Forum:Uncyclopedia has too many double standards

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Uncyclopedia has too many double standards

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5799 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I would like to complain here, but nobody cares. So, before I start off, my only complaint here is that in the upload image or file toolbox, it says:

Pornographic/shock/gore images which are clear copyright violations and/or which serve little satirical purpose WILL be deleted without warning. You may be blocked from uploading if you abuse the system.

Just one question: Why didn't the admins bother to delete pictures of naked women? Why? Maybe you should change the rule so we could have these photos (except shock and gore images) on Uncyc? That way, we will not be accused of double standards. Or maybe we can have a quota on how many porn there is! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Who thinks we should have a quota on how many porn and shock images on this website? YOUR VOICE!

First off:

1. Define pr0n and shock images. I personally hold to the objective "nipple/genitalia/butt rule". Basically, it states that if those parts are covered, and the model is over 18, its not pr0n. If that parts aren't covered, its pr0n. However, some people hold to a more subjective view of indecency.
2. There are ways to that you can be shocking without using bad images. One of my user pages (which shall remain nameless, I didn't make it be a shock page, and I don't want to whore it either) has "eye raped" certain people without using anything worse than what you would find in a grocery store magazine rack.
3. I don't think a quota would help any. It would just protect a few obscene and cliche images. I think a better system would be to get rid of the really really bad stuff, try to keep the really bad stuff on userspace, and probably to replace the sorta bad stuff with less vulgar similar images.
4. As a final note, we probably need better categorization of vulgar images in order to be able to control them better. --Mnbvcxz 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

---

A typical cakefarter fantasy

I don't know much about how or whether this particular rule has been upheld lately, and I do agree with the fact that there is a certain untold amount of double standards in this wiki, but equating nakedness with pornography is really kind of an insult to most people's intelligence here.

I, for one, do not believe that nakedness per se is by any means pornographic. Pornograhy is really about how you portray and present human sexuality. On top of that, everyone has a slightly, if not vastly, differnt view on that matter, too, which makes defining the word "pornography" much more difficult than how it should be. Heck, I may as well argue that a picture of a woman passing wind onto a cake while fully clothed is pornographic since online fetish erotica has long been even before the day this wiki was found. Don't get me wrong here - I am not saying that everyone should now be posting pictures of women farting on baked goods, but it is important for us here to know as to where and when to draw a line on a certain issue and why. In a nutshell, my argument is that if you can't explain why this wiki should now get all the way fussy about obscure rules, you may as well just stop insisting all together already. But, then again, that's just my POV.

-- The Colonel (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

..."Women farting on baked goods...?" ~ 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sometimes facts are indeed stranger than fiction:

“ A camera pans around an unassuming chocolate cake sitting on a kitchen counter. After a few seconds it cuts abruptly to the face of the film's star, a rather fetching young harlot who would look almost attractive if it weren't for her haphazardly cascading teeth and meth addled smile.

"You know what I like the most?" she croons, with the sort of coquettish whimper that can only come from a few hard years in a trailer park harem. "Cake farts." She then wanders around the counter, trailing her hand seductively along its surface, naked from the waist down. She mounts the table. She straddles the cake with her back to the camera. She roosts upon it, settling down like a mother hen over a particularly prized egg. She leans forward to give the camera an unobstructed view of her rear. She moans.

And then she farts.

”

The above is a quote from the SomethingAwful article, which, unfortunately, has stuck in my mind ever since I read it. Now I guess it's pretty much time for me to share the love with the rest of world. :/

-- The Colonel (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A person got poisoned after eating a cake which was farted on by a girl. He died. But nobody cares. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A purported Nippel-Schutzstaffel propaganda flyer

The issue is mainly about being funny and not just shocking. As a rule, random pr0n isn't funny, and I personally an a "nipple nazi" by the standards of the site. However, there are some instances where (mildly) shocking images can be funny. Instead of trying to hold back the tide, this wiki was more or less defaulted into trying to limit outright nudity to a few mainspace pages and userspace, while generally prohibiting shock for the sake of shock images.
I personally go with the idea that if make pr0on easy to find to those who look for it, you'll actually be able to "contain" it better, by keeping it from being spammed where it shouldn't. --Mnbvcxz 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't particularly care about naked nudity (if it serves the page), if I wanted to look at tits I would be somewhere else. Like your mom's house. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also a good place to look for tits. But seriously, userspace super secret girlie pages and the like do keep some of the perversion and boobcruft out of mainspace. I don't recommend going here to find tits, but some people will. --Mnbvcxz 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Now there's a site with 3435 Double Standards . We don't have as many here, thank god. My problem with the Shock/Pornographic pics is when they are transcluded into templates. I recently had to remove some of this from a well known template that rotates fake and funny Banner/Box Ads, putting images of porn in there really fail UN:HTBFANJS as there really nothing funny about it. Also beisdes the fact that templates can't really be marked with {{NSFW}}. Now I don't mind them if they're being made fun of and are mark properly with the NSFW tag and passes the HTBFANJS policy. --Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

boobies are funny on occasion.

As a reply to this, I think that nudity should be kept down and only in place to add for comedic value, and shock ED type images should be out without question. Usually stuff about 'limiting' or 'accepting reality' tends not to work - these sorts will just go ahead then. If there are some people who come here for porn, we can move them along to a more suitable site - I fail to see why we should negotiate. Again 'Comedy' is the name of the game folks. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder... The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if comedy is always the name of the game around here. I don't know, it just seems like everyone in this place has a different idea on what this place should be about. Just my random worries. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's mainly satire/parody and plain jokes around here. Though satire is not always really funny, but rather witty or something like that, and some people may depreciate it because of that, or not get it for some other reason. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to have an image whore like my articles than to have Uncyc to become like Erectile Dysfunction. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is what I would call pr0ncruft creep (not related to creepy pr0ncruft) on main pages. Basically, a page starts out funny but vulgar, then it accumulates more and more pr0ncruft (or worse, fetishcruft) until it becomes a de facto storage dump for pr0n. --Mnbvcxz 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay okay okay! I get the hint!

