Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 22 January 2007

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives
Incomplete, broken archive; ~ Mar–Oct 2006 Sep 2006 – not yet full

Note: This talk page has been blanked and its archives broken several times since it was created in 2005. Old talk page comments can be found in the page history.

Deletion

I find it extremely hypocritical that Encyclopædia Dramatica's article be deleted by people, yet this article persists. Both contain similar subject matter and unverified information. Either both should stay or both should be deleted. This shouldn't be a political argument on the content on the websites or notability -- both are extremely notable and mentioned on popular websites -- but rather their verifiability and response to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Thank you. Stexe 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom. Secondly, notablilty cannot be dodged here. ED wad nixed because of that and loads uplon loads of original research, which is not allowed here. Pacific Coast Highway 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're the hundredth person to complain about this on Talk:Uncyclopedia! Just read ED's afd log. We've been cited in the papers multiple times, you guys were nothing but OR. --Nintendorulez talk 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Two versions of Uncyclopedia

I discovered this when I wrote some funny i one of them. I did not find it next day. Then I discovered that it is two different versions of Uncyclopedia. One of them is at http://uncyclopedia.org/Main_Page. The other one is at http://en.uncyclomedia.org/Main_Page. Most other languages (except swedish) have two versions of Uncyclopedia based on uncyclopedia.org and uncyclomedia.org. Within the different languages unclycopedia links cross these two versions for foreign languages.

Uncyclopedia may need a "cleanup" for linking within different langages. Misplaced Pages should point that is it two different versions of Uncyclopedia, and tell the reason for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.134.118 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoah, I never knew about this... Anyway, use uncyclopedia.org for the english Uncyc. Not sure what to use for the others. en.uncyclomedia.org appears to have some kind of time-warped old database revision, and the sites are running seperate databases. Spooky... *plays with uncyclomedia version in an effort to try and rip a hole in the space-time continuum* --Nintendorulez talk 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, it's just a mirror site, I think it was created by an admin a while back. Most people over there know about it already, and it's sometimes useful for finding deleted articles since everything that gets created in the main site is automatically copied to there. --212.85.1.183 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carlb has several different domains and mirrors set up. It doesn't really merit mention in the article. --Keitei (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Uncyclopedia

Probably this isn't the place to discuss this, but... I think it's really odd and misleading that apparently one can link to Uncyclopedia as if it's just another namespace on WP. There's no "external link" symbol next to it, and it doesn't open in a new window. It's very disorienting to me since I expect to still be on Misplaced Pages. I realize that one can link to Wiktionary, etc. that way, but they're sister projects. Uncyclopedia (bless its heart) isn't. (Incidentally, if anyone could direct me to where I might ask about this (I'm not a policy person, heh), or tell me if this has been discussed before, that would be awesome.) --Galaxiaad 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm it's called InterWiki linking and it works for a lot more sites than just Uncyclopedia--ElvisThePrince 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can tell wikilinks and interwikilinks apart by their color. Interwiki links are a slightly lighter shade. And yeah, WP supports a lot more than just its sister projects for interwiki links. --Nintendorulez talk 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what happened?

To the main page of Uncyclopeda? martianlostinspace 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is a one day only thing, parodying Web 2.0. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank God... 71.116.112.140 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Who got rid of the Talk page archives?

Those were hilarious! Sir Crazyswordsman 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I salvaged what could be salvaged of them. It would helpful if the regular editors of this article would archive the talk page properly rather than letting it be blanked and archived brokenly by bots that should not be used on article talk pages. It really only takes 10 seconds every few months. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the editors of this article spend about 90% of their time at Uncyclopedia. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I spend more time here, though. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Misplaced Pages Saavy

Does anyone know how to get rid of that large blank spot below the Contents section? I looked at the section and i couldn't figure out any way to fix it so, i hope a admin can fix this Diggity-diggity-doom 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that its because my comp is on a large resolution...anyway, if you know a way to fix it, feel free to Diggity-diggity-doom 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might need to re-arrange the pictures, but that may cause problems for computer users who use a different resolution than yours. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation date

So, the Uncyclopedia was created in 2000 or 2005? There are both years mentioned, but at most one of them is correct :)-Sedimin 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I could find no mention of 2000, but it was made in 2005, definitely. - GnomeNinja5 8:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We came into existance in January 2005 (our "rivals" over at ED say we copied them since we're all of a month younger, but that's not the case, as Uncyc was created without the knowledge of ED, and the humor is different). Sir Crazyswordsman 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Vandels/Uncyclopedia Users connection

