Forum:New and improved rules!
So through my efforts, with great and much-appreciated help and approval from Savethemooses, Ceridwyn, Ljlego, The Thinker, Algorithm, and Mhaille, I have constructed some revised Uncyclopedia rules and guidelines and implemented two three brand new ones. Any feedback from the community would be greatly appreciated. They are listed below (new rules are bolded):
- Uncyclopedia:Communication
- Administrators on Uncyclopedia
- Uncyclopedia:What Uncyclopedia is not
- Uncyclopedia:Disagreements (replaced Uncyclopedia:Flamewar Guidelines)
- Uncyclopedia:No cyberbullying
- Uncyclopedia:Consensus
- Uncyclopedia:Civility
- Uncyclopedia:Ignore all rules
--Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- for and a Purple spleen. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, on some feather in your cap type shit. Excellent work emc. The one on Consensus is my personal favorite. ;) --THINKER 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I made a few edits, mostly minor grammar things, etc. The one thing I'm against is the point about featured articles - featurehood doesn't mean the page is "finished", just that it's managed to get pretty darned good. Things can always get better. Also the point below it I don't really understand. I'd also be in support of adding more of the funnies back to "What Uncyclopedia is not" - some of those are classics. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the featured article thing. It should probably advise to refrain from "heavily editing", i.e. you can add the odd paragraph (although it will often be reverted), but don't rewrite the whole thing. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I edited that bit before reading this comment. It now reads "Users should refrain from editing these articles, or at least think very very carefully before doing so." ----OEJ 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it sounds a bit arrogant of us. Many such articles don't have 100% consensus if they got some againsts in VFH. And I still don't understand the point underneath it - please elaborate emc? What does protecting things have to do with consensus? -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pages like "Goatse" or "Niggers" are protected to prevent vandalism or stupid edits, which ultimately preserves community consensus (or so I believe). Pages like "Adolf Hitler" which are semi-protected do the same. But now that I think about it, the wording could probably be changed as any consensus established through majoritarian voting isn't "100%". Good point. I'll change that now actually. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it sounds a bit arrogant of us. Many such articles don't have 100% consensus if they got some againsts in VFH. And I still don't understand the point underneath it - please elaborate emc? What does protecting things have to do with consensus? -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I edited that bit before reading this comment. It now reads "Users should refrain from editing these articles, or at least think very very carefully before doing so." ----OEJ 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the featured article thing. It should probably advise to refrain from "heavily editing", i.e. you can add the odd paragraph (although it will often be reverted), but don't rewrite the whole thing. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
How about adding some shortcuts like UN:CIVIL, UN:COM, UN:BULLY, and UN:IGNORE. -- User:Jtaylor1/sig16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I loved the "behind every IP there's a human being or an intelligent monkey"....~
20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, Algorithm and I have updated the Five Pliers of Uncyclopedia. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)