I'll put on some clothes! Geez! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares about what you do in the morning (except me, of course. Sorry for being a prevert) |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Testing testing

I also ought to say something about Wikia's TOS... but I'm in bug-hunting mode here atm, you can work all that out for yourselves -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"It seems like everyone in this place has a different idea on what it should be about"

That's correct Mr Burninator, It's simply the nature of the beast. It's almost a microcosm of the world. "Double standards", contradictions, selective enforcement of laws. Some people think that the way to isolate what is Uncyclopedia is through negative enforcement, basically going around like a cop and expressing themselves with against votes. It's all kind of FCC really, "I can't define what obscenity is but I know it when I see/hear it". We have content policies here but they're mostly just bendable guidelines. I've seen this all before. You can't let it get you down or take it personally.

In my time here, I've poked around a bit and found a lot of political squabbles over content but probably the biggest source of angst, from the general contributing public, seems to come from VFH policy. The Wikipedia parody concept and VFH are clearly two different worlds. It's incredibly difficult to write a proper encyclopedia subject and get highlighted. Without a bunch of highlighted articles under your cap, you're never going to win WOTM or WOTY. As a result, none of the best writers are doing many real Wikipedia parodies.....they're mostly doing first person stand-up comedy routines which are far easier to produce than making the mundane subjects (which normally fill an encyclopedia) funny. The site is fairly void of a lot of common terms because of that. IMO, A good VFH article would have numerous links to non-VFH subjects/material. You know, that mundane stuff like Arbitrary, Altruism, Arthritis, etc etc.....which nobody is writing.

So there's my vision or expectation of what the place should be and what people should be rewarding but I'm just another voice in the din. Adjusting to the difference between the prime directive and the popularity contest is an ongoing process for me. I'm still trying to play purist and make everything reality based and encyclopedic but that may not last as the Ark of the Covenant appears to be flailing in VFH after I thought it was the funniest page I've written to date. I blame Dr Gene Scott for my biblical humor problem.

Then there's the obvious age difference thing.......how many people here are over 40? *crickets* Wow, I really don't have a life of any kind, do I? I added myself to the frappr map and saw some familiar ID's on there who left pics.......you kids are soooo cute! (No pedo jokes please) --    12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"As a result, none of the best writers are doing many real Wikipedia parodies..."

I can't speak for the best writers, but I've done some of just about every style. Focussing on one style at the expense of the others just leaves the others out in the rain. Then they get a chest cold. Then the chest cold turns to pneumonia. Then they die. Do you want the others to die?

"...they're mostly doing first person stand-up comedy routines which are far easier to produce than making the mundane subjects (which normally fill an encyclopedia) funny"

It's all good. That's why it's okay.

"Adjusting to the difference between the prime directive and the popularity contest is an ongoing process for me."

Just write what you like. If "they" do like it, then you can bask in the reflected glory of yourself off them. If "they" don't like it, screw them. You're not writing for a paycheck. You're writing because you're agoraphobic and morbidly obese and dogs are always chasing you because you smell like ham and girls laugh at you.

"Then there's the obvious age difference thing.......how many people here are over 40?"

I'm ninety-seven years old, dagnabit! You kids and your cordless telephones and Nintendos just confuse and frighten me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats the crapiest attempt to whore an article I've ever seen here. Not even I sink to the depths of forum whoring Dr Strange. Secondly Modus you are in no position to tell us about humour, you were the one who wrote that strange article about harrassing Trica Helfer, and don't tittle- tattle that I had something to do with it. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"It seems like everyone in this place has a different idea on what it should be about" - Sounds a bit like a community to me. Also sounds like an accurate definition of humour as well - humour being subjective and all that. We have some fantastic Encyclopedic articles, and some really funny other articles. And plenty of fixer-uppers, and some bones of contention. Point is: write what you like, as Modus says, it's not all about awards and features. It is about what inspires you. I can't think of a good angle for an article about mundane stuff like Arbitrary, Altruism, Arthritis, etc etc... right now, if anyone can, I'm sure they'll get written. We shouldn't force ourselves to write about stuff because we think it's the kind of article we should have. Forced humour is so rarely properly funny anyway.

As to the age thing, I'm not that far off, but what's your point? --UU - natter 13:01, Jan 8

I can see Arbitrary in my head, and it's terribly random. Arbitrary, you could say. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One Little Victory

(brief responses to multiple points) Ageist comment: Fear of missing the target audience with humor that's "aged". Also, I understand the "community" concept as I referred to the global microcosm of it all. Originally, I didn't want to get involved in the popularity contest thing but as a writer I'm realizing that life in the tower has it's drawbacks and I'm ultimately writing to be read by others. As for whoring: I'm honestly the Knight of Wands, I just say what I feel. I'm not looking for votes because the war is already lost on that one, it's very clear that the article is VFH toast and you just can't whore together 12 more votes in this manner--    13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried rubbing ham on it? People love ham. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Dr. Strange is right, to some degree. Yes, historically, the WOTM thing has long been dominated by those doing what you refer to as "stand-up routines", and I also agree, to some extent, that maybe, just maybe, our average Uncyclopedians are simnply a bit too young to make any proper judgment on things. Hence, I have always argued that this wiki should now focus a bit more on improving the forums in order to attract more different people from around the Internet. On the other hand, though, your argument about WOTM makes no sense to me given that:

1. You are well aware of the possibility of an immature demographic dominating the voting procedure and the doubious validity of the aforementioned honour,
2. Unless there is something done about the general traffic here there is simply no way to regulate who can vote and who can't, and
3. Yes, WOTM is kind of an honour but also a vanity title at best, and there is no real meaning attached to it aside from the ocassional praises from online strangers.

Let me give you a suggestion here: Don't get too fussy about the whole vanity title thing. Yes, it is kind of unfair but kind of useless as well in the grand scheme of things here. I got my VFP with a photoshpped picture I made and I was never bothered enough to flaunt about it in my sig, and if you believe you are mature enough to make such comments on such... well, injustice then why don't you just forget about it already and make your own contributions as though it never had anything to do with you instead? That works for me, at least. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa......whoah.......Argument? I'm just talking about my perspective as a new user and sharing it, I'm not here to prove anything or denigrate the site. It is what it is and I actually understand that. I've been in this environment before. There's no need to protect the machine, there is no attack.--    14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. (sits back at the quiet corner) -- The Colonel (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also edgy because I'm in the first thee days of nicotine withdrawal. Since I haven't threatened to kill anybody, I think I'm doing well. ;) --    14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An old saying goes that "the Internet is where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents." So are you saying there that the feds are cute? Well, I think they are still going to raid your home though. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have kind of hit on my point. <serious face> When it comes to VFH people have different ideas on what should be featured. Which is, I guess, good. Differing opinions are important in a place like this. My main question over this place is, what are we voting on. Do we vote for something if its funny, but not a very encyclopedic approach? That seems to kind of go against the strict thinking of what this place is. I personally vote for anything that makes me laugh. That is my only criteria. Funny is funny, no matter how you look at it.

I feel like if you aren't voting for because of the encyclopedia approach, then you are voting on humor. But others have other ideals. People vote against only because something may be funny, but it's too short/funny, but its stupid humor/funny, but its a forum/funny, but its self-referential. I don't know about anyone else, and people will disagree with me, which is cool, but I feel like we should be voting for the funniest articles on the site. Funny is what brings people in. I don't see the point in voting against funny articles because they are too short/different, because then weaker, less funny articles get featured. If one of the main points of having the feature is giving guests (I.P.'s, new users, prospective writers) a show of our funniest work (and that is some people's view on it, and mine), then I think we should show them our funniest work. I, personally, would rather read a hilarious article that will take me 1 minute to read over a 10-minute article that's decent. Because what, then, do people take away from the site? What is the memory? I, personally, don't remember half of the features around this place. They didn't make me laugh. But I remember the funny ones. You remember funny. I will always remember That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada. It has personality, and a certain kind of wit. Will I necessarily remember reading UnNews:Jim Carrey to star in Liar Liar 10 Year Anniversary Edition? Probably not. (No offense to RAHB, who wrote that one, and is a fantastic writer. I just didn't really like that one while other did...sorry.) So, my theory on what do I want new users to read isn't some longer article that they'll forget in a few days. I want them to remember this site. And people remember funny.

So that is kind of what I meant when I said people have a different idea on what this place should be. Is it a place for long articles? A place for only high-brow humor? A place for only strict encyclopedic-styled articles? For me it is a place for funny, with an encyclopedic backbone. That is pretty much it. </serious face> Yeah! Whoring is terrible! Fuck everyone who whores stuff here. I would never do it, especially not in my latest piece, I just thought up a really good idea for an article, but now I can't remember it. Just sayin' The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Its probably better to err on the side on encouraging high-brow milde stuff. Its a lot easier to write slapstick and goofiness than it is to write wit. --Mnbvcxz 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. It may be easier to write slapstick; but good, funny slapstick? I think there is a difference. I think it is better to err on the side of funny, no matter what manner it comes from. What would you rather have a new user thinking: That site has highbrow humor. It's kinda funny, but sometime its a little weak. OR: That site is hilarious. For me, its a no contest. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much how I have felt about Uncyclopedia for awhile, now. Uncyclopedia, when it was created, was a place where we put anything we thought was humourous. And lo, many things were indeed humourous. Anything, so long as it followed the two main rules, was kept. It allowed for a huge range of humour. And, even if things weren't entirely funny to some, so long as they weren't terribly offensive, or enough people thought they were funny, they were kept. This was why VFD was created, to determine worthiness. However, over time, the concept of what, in fact, constitutes a funny article has changed and metamorphosized... (metastasized?) into a form that unless it strictly follows a specific set of guidelines, it can't be funny. For instance, articles seem to need to follow the same style guidelines as a wikipedia article for them to even start to be considered funny. I mean, one of my favourite articles, sojourn would be discarded out of hand simply because it's ridiculous and doesn't look like a proper article. In fact, that was why many people objected to it back in the day. (Scrolling up, I see that it has already been referenced once). I'm not saying that standards are a bad thing. But, standards for the sake of having standards isn't a good thing. The problem with form is that eventually form defines function. People become used to a rigid idea of how things should be and then shun anything they feel is different. Meh, just my two cents. Take 'em or leave 'em. --PantsMacKenzie 13:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could put this on VFH but it would get pooh poohed viciously--    14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoring now? I, meanwhile, wish that I could put this on VFH, but it's too adorable. Also, it's a picture. And it's not edited. Damn you, robotic homogeneous blob of Uncyclopedians! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you could nominate it, according to the rules, any namespace except userspace can be validly nommed. So, an image and its caption could be nominated. Oh course, you'd need to do a pee review first, since you created the page. I'd offer to upload it, but I'm a VFH cheerleader right now, and I don't think nominating that would help me in that endeavor. --Mnbvcxz 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I may add, fuck the rules. Rules are great, but if they get in the way of funny, than they have no place here. I even made an awesome sign showing this off.

