User talk:Blissyu2

Welcome!

Hello, Blissyu2, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for nooblets:

• Beginner's Guide
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read anything at all, make it the above two links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

• About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
• How to get started editing on uncyclopedia
• Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask
• Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply put {{adoptme}} on your Userpage to join. Again, welcome!  -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I was copying over articles that I wrote on http://www.wiqipedia.org/ , which I was told was "the fake Wikipedia". I was then told to come to Uncyclopedia, which they said was funnier. I was banned, and 5 of the 6 articles deleted before I had a chance to read the talk comments above. I wrote to people to explain the situation, but in spite of promises to unban me, they didn't seem to have got around to it, so I sat out a 3 day ban for copying over articles that I wrote myself, all of which were well within Uncyclopedia rules. Perhaps someone ASSumed that I was trying to vandalise or do something wrong because of the speed of it all. Really what I was doing was transferring articles from an inactive comedy site to an active comedy site so that they could get some input. Please don't bite newbies. Blissyu2 10:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. :) I've had to delete Port Arthur actually I've made it a redirect to the Port Arthur massacre article and added the content to that page instead. Its far too short to survive on Uncyclopedia and someone else would have just deleted it without a second thought.

I've also added a little bit of content and an image to the Port Arthur massacre article (a well laid out article with some nice images and amusing content always has a better chance of doing well. Still think it needs expanding a little, but its a nice, funny article now. Welcome again.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Okay. I also added an article on assume since my joke above didn't work too well without a page to refer to. As for Port Arthur, well, I'll have to think of a better joke perhaps. But there is material there, and it is an incredibly noteworthy place. Major tourist destination. But its hard to do it and still stay on theme. Blissyu2 11:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Got something you might be interested in contributing to.....

Have a look at this. I wanted to create an Uncyclopedia version of WikiTruth, maybe with the idea of doing a reskin for the front page at some point. The idea was to make it look like the WikiTruth site, but to embed amusing content from Uncyclopedia within it. Any idea? If you're not interested I won't be offended. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Wikitruth for Uncyclopedia? So a fake Wikitruth? But wouldn't a fake Wikitruth be Wikipedia? I see that it could work though. But perhaps it might be funnier as a Wikitruth on Wikitruth. Exposing the truth of what happens on Wikitruth, but with a few jokes thrown in. For example Wikitruth was created by David Gerard is one of Wikitruth's own gags (also their page on David Gerard), but Wikitruth being created by Badlydrawnjeff from Encyclopedia Dramatica or Grace Note (enemy of Wikipedia Review) are far more amusing jokes, as they have an element of truth to them (Badlysketchedbob is a user on Wikitruth, and Grace Note has a subpage for his own version of Wikipedia Review). There's all sorts of gags that could happen if you looked at the truth of Wikitruth. Wikitruthers are out to expose deleted revisions, yet many of the revisions are still there! They talk about the evils of oversight, yet its there to protect you from libel. And so forth. If Wikitruth is trying to expose censorship, why do they still have their own article on Wikipedia? Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica don't, and are far more well known web sites than Wikitruth is. Is Wikipedia trying to censor Wikitruth by letting their article stay as is? And so forth. Blissyu2 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)