Difference between revisions of "Talk:Uncyclopedia"
613auditie (talk | contribs) |
(Cleanup+promise to act) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. [[User:613auditie|613auditie]] 00:46, 13 November 2011 (EST) | 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. [[User:613auditie|613auditie]] 00:46, 13 November 2011 (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.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 16:42, 24 December 2011 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:42, December 24, 2011
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)
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)