How The Uncyclopedia Scale Of Importance Should Read

RULES < FUNNY

The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we need more rules, more legalistic enforcement of those rules, and more self-defeating process Nazism. --Mnbvcxz 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Pants, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. The "It's funny, but..."s are kind of killing a lot of the humor on this site. But can anything be done about it? The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is, sysops can feature articles "cause they feel like it" and it takes care of the issue ;) Granted, it starts more issues, but that's another can of worms. Aside from that, the community as a whole needs to just relax and let funny things be funny, even if they don't conform. My theory has always been, if it makes me chuckle, or I could see how it could make people smile or laugh, it's good enough to be on uncyc. I remember some time ago when there was a movement to revoke the featured status of previously featured articles. The reason given was that they "weren't funny anymore" because they didn't "conform to guidelines". Or something to that effect. Also, redlinks are your friend, not your enemy. Granted, you don't want a billion links, but one or two on words that are "relevant" to your article that may not as yet have an article on them, sure. Redlinks encourage writing, even if some people find them aesthetically unpleasing. But you know what the awesome thing about those links is? When people click 'em and write 'em, they ain't red no more. So, if you see a redlink, don't remove it. Write it. And that's my two cents. Jebus, if I keep giving you guys money, you'll need to start some kind of nonprofit organization or something... --PantsMacKenzie 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there some "guidelines" somewhere? Personally, I don't vote against anything simply because I "don't get it". It has to be noticeably bad. Other people have a different idea, if something is "meh" it's an automatic against with no real explanation. Just to be a smartass, I nommed something on VFH that I thought was terrible/terribly juvenile because the reviewer LOVED it while I'm "not funny" according to said critic. Back to the guidelines, If I continue to nominate articles that certain against happy critics acclaim as worthy for highlight......AND THEY FAIL MISERABLY......what is that going to say/prove? ?Guidelines?--    13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

By "guidelines" I mean what seems to be the generally accepted standards of writing on uncyc. Wherein an article has to look like an Encyclopedia article for it to get its foot in the door, so to speak. In reference to your thoughts to nominate things just to be a smartass, I refer you to the two rules of uncyclopedia. Specifically, to the one about not being a dick. That's a good rule. --PantsMacKenzie 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you. I'm not asking for clarification about guidelines as it's fairly obvious that no such rules of thumb exist for VFH.....but probably should. Obviously nobody should expect the review process to be foolproof but the arbiters of what is (and is not) VFH need to know what's in the ballpark of acceptability and have some level of being able to relate it to others which is clearly not happening right now with the newer brood of reviewers. Whatever you think of my motivations, VFH-ing a highly rated article at this point in time cannot be construed as being a dick. Having the gall to believe you know a lot more about being funny than you actually do.....that's being a dick. Isn't that what I've been talking about? The "meh" against vote or arbitrarily saying "not VFH material" when you're incompetent at defining what is? That's being a dick. Before I go plowing into a zillion pee reviews with a chip on my shoulder, shouldn't I spend a little time studying the elusive standards of the community before professing to know them? That's why I've only done one pee review so far myself and I'm spending lots of time studying these very issues....like right now by nominating Scary Movie. Pee says it's gold, I say it's trash. Let's see what the crowd thinks. That's not being a dick.--    16:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See! Already we got nibbles. Sys loves it (author of "the defense rests") Seee? Study study study. Poke with stick. See that? It pertains to a certain writing style (consciousness flow) being favored over encyclo-speech.--    16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SysRq wrote what now? Sys's a better writer than that. And I don't think that "consciousness flow" means what you think it means (unless you're using it to mean "not written in encyclopedic style", in which case it still doesn't mean what you think it means). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just that he likes Scary Movie. The style is similar to his overwhelming success with "defense rests". I call it flow-of-consciousness writing, just my inside-head term for what I see. One of my few talents is sensing patterns, so I'm looking at the voting patterns and style of writing that seems to be preferred (though not necessary) for highlight. And yes, if you're too "encyclopedic", you lose votes. Period.--    16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As for encyclopedic articles getting dinged on VFH, you do know that a period is just a little dot (or dot, or dot)? Grumble. Uncyclopedia is not about what the small number of Uncyclopedians who vote on VFH like the mostest, it's about what you like the mostest. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I started out with the "correct" attitude. (BTW, I do realize that "defense rests" is yours) However, my "mission" here is a little more complex than general creative writing. Eventually, I'll head back into the ivory tower and continue playing Lone Wolf but right now I'm doing a little RTFM on the nuts and bolts of how this place works/ticks. One of my better senses is pattern detection, so I'm analyzing right now. I know it sounds like I'm being desperately bitchy but it's just the borderline personality disorder talking.--    10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be "Bandwagonsim" too. I.e. the voters see others voting for it, then think "well, this is sorta funny, but everyone else likes it, so they must be seeing something I'm not." And, no one likes to be the first against vote. --Mnbvcxz 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And that also brings up the negative bandwagon when someone you think is funny doesn't like an article (and pooh poohs it) and there's a level of bias that creeps in before you've even read the page. No Sir! I don't like it!--    17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it has to look like an encyclopedia article, but that helps. This is supposed to be a parody of wikipedia, not a catch all-humor site. When I vote "for" or "against" on a featured article, I'm voting as much, or more so, on rather I think it should be on the mainpage than how funny it is. Also, an article does not deserve a "for" or even an "abstain" vote for being "ok".
On a final note, I think VFH is in a rather "picky" phase right now. This is paradoxically, due to switching back to an article every day. There is currently a flood of nominations, many of them were old quasi-featured articles.--Mnbvcxz 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I might've just misinterpreted the entire above conversation, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway: Write whatever the fuck you want, and who cares whether the community likes it or not? It's nice to get praise, certainly, but I know that there's articles I've written that'll never get featured, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Because they were either a step towards improving myself, or they make me chuckle. And unless they're terribly cliched and deletion quality, why does it matter what others think? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:33, Jan 17