It seems an awful lot of vandels on Misplaced Pages went to Uncyclopedia because they hate Misplaced Pages so much , or started vandalizing Misplaced Pages BECAUSE of Uncyclopedia. I think this should be mentioned FinalWish 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You got proof? Sir Crazyswordsman 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I really believe that. Misplaced Pages would not tolerate onsense so they trolled off to a site that would. American Brit 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, usually a troll gets blocked here at Misplaced Pages and one of the administrators foolishly tells them to 'try Uncyclopedia.' Then they get blocked over there too. Uncyclopedia is a humor wiki, not a trolling wiki, just like Misplaced Pages isn't a trolling wiki. tmopkisn 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing just because you hate Uncyclopedia

I found someone added the sentence "It is also the worst website." and also deleted the whole external link column. It seems that this fellow hates Uncyclopedia very much. But let me tell you - DO NOT VANDALISE THIS PAGE JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HATE UNCYCLOPEDIA. Just try to do such thing in Uncyclopedia. Or maybe you can scold in this talk page. I don't know. Anyway, just some words here - DO NOT SHOW YOUR HATE TOWARDS UNCYCLOPEDIA IN WIKIPEDIA. Please keep Misplaced Pages neutral, as Misplaced Pages cannot be made a "military base". --Edmundkh 16:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats true. I dislike Uncyclopedia very much, I think it is silly and stupid but there is no need for vandalism. American Brit 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can request semiprotection for this page? Sir Crazyswordsman 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending. I think the admins will only semi-protect a page if it is vandalised at least ten times a day. Not too long ago, I filed an RFP for Pokémon Emerald, but failed because there just wasn't enough vandalism (more than once per day, but no less than five everyday, I think) to warrant a semi-protect. If this article has been vandalised for around ten times a day, then I would think an RFP is quite applicable. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be "sista projects", not "sister projects", shouldn't it?

Everytime I look at this article, I cannot help but notice that it states that Uncyclopedia has several "sister projects". However, on Uncyclopedia's main page, it states that it has several "sista projects". Shouldn't we change accordingly? -- Altiris Exeunt 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page Problem

Hi!

I was blocked from Uncyclopedia about 2 months ago, and I was hoping someone here could persuade one of the moderators to let me off early, to contribute some stuff for the holidays.

Also, I can't seem to type on my own talk page without being blocked again. My user name there is Master Pain (also known as Betty) (don't ask). If anyone can help, please do so.

Thanks!

George "Skrooball" Reeves 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, your block reason is "01:40, 26 October 2006 Famine blocked "Master Pain (also known as Betty) (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Continued edit warring. No, you are not "back and benevolent now". You're still being a dick.)". That looks pretty self-explanatory to me. You could try asking in #uncyclopedia, though - if you're polite they might unblock you. --86.141.170.118 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my computer can't get the IRC thing -- it's a Windows '97! But, really, I kind of got blocked out of the blue. It's not a good story. George "Skrooball" Reeves 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Windows 97!? How did you get such Operating System? Microsoft website doesn't have anything of this Windows. --Edmundkh 11:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he has a partially-functional version of Windows 98. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... actually I've seen my cousin's brother having a CD of Windows 97, and I've heard of my classmate who used W97 at that time. But anyway, I'm just curious about W97, as there's no such thing in Microsoft Website --Edmundkh 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Edmundkh. I think the above quotation deserves some sort of special merit, if you were serious. Oddity- 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- it's a Windows '98. George "Skrooball" Reeves 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been able to run many different IRC clients on a 98. --Nintendorulez talk 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But, please; can anyone help me? I'd really like to start contributing again. George "Skrooball" Reeves 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone, please? George "Skrooball" Reeves 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you see 86.141.170.118's advice? Go to the village dump (there's a link on the very first template you see on this article) and make your complain there. When I complained to them about an error in the Russian Reversal quote of All Your Base Are Belong To Us, they rectified it within a day. State your points there, and if the admins see it fit, they'll probably unblock you. -- Altiris Exeunt 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But I can't access the Village Dump! I have a Windows '98! If I even try to post on my talk page, I get autoblocked! If you have an account there, then, please: convince them to unblock me! George "Skrooball" Reeves 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, surely you must be able to go round the library or something? Or an internet cafe? It can't be that hard to get internet access, surely? --86.141.170.118 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually rather busy with most of my other time. I just want to get unblocked; I've got a couple of contributions that have been brewing in my head, and I'd like to get them down on the screen. The only reason I'm here is because a user called Famine continually blocks me. After four months of continually being accused of trolling by him with no way for me to respond, I'm starting to think he's holding a grudge against me. Please, help; it's the holidays. If you act now, this could be an early Christmas present. George "Skrooball" Reeves 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This entire section has been submitted to the Complaints Department on Uncyclopedia. Whether they will do something or not is up to them now. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt Famine has time to pursue personal vendettas against people. And, er, the Complaints Department is a joke - it says clearly at the top that you're more likely to get banned as a result of posting there than unbanned. If you're interested, there's a section on Famine's talkpage that seems to say pretty clearly what he thinks about unbanning you. Perhaps you should just create another account. --86.141.170.118 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the reply from the Complaints Department from Uncyclopedia:

I've already raised it with the blocking admin here if you wish to make any further pleading I fuggest you go there,although this is his fourth offencse so you had better make it good.--User:Elvis 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Altiris Exeunt 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How? I can't do any more edits -- to any pages. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, you could always create another account. --86.141.170.118 09:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC. And don't tell me that doesn't work on a 98, because I used to have a 98 and there were lots of different IRC clients that ran perfectly fine. --Nintendorulez talk 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got an infinite ban, and not one admin has given me a reason. It just seems that a few admins there hate me. ;_; Plus the same admin that blocked me vandalized my sig and stuff. --Nintendorulez talk 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I got a new account a month ago. What's the admin's name? Maybe I could talk to him. George "Skrooball" Reeves 03:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

number of pages

Misplaced Pages says Uncyclopedia has over 20,000 articles. Uncyclopedia Stats says it has over 100,000 articles. Uncyclopedia's past main page said it has over 10,000,000 articles. Which one is right? If Uncyclopedia has less articles that Misplaced Pages, it did not "overgrow" Misplaced Pages. I'm thinking that "10000000 articles" thing is a gag. That probably happened when Uncyclopedia had 100,000 articles or 10,000 articles. Nowhere close to Misplaced Pages. AstroHurricane001 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The stats page states that "there are 20,304 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.". The 10,000,000 articles is a joke, partially in reference to the large amount of pages that are deleted.--SirNuke 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a spoof of Misplaced Pages's 1,500,000 articles (notice the 150,000,000th article is the same as Misplaced Pages's 1,500,000th). Sir Crazyswordsman 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the number of pages be updated? It's now January, and Uncyclopedia has over 200,800 pages. Should the article be edited to reflect this? AstroHurricane001 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

parody?

Uncyclopedia doesn't nessecarily claim that Misplaced Pages is a parody of Uncyclopedia. It also claims Uncyclopedia is a parody of Misplaced Pages. Also, it says nothing about Misplaced Pages being Satirical. AstroHurricane001 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncyc does claims that Misplaced Pages is a parady of Uncyclopedia, though that is a running joke and not meant to be taken seriously.--SirNuke 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

An anon keeps adding POV to the article, which has been reverted once. However, the anon reverted it back, saying it's true. This does not follow the WP:NPOV rule and the WP:V rule. I suggest the anon take his/her objections to this talk page. You can't just say it's true, you have to provide a source. Thank you. AstroHurricane001 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The contributor in question is, I strongly suspect, an individual from the University of Massachusettes who on Uncyclopedia was going by the aliases "Ape Slayer" and "Shit Zuu". I blocked him from Uncyclopedia for making racist edits to the site, and it appears his response is to vandalise the en.wp article with incorrect allegations about the site's editorial policies and libellous ones regarding my sexual predilections (can you say WP:NPA, kids?). Apologies to Misplaced Pages for our trolls spilling over here. Codeine 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Codeine. How do you feel that your mom's in this article? --AAA! 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent. -- Codeine 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought so... --AAA! 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About the template up top...

Could we maybe change it to:

This page is not a forum for general discussion about WHETHER UNCYCLOPEDIA IS FUNNY OR NOT. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about WHETHER UNCYCLOPEDIA IS FUNNY OR NOT at the Reference desk.

I don't see the need to tell people to go and complain over at Uncyclopedia's Village Dump. I think we have had more than enough of those semi-coherent troll topics, just look at Uncyclopedia is the worst. The majority of that page is taken directly from this talk page and the Village Dump. --Nintendorulez talk 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically second that. Jonas Liljeström 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it up. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia but not Ecyclopedia Dramatica?

I don't understand why this gets to have a page but the Dramatica page is prevented from ever being made again. I love wikipedia but it by no means should be able to censor something just because some higher ups don't like it. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for its condition, but it seems stupid for there to be a page for this parody and not another, if they are both notable. What's going on here? Reignbow 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination). --AAA! 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what, the fifth time someone's claimed on here that Misplaced Pages is trying to censor ED? Look, it was deleted due to OR. --Nintendorulez talk 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia = Article of the Day??

I just asked Raul654 on his talk page, and he said he had no problem, tentitivley, making this the featured article on April Fool's Day. I don't edit this much, but if many of the frequent editors here can help this get cleaned up for FAC by March 1, I would appreciate it. The Placebo Effect 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can start by removing the ugly Chuck Norris sentence. Inserting Chuck Norris reference is a serious bannable offense. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe try nominating it for WP:AID. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in to getting this to featured article status by april fools day. I'm more than happy to go nd research the web to get it there! I say we create a subpage to create it and move it over to mainspace once its complete. How about Uncyclopedia/featured article? Might be better as we can improve as we go along and only put it on the page when we're happy. No doubt we'll have to take a lot of things from the main article RyanPostlethwaite 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added headings to the page I suggested for the creation of the featured article page - I've made it mirror the wikipedia wiki as much as I could. It will be funny!!! RyanPostlethwaite 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I almost deleted it as empty article. Can you do that in your userspace? Or at least inside Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article? The problem with Uncyclopedia/featured article is that it is considered another article, and it is possible for someone to reach it through Special:Random. Please tag the article with {{db-owner}} and create it under your user space or inside the talk namespace. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved into talkspace, can now be found at Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article RyanPostlethwaite 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, sorry, but Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article is still inside the article namespace. I moved it to Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article (note that you can't have a talk page in that page, because it is already in the talk page namespace). If you need a talk page (in example, to coordinate efforts with others) move it to User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Uncyclopedia, in example. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

UnTunes

Uncyclopedia has recently established the UnTunes namespace for parody musical contributions. 206.45.135.233 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding sources

I actually brought this up in the recent AfD for this article, but it was closed before any discussion could start regarding the question I am going to bring up. Basically, does this article have severe sourcing problems? It seems to violate WP:V and WP:NOR all over the place, with the material 'sourced' from Uncyclopedia itself. I hope someone could clear this up for me, because I'm curious-DESU 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe the website would be incorrect about itself? If Uncyclopedia states its policies as x, y, z, I don't see why that'd be unreliable. Indeed, if you read what the "reliable sources" say about Misplaced Pages's policies, you'll find they have a vast error margin. If there's anything you want to be a stickler about, maybe you could post it here and Jonathan can mention it to the next journalist asking for material? Can't promise they'll get it right though. Speaking as an Uncyclopedia administrator and bureaucrat, this article was completely correct when I rewrote it. There might be some kinks now in the content section or something, but... eh. A good combing through wouldn't be uncalled for, but I don't think Uncyclopedia is unreliable when stating what is written there. Seeing as you can check that it's written there yourself, with a click. Sort of "original research", but.. not really... just sort of "click and read"... don't think that's against policy... --Keitei (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that Uncyclopedia is unreliable about itself - but the same can be said of any website. What's getting me is that nearly all of the material is referenced from the site itself, and not an independent, outside source... I believe a number of articles about certain websites have been wiped due to the fact that the article was entirely (or almost entirely) 'sourced' from the site the article was about - despite the fact they were in the "click and read" format you describe. I'm not going to name any names, however. What I'm getting at is like, if one could use the site in question for sourcing the majority of the material in a wikipedia article... eh, I'm probably being picky, but whatever-DESU 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ED was killed for that specific reason. Given all our forum topics on times the media has mentioned us, why aren't those articles used as sources? --Nintendorulez talk 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't say much of anything. "Hey, look at this place, it's pretty cool. Funny sometimes." That's not much information to put in an article. What would you like us to do? If it's the stability of a wiki page or the "seriousness" that's a problem, we can probably publish a press release to cover the issues needing citations. I think that once notability is established though, there doesn't need to be outside sources... I mean, I hope not. "Independent, outside sources" are wrong a lot of the time. I don't think it's a problem, but if it is, let us know. --Keitei (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also full of Wikimedia/MediaWiki self-reference. Less so now, thanks entirely to me. What exactly has been said in reputable third-party news sources about Uncyclopedia? Milto LOL pia 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is built on references to Wikimedia and MediaWiki; why would you remove that? --Keitei (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's built on the MediaWiki software. — MichaelLinnear 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor content originated in parodying conventions of MediaWiki and Wikimedia. It continues to do this. We frequently mess with the software to imitate Misplaced Pages, poke fun at the default messages, etc. It is built on these practices. --Keitei (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trim time

I'm about to go through this article and waste everything that is unsourced or a self-reference. For the site's notability and media coverage, it's way too long, leading to sourcing problems. I figured I should probably start a heading first. So, go nuts on ideas/suggestions/whatever. Milto LOL pia 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go overboard. For example, citing Uncyclopedia would be entirely in order if the sentence being supported is about the content of the site. I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive