Talk:Australia/Archive 1

Small contribution

For this line:

"Wheeeeere's the ute?" (a "ute" is a "utility vehicle" or "pick-up truck" in the USA. Not known in the UK. Aussies never walk)

That 4-wheel load/whore carrying thing is called a "Lorry" in the UK :-)

Currently Rewriting

This whole article is a huge morass of unamusing one-liners that seem to have been written by a twelve-year-old. I've removed multiple paragraphs or even sections entirely, to be replaced when someone comes up with something worthwhile to put there.

Even so, it's taking a long time and since it's too long to completely rewrite large sectons are still quite unfunny, so I'd appreciate any help given.

- Bk 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -- The Colonel (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Can we allow permission for certain people to edit this? I find it completely unfair that Australians have their topic up for protection whereas us kiwis don't. --Thematrixeatsyou 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for two reasons:

1. I'm a big nag.
2. We are tired of stupid IP edits and have decided to put an end to the ongoing annoyance.

Actually, I can go and ask to have this unprotected just for the sake of showing you some "fairness", but then, you'll have to stay here and clean up the page on a daily basis or I'll nag you until your head explodes.

--The Colonel (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just block guest edits? --Thematrixeatsyou 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, go and nag the staff members (sannse in particular). I don't operate the software here, nor do I work for Wikia Inc in any form of agreement. Even the sysops (which I am not) can only do what MediaWiki and Wikia Inc allow them to. So, you are pretty much wasting your time yelling at me - a regular user - here. -- The Colonel (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is no doubt purely personal opinion, but does anyone else think we could do a bit better with the quote at the top of the page? You don't actually have an enema 'removed' do you? Or is that part of the joke? Lowee 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) looks like i picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue

There are three options:

1. Make it better.
2. Leave it alone.
3. Get rid of it.

Apparantly, due to the fact that the entire page has been semi-protected, there is not much you can do about the quote. So, here's a solution: put a new quote here, and if it's indeed better, then I'll just replace the old one with it. Otherwise, I'll just put the old quote on the chopping board - the page will do well without one anyway. -- The Colonel (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Our failed VFH nomination

Score: 0 vote from down under

• Nom and for. Maybe I am really pushing for this, but I would really like to see the article featured. It was the work of 50+ individuals over a period of one year, and 1000+ hours were spent with all blood, sweat and tears... Meh, what the heck! Just sit down and enjoy the article, and don't forget to vote! -- The Colonel (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• For, I've got a soft spot for Australia. Right there. Don't poke it! Now it's all bruised! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A thousand hours. Wasted. Dull, tiresome, predictable and clinging to cliche for life support. A depressing mediocrity. Australia deserves a lot better than this. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• I do like it, though it is a bit long. Some nice little Antipodian funnies. For. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 15:38 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Decidedly For(!). --DW ^III 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• For maaaaaaaaaate, please ignore me 'Strayan bias, being a 'Strayan meself. --Cs1987 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Too long, which would be good, if it were funny, which it's not that much of, which it could be with some work, which someone won't do, which witch is the witchiest?.--Anyone 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For, cos I like it. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]  MUN CM NS F@H (drivel) 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For - Better than anything <insert name here> could write. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against, I'm afraid. Australian-English Dictionary is much better. 15Mickey20 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For because emc sux -- VFP Eincyc (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Not even going to read that long, long, article. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against Nah. Austrailia isn't popular. Those who live there should be ashamed and feel unclean all the time.-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mickey Mouse against. Nah. Severian isn't popular. Those who vote here should be ashamed and feel unclean all the time. -- The Colonel (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment wait, you nom'd this, right?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guess what? I am going to put this on the discussion page. Eveyone has something to say about this article. One IP came in and wrote this one whole page about how "un-Australian" the article was, but did anything get done at the end of the day? Another IP came in and made a comment in every section of the article on what sort of "dickwallop" I was [1] for what I did to their blatant vandalism [2], but how many people actually stood up and told eveyone that Uncyc is not a place where everything goes? I would like to see this featured (although I admit I was kind of pushing for the nomination), but how can this going to be possible when there are people standing in your way at every opportunity instead of helping ? (Just think about how many times I have reverted those "Melbourne is gay" edits.) This voting result is going to serve as a jesture of contempt towards all these individuals, and they will be here to either make the article better or get lost. Editing this crap isn't easy at all, and if there's a way to lower the difficulty a bit, I'll just take it. -- The Colonel (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• For Marree Men Unite. 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Although thanks for Holly Valance. 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Overlong, and while there are a few good jokes in there it's a little too diluted --Jamtrousers 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Things need to be a bit more evened out. Is is article managed and edited by Australians? Well, most of it glorifies Australia. I find it unfair that kiwi's can't edit Australia but you can do whatever you want to ours.

Any logged in user can edit it (you may also need a certain number of other edits as well I'm not 100% sure) just not those too lazy to register.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You need a certain number of edits. It's still not completely fair. This article [australia] has turned into a patriotic mess and is in need of editing.

It's pretty clear that I have mentioned this some time before, but just let me explain to you again why we have protected the "patriotic mess" you are talking about.

These are the only reverts I still remember - [3], [4] - and do you think they are any more appreciable than this so-called "patriotic mess"? How fair do you think it will be to those who have to clean up the mess anon-IP's left behind if we just go and get the page unprotected? Look, mate! Like I said - I am more than happy to get someone to remove the semi-protection for you, but in return you'll have to stay here on a daily basis and weed out all the trash people left behind. Does that sound fair enough to you? -- The Colonel (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, though, what ought to be suggested, is, instead of semi-protection being removed from this article, that the New Zealand article should be protected too, to prevent edits such as this and the other one, both today, coincidentally (or maybe not) from the same IP as the one who began this discussion (just thought I'd point that out, I know it's not directly related to this article)... --scaley1234 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

An interesting observation you have made there. ;) -- The Colonel (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do something about australia's army! Like 50% kangaroos, and 49.99% Cloned Steve Irwins

Exuse me well it's still a bit unfair, don't you think? If people are going to bag Australia, so what! Have you read the New Zealand article recently? It goes on directly insulting the country and people itself, then making sick disgusting jokes about sexual intimacy with sheep. Can't we have something a little bit more original? It's not that hard to make up something like that about anyone or anything. New Zealand is described as a "Maori waste-land" in the first sentence, where as Australia is convienetly defined as "the magical land of oz - Australia, the splendiferous beer filled land". I still don't understand why you (col swordman) think it's alright for NZ's article to be trashed, but Australia's is highly protected.

Ok. Let me put it this way - why is it fair to full-protect AAAAAAAAA!, whereas all those pages I created are allowed to be edited by everyone? Look! Do you know what you are doing here? You are asking to get this page unprotected solely on the basis of a totally irrelevent issue. In fact, it doesn't matter if you are from New Zealand, Fiji or Kansas, US. As long as you are a regular user here, you can edit this page whenever you want. If you are a newbie or simply unregistered, then what can I say? Too bad! I don't even know if you are planning to blank the whole page and then chuck in a few dead kangaroos. This is bascially what semi-protection is all about - to prevent untrusted individuals from editing the page. Yeah, I know that sucks, but that doesn't mean we should from now on allow a not-so-good page to go even worse. Please, folks, give this protection thing a rest - don't get your panties in a twist over a page that even I don't terribly like. *sigh* -- The Colonel (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution is simple: tone down the stereotypical humour in both articles. Wikis are a DIY format, nothing is usually achieved by asking people in the talk pages to do something. - Diceman 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me? I want you, col.swordman, to tell everyone here why you think Australia deserves semi-protection and New Zealand doesn't. It is obvious Australians linger around this article and change it if anyone dares to humiliate Australia. The Australian article isn't even funny, it just glorifies Australia in a humourous way. You say, too bad? Too bad that we can't edit Australia? I want it to get unprotected so that it may acctually have some real humour in it. There is no reason why Australia should get trashed more than New Zealand does.

No, I am not commenting on whether New Zealand deserves semi-protection, just as I am not commenting on whether United Kingdom or East Timor should get protected. There are almost 30,000 articles in this wiki. Some of them are protected, but most of them aren't. Now tell me why all these perhaps US or UK related articles are protected, but the New Zealand one isn't? Should they from now on be all unprotected so you can edit them in whatever way you want? Look, what I am saying here is that you are confrontational and your arguement is totally invalid, and I suggest that on these grounds alone the protection on the Australia article should never, ever be lifted. Still don't get it? Let me put in a different way - vandals are what semi-protection is here to guard against, and, unfortunately, you just sound like one. Plus, despite you had already got an account here, and despite you sent me an email by the same nickname on the same date just to get me here to hear you complain, you simply chose to write your message on this very page anonymously. How odd!

And oh, yeah! By the way, did you say the article was written "in a humourous way"? Thanks, mates! Do you know how hard our folks actually worked on it? You know, it's not easy to write about a big piece of dirt and make it sound humourous. Just think about how flattered they must be now...

-- The Colonel (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct about the protection of the UK article. However the article of England is protected. I still stick by my opinion that it is unfair that you can edit ours and we can't edit yours. It just ruins this whole uncyclopedia. Isn't it meant to be, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? My arguement is not invalid. Some articles are protected (perhaps bigger countries such as Australia, England, United States of America, Canada) and others are not proteted (New Zealand) This seems to be a trend and it just pisses everyone off. It's just the big countries bagging the little countries! Admit it. Why can't you comment on whether smaller country articles deserve protection, or do you only care about Australia and nothing else? And about the vandalism, I was just deleting some bullshit.

All this hot air over simply having to register first (you don't even need to submit an email address). Firstly, why are you wasting thought over the waste of time that is Uncyclopedia. Secondly this is just a chance for you to vent your dislike/hatred of Australia. Australia and New Zealand have much more in common than in difference, why don't you focus on that and do your homework instead of screwing around here. I've met a person just like you on IMDB's Rove Live forums, you two give the people of NZ a bad name in my mind. - Diceman 12:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

on the table on the top right of the page, it says oz's exports are kylie minogue, etc. what about our imports, like russel crow and other ppl we stole from new zealand?

Let me point out something here. I don't know how long ago you're talking about this page being semi protected, but it's apparently not now, and I've been fixing dumb edits left right and centre. Seriously, it's not that they're bagging our country and I'm all offended, it's like they're bagging the english language. "However these countries decided to "become one" from Oz (as they put it 'in in in aand out)" with the edited parts in italics. This isn't funny, it's not even dumb, it's somehow reached a level below dumb. This is what people are trying to protect against. If you so desperately want to edit this page, why the heck don't you register? If you feel that it's unfair that this page is protected and another is not, what the hell to we care? Go see if you can get it protected. This page is protected, for reasons like that, if you can prove the same reason applies to another page, go get it protected, just don't come whining to us. Deadly Bagel

entry for Adelaide needs to be corrected

it should read "city of churches (and axe murderers and chopper)"

Avert thine eyes!

I have been looking after this mess for some time but it seems to me that despite all the effort people will simple continue to see the article as a public toliet and take a dump there whenever they feel like to. Now it's up to you - yes, you - to do something about it.

It all started when I did some major changes to the article. My first thought was that random things would look a bit nicer if they were arranged in lists, but then I began to realise that they needed to be trimmed in order to keep the article in good quality. However, when I started to weed out the garbage people became somewhat irritated and in a few occasions, I found myself engaged in edit war, with absurdity that only the wildest of minds can imagine (see [5], [6], [7] and last but not least, [8]). I am now totally exhausted and tired of seeing this non-redeemable mess and would like some sincere individuals to put an end to this madness.

Major edits to be done include:

1. Rewriting the "history" section. (Read this first!!!)
2. Shooting down any non-coherent list entries.
3. Killing the quotes.
4. Ironing out incoherence in all sections.

Suggested changes to be made:

1. Move the "Chuck Norris facts" look-alike (i.e. the "Fast Facts" section) to a seperate page.
2. Kill the "Famous Australians" list and end the ongoing nonsense.

So, any volunteers?

AC/DC

An entire aritcle about Australia that doesn't even MENTION AC/DC? They're practically the best joke there!

Perth

I'm too lazy to register or log in at the mo. Hell, I'm Australian, I shouldn't have to bloody well log-in - that's un-Australian! Anyways, I reckon Perth needs a bit more info - "Often referred to as "Dullsville" but that seems somewhat complimentary." So, if one of you tall poppies with an account can just add that, she'll be apples mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.209.63 (talk • contribs)