music on pages; I hate it when some page I'm looking at starts playing music and I have to stop it or my own music. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:28, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if anything they ought to be linked to. Of course, I could imagine sound files being linked to for pronunciation, that audio-wiki thing that WP's got, etc. If they have to be embedded, the only place I could reasonably see it happening is Vandalism. --71.225.128.237 15:46, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not. Mostly if the person uploading does own copyrights to the file, they can probably convert it to ogg. --Chronarion 00:34, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The problem is more that lots of people can't read ogg files. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:57, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The licensing issues have nothing to do with who owns the copyrights. The problem is the MP3 encoding. Apparently, there are some patents used in order to do MP3 encoding and decoding—this is anathema to an open-source wiki. Music and sound are fairly unobtrusive. Some music and sound I’ve tucked away on Uncyclopedia can be found on Poetry, I Dream of Having, Requiem, and nearly any article containing the word blue. MIDI would be very convenient for some music articles. I would like to do an article on cadences. Storing the examples as MIDI instead of OGG would be sensible. --Sir KP GUN 01:53, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I know what Isra is saying, it takes a bit of effort get ogg codecs for windows players, while every single one has mp3. I actually converted an ogg off uncyclopedia to mp3 for a certain admin that shall remain anonymous that didn't want to download an ogg codec to listen to something.

What's the story on mp3? I know it has a stigma regarding copyrighted works, and I know ogg is a better format (smaller at the same bitrate, conversion seems faster, too), but it is very common, everyone has a codec for it... I never heard about a patent issue with it (granted I don't follow these things). Could anyone enlighten me? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a brief summary of some of the patent issues. --Sir KP GUN 05:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dur, I know how to use headers

Geke Amosa: not funny, admittedly, but not a Vanity Page per se. Possible reinstatement? -Dur I know how to sign and timestamp.

• As the admin who deleted your article (and explained why on your talk page), I'd be happy to answer your question. No. It's not coming back. At least, not until you 1) explain why its funny (it may have something to do with Nigerian scammers, judging from your picture), and 2) learn how to use headers, sign and timestamp, and all those other niceties that I'd have thought you already knew. I mean, come on. The (deleted) article had a pretty fair amount of complex Wiki formatting. Surely you can figure out how to apply your zk1llz here, 2? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Title alignment templates

I created {{tl|title-right}} and {{tl|title-center}} based on an 0ld h@x created by Splaka for Nihilism. They accept one argument: the text shown as the title. Please test it and report bugs. Title-right is used in Sdrawkcab and title-center is (currently) used in Uncyclopedia:Sandbox. - Sikon 16:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are really horribly broken in the Classic skin. Have you tried them against all the skins? - David Gerard 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, they are intended for Monobook, and only for Monobook. - Sikon 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, well, yeah. Point being the funny is sorta lost and they need fixing - David Gerard 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a pile of things appear to be broken in Classic now ... where do we report 1.5 upgrade bugs? - David Gerard 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Use wikicities:Talk:MediaWiki_1.5 to report problems. --Carlb 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New section

Hey, Im new, my pen names guesttimate Jones, and after looking through the help section many times, i could not find where i should put my first article "Flan, that Devilish Dessert", For the Moment it is in my User talk section, but if that is wrong plz tell me.

ty, Guesstimate Jones.

Try here: New Article, notice the form of the URL. --IMBJR 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Random

The random page function sucks. We have over 18,000 articles and yet I've had Anne Widdecombe pop up 3 times in the last 30 minutes. Same with Japanazis, Dungeons and Dragons, Joysticks and Descartes. This is new since the software upgrade. What gives? --T. (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's weighted, Todd. The more recently a page has been created or modified, the more likely it'll come up with Special:Random. It has always worked this way. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess a lot of people are scanning the changelogs and reading what I'm editing then, because a few clicks on an article shouldn't create significant weight against a pool of 18K. In any event, it's annoying. :P --T. (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's weighted for how recently something was modified and how recently it was created. It has nothing to do with page views. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I do appreciate you trying to be helpful, but you've dimissed my observation completely without checking the facts.  :) Why? I've been hammering the randompage for 3 months now, so if I notice that something is working differently, it is.

If you'll check the history for the handful of documents I've mentioned you'll notice that they were not modified or created recently. Anne Widdecombe 8 Nov 2005, Japanazis 8 Nov 2005, Dungeons and Dragons 14 Jan 2006, Joysticks 23 October 2005, and Descartes 25 October 2005. MediaWiki's tweaked something poorly somewhere, or their weighting priority has changed. --T. (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

slander

I've seen a lot of deletion logs and whatnot that mention slander, but I can't find slander anywhere in the rules BGBU or anything. As far as I'm aware slander refers to something that you say that is false and damaging to someone's reputation. Since everything here is false, it seems like quite a bit of the things written about people would be slander. Would anyone care to explain what isn't allowed as far as slander goes?

