User talk:Dramadeur

Welcome!

Hello, Dramadeur, 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 people like you:

• Beginner's Guide
• Our Vanity Policies - why we don't care about your friends
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read anything at all, make it the above three 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
• 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.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but it certainly is a fun and easy way to express your creativity. To write an article, it's recommended that you start it in your userspace (for example, User:Dramadeur/Article about stuff) so you can edit it at your leisure. If you decide to create it in the cold world of mainspace, make sure it is in accordance with the policies laid out above, and if you're not done put the "Work-In-Progress" template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.

If the current colonization doesn't suit your fancy, then browse our rewrite and idea categories. We have lots of articles just sitting around for someone to improve, so don't be afraid - dive right in!

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage 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 10:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The things you were doing

Don't do them, especially do not delete the entire article and redirect the page elsewhere as it suits you. Moving the talk page to an archive is also unacceptable. I have reduced your ban to two hours (though if you revert an administrator again it will be longer), if you intend on sticking around here I suggest that you read HTBFANJS and the beginner's guide before you make any further changes. If you have any questions then feel free to ask them on my talk page. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 16:02, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Two articles on different subjects is one thing

but merging the old, pre-rewrite version of an article with the current version is entirely another thing. By your rationale, we should merge 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2001: A Space Odyssey/old, and the simple answer is that no, we should not. The "classic" or "old" versions are there for historical/archive purposes. Good day. Sir MacMania GUN—[22:00 24 Aug 2010]

Wtf are you talking about? The article jew itself should be about this nation, if you want to put up jewish history in it, do it, well I actually did it by myself, but you reverted it without an argument. See Irish. And why is the title renamed? IF you want the title of the article to be "Jewish History: The Big Picture" then simply create such article and move it there, wait it was deleted already so you decided to rename the title "of jew" to it, but sorry you aren't preferred if as any other nations here are ridiculed, jews must be no exception. Dramadeur 02:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As an atheist who will ridicule religion with little fear—rather than a "biased jew"—I don't see how any of this is a valid argument for your unilateral overwrite of an official multi-user collaboration that, ironically, was designed to overhaul the old article with which you replaced the current article. I'd be the wrong person to ask about the title, since I wasn't part of that collaboration, but I'm not one to question its judgement. If the person is unsatisfied with the limited scope of the article, there's a link to the article about the Jewish stereotype in general at the top of the page. Plus, as Hype said on Chief's talk page, the old article is unfunny anyhow. Sir MacMania GUN—[02:37 25 Aug 2010]

(Edit conflict with MacMania) Let me explain a little about how Uncyclopedia works. Articles should be about whatever's funny. The article at Jew/Classic was unfunny, so it was rewritten. Restoring it only vandalizes the article. There are literally dozens of articles mocking Jews on Uncyclopedia: see, for example, Jew Claw or Jewish Cuisine. And anyone who wants to write another one could always take a swing at writing "Judaism" or "Jew" in their userspace - for example, at User:Dramadeur/Jew, and if it's good enough, we might be convinced to move Jew to Jewish History: The Big Picture and move User:Dramadeur/Jew to Jew. And it's certainly never a big problem to overwrite a redirect if the article is good enough. But what we will not do is restore an incredibly shitty mess of an article right on top of a more polished article. That is the worst possible solution, and for you to insist on it is beyond asinine. pillow talk 02:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