Given the standards for deletion I'm not really worried about my articles that aren't VFH. Basically I am writing what I want (at least attempting), improving, and figuring out how to bridge the gap between my age, (unusual) life experiences and sense of humor with the demographic (you damn kids) here. Perhaps my method seems like madness but it's all planned improvisation.--    10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On Against Votes

Against votes do not need special explanations. Comments are always helpful, (and I did put some brief comments in your nominations.) However, against votes don't need special explanations, any more than "For" votes, "Abstain" votes, or failures to vote need special explanations. Rather, it is the article that has to prove itself good enough for featured status.

To your credit though, you're complaining about excessive against votes in good faith, not as an attempt to whore & whine one article to VFH status. I can understand your annoyance at against votes without comment, the the "Vote-For Inquisition"-ism probably does more harm than good in the feedback area. It scares away potential voters, and only delays the booting of articles that aren't quite feature-worthy. --Mnbvcxz 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This comes down to my long held annoyance with negative voices having too much say. It goes back to my broadcast years. In other words, I don't like the health formula. If an article has been up a week and has only a couple for votes, everyone knows it's toast. When the queue fills, only toast articles go bye-bye. It's so simple. I haven't seen any "good" or "strong" articles get toasted by "weak" articles yet. The James Bond article, for example, was popular enough to warrant highlight but it was blocked by against votes and ended up quasi.

One of the things I've learned from past experience is the vast difference of perceptions existing along the entertainment food chain. There's the owners of the site, the admins, the old-timer zealots, the noobs, the people that read this stuff casually and the average internet surfing joe/jane Doe. I can tell you where the gulf of opinion occurs, it's usually right in-between the regulars and the casual reader. By voting against, you're telling other people what "isn't funny". It's a semantics thing. I hold my "not funny" vote and use it very carefully because the fact that I don't like an article is ultimately meaningless if others do (unless it's VFH against voting where you're lack of being entertained has value). I didn't like the Bond article but I think it's a shame that against votes canned it, not a lack of for votes which should be the currency of highlight material. I understand your stance on against voting just fine, I've somewhat followed the recent threads on VFH subjects, the point is that I don't agree with it.--    17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not so much voting on funniness, but whether or not it should be on the front page. Basically, what do we want to show the casual reader. Granted, funniness is the main, but not the sole criteria. Plus, there is some "strategic" voting, in the sense that some people try to coronate the good articles to get the nominal votes as high as possible, and, conversely, try to "gang-bang" bad articles as quickly as possible. This isn't bad faith, or even conscious strategic voting.

For example my "OMG VFH FLOOD" post a few days ago probably got some articles off of VFH quicker than they would have. That might have booted some good articles in the process, and it was mob-mentality. However, it did get the queue back down to 20, to prevent vote stalling. Basically, alot of its a trade off between mob-mentality-ism and VFH stalling. And its compounded by differing goals, even among those that are operating in "altruistic" good faith. For example, I probably am trying too hard to get net "For" vote totals as high as possible in order to keep the one feature a day thing going, to create the illusion of an active site. (Or at least not broadcast our decline in activity).

I do think VFH might need some re-work, but much of the existent process is there for a good reason, as the less of two evils. The "agains"t votes are their to prevent a "mob" from electing a bad article, and as "crowd control" in the event of a flood of bad articles. --Mnbvcxz 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. What if we added an explicit "abstain category" on the voting template, and encourage limiting against votes to articles that shouldn't be on the main page (in the opinion of the voter)? However, I do see a problem, in lacking the ability to "purge" VFH in the event of flood. Maybe if we capped the queue at 20 or so, and set up a "pre-VFH queue" to hold the overflow. Then have a voting system to determine which article gets moved out of the queue first. (Granted, these articles would only get a few votes while there, but that would still work for what its used for.) Of course, that would be more paperwork. Any other ideas?
Also, maybe the fact that we leave articles on an indeterminate amount of time is part of the problem. Just a random observation. --Mnbvcxz 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not indeterminate. Pages either get removed for one of two reasons; -3 or low health. It's scientifical! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, there is a tendency to want to remove articles with low total votes as quickly as possible to make room for more nominations. It has too much bandwagonism. --Mnbvcxz 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do We Even Need VFH? How about a Feature-Pope?

Considering the problems of the VFH system, I'm starting to wonder if we even need to have a VFH system at all. The voting system is prone to Bandwagonism, and honestly, its been producing a fairly poor article selection. Not that its featuring bad articles, but it is featuring too many non-encyclopedic articles, such as in-jokes, consciousness flow, and the like. If you look back on, we really don't have that many encyclopedic features.

Plus, I think the VFH system is just too much work. You have 20 or so people voting on some of the articles, plus there are those who read the article but don't bother voting. Often it seems like we are trying to get high "for" vote totals for the sake of high "for" vote totals. Its as though we are trying to vote quality back into an article.