What's usually meant when a page is deleted for slander reasons is that it's either unfunny slander or slander of a non-notable person (vanity slander). I often use the term slandanity when deleting slander of non-notable people and either slander, crap or something similar when deleting unfunny slander. So, to answer your question, slander is fine as long as it's good slander (see George W. Bush). --Sir gwax (talk) 21:37, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

gwax explains it well. Most admins use the combination of "slander" and "vanity", "slandanity". The only acceptable slander is about notable people/places/things, and it must be funny. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:30, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

So, if I write a MY sISTER iS a p00PYHEAD! article, you aren't willing to vote it the featured article? Darn! --Carlb 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

== banning ticket ==

See image for more details on closer inspection.

so anyways ima working on it 2 look like this. Basicly A banning ticket. with offences and ticking boxes and what not. thoughts anyone, ima starting 2 lose interest so if anyone feels like taking on some responsibility.(probaby since i cant use it)feel welcome --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 14:15, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea and I wonder if we could get someone to make a template/image combination that would allow us to use it dynamically *cough*Splaka*cough*. Also, you speeled Uncyclopeida rong and it looks a little grainy zoomed in. --Sir gwax (talk) 21:45, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of cleaning, but it's a good start. Unify it, clean it, and we'll see what we can do. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:40, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

User:Whywhywhy/banning_ticket heres what i started. I got sick of dreamweaver so if anyone knows a better program 2 make complex tables then i might finish it myself --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia on the Other Side

I found myself browsing the Other Side (you know, the so-called experts) and came across something bizarre. Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/sophia awards the Star of Sophia to those deemed worthy. However, I think the whole thing is bogus, because I don't see one single potato in the image. I'm sure someone can make the neccessary adjustments, though. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 00:37, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Unused images

Looks like there are now at least several hundred unused images: Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/unusedimages, Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/unusedimages2

If any are duplicates (or near-duplicates) of other existing images, or are useless, please mark them for deletion. --Carlb 03:12, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping away from that ever-increasing pile of pixels on the grounds that ppl can browse it for imagery to use instead of me pouncing on something unused and huffing the livin' blu jebus outa it. --IMBJR 23:53, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That does leave the problem that sometimes an author will upload a picture, make some minor change, then upload it again under a slightly different name (instead of reusing the same name) and neglect to tag the old one on QVFD so that it may be deleted. There are quite a few near-duplicates which could well be removed from that ever-increasing pile of pixels, but it takes effort to find which ones are near-duplicates of other Uncyc images or are copies of images available elsewhere online (such as in the main Wikipaedia). --Carlb 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're all going to jail

That's right. There are rules against your sort of mischief, and the law won't rest until the lot of you are behind bars. --S P I N N I E 04:47, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

They'll never catch me, I have already absconded to Canada. --Carlb 05:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I need to get a few gun-toting friends to join me up there. We'll capture the place and make it our own to avoid governmental persecution in the US. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'm already living near Canadia, in a state where it's legal to drive around with a loaded handgun on your dash, saftey off. Granted that's not safe, but it's legal. All we really need is just to re-draw the border, and I'll be pretty damn Canadian. That or follow through with my plan to move to Iceland. Good broadband penetration there. ;) Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 14:31, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article. Carl and I are exempt (unless he loses points for only using an initial). -- T. (talk) 14:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply in the UK? If it doesn't, then "YOU ALL SUCK". If it does, then "YOU ALL SUCK" --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 17:50, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It applies everywhere in the American Empire. That includes you. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:16, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm-hm. I feel another chapter of the George Bush: chronicle of greatness series coming on. (Feels king of like the onset of diarrhea or exploding-kidney disease.) Hey, ARLEN SPECTER! You, sirrah, are a fat, smelly, drunken hippopotomus of a Republican, and I intend to annoy your sorry ass into Hell and beyond. Let's see if he tracks me down and persecutes me fer being an Internet Annoyer.----OEJ 19:30, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The term "You all suck" does not classify as annoyance since it fails to meet the standards of American English (the correct annoying term is "y'all," according to Webster's).--Bradaphraser 19:37, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I read in a grammar book somewhere something about y'all being the informal second person, and you being the formal. Y'all = tu, you = vous. Then again, I've read a lot of silly things in grammar books. Actually I think it was a russian grammar book, comparing y'all and Ты, which pretty much discredits the whole thing and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'll just go an pack for prison now. --S P I N N I E 20:37, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Bradaphraser: It's acceptable American, since American encompasses a wide range of English variants used on this continent within the US. We can be annoyed at anything we want, too, by jingo. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:53, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, surely there's SOME kind of specifics on what, exactly, constitutes annoying speech, right? I mean, it's can't be COMPLETELY arbitrary, right? If it was, then we could sue the government for passing covert laws that we have to read over the internet, and that'd be silly.--Bradaphraser 23:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not arbitrary! It is well-defined as "whatever we define as annoying" where "we" is what used to be quaintly referred to as "the Establishment". So you see there is no arbitrariosity involved at all. I wonder how this will play when applied to sites like Landover Baptist and Whitehouse.org, whose primary function is to annoy certain people as much as possible? ----OEJ 23:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

