Uncyclopedia talk:Forest Fire Week/archive1

List restore requests, suggestions, etc. here.

Talk Archives

• Uncyclopedia talk:Forest Fire Week/archive1
• Uncyclopedia talk:Forest Fire Week/archive2

You idiot you destroyed Gorillaz!

OMG! You huffed Phobos! I think it was a good article, if somewhat short. Deimos OTOH, is still here, and it's less funny. 193.77.238.223 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Reality

Might there be a possibility of rendering the Uncyclopedia an alternate version of reality? For instance, when I read that George Foreman was a prostitute in a Hungarian province, I want to be able to see George Foreman as a famous visitor to Hungary. It really kills the atmosphere to click through and read that Hungary is instead a domicile for for racially insensitive cartoons and see no backreferences.

This is really bloody annoying

This is a horrible concept. Deleting articles without *any warning*? Who thought this was a good idea?

Recently, a user went through and deleted two articles on books in the Harry Potter series. Why those two, which were about the same length as other members of the series, is beyond me. Articles that hadn't been created and abandoned, but which had received edits, some this month. Not only did they delete them, but they left dead the links pointing to them. Harry Potter being a rife target for vandalism, seing dead links to the book names has already encouraged (yes, it took less than a day) for people to start adding more dead links to nonexistant books. I brought this up with the person who deleted them, and was told that, since the book articles are short, I should merge them into the main article. They were in the main article, but due to vandalism, they were branched out to separate articles, greatly improving the quality of both the book articles and the main HP page.

This is sloppy, it's ill thought out, and it needs restraint. I've written featured articles, quasi-featured articles, had three featured pictures, and protect dozens of articles from vandalism -- but this sort of nonsense makes me not want to come back. -- Rei 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I should add that it's especially annoying that we don't get any sort of deletion notice on our watchlist. I'm having to go through the articles that I've worked on to see if any of them magically vanished without explanation. -- Rei 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I think the whole thing sucks too, what we already have is good enough... Mr. Briggs Inc. 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?

You could compile the various Harry Potter books into one article separate from the main one. That way the number of articles would be kept small and the books page would be buffered from vandalism. If you point out which articles were deleted, I'd be happy to restore and consolidate them. Is Harry Potter the main page for the series? Because it doesn't look like it... —rc (t) 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The books (included the two deleted ones) are now at Harry Potter/books. For the main discussion of Forest Fire Week, see Forum:Forest Fire Week for November? —rc (t) 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I thought it was ok last time, but now I realise it's not such a good idea. And I think that if an article has been deleted via a forest fire week clearing, and someone asks for it back, it should be restored straight away, or at the very least restored and sent to VFD. How can the deletion be justified when the majority of people can't even see the article?

And FYI, if you click the "show and edit complete watchlist" button on the watchlist page, it'll show you every page on your watchlist, including ones which have been deleted. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:20, 21 Nov 2006

I'm done. I rewrote chunks of articles that weren't funny. I've tried to add in intelligent humor also that might be a bit stupid that editors simply don't understand. I've spent hours trying to make things talk about things you can make fun of involved with them and not just giraffes. The fact that some articles like Binghamton University were deleted for no apparent reason? You've lost an editor with a sense of humor, and are probably going to lose many more once they find out what's going on. Good riddance, this website isn't funny and with such policies, it probably never will be.Jmw0000 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Answer

Behold, my children, the answer to all of these problems:

(SFX: Chorus of Angels with voices like a violin) "Ooooooooaaaahhhhhhhh. . . . . "

Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing

Read it, live it, love it.

In U:HTGSE, with U:HTGSE, through U:HTGSE, we can prevail over evil, and say . . . Halleujah! Because I had a vision, my brothers and sisters, a vision . . . of people on uncyclopedia being able to write articles without them being deleted before they were halfway done and didn't put tags on them that still have time limits on them. A vision of articles being allowed the time their creators needed to actually be able to finish them and create something funny. A vision of dead bodies with telephones inside them . . . . wait, forget that last one.

You get the idea. Now go, my children. Write! And if it sucks, rewrite it until it doesn't. But whatever you do, remember, there's always someone who's written something worse and always someone who's written something better. If you don't have any ideas or can't expand them enough to make a stand alone article, just add to an existing article or find some other way to contribute. Be creative! One of the great things about Uncyclopedia is there's pretty much no rules except be funny. Well, that and don't piss off Famine, but that's pretty much a given. --Hrodulf 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Nuff was one of those one-joke articles that was a particular favourite of mine. P'haps it could be reborn somewhere on Undictionary:N instead? --L 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored. Do what you will with it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 10:51, 22 Nov 2006

Uh-huh, I'm done. --L 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Links

Would it be acceptable for me to delete the red links on the FFW page, or are the kept there for a reason? --Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Add interwiki

Please add [[pl:Nonsensopedia:Tydzień Radosnej Eksterminacji]]