I think having a "Feature Pope" to decide on the articles would alot better. (I was thinking maybe a committee of 3 or 5 would be more stable, but it would be more total work, and monolithic dictators tend to get things done better than committees) The "Feature Pope" would decide which articles get featured by any way he desires. (as long he doesn't feature crap. Additionally, we might want to have the admins elect a new feature pope every month or so. I'd probably go with a fixed election, getting a "vote of no confidence" together might be hard) That way, he could plan the featured article for weeks in advance (no more dry spells due to an inability to find the good stuff, or good stuff being hidden in the quasi-features), and he could balance out the different types of articles better.

In theory, the "Feature Pope" could create a "whore" page and allow a free for all of article whoring. However, that might be overwhelming. So I'd image he would appoint users to pre-read articles, and then those users will send the ones they think are good to the Feature Pope for reading. (The feature pope would only have to find one good article a day, a few active assistants should be enough) That way, we could have more articles checked for feature worthiness with much less total work. --Mnbvcxz 06:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But think about how much work it will save! And, it will keep down whoring. --Mnbvcxz 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing quite like a community quorum. IronLung 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The VFH is more simpler here than in Wikipedia. But requesting to become an admin in Wikipedia is much more simpler and easier than here. I mean, do the admin have to vote if we need any more admins? Why can't the users join in? On the other hand, we're running out of good articles to be featured, so crap ones will do, along with featuring articles on userspace. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Users here do get to vote for admins. First, the admins (who do the bulk of the adminy stuff) decide if they need more admins, then...

"The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage...The next 8 days (13th - 20th) support up to three people for oppage (op votes count double in this vote)." (from VFS)

Admins pick when, all pick who, all vote to narrow the pack, admins provide the "sober second look" (less the sober).

And we are not running out of good articles. VFH has always been a mix of complete crap to virtual brilliance (with shades of grey in between). The writers, meanwhile, are still doing what they've always done. Drinking. Oh, and writing. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not so much running out of good articles, or featuring crap. Its the fact that shifting through the articles in a labor-intensive inefficient circle jerk. I would say we're probably featuring the wrong balance of articles, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we are featuring bad ones. --Mnbvcxz 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So, instead of the "circle jerk" of people nom'ing/voting on them, appointees will nom them and the Pope will vote for them. How is replacing one "circle jerk" with another, plus a menage a un better? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fewer people involved in the circle jerk, less bandwagonism, more reflection on whats being selected, contained whoring, no need to do VFH cheerleading, and no mob rule. The many benefits of being relieved of the burdens of democracy. --Mnbvcxz 15:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the reasoning behind this discussion

• VFH is working just fine. It has been working fine since the day this place was born, with the ups and downs one can expect anywhere. We don't need a pope, we don't need a committee. We need a diversity - the vote gives that. And who exactly said that only Encyclopedia articles are fit? We've grown way beyond the "Encyclopedic" angle, so we get a little of everything with VFH.
• Admins get to decide if we need more admins before VFS is opened due to the simple fact that people here tend to forget:adminhood is not a prize, and it is not something you get because you want it or deserve it. It's a technical position to run the bilge pumps of this place. Period. If non is needed, than non shall be added.

As I said before all of these discussions about VFH have ran their course. Go write articles instead of writing forum posts. ~ 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Paradoxically, VFH would create less diversity than a feature Pope. Strangely, this is because more people would be on the sidelines criticizing rather than being involved in the process. This might sound counter-intuitive, but it actually makes sense. The persons involved in the process often can't see the forest through the trees, as it were. Many VFH voters are too involved with looking at the next article to pay attention to the general tendencies of VFH. We don't need people who don't know what they are talking about criticizing, but rather, we more disinterested, or at least uninvolved, competent observers looking at the process.

Also, I think we need to try to lighten the maintenance task total work loads as much possible to free up more time for article writing. Getting rid of VFH would help that. --Mnbvcxz 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Disinterested and uninvolved, I can see, but competent? You do know where you are, right? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, relatively less incompetent observers. --Mnbvcxz 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoring: A Primer

Just like Senor' Biggles, I shall differentiate when I'm merely speaking and when I'm submitting dictation. Now....when I have the antlers off, I'm merely talking and not whoring an article.

When I have the antlers on, I'm whoring.

BUY MY BOOK! Uncyclopedia:VFH/Youth NEW EDITS!

When you see Jay Sherman and "buy my book", the antlers are on.--    14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

243 Parakeets

I was just reading HowTo:Get Banned yesterday, which was hilarious if you follow the links and all of a sudden we have a rash of parakeet idiots. I mean, the moment I finished it all I hit recent changes and there's some dork doing parakeet pages. What timing! Some IP is doing it right now......w/deluxe version too!--    14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

'*Sigh* The old "parakeet" joke... My doctor said to me the other day that I lacked the gene to appreciate this kind of humour as well as such epitome of human achievements as "This page does not exist" and other high-class materials that I'll likely never, ever understand. In fact, I don't really give a damn even if someone comes around, creates a page called "This page does not exist", sticks a hello.jpg there and look at our funny faces with glee. But, then again, that's probably just my stupidity messing with my head. :( -- The Colonel (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article too Vorecrufty and/or Fartcrufty?

OMG PUSSY FARTS!!!