NRV and CVP patrol

Not in the sense of looking for stuff to huff, but stuff to work on. NRV is particularly good for this — a while ago I recovered Kerry Packer (which is very funny to Australians, but not anyone else) and am just having a go at Cult of SushiDog (which was crap, but I want to run with it). If you're bored and sick of huffing crappy articles, look to Category:Worthless Articles and CVP for inspiration - David Gerard 10:41, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Spoilsport. You're taking the fish right out of my shootin' barrel! -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:40, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

everybody hates me

why is this? sure, i screw up sometimes. but really, people hate me. i even got an award for it. --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:01, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Becuase you do stupid things like post that people hate you... and then they wonder why... and then they find out.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 22:05, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's because you vote against everyone's VFP and VFH entries. At least that's why I hate you. - Nonymous 00:01, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. It was a certain more different user I was thinking of. - Nonymous 00:30, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Excessive templating, crappy quotes, articles consisting soley of lists. Bitching and whining. But primarily lack of useful contributions, and by that I mean ARTICLES - pages of stuff with pictures and paragraphs and things. And running a 12 year old avatar on this site. Shit, I forgot calling for votes then actively going against the majority of voters because the vote results weren't what you wanted, and making blatently biased, unfunny edits to articles. Oh, and spamming really, really big templates on pages. If I missed anything, I'm sure someone will point it out. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Unapologetic sig thievery.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 00:39, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I do not hate anybody. However, I think that you've inadvertently pissed people off. Honestly I don't think you're intending to do anything wrong so as much as not posessing enough empathy to see what's going on. Let's take Dawg's sig for example... you blatantly jacked it despite that he said he did infact mind. There are other, smaller examples. I don't think you're a bad guy, I just think that people need to spell out their issues to you. --Chronarion 00:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate you either; you just manage to annoy me a whole lot. So far as I figure, you've got good intentions but your implementation is fairly well off. That having been said, pay more attention to the complaints people lodge against you, slow down, think before making an edit and stop whining about it. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate you at all. Heck, I think you're awesome! I just treat you like a human punchline, because that's what you are with all that's happened up to this point. If it makes you feel any better, before I teased you, I treated myself as a punchline first, with the bitterness page. Then admins had fun at my expense (making it hilarious in the process). That's how you should handle people teasing you, find what's funny about your situation, and laugh at it with everybody else. Don't whine about it (at least, not on a JOKE SITE! It'll only get worse that way. Seriously, dude, there are people that will eat you alive for that, not just tease you like me.)--Bradaphraser 05:34, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

God damn...are you still here, even after that abuse by the admins? Man, you either need to be banned or awarded something. Frankly, I'm too drunk to award you something, so you're banned. Bastard. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:04, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

OMG! It's so unfair! I'm SO blogging about this! Or maybe I'll go on IRC and bug the admins about how I think the world is out to get me! Dear God, why have you forsaken me!?!? What will I do? There are only 1,000,000 other websites for me to visit!  ::slits wrists::--Bradaphraser 03:49, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

12 hrs, some water, and some coffee have passed, so I'm now fit to give you an award (see bottom). Thanks for having a good sense of humor and not being a whiny bitch like someone we know. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:21, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've written lotsa articles consisting solely of lists? Oh wait ... you mean the making up quotes pages? Look ... I've screwed up quite a few times I'll admit. When I first came onto this site I had never really done anything Wiki-related before so it's been kind of a learning experience. I have compiled a list of all the articles I take credit for starting or mostly purging and re-writing. If you think they're crappy, put them on VFD or edit them. :) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:04, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the block log for my username, I've been blocked something like, five more times than I even knew about.

If people aren't supposed to jack WikiML code for things (like signatures) then is that in site policy anywhere? If not, should it be? And uh ... I gotta change my signature so as to not be the stealing of Dawg's anymore ... --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:11, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so. Confucius say, "Man who worry about being hated on Wiki site never had live electric eels in his intestines...now that something to worry about." And Confucius would know. ----OEJ 22:40, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

lol --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 00:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Electric eels? Back in my day, all we had were propane eels, but tell the kids that these days and they just won't believe ya. --Carlb 20:14, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

One-eyed Jack and parents listening raptly to the Silent Radio.

Yas, Carlb, them were the days. I do recall before the silent movin' pitchers came out Mammy and Pap and me used to sit for hours listening to the silent radio...

There is no hate here. I only feel love. Love oozes all around on Uncyclopedia. It flows from every article, every image, and every electron flowing through the Internet. Nerd42 is like a wonderful niece or nephew. We love having him around, but we are glad to be able to return him to his parents at the end of the day. --Sir KP GUN 18:16, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate you, Nerd. The jacking of the sig I worked so hard on less than a day after I made it was highly annoying, though, especially since it's something to identify yourself. If everyone's started like that, I wouldn't mind, but it was uncool to take it like that. At least give an attribution or something. Oh well, I'm happy with my current one (until someone blatantly steals it, too). » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 02:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm really sry about that OK? I thought since it was just HTML/WikiML code it wouldn't matter if I copied it, and that someone was bound to eventually anyway. I thought it would be good to have something to link all my wiki pages together (because I added that same sig to like, five different wikis on like the first day) in a format I could read quickly (color-coded) even if I couldn't read the small print. (because some wikis have rules that your sig can only be so large) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 05:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)