Talk:Uncyclopedia

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.

RfC: Is edit by Buster7 relevant

Is the edit re: Beginings of Uncyclopedia in the lead section relevant to the article? And, are accusations of trolling unwarranted? --Buster7 (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a linguistics RfC was used - this is clearly just a matter of policy. As an uninvolved party, I agree with those editors above; your edits contribute nothing but your own opinion. I will also point out that you are in violation of WP:3RR, and would urge you to stop reverting. Ilkali (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@otterathome...Please keep all talk relevent to this article at this location. That way whomever is interested need only visit one site to "follow the chain"..Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali...the reason I used the linguistics RfC was twofold...1) It seemed to me that what otterathome had a problem with was--- my languaging--ergo:linguistics/language RfC. The policy issue was by otterathome. Since I'm the one that asked for review, it seemed to fit what I wanted reviewed...2)I am not very experienced at RfC's of ANY kind. It seemed to be the best choice at the time. Sorry for bothering you. --Buster7 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To me, this addition looks like totally non-neutral. I see that it's also unsourced. At most, if it was from a notable source or from Uncyclopedia itself, it could be attributed. The sentence itself is not relevant unless it can be attributed to a notable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Retreived from Talk:Buster7...I'm amazed you've been trolling for so long without being blocked. I admit, you are very good at what you do.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the obviously offensive edit myself. Have a nice day, all.--Buster7 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC) DONE--Buster7 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from Talk:Buster7...I'm old enough (and smart enough) to know not to feed trolling by showing up at a troll convention. I edit in good faith. You should attempt the same.--Buster7 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buster7"

One final point I just realized...Just for Clarity...It was otterathome that violated the THREE-REVERT-RULE. His third revert was at 19:10 on 19JULY2008...2 1/2 hours later I reconstructed the sentence, hoping to appeasse his sensibilities. When that didn't work and the consensus was not in my favor, I conceeded.--Buster7 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you understand rules before you accuse others of breaking them. Since Otterathome made only three reverts, he has not violated 3RR. You, however, have ([1], [2], [3], [4]). The fact that you did not revert to exactly the same text each time is immaterial.

"When that didn't work and the consensus was not in my favor, I [...]". Consensus was never in your favor. It took until four editors disagreed with your changes for you to retract them. Please see WP:BRD. Ilkali (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand...I'm new here...I don't mean to offend. I'm just trying to understand the rules so I dont keep breaking them. So.....the three revert rule is only violated with the FOURTH revert by the SAME editor. Is that what your saying? WP: BRD is not that clear on the subject, at least not to me. I'm really sorry that I got this hornets nest going. There was a tag that said the article Lead was too short. I was just doing my best...no need to make me cry!--Buster7 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You were just getting stuck at the R, reverting the sentence back instead of going to the D and arguing solid arguments on the talk page, and making serious alterations to the sentence to address the issues raised on the talk page by other editors before going back to the B again. I suggest that you read Alastair's comment below, since he gives good advice (althought a bit too sarcastic for my liking!). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't take Ilkali too seriously Buster, he's a notorious edit warrer awaiting discipline when I choose to pursue it.

It's useful to see more evidence of his unhelpful inflaming rather than settling of disputes.

Regarding your sentence, Buster, "From its modest, irreverent beginnings Uncyclopedia has become a cultural bastion of satire and wit."

That's a perfectly verifiable statement. It makes five claims of fact and/or opinion, all of which can be sourced.

1. Uncyc had a modest beginning (most things do)
2. Uncyc had an irreverent beginning (this is the point of satire)
3. Uncyc has become a cultural bastion (this really does need a source)
4. Uncyc is a bastion of satire (obvious by logo alone)
5. Uncyc is a bastion of wit (true, but humour is in the eye of the beholder, there are two POVs—those who get the joke and those who don't)

As for whether the sentence is relevant, opinions and facts regarding Uncyc are obviously relevant in an article on Uncyc.

Two recommendations for Buster

1. return this sentence when you can find a source that uses words to the effect that Uncyc is a "cultural bastion" (easy); and
2. wait a few weeks to do this—don't feed trolls.

One recommendation for other editors

1. in cases like this the appropriate method is to let the text stand, discuss it in talk, apply a citation request if needed.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree a lot with the points outlined on Alastair's post. I'll add that the part of "being a bastion" was the most problematic part on the sentence. Saying that something is the bastion of anything with no source at all goes so directly against not adding unsourced opinions that it caused the whole sentence to be disregarded (at least on my case, on hindsight, I know that I subconsciously discarded the whole thing when I reached that part). Regretabily, it just made the whole thing look like an attempt to insert a personal joke.

I'll also add that you should either find sources for the statement, or look for reliable sources that describe the history of Uncyclopedia and what it has become, and use their wording. If you are going to add stuff with sources, it should be really obvious stuff that doesn't contain any opinions. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I debated about the word "bastion" and, looking back, I should have realized it would possibly be misinterpreted as funny or a joke considering the topic of this article and a previously humorous entry I had made. Also, @Enric Naval: your explanation of WP:BRD is very helpful. Thank you and Alastair for your advice.--Buster7 (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Don't take Ilkali too seriously Buster, he's a notorious edit warrer awaiting discipline when I choose to pursue it". Childishness like this won't help whatever case you eventually make, Alastair. It's hard to imagine anyone making the same comment about you without you labelling it as harassment, slander and ad hominem. Ilkali (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done you two! Warm fuzzy all-round. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am carefully looking at the series of events here, because I think that some people have skipped one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia: assume always good faith.

Buster7 did some _small_ changes (controversial it seems), they were reverted only 30 minutes later applying WP:NPOV, the edit war continued for around three hours (and Buster7, officially you did not break the 3RR, since the last revert occurred next day morning, but you were close to be blocked). I can see both editors argued in the talk page, but no consensus was reached (I do not see any search for consensus either), instead looking for sources for such a simple sentence was the only given solution ... also, Buster7 was never warned in this process about a potential 3RR. In my opinion, again, this is a result of not assuming good faith.

I can see Buster7 trying to compromise almost eight hours after the war started. Instead another war for another four hours occurred, when the first accusation happened on Buster7 talk page ...honestly, if the editor have checked Buster7 contribution history, the editor may understand that those attributions had no place at all there. Buster7 finally gave up at almost one day later after more accusations in his talk page, this is for me is unacceptable, but we are all humans...

I can see that finally some very good advice has been given by a couple of editors, but at what cost? A good editor like Buster7 has been insulted, with no reason, and probably offended and hurt at the point not wanting to contribute anymore in Wikipedia. If this happens that would be a hell of a loose, and nobody thought about that. No one assumed good faith on his comments and advice was not given properly, even when it is obvious that he is new in this space (no offense Buster7). We all make mistakes, we all have different point of views, we all have different cultural backgrounds ... as a result we all need to check our comments, and we all need to compromise and try to understand each other.

I would suggest to check Buster7 contributions and you will see this is not a troll behavior, at all. Best regards, and let's learn from our own mistakes, Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing b4 I go

I copied this from a "What is a troll"? page...somewhere

Rephrase. Often one is accused of being a troll because one is phrasing one's views in a particularly hostile way. Consider: are you openly advocating trolling on your userpage? Are you cursing at people or engaging in personal attacks? Are you accusing those who oppose you of being in a cabal? If you stopped that, people would probably respond better to you.

While I wasn't being in any way hostile or engaging in personal attacks I thought that might also mean to rephrase the entry. I was worth a try. By your demeanor you obviously think that it was very important that my edit not be included. OK! But,I think an editor has a right to defend his good faith editing. I knew that I never had consensus ("When that didn't work and the consensus was not in my favor, I [...]")...I was explaining my thought process for you and any other administrator that might read my replies, now or later. Also, so I would remember them. Also, the moving of comments was merely an attempt to keep everything together. I always clearly marked that they were Retrieved from elsewhere. There was no attempt at trickery or discountenance. If someone was offended by my actions.--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Buster, you are absolutely correct, you've done nothing wrong, you added a relevant and accurate sentence that enhances the article, and have had it forcefully suppressed by other editors who don't appreciate the subtlety of its tone. It is they, not you, who are out of line with Wiki culture. This topic is not Osama bin Laden, nothing much hangs on this discussion except editors learning to work together, and human beings being what they are, co-operation is a learned skill. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

"The site uses an identical layout to Wikipedia which causes confusion to users, for example mistaking the content as factual." - do we really need that sentence? Just how much of a moron do you have to be to take an Uncylopedia article for real? Much less, to be unable to recognize the differences in layout between Uncylopedia and Wikipedia?? -- 134.102.101.61 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, check this out. In particular note the IRC conversation about halfway down the page. Also, I was confused when I first visited Uncyclopedia, thinking it was part of Wikipedia itself. Granted, this was for less than a minute or two, but still, it's not an unfair assumption methinks. -- Hindleyite (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it does happen. It's probably a very rare though. You noticed in less than a minute, and I doubt many people are seriously taken in by it. Probably not noteworthy enough for inclusion. MrN9000 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It aims to look like Wikipedia plus it has a source.--Otterathome (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism

A number of articles on Uncyclopedia use basically racist humour. The site manager acknowledges that some of the articles are racist ( see here) but claims that they get deleted. Does anyone have any refs about complaints about its racism?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The first question would seem to be "What is the basis for this claim?" Can you provide examples of articles in which the humour is primarily based on racism? --Codeine (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, having just perused that article thoroughly, a couple of points: firstly, JH is not the "site manager"; he was the founder of the site and the host before he transferred the domain and hosting to Wikia, and in fact, due to his many commitments he's barely involved in the site any more (unfortunately). Secondly, and more pertinently, there's nowhere in that interview where he mentions racism. In fact, the only mention of race on the entire page is in a third party comment: "Sure we delete a few articles but these are generally racist, overtly sexual or just plain tasteless and have no place outside a hate site." One more thing to consider; many of Uncyclopedia's articles are written by those who know the subject best - for example, I happen to know that many of the contributors to Jew for example, are Jewish themselves. Offensiveness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and I repeat my invitation to provide examples of overt racism on Uncyclopedia. I can assure you that any genuine examples of gross offensiveness without humourous content will be removed. -- Codeine (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WHY!!??

Why did today's disgusting society have to go and make this wretched website? I looked at a few articles and it made me want to cry! What on Earth is so funny about sex and drugs? And why do they have to use those things to taint the image of totally benign things? I wanted to throw something heavy at the person who created Uncyclopedia when I looked at the "article" parodying Meet the Robinsons. Why on Earth does a great movie like that deserve to be made fun of in such a crude manner? Thank you for listening to my thoughts. Seeing as this is an opinion, and thereby not abiding by the talk page guidelines, anybody may delete this post if they deem it necessary.