But it more relevant to the article's title which is named "jew". Unfunny / not unfunny is a matter of taste. Rewrite then and make it funnier, what's the deal? As for Hyperbole, nice one, just tell me why is "jew" article should be an exception from being ridiculed? With the same success I can say that "there are literally dozens of articles mocking Muslims on Uncyclopedia", starting with Ahmadinejad and ending with Bin Laden (who's hardly considered a muslim amongst muslims, but whatever here no one cares about that). So stop covering up this "jewish history aka unfunny text written by some butthurt jew" and let's get it straight, you simply don't want that the article "jew" was about ridiculing jews. Come on, admit it. Dramadeur 04:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some paranoid belief that Uncyclopedia is structured to attack certain groups and protect others. It's not true at all. We have only one criterion here: is it funny. And to borrow a line from Seinfeld, the Jew/Classic article doesn't offend my political sensibilities; it offends me as a comedian. It starts with six lame, unfunny quotes, and gets worse from there. Hayden Skates once slept with seven Jews? What the hell does that even mean? Eric T. Cartman? We're quoting fucking South Park now?? Jews are vampires?? Superman is real?? Kennedy was assassinated by Jewish ninjas?? Then... we're talking about Borat?? Are we just going to namedrop everything we saw on TV last night? Oh, and then we have Jews who transform into pianos, we have the Count from Sesame Street being a Jew (I guess that was on last night, too?), there are a septillion deadly sins for some reason, and then the article ends by complaining about some temporary semi-protection that was put on it once. Just awesome. No, Dramadeur, the reason I don't want that shit on the wiki is that it's fucking retarded and it makes us look like we all have the intelligence of ten-year-olds. Have you even read what you're trying to put in the article?? I'm sorry, but saying that Jews can transform into pianos isn't exactly biting mockery of Judaism.

Look, this is really simple. If, for some reason, you feel compelled to mock Jews, write an article mocking Jews. If it has redeeming humor value, we'll put it on the wiki. If it's awesome, we'll put it on the front page of the wiki. But don't go telling me that I'm censoring you somehow because I don't want a fucking article about Jews leaping out from the grassy knoll and assassinating John F. Kennedy with ninja stars, as though that were somehow in any way funny. pillow talk 05:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Look up at article's comments, and you will see that the current "big picture" thing is less funnier than "classic jew", which is btw more related to the article's title and used to be in that article earlier. Dramadeur 06:05, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there are some ten year old children who think that an article about ninja jews who can turn into pianos is funny. The consensus among site contributors is that it is not - which is why we started a large-scale effort to rewrite the page. pillow talk 15:04, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Calm Down..It's only a comedy wiki site!

I think perhaps the best idea right now is to come with your own article(s) Dramadeur, uncorrupted by anons and alike and see if that is better than the ones you propose changing or merging. Normally new users take time to have a good look around before jumping up and down and causing a bit of er...drama! Hyperbole and Spike (for example) have been very good contributors to this site over many years and the others in the community here know them a lot better than they do you. It's all about creating impressions. You don't have to follow the herd either or be afraid of others in here either, as long as you make your points calmly without adding insults. That I find has been the best way. So hope you stay and try not create too many unnecessary 'dramas' Dramadeur. Please? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

So you're suggesting this site is biased? I just wanted it to be neutral towards everyone, if some user have succeeded and he uses this site for his political agenda ... I don't know, someone should take care of, someone who's responsible and adequate person. Dramadeur 17:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As one of the "responsible adults" around here, the only bias we have is towards comedy. We ridicule everyone and everything and there are very few holy cows around. Cheer up and try to leave this behind and write something unrelated. ~ 17:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

And you forgot to mention "equally", which article "jews" isn't, it's obvious it was rewritten by some jews to make it less funnier and offensive. While no one do the same for Islam or Muslim articles, which is way more offensive atm. Dramadeur 17:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I answered on Chief's talk page and this will be the last time I deal with this issue. Get over it. ~ 17:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dramadeur, of course we don't ridicule everything "equally." You can't ridicule Thom Yorke, Avril Lavigne, Björk, Basshunter, and Ray Charles "equally." If you tried, none of the articles would be funny. And if you tried to merge Radiohead into Thom Yorke - well, you'd ruin both articles. pillow talk 19:06, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

A quick explanation of what Uncyclopedia is

Dramadeur, I was rolling your complaints around in my head last night. Mordillo is right: we don't have any "sacred cows" on the site, and anyone is welcome to write anything they want about anything, as long as it's funny.

But you have noticed, and I'm not going to deny that it's true, that our treatments of the various world religions is a little different. I believe I can explain why that's the case: and that is, simply, that when you make fun of something, you generally either reinforce, or lampoon, your society's perception of it. Because that's what's funny to us. And our society's perception of the various world religions is not the same for each of them.

So, it might benefit you to know a little bit about the Uncyclopedian community and where we're coming from. We're not a hive mind, and we all have different opinions on different issues, but we also have a lot of things in common. First of all, I would estimate that probably 75% or more of us are atheists, agnostics, or other forms of secularists. Also, the vast majority of us - over 90% - are more liberal than conservative, and more libertarian than communitarian.

That's not by design; that's just who the website attracts. We don't have very many Christians here - probably because Christians take their religion very seriously and don't feel comfortable seeing too many jokes about it. We have, as far as I know, approximately zero Muslims (although we have one editor of Muslim heritage), for the same reason. We do have a few Jews here, although I believe that they are not very religious. Religious people just don't do well on comedy websites; they tend to take life seriously, and if you take life seriously, you don't want to laugh at it.

The fact is, the Uncyclopedia community tends to be made up of a bunch of guys, mostly in their 20s through early 30s, who don't take very much seriously at all, with the exception of our own work. Because this is our art. Whether or not our art is made up of mostly dick jokes, it's our creative outlet, and it's hard work, and we all know just how hard it is. And that, we take very seriously.

I don't know what culture you're from. But I can tell that you're not from the same culture as most of us. You don't seem to be an American atheist guy in his twenties who likes Jon Stewart and thinks Sarah Palin's an idiot, but also thinks Barack Obama and Al Gore act like clowns a lot of the time and that world politics in general is only so much asinine bullshit generated by people who take themselves far too seriously.

So, when you consider what we write about world religions, you have to consider the stereotypes of our culture. Because whether we reinforce or lampoon the stereotypes, they're our starting point. And, basically, these are the stereotypes of our culture - in case you weren't aware:

• Muslim - Terrorists who want to take over the world and destroy everything in their path.
• Christian - Stuffy hypocrites who pretend that their own shit doesn't stink, who go around telling people to believe absurd nonsense.
• Jew - Nerdy, insecure comedians and accountants who complain about their health problems a lot... and may have a secret plan to take over the world.
• Scientologist - Bat fuck insane idiots who declared war on the Internet and will now bear the full brunt of its fury.
• Buddhist - Boring people who sit around and meditate a lot.
• Shinto-Buddhist - Well, they're Japanese, and Japanese stereotypes are a lot more interesting than Shinto-Buddhist stereotypes.
• Hindu - Oddball cow worshippers who worship weird gods; not very interesting.

Can you see why those stereotypes yield different results? When an nerdy American who spends too much time on the Internet thinks of a Muslim, he's probably thinking about Osama bin Laden. When he thinks of a Christian, he's probably thinking about Pat Robertson. When he thinks of a Jew, he's probably thinking about Woody Allen. When he thinks of a Shinto-Buddhist, he's probably thinking about Morning Musume.

Can't you see why our articles on Islam and Judaism would be different, then? You can't approach those stereotypes in the same way. If you did, it might be fair - but it wouldn't be funny. At least, not to our audience.

And, frankly, we don't give a rat's ass about being fair. We care about being funny.

If you come in here trying to make our articles more "fair," and in the process make them less funny, we're not going to like you very much. Like I said, we take only one thing seriously: the comedy value of our articles.

On the other hand, if you want to write something that's funny from your own perspective - please do! We'd love this place to be more diverse. But you need to do more writing and less fucking up other people's work. pillow talk 19:00, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Though I am certainly not in my twenties or thirties since I passed my half century last weekend what Hype says is true about this site. If you want to go to a website that has rubbish and thinks it's being serious, look at Conservapedia or half a dozen nut websites I look at. Sometimes you just can't make stuff up funnier than what comes from those sites. Soooooo...Dramadeur show us what you really find funny..but try a different subject?. Don't give Hype another sleepless night ok ? He's been through it a lot recently, what with raccoons and photographers of late. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:19, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

(Romartus:Don't cramp my cool young style, old man! Even though the way I write makes me sound like a 30 year old...)

Also, Dramadeur, Hyperbole is right. I'm actually a bit below my 20's (Proof that old and young can come together and make fun of others) but I love Jon Stewart and I think Palin is dumb. I'm a strong liberal but I still criticize liberals too. The thing is, though, it's easier to make fun of Sarah Palin because she says dumb things, so people will usually go further and it will be funnier. Since so many people make fun of Palin, you have to go further for it to be funnier. The same applies with religions. It's not fair. We know. But that doesn't matter. Funny > Fair here. That's just how it is.--HM (T) 19:28, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for now, disperse, nothing more to see or say here. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 19:29, August 25, 2010 (UTC)