Supergirl Do not click on this link if you are disgusted by vore or girls farting
This started out by adding some repetitiveness in a (midly) funny idea, but some ips got involved in expanding it. I am worried that it might have gone from being (mildy) funny to just plain creepy because of too much perverted content. (I have a theory that if you go on long enough about a perverted subject matter, it will eventually become creepy, even if the "level" of perversion is low.) --Mnbvcxz 06:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I keep telling you to stop staring at me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted a serious second opinion on that. I think it might be funny(-ish) trimmed down. However, I don't know if its at the creepy stage yet, or if I'm just being prudish and over-reacting. --Mnbvcxz 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion? No thanks, but I would rather watch the Flashbeer commercial thank to look at that article. I looked at it, and it is far worse than Wikipedia, I have to tell you. Now that's my second opinion. -- |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 06:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a major revert and minor clean up so now its mainly a cheap fart joke. I think its less eye-raping now.--Mnbvcxz 07:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My original comment was going to be "tl dr", but that didn't seem flippant enough, and it failed to reference me, Modusoperandi. The page was simply too long, and on a subject about which I know/care very little. It's much shorter now, but it's still crippled by my lack of knowing/caring. I blame the page for that. By extension, I blame you. It's your fault that I don't know/care about whateverthepageisabout. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, huh? --Mnbvcxz 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs one of those fetish pics where a guy is getting farted in the face at close range. Perhaps he can be given a fake supervillian costume?--    09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How come no matter what the page is, you always ask for that particular picture? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think those sort of pictures might make it a little creepy. This is NOT an eye rape wiki. By the way, what does "tl dr" mean? --Mnbvcxz 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Too long didn't read". How did you get your licence to drive on the interweb without knowing what that means? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what does that have to the article again? --Mnbvcxz 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was too long. The article was too long. The article was too long. It's shorter now. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article too Warcrafty?

I smell the stench of level 32 paladins. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, your sig is too rougecrufty. --Mnbvcxz 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And the problem is? :) - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

$DoubleStandards+RougetheBat=Pornography$. Any questions? |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DOUBLE STANDARDS?!

See also: Life

--Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, there's this fantasy world of fairness that we all believe in and want to exist. We keep that belief shiny - and place it in the same spot on our mental shelves where Santa and the tooth fairy used to exist. "Fairness" is mostly a perception and it's quality and quantity measured in "everyone seems to have a different idea of what _________should be" --    10:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I a more offended by the lamest of lame Lord of the Rings parodies and their many relations here ! Romartus 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statement implies that there are non-lame Lord of the Rings parodies. Clearly, this is not possible. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Romartus 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I cannot argue with superior logic. Now if I only had a magic ring to make everyone else disappear...

Actually, it's not 'superior logic,' it's just wrong. "Lamest of lame" doesn't necessarily imply there are "non-lame" LOTR parodies, it could be simple redundancy in stating that of all the (self-evidently) "lame" LOTR parodies some are lamer than others. The *offense* in DrStrange's comment is the implication that he is *not* more offended by the less-lame LOTR parodies. I mean, that's REALLY offensive!

Romartus 13:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Offensive..inoffensive. I will take Alice's advice and drink both at the same time. Well the point of UTC is for all those who participate to improve their comic writing skills ?? Whether it be in satire/parody/sarcasm/toilet humour/humor ?? And also to work with others to improve (if possible) other works already there ?

Well, we mostly make jokes about poopy. Poopy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And the signature is normally added at the end of the post. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't count how Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC) many ways you're wrong.

Then count for a million years. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there anything to reduce the amount of double standards? Or am I going to write stuff with masses of swearing? |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really want shock images of goatse, check out the recent history (the one I just reverted) of my userpage. Ew. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I tl;dr'd this entire thing.

Here's my answer to stop people from accusing us of having double standards:

Stop accusing us of having double standards.

The end. —Sir SysRq (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

/thread. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER! ~ 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yey, I win. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Game over for America, game over for Australia, game over for the Philippines. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Game over for the guy with references to Goatse in his sig complaining about shock images. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my double standards.

But I have to admit: if Yettie is a girl, I want to fuck him, and if she's a guy, I don't want to fuck her. I know that's rank sexism. I consider it a moral failing on my part. pillow talk 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll fuck you no matter what you are: man, woman, or Cajek. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck me?? No, fuck you!! pillow talk 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you, Kefin. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But what if the pic on Yettie's userpage was actually Yettie? Would you want to do him/her? (Assume the person pictured is of the age on consent) --Mnbvcxz 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! (After cutting off any leftover male parts.) -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? This image is just only a picture of a girl with hairy arms and manly hands, wearing a singlet saying "Do you want to do a jailbait?" and pink/gray pants that says "69". Don't some girls have hairy arms, but aren't shemales? Yes. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 09:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

These are the girls who believe that shaving their arms is akin to admitting that they have hairy arms and therefore they will never get laid anyways. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, most girls don't have a huge penis, as per the pants bulge. --Mnbvcxz 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked closely at that photo and I did not see any bulges or something sticking out on the pants. I just couldn't see any. So I conform that it's a real girl. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My friend was telling me that she (she was bi, for the record) liked this girl but there was one problem: she had a fat cunt. "How, Alex?" she would ask, "How do I tell her she has a fat cunt?" I would say, "With a labia reduction gift certificate." Isn't that what those Hollywood girls are doing now? Getting labia reduction? —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

She was bi? That seems an awfully big commitment just to break a record. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I dun geddit. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You will, son. You will. Sys "Pops" Rq Sr. 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

/me rereads Oh. Haha. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But on a more serious note, she has too much arm hair and too big of a crotch bulge compared to her breast development and hip width. --Mnbvcxz 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm the fuck down about jailbait girl. Seriously. Put your ruler away. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. Me wanna rape! Getting deja-vu yet? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on these pictures...

Here's what I think about this picture double standard stuff.

• Goatse images are just plain wrong, and should be deleted.
• Gore and pornographic images should be reserved for articles on the topic of pornography or very gory stuff and should not be used anywhere else except for userpages. And even then, they should be limited in use and restricted to gore images. Porn images are for porn articles, not userpages.

And that's my opinion.

SPARTAN-A984, Protecting the world from angry lawn gnomes since 1996 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Think of the userpage porn galleries as the sewer of wiki. They basically contain the crap, and remove the temptation to spread porn all across the wiki. Also, how do we define what is "porn" in what is a mere "sexy pic"? --Mnbvcxz 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, porn shows boobs, d*cks, and pussies. Sexy pics are anything with suggestive clothing. SPARTAN-A984, Protecting the world from angry lawn gnomes since 1996 17:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What about women holding their own boobs? --Mnbvcxz 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, depends if they're clothed or not. But it might not depend really, because basically a woman holding her boobs is bound to be considered pornographic one way or another by stupid skeptics. SPARTAN-984|Chat here|What I've Done 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics? What, they're doubtful that they're seeing a pic of a woman holding her boobs? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shut up. Either it's all okay, or none of it is. It's that simple.

Uncyclopedia has always been about free speech for me. If we become another asshole paranoid site that refuses to touch anything that may resemble a vag, I'm out.

I mean it.

We can delete images we don't like, but we're gonna justify it with the same freedom enjoyed by the users who upload such images. They can upload whatever they want, and we can delete whatever we want. But we're not gonna be fucking moral about it and say "this is okay, and this is not because that's the rule" because then this site will die. Everything this site has stood for will take another fucking bullet.

Things are fine the way they are. Just because some asshole user decided to make a forum topic to complain about us doesn't mean we should suddenly start talking about rules. Assholes like this guy are a dime a dozen on this site. Lots of people don't like us. So we made an article about it and moved on. Why are we giving this guy attention?

To write censorship rules for Uncyclopedia is to destroy what Uncyclopedia represents. It is wrong. Don't fucking stand there and tell me "oh well uh im okay with a nipple here and there but no pussies and no cocks plz" and expect everyone to conform to what you think is okay. Once we do that, someone else comes along and says "no nipples plz ty" and then all of those go. Then we get someone else asking that we take out all partial nudity. Then violent images go. Next, the target is content. No more articles about kitten huffing, trannies, gay people, Christians, terrorism, or black people. Nothing unpleasant, please. Someone could be offended.

Not everyone is going to like everything that goes on here. There are things on this site that I don't like. That's why I don't spend my time on those articles. I don't look at Goatse all the time, because I don't want to. Therefore I do not. I don't feel like calling up Al Gore and saying "ok shut the internet off because I saw an anus" or even "no more anuses". I just get the fuck over it because I'm not a whiny bitch.

Shut up. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! We don't need any rules! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much rules as it is standard process. We all agree that we don't want this to E.D. so at some point, we need to do some control. Basically, we can either have some sort of standard processes, or we can every admin functioning as a mini-Pope deciding what is obscene or not at whim. --S'r Mnbvcxz 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For "mini-Pope". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I was misunderstood/tl;dr'd. I'm not suggesting anarchy. I'm saying that what goes on right now is fine. What we have in place right now is a general reminder saying "no shock images" and faith in the general public to have some sense in what they upload. For the people that do not, we have admins to clean up after them. We don't need to make any kind of standard, we just need to have enough sense to know what is appropriate and what is not. But a blanket censorship rule just to make some asshole shut up is not the answer. —Sir SysRq (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sysreq, that was pretty good, but the shut up part, I hated. Still, just serves to rub in the point even further, hehehe... I guess. To Socky, yeah, I kinda agree. If there wasn't a rule on this this forum topic wouldn't be here. SPARTAN-984|Chat here|What I've Done 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm a n00b. My userboxes say so. SPARTAN-984|Chat here|What I've Done 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion:

If you don't like an image, link it on QVFD with some kind of description next to it. I will then either delete it, or laugh at you for being such an annoying prude. Probably just laugh at you, actually. So speaketh me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:16, Feb 2

Shouldn't we have a different place to put questionable images though? Isn't QVFD for stuff that's safely beyond questionable? --S'r Mnbvcxz 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I put your ugly "QAULITY!" banner on QVFD, but Mordillo said I should VFD it. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe its are policy to on delete only obscene or unused images, not stupid ones. --S'r Mnbvcxz 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest in a friendly manner to make your "QAULITY!" image slightly less ugly and slightly more tolerable. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's make sense in the chaos here: shock/gore pictures are good for QVFD, but "standard" ones which you just don't like - should go for VFD. As for unused, you don't need to QVFD them, they are all listed under special pages. Which just need some hefty admin to delete them. ~ 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some admins have had a policy of speedily keeping any image placed on VFD that is used appropriately anywhere. I don't think any image has been deleted on VFD for a while. --S'r Mnbvcxz 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked by the spinning Star of David and concerned about the gore it could cause if it got loose. QVFD it is. pillow talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

TLB, you win teh penis. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mnbletters: We don't really need one. The admins can make a judgment call, even when looking at QVFD. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:02, Feb 3

Just mention a valid reason for it to be deleted, and everything'll be all right. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We VFS these admins because we trust their judgment. They're more than qualified to speak for all of us when it comes to deciding what images stay and what are not appropriate in context. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What?

There's naked girls on Uncyclopedia? I'm shocked! Please to delete my account now in protest. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:02, 4 Feb

Welcome back, btw, your "certain user page" has been nominated for Sexiest page of the year. --S'r Mnbvcxz 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The trophy will look great right next to my "Sexiest 11mm Boxend Wrench of the Year" award; so thank you. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:05, 4 Feb