Talk:Wikipedia/archive2

The Colonization Saga

hello gents, this week's colonization is that old favorite, wikipedia. let's get some ideas going! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

why, the good ol' wikipedia is an evil parody of uncyclopedia, controlled by the evil Jimbo Whales can do 15:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Some Ideas

I got a few concepts that I would like to throw out there.

Lets be honest this site, meaning uncyclopedia, has got as bad as wikipedia, whenever anyone changes anything in under an hour it'll be changed back to the 'pefect' and 'funny' original making it thousands of times worse than wikipedia because it doesnt help at all. Also it is so unpopulated that no-one will ever read this comment and the wikinerds of this site will delete it within seconds. Insufferable rubbish. Furthermore if you add something which would be funny to people from a certain area which the article is about who can get the observational humour, the losers who supervise the articles and don't understand the joke will then delete it. Worse than wikipedia.

• 1. Talk about it as if it were the popular kid in school and the writer is Uncyclopedia. For example, "Wikipedia thinks he is so cool with his 1000000 pages. But really who needs all those pages...Lots of the cooler wikis are getting pages on Global Warming ever since Wikipedia got one. Maybe I should get one, but my mom said I can't until I bring my grades up." Kind of a long shot and different but personally I like it.
• 2. Wikipedia is flawless. Where we defend every single word on Wikipedia and criticize those who say Wikipedia doesn't give you legitimate information. For example, "Lots of people have come to say Wikipedia is flawed because anyone can use it. But in reality, it makes Wikipedia even better because one of the editors are sure to be right! For example, if a wife wants an STD and she only sleeps with her husband she won't get it. But if she were a hooker and slept with tons of men, her chances rise of getting the right one!"
• 3. Wikipedia is the narrator and he is talking about how pimpin he is. "He gots his gang (editors), hoes (admins), and a bigger dick than any other wiki around." Also a bit strange but potential I think.

All of these are probably some of the weirdest ones I have come up with but I think we need to bring more variety to IC, because we have a pretty consistent line of dry humor articles. It might be fun to mix things up. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think number 3 has the most potential. Maybe something spiteful? User:Zheliel/sigz2 07:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can take stuff from Wikipedia's Uncyclopedia article and say that its wikpedia or something like that. It would be funny to include "Its logo is a hollowed potato, named Sophia after the Gnostic deity, that serves as a spoof of Uncyclopedia's globe logo"... User:Zheliel/sigz2 07:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Im all for a funny concept on this one, coz Im really fed up with the dry encyclopedic humor thing. And I am for Tagst 3rd idea, until someone comes with a better idea (which wont happen anyway.. Tagstit is a fucking genius) 08:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think all three Tagstit ideas are great and should be used. --Docile hippopotamus 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the third idea the best, but I think that if this is done it should be written professionally but with several errors in the information (A reference to the John Seigenthaler mess a while back would be funny). And, we could have a point midway through the article saying that the author was forced to resign due to faking of credentials. After that point, the tone would change quickly and abruptly to one of lambasting. What do youse guy think?--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea number two

We the people freom Goa Tse Temple are working on "The Dickhead Project". Instead of saying stuff like Wikipedia being a parody of Uncyclopedia, we need to show why it is a parody of Uncyclopedia. Satirical point of view, anyone? Criticising Wikipedia is not tolerated. And look what you guys did when you deleted my article on Tolerance! And we could base this article on Wikipedia's article about Uncyclopedia!

I mean, we could say that "Wikipedia ("The Free-Content Encyclopedia") is a satirical-theme wiki. Founded in 2001, it is formatted as a parody of Uncyclopedia and aims to satirise all encyclopedic subjects." |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea three

We present it like a factual article, except for all of our facts are screwed up- like Great Britain. Saberwolf116 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Like it, but again, I want to stay as wet as possible. I guess that doesn't make sense. But I don't want to make another dry article. Only my opinion though ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

me neither Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 11:48, 5 May '09

Idear the fourth

First off let me say that I am  Against. colonizing previously featured articles. As crap as we think they are, they were voted to be featured at one point and I think they should be saved in featured state. Just my opinion. If we're gonna go ahead and do this I think we should keep it simple. Copy/paste the wikipedia article and then hack the shit out of it with terribly formatted edits. Turn it into an Uncyc pirate page of sorts. This goes along perfectly with how Uncyc was started so it's kinda meta, if you see what I mean. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:32, 5 May

i see. Brilliant! Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 14:57, 5 May '09

Good idea Opty. And if you're worried about the featured version being lost, I keep all the Pre-Colonization version of our victims on my userpage. =) Saberwolf116 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I was thinking at the very least we should have a link to the featured version somewhere. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:45, 5 May

this is your captain speaking

firstly, yes, we are colonizing a previously featured article. however, it was featured back in 2005 when, to be brutally honest, the kind of stuff that got featured was embarrasing. clicking the ninjastar in the corner of the wikipedia article will give you an idea of what was once featureable: "All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the overmind sometimes also known as microsoft or cheese fries", "He then turned Dr Phil into a mushroom ate him and visited hilter on mars", and that's just the intro.

secondly, we'll go with whatever concept the majority of users agree on, but i'm very hesitant to go with any kind of gimmick-y article as they...well, most of them suck. they're very hard to pull off. but this is a group effort, so let's get efforting. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're refering to my gimmick. Normally I'd agree wholeheartedly, however in this case I think it's a rare occasion where it would work. Plus it could give our colonizers with a taste for the random a chance to, well, be random. Also it'd be a good place to stick all the internet memes (Chuck Norris, Mr. T. etc, etc). -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:08, 5 May

not your gimmick in particular, just any kind of 'talk in this sort of voice' approach or anything other than a mostly encyclopedic tone. which article would we start with, in your scenario? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This one of course. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:23, 5 May

i see. well, we'll have to see what our fellow colonizers say. could be fun. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

official voting things for concepts

parody of uncyclopedia

Score: 6

• for. wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. we'll take the same approach wikipedia does on their page on us. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
•  My idea, my vote. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 09:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• And my logo idea. :D User:Zheliel/sigz2 10:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yes! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• For Sounds most fun ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Bless. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:27, 7 May '09
• Dude, Wikipedia doesn't criticize Uncyclopedia. Take a closer look at the page.

VaNDAlizED WiKiPaGeLOLpenispenispenis

Score: 2

• For. Seems so very appropriate. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:10, 5 May
• I also like this one. It would be so much fun to do. Also, Penis. Saberwolf116 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If we don't go with this idea, I think I'm still gonna do it on my own (under Wikipedia/Uncyclopedia or something like that) and you'd be more than welcome to help. :) -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:44, 6 May

well there is something similar to this at Vandalism/example on wheels! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I just think this would be so fitting. I think it'd make Chronarian smile. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:58, 6 May

Im in with you if you dont mind... At least it takes no writing skills :) Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:31, 7 May '09

Sure. I don't want to give the impression that I'm looking for total nonsense though. I'm thinking we'll hack it into a history of Uncyc. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:47, 7 May

I see. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:57, 7 May '09

Student Perspective

Score: 6

• Nom and For. Another outlandish, but very doable idea. Student sees wikipedia as a cheap reference for all his school projects, then cites examples of projects that he used Wikipedia as a source for. The catch: misinformation and vandalism got into said projects, so he got bad grades, leading to subtle bitching and agonizing at his teacher and classmates that gradually becomes more noticeable, until a climax is reached at the end of the article. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, it's a gimmick, but it's still a good idea. Conflicting voice could again be an issue, but it's not of magnificent scope like Jew or Barack Obama. This is a gimmick that transforms the great issue of Wikipedia into an article as manageable as a HowTo. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  I like it, but I think it would be really tough to pull off well. The pacing would have to be spot on. Plus, as you mentioned, we'd have to be very careful about conflicting voice. I'm willing to give it a shot though.  For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:19, 6 May

•  I like this one. Saberwolf116 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• for. sounds fun. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. I like it. --You know what the music means... Our time is up. 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. Is it too late to vote? --^Dame 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

UnBook:Wikipedia: The Tale Of A Free Encyclopedia

Score: 2

• Bless. and we can use whatever style we choose. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 03:22, 6 May '09

  Why change your sig? (Again) What's in a sig, that we call anything but sweet? User:Zheliel/sigz2 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bless. agreee. User:Zheliel/sigz2 10:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's thursday

What's our battle plan, Cap'n? Saberwolf116 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

plan 1 I guess; parody of uncyclopedia Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:32, 7 May '09

So I'll start, fellow komrades. In soviet russia, Wikipedia is you! User:Zheliel/sigz2 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I played around a little with your intro Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:58, 7 May '09

right-o gents, it looks like 'parody of uncyclopedia' it is. i think we can still work the other concepts in, however...for example, we can have a 'vandalism' section that is hacked to pieces, and a 'usefulness to students' section. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

wow, you read my thoughs :P Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:06, 7 May '09

A serious looking section on the accuracy of Wikipedia that's full of vandalism perhaps? I dunno if mixing themes too much is a good idea though. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:14, 7 May

we are progressive like meshuggah. No worries. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:26, 7 May '09

I copy and pasted Wikipedia's Uncyclopedia article and just changed it accordingly. I figured an exact copy of theirs would be funniest but feel free to get rid of it or change it how you like. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, but do we want to do this the dry humor way (again)? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 17:20, 7 May '09

Well that's kind of the way we are going. The first one has some outright lies and I think it is funnier without them. Just my opinion. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we have to keep it "dry", but I'm a firm believer that it's funnier when it's closer to the truth. Second intro is closer to how we should go. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:25, 7 May

ok. So we tell no lies? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 17:27, 7 May '09

No but subtle liess. The whole thing is a lie, because Wikipedia obviously came first. But the humor that follows should come naturally, wiihtout outright lies. If you get what I mean ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wise titman is wise. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:32, 7 May

both intros are good. i think we can combine them nicely. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wise Gerry is also wise. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:54, 7 May

at the end of week one

okay fellows, it's the end of our first week working on Wikipedia, and i have to say i'm pleased with our progress. it's not every week that we can hit an absolute home run in six days like we did with Al Gore, and taking our time on these big projects serves well. anyway, after one week we have what i feel is a solid intro, and enough ideas kicking around on the talk page to churn out an excellent article next week.

as far as the intro goes, i combined the two intros (my moosh and tags, respectively) and added a few lines of my own. i took the overall approach from tags, staying closer to the truth, but i took some specific things from mamoosha's intro (like the merlin part, i thought that was quite funny). i think we can fill out the rest of the article with sections like history, policies, criticism (vandalism, plagiarism, students using wikipedia). some of the sections can be written in the style of the subject, for example the vandalism section should be hacked to pieces (while still being readable).

i feel like if there's one problem with our colonization process, it's lack of communication. so, let's discuss anything we're doing right here so we can come to some collective decisions. i don't mean you should get a concensus before adding even the smallest thing, but if you have an idea, joke, problem with existing stuff, anything at all, we can discuss it here so nobody feels left out or has their toes stepped on.

in conclusion, since this is sliding towards another straight encyclopedic parody (or 'dreadfully dry' as some are calling it), we should try to come up with an article that we can take in a new direction next week. i'll look for a good one, maybe we can check the ideas category for a good concept. keep up the good work, all! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping we could add the "Vandalism" section soon. It'd be like Gay People, a refuge for IPs who just want to act dumb. Penis. Saberwolf116 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've C/P'd and removed the redlinks from the Wiki section on reliability and bias here, and was gonna have a go at vandalizing it tommorrow. Feel free to add some vandalism. Keep in mind I probably will end up taking out and changing quite a bit of text just to make sure the vandalism isn't the only gag in that section. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:33, 8 May

Guess I beat you to it, Opty. Thoughts? Saberwolf116 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd be funnier if we did it to a section about reliability instead of vandalism. Make the main body of text about how Wikipedia is even more accurate than printed encyclopedias and vandalism is very rare. But that's just my opinion, if anybody else wants to weigh in? -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:40, 8 May

Well, I just thought we should have a section to absorb the idiotic IPs. You know, as a distraction from the rest of the article. Saberwolf116 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If we make the vandalism obvious (I.E. poorly formatted and such) I think it'll still serve to draw at least most of the vandalism to that section. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:46, 8 May

Well, feel free to contribute your own vandalism, I was just starting it off. Saberwolf116 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Combined intro

Is perfect IMO. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:54, 8 May

The criticism/reliability section

We can have this one vandalised by a student who failed his research because of vandalism and unreliability. Anybody? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 23:05, 8 May '09

Bless that thought. Agree do i. User:Zheliel/sigz2 06:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I added an additional sentence to the reliability section, along with quite a lot of spell checking in the article as a whole. By all means remove my additional sentence, but the spelling fixes should be handy enough. --Concernedresident 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The section about what wikipedia does and does not

Is a giant unfunny list...making everything ugly...maybe that was the point but still..I say obliterate it. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 18:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

its copy pasted from the old version. It has some nice parts but overall does the article more bad than good. I say Smite. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 21:32, 10 May '09

Well the old version sucked mainly because of that part, well, among other things. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, it sucks mighty dragon cock... On a vague-ly related sidenote, can we get Jimbo Wales (yes, the real one. I heard he has an account here) to write this one with us? I know its insane and imposshble but why not try? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 22:05, 10 May '09

All right, as crazy as it may be, i'll give it a shot. Saberwolf116 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was considering trying to get a quote from him, but I don't know how often he checks in here. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:06, 12 May

well, i've dropped him a note on his talk page here, and saber has dropped him a note on his wikipedia talk page, so if he has any interest at all in throwing us his two cents then we've got our bases covered. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be cool if we could get a word from Chron as well. Just a thought. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:55, 13 May

WHAT IS THIS???

Why is there George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, gay porn, and Jimbo Wales clones references! I am sorry I just thought this wasn't the way we were going at all...    Tagstit    talk    contribs    awards   03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we're sort of bouncing off the walls- we need a solid direction. Also, i'm getting rid of that butt ugly list. Saberwolf116 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree about the content concerning terrorism and jimbo wales the porn star and such. what happened to discussing everything on the talk page first? i'm going to go all executive decision-y and remove vast quantities of stuff. let's get some organized discussions going... SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LEVEL ONE HEADER: ORGANIZED DISCUSSIONS FOLLOW

ok, here's my idea for a new approach. please add a level three header (three of these: =) below with the name of a subject you'd like to discuss. if you'd like to add a section, please discuss the section and its contents/tone here. if you want to add a line or two to an existing section, there's no need to bring it here, but big changes you should at least mention here so we can truly make this a collaboration rather than a mash-up. for example, if you have an idea for the 'history' section, just add a new header and state your intent. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the wikiland template

i guess it's necessary, but it's so big and ugly. i'm thinking at the very least it needs to go down past the intro. does anyone else think it can be removed? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because other articles link to Wikipedia anyway. Disintegrate it. Saberwolf116 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then how can we link Wikipedia to other wikis such as ours? |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I thought the Wikiland yemplate links to other "Pedias" articles? User:Zheliel/sigz2 10:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 07:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

jimmy wales

how shall we portray mr. wales? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wanna stay away from all the Jimbo=Satan crap. Let's just portray him like we would Chronarian, a mischievous dude who thought some of the vandalism to Uncyc was funny. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:56, 12 May

i like this idea. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe he founded wikipedia after reading the "Serious Information and Other Deleted Sensical Material" section of uncyclopedia (or another wiki)?--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

perfect! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

history

Well, Ive written this section. I hope it is fine. Also, i think ive made clear my concept regarding criticism. Kthxbye. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:04, 14 May '09

content

Probably a silly question, but what's this section intended for? Would it be a general overview of the content in Wikipedia? One idea I have is to include a basic guide to writing a Wikipedia article, and maybe their review process. i.e. The guide to reviewing:

1. Read article changes
2. Realise that the writer isn't a friend of yours
3. Revert all changes

--Concernedresident 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

criticism

for the vandalism section, i think it's great to have it be vandalized, but not beyond recognition. i think it should still be readable. this is pretty much what's there now, and i think it looks pretty good. we can add to it by looking at the wikipedia page on wikipedia's section on vandalism. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'll pull up the vandalism section of the wikipedia article of themselves, and see if we can salvage anything. Saberwolf116 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think we could get from this? Saberwolf116 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking, maybe we could put the vandalized bits in <small></small>? User:Zheliel/sigz2 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be done in a variety of poorly formatted ways. It'll look better if it's not all done the same way. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:53, 13 May

Okay, I added some sporked stuff from the Wiki page that seemed appropriate for this section. Edit it as you will, or even replace it with something else. It's only meant to be a start, just try to keep the context as "official" sounding as possible. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:24, 13 May

images

i think we should have the 'that's no moon' image somewhere, as it is a featured image. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Criticism, and add something there about mistaking wikipedia for a moon. User:Zheliel/sigz2 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

outright lies

I think we should just criticise the crap out of wikipedia. I mean REALLY criticise it. We- as Uncyclopedia, wikipedia's parody- should have the most bitter criticism of wikipedia on the intarwebs. That is, NO OUTRIGHT LIES OR RANDOM SHIT. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 09:01, 13 May '09

Agree do I. After all, their page on us is sooo funny. So we take all the content from their Vandalism page and shift it here. Plus they have porn images. User:Zheliel/sigz2 12:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, some links! cool spam 1 cool spam 2. Add more :D User:Zheliel/sigz2 12:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro?

I do think that we remove the two intros and use the combined intro. It would be a lot more organised and more like a real article. User:Zheliel/sigz2 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That terrible list

Why in God's name do we need to keep it? Saberwolf116 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to go to Encyclopedia Dramatica without typing! I'm lazy! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 07:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How are we doing? Will we have this done by Monday? Saberwolf116 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We're in week three

And we seem to be paralyzed. Is this another Jew? Saberwolf116 03:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's week three already? Shit. I'll try to find some time for this this week, dunno how much I'll have though. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:15, 19 May

or just leave a note at colonizer's talkpages to remind them of their duties towards the queen. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 19:22, May, 19 '09

I can write something for the Content section, but not until tomorrow night. --Concernedresident 07:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth us just setting a new deadline for this? Maybe a deadline for content additions, and then we have a few days to vote on whether or not the original article gets replaced? --Concernedresident 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the