Uncyclopedia talk:Top 10 Articles of 2024/voting
@MrX: @alula: @Bad Motherfucker: so I've been wanting to ask this and I think I should do it now before voting time is over. Should Taylor Swift's "psy-op" be disqualified? I removed it from the list because Willy on Wheels said the AI detector had detected the article as AI-generated, but he also commented that it was a faulty tool; also its creator (Tranvit) swore that all he did was translate the article into English, but all its contents were original and not AI-generated... πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 18:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. We can't disqualify a featured article from voting just because it was possibly written by AI.
19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm actually with Alula on this one. OαΓΆαααα
(addicted) 20:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- k... but why didn't you say anything sooner then, alula? πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that there was any talk of disqualifying that article until now 21:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- a. πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 21:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- a indeed. 21:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- a
Bad Motherfucker GET FUCKED! 04:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- a
- a indeed.
- a. πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 21:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that there was any talk of disqualifying that article until now
- k... but why didn't you say anything sooner then, alula? πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm actually with Alula on this one. OαΓΆαααα
Dani as I had said, if the article is featured, it can be voted on. there is zero chance it will make the top 10 anyways. If you feel that the article's featured status should be challenged, then start up a forum, present your evidence/argument and we can discuss and potentially vote on it. Suspicion of AI is not grounds for immediate revocation. Having said that, I'm not a fan of people changing their votes once made (which has happened today) in which a user changed the order of their votes. Will ask the user to not do that. ShabiDOO 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo: weren't votes allowed to be changed until the 31st January? πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 00:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vote changes have absolutely been reverted in the past and for good reason. I got called out myself the first year I voted (as while I didn't intend to do so, it really appeared as though I was vote fixing). If you argue that you genuinely made a mistake, then yeah, could be considered. But its dubious to change your points after other people have voted (again for good reason). ShabiDOO 00:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my case, I just didn't know how things worked. I thought #1 was just that. Turns out it was different. Also I just happened to skim through one of them and picked it as something to just put there, but I preferred the non-existent one. It was just that I don't know too much about this sort of thing. Not vote-fixing or being vague. I'm actually still surprised anything I wrote was featured at all! I've always presumed that my pages don't get many views because of the old stuff I usually write about, or the random things and entities I write about. So it was a surprise to me. Nacky (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vote changes have absolutely been reverted in the past and for good reason. I got called out myself the first year I voted (as while I didn't intend to do so, it really appeared as though I was vote fixing). If you argue that you genuinely made a mistake, then yeah, could be considered. But its dubious to change your points after other people have voted (again for good reason). ShabiDOO 00:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I am still unsure why such suspicion about Taylor Swift's "psy-op" being AI-generated was raised with such flimsy evidence. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember thinking it was a solid, funny article, but I will admit this suspicion did sorta affect the way I voted for the Top 10. Also, I didn't realize we can't change our votes. I wasn't planning to, but someone needs to clarify that in the instructions, where saying that you can "add articles to your list over time" actually makes it seem like you can change your vote. MrX blow me 
15:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this time around we should let people change their votes even if it's just because of my mistake to disqualify the Taylor Swift article... πππDaniPine3 (talk)πππ 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with MrX, there should be more clarification regarding that. I believe that whichever position you put an article should stay in that position. Just have the number for the article locked in once you place it there, I'm not sure if there are any cases of this, but somebody could keep switching articles back and forth when they can't decide which position they want it to be in. Bad Motherfucker GET FUCKED! 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks y'all and all of youse. I must have missed the Big Potato of the numeral system. Thinking the higher the number, the least and that #1 was just that; #1 like as in favorite for vote. I never did this before. Nevermind is a good word and I know I can link that to things, I can use that so I voted for it. However, I'm not familiar enough with Nirvana to make an educated critique one way or the other but it was funny anyway. I know the ONE song from that album Teen Spirit and I certainly know the Weird Al Yankovich parody of it! Which is hilarious. So that's why I even added it. LOL Taylor Swift. There's a parody of her song Blank Space by a guy named Bart Baker. Nacky (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll have to check this Bart Baker guy out. MrX blow me
16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh it's weird, but it's good. The ending is really, well you'll see. He does a great Wrecking Ball parody too. Nacky (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- In your case, Nacky, you're all good since you misunderstood the system. Bad Motherfucker GET FUCKED! 16:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll have to check this Bart Baker guy out. MrX blow me
- Thanks y'all and all of youse. I must have missed the Big Potato of the numeral system. Thinking the higher the number, the least and that #1 was just that; #1 like as in favorite for vote. I never did this before. Nevermind is a good word and I know I can link that to things, I can use that so I voted for it. However, I'm not familiar enough with Nirvana to make an educated critique one way or the other but it was funny anyway. I know the ONE song from that album Teen Spirit and I certainly know the Weird Al Yankovich parody of it! Which is hilarious. So that's why I even added it. LOL Taylor Swift. There's a parody of her song Blank Space by a guy named Bart Baker. Nacky (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with MrX, there should be more clarification regarding that. I believe that whichever position you put an article should stay in that position. Just have the number for the article locked in once you place it there, I'm not sure if there are any cases of this, but somebody could keep switching articles back and forth when they can't decide which position they want it to be in.
I've never been a fan of adding votes incrementally, but no one has ever made an issue out of it and it's just an informal thing so I don't see any point in banning it (however much I might not like it). However, in the past (and for good reason) I (and others) have had our hands slapped for changing the points after an initial vote. We've never clarified the rules cause its rare and its easy to just point it out. Whilst making a change may be done innocently (a correction or a mistake), it could appear as though vote rigging is going on so it has been considered a no no. Years ago, (and a few times for competitions like happymonkey) we emailed in our votes so that other people's votes didn't influence one another. This is far too formal for me for top 10 voting too. I think it's reasonable to lock in your votes once made, and whilst I'd encourage people to just put out their votes in one block, not make a big deal over people adding votes later. ShabiDOO 23:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)