| Keep |
- Keep It was sporked and only a small part of the article was used and modified like any other UnNews article. A lot of material was added to it, and the original article is cited as a source, so it isn't plagiarism if you cite a source. If you have a problem with it, rewrite the lines. I suspect you only want to delete it because it does not agree with your political views. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a bit random for my taste (too many characters with too little to say), but it's not crap. Oh, lose the Chappelle bit. It adds nothing (and using other parodies' punchlines as punchlies is generally a bad idea). Having a byline seems a bit off for UnNews, too. I can't complain to loudly, however, as I've done a similar thing, if in a different way. Buy me a drink, sailor, and I'll tell you all about it. Make sure it's got an umbrella in it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sir Orion Blastar sir... You WERE using Uncyclopedia as a platform through which to further your political views. That's not cool dude. It did contain much that was really just a rant about how much you hate the liberals, and that's just not funny. Not to me anyway. So... I removed some of what I thought was over the top, and replaced it with some other stuff. Hopefully you will decide to keep what I have done (change it a bit maybe obviously). I think it's OK now, so I'm voting accordingly. Sonic80 and Hyper... Take another look... :-) MrN
   Fork you! 19:46, Jul 6
- I like what you've done. But now the article is really inconsistent. It starts off talking about yellow cakes and moves on to talking about uranium. I feel like the rewrite needs to be more complete. --Hyperbole 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will see what I can do... MrN Fork you! 19:56, Jul 6
- It is actually yellow cake uranium, not yellow cakes and uranium, but yellow cake is the type of uranium. The yellow cake article seems to have confused you as did that W's missing donuts article about yellow cake donuts. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Orion Blastar, I am aware of that! MrN Fork you! 20:15, Jul 6
- Ok uranium is removed and it now says yellow cake instead. No way someone can accuse the article of being serious now. Thanks for the assist. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
|
| Delete |
- Delete I believe that this is plagiarism of a real article, more than half of it is copied from the source. ----Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Okay, I don't think this is plagiarism. Copying a joke is plagiarism; copying something meant to be serious and displaying it for laughs, IMHO, is not. Context is everything. On the other hand, there's something about partisan politics that makes people think that articles that boil down to "suck it, libs" or "suck it, neocons" are funny. They aren't. I didn't see any jokes in this whole article - except the Dave Chappelle "yellow cake" joke, which IS plagiarized. --Hyperbole 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds exactly like something a liberal would say Rightwing Nutbar Sr. 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Dave Chappelle joke has been removed. Anything else? yellow cake article seems to use the same Dave Chapelle joke though.--Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it doesn't say suck it libs, it just says it is weapons grade yellowcake instead of natural yellowcake, and it justifies the Iraq war, and it lampoons the Republican's reactions to the news and makes them sound funny. It takes something serious and makes it funny by modifying it and exaggerating, as most Unnews articles seem to do anyway. It is an example to Conservapedia that our jokes are not always liberal biased, and it seems that many of the non-liberal viewpoint jokes get deleted here. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's my opinion that both liberal viewpoints and conservative viewpoints have no place on Uncyclopedia, and that "x viewpoint jokes" is an oxymoron. And just to prove that I apply that principle consistently, you can look at this and this (which nearly got me banned, by the way). I come here to get away from political screeds. --Hyperbole 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kind of hard to avoid here that Liberal viewpoint joke that Bush is Hitler seems to be the basis for the Neocon article. Not to mention the Republican Party and George Dubya Bush articles overuse too many Liberal viewpoints. I could cite more, but I refuse to prove Conservapedia's points. I've tried to write articles that are not based on Liberal viewpoints to disprove their argument. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tried writing about kittens? Everybody loves kittens. Adorable! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- There was a time when I tried to discourage people from putting comments in the voting boxs... Oh happy days. Order! Order! I must have order! mine's a pint please governor... MrN Fork you! 20:20, Jul 6
- And you know what those three articles have in common? None of them are funny. The appropriate solution would be to delete or rewrite them - not to try to "balance them out" with more unfunny articles. If you want to try to politically "balance out" something on the Web, try Usenet:alt.politics or something. Yeah, there's a lot of inertia to getting rid of that stuff, because so many people have contributed to it, but it's still the right thing to do. --Hyperbole 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have a point, and technically while still having a political viewpoint it can still be considered funny. I thought the whole point of Uncyclopedia was that it does not need have a neutral point of view to be funny. Like some articles are written in the point of view of someone else like William Shatner. You can still have a viewpoint and not be biased, but it is debatable as to what is biased and what is funny. It is something that I have to work on I guess. I seem to botch jokes that way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, my view on this is that Uncyclopedia articles should never be NPOV, but they certainly shouldn't be "SomeMainstreamPOV", either. Rather, they should be AbsurdPOV. Take, for example, I lost your pet ferret. Whose POV is that? I don't know, but it's fucking hilarious. --Hyperbole 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Uhh... this is less than seven days old, I believe. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [6/07 17:40]
- True but... Plagiarism shouldn't be tolerated. And then there are the Youtube links, for some reason. And the self-feature. And the lack of UnNews formatting... --SirIsaac 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- @ Orian Blastar I recently had an article removed for "plagiarism" where I clearly cited my sources, and used my own words, where as on this one, it was directly copied from the article. ----Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you are doing this out of malice because you are bitter about your deletion Sonic80? That's not good. Your article was deleted because it was not funny, not because of the plagiarism issue... MrN Fork you! 18:05, Jul 6
- Nobody seems to understand the difference between spite votes, and actual votes. Whenever someone does something to me, and then immediately does something stupid, I point it out, It doesn't mean it is a spite vote, it means that I just don't like hypocrisy. And as for the not funny vs. plagiarism, I seem to recall that it was put on VFD for plagiarism. ----Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 19:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this helps, but I read your huffed page (UnNews:Metal Gear Solid 4 is Satan), and would have voted to keep, if I'd noticed it at the time (even thought the page that inspired it is this, which is Poe's Law in action). Of course, I have terrible taste. You should see my haircut. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sonic80 But I edited most of the words so that they were different and the bulk of it is not copy and paste but heavily modified with only few original words remaining. I even converted the Youtube embedded videos to links. You mean that even if 90% of the article is my own words that it is still plagiarism? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dammit Orion Blastar you are forcing me to actually think. You know I hate doing that! MrN Fork you! 19:04, Jul 6
- Thinking is good, it is the way of solving the world's problems by using real world solutions. Most colleges teach you not to think, to just believe everything the media tells you and also everything your professor tells you. I was one of the few students smarter than most of my professors who kept asking them questions about inconsistencies and mistakes in their lectures and materials as well as logical fallacies using my analytical mind and deductive reasoning to figure out the truth. So they would tell me "Orion Blastar, do you want to pass this class or teach it?" to which I replied "That depends, how much salary does one earn as a teacher, and would I get paid more for teaching the truth, instead of propaganda and fear mongering that seems to pass for education these days?" eventually they learned not to mess with me anymore. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you're much, much smarter than everybody else in the world. Perhaps you'd like a biscuit. --Hyperbole 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not everyone, just smart enough to use critical thinking to figure out mistakes and flaws and fallacies. It doesn't make me Stephen Hawking, and I never claimed to be smarter than everyone else in the world. I'm not perfect either, I just happen to be able to tell when someone is bsing most of the time. It is like being Daredevil not Reed Richards, like detecting the lies and figuring out the truth due to a disability that took something away but gave me an extra ability that enhanced my senses. Not like I could cure cancer or AIDS, though. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry somehow I had a dupe comment here that messed up the formatting and I thought I had moved the comment here is the view of the dupe comment it was created via an edit conflict. I thought I was moving the comment up, but somehow it looks like I blanked it out. I didn't mean to do that. But the original comment that I moved is above this one, so technically it was not blanked as it is still there in context and not removed. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It's less than a week old. I was going to mention it earlier, but then lunch arrived, and it's rude to talk with my mouth full of lunch. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Delete.Elassint
Uses for Uncyclopedia 
