Talk:Uncyclopedia

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Last Section

Okay, who wrote that? Was it a disgruntled user who got banned there too, or is it satire on a non-satrical wiki? Tell me. They have a very rigid deletion policy over there (I should know; I take part in it regularly), and the only time they ban users at random is when Administrators prank each other (it happens all the time). The whole point of the website is satire. If you want true idiocy, see Encyclopedia Dramatica, where all of that is true. there's also the fact that pages of that nature are highly vandalized. Please check your revision history next time... --Brandon

They are directed more so at conservatives because we are more easily offended because we have values and principles. We also have an air of respect, which makes it funnier to see it ridiculed. 613auditie 00:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I will be an upstanding citizen, too, but the point is this wiki is supposed to be at least adequately educational, not satirical. I mean, a joke now and then would be fine, but a blatant disregard for scholarship will not be tolerated. I will gladly help with a re-write. --B.L. 09:10, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Cleanup

This page needs a serious cleanup. It reads like a trashy editorial, written by somebody who was offended, and did not take the time to look at it from an encyclopedic point of view. If nobody comes with a suggestion, I will re-write the entire article.JonM 16:42, 24 December 2011 (EST)

I agree. The article is trash, and needs to be re-written. If help is required, I will dispense it on a semi regular basis. --B.L. 09:12, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Umm

Uncyclopaedia can get a mention but Rationalwiki can't? Just thinking out loud. Vive Liberté! 16:47, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

I suppose not, though RationalWiki is more frequently viewed than uncyclopedia.co. I won't stop you from making an article, but I don't regard either topic as significant enough to deserve an article in a serious encyclopedia. Not that we're the most serious.--Abcqwe (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Abcqwe beat me to it by a few seconds.
Point of history: RW used to be so seriously hated here that it was in the "spam filter"; it was impossible to enter the name in any article. People used various subterfuges, like a reference somewhere to "the website whose names rhymes with 'national picky'". This prohibition seems to have gotten changed a year or so ago. But it is extremely unlikely that a page about RW will ever be created here. I recommend that you not try.
By the way, one should never delete a talk page comment unless it is libelous or seriously detrimental. SamHB (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
I see. With the usage of inappropriate vernacular, and the seemingly deliberately provocative nature of the comment itself, I thought it prudent to delete the comment. --Anglican (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
That's understandable. By the way, just called me "Nathan." "Abcqwe," is just some text I chose months before I became a serious editor, and was still pretty nervous about writing online.--Abcqwe (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Good lord! I just Googled that phrase; I previously had no idea what he was talking about.
Be aware that people get blocked for that kind of thing. SamHB (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Which phrase, "RationalWiki," or "Abcqwe?"--Abcqwe (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Seeing as you changed the original comment, I'm going to guess it was that. Truthfully, I had no idea that it was like that (not that I saw anything particularly wrong with the results I saw on google - mostly just memes). Vive Liberté! 19:45, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Okay, I'm assuming you mean RationalWiki ... nothing bad came up when I searched Abcqwe; I even got my user page.--Nathan--Abcqwe (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2017 (EDT)