Forum:Should Template:BUTT POOP!!!! be restored to full health?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Should Template:BUTT POOP!!!! be restored to full health? (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4859 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

“

I think this is something to be dealt with on a case by case basis: if a user(s) demonstrates (themselves, not someone else doing it for them) that they wanted an article kept and their vote(s) would have changed the outcome, that should be grounds for undeleting the article and modifying the VFD result, doing it any other way is simply not going to work because nobody's going to have the time for that sort of burden, also given the undelete ability of the wiki, there's no need.

”

—Olipro on Forum:BUTT DRAMA!!!!

Based on this statement, all we need is four additional protest keep votes. Though, if the anti-BUTT POOP!!!! people would prefer it, I'm all for having a new vote too. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:55, 30 August 2011

Have you been out in the sun Socky? mAttlobster. (hello) 12:02, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:03, 30 August 2011

I would prefer a VFD vote rather than make up some ad hoc process to deal with the issue. We have done a few VFD votes to move a deleted article back into userspace, albeit, those were FFW deletions, not VFD deletions. Since we can re-nominate an article for deletion after a month, I think we should be allowed to nominate an article for un-deletion one month after it's most recent deletion/undeletion attempt. --Mn-z 21:06, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

I tried to vote something for undeletion on VFD once and I was basically gang raped by all the other admins, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:05, 31 August 2011

No it shouldn't ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:54, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Aww. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:02, 31 August 2011

I think there should be a way to undelete articles. I don't want create a system in which we need to vote twice on any article that has a "strong keep", but since "keep" on VFD aren't eternally unappealable, deletions shouldn't be either. Normally, the solution would be to write a better article, maybe take it to pee review, restore it, then apply standard quality control as needed. However, this is a high profile inside joke, so most people have strong opinions about it, and the goal of the pro-BUTT POOP!!!! crowd isn't to make a better template:BUTT POOP!!!!, but restore it. Changing it somewhat, restoring it, and waiting 7 days for a VFD vote seems underhanded. Would a simple VFD work? It would make more sense than some sort of forum vote, and voting on how to vote for something is just silly. --Mn-z 01:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Change the template so that it reads:

"WARNING! THIS PAGE CONTAINS BUTT POOP!!!! You can help Uncyclopedia by flushing it down the toilet."

That way it would actually make sense. Also, I don't like how all the humorous maintenance tags got deleted. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 12:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like we suddenly need to be like Wikipedia or something. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:21, 31 August 2011

By the forecast looks now, with asshats ranting about deleting obscene articles, and people posting their successful attempts at trashing the Uncyc on Encyclopedia Dramatica, I'd say we ARE already Wikipedia. Maybe. →A (Ruins) 18:13, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This is a nonbinding vote to see how much support template:BUTT POOP!!!! has. I am assuming it should have about the same as BUTT POOP!!!! (meaning a slight majority) but I could be wrong.

Score: 3 apples eaten with Mike Tyson and Oscar Wilde in Belgium

restore because. --Mn-z 00:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yup. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:20, 2 September 2011
I eat apples with Mike Tyson. -- 02:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I am utterly apathetic about this template; whether it gets resurrected or stays dead has absolutely no interest to me whatsoever, the continued furore over this template is diminishing the site; feel free to argue the toss over the merits of someone sticking it in their userspace (or not), but end the bawwwwwwwwwwing and just do something. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:42, September 3, 2011 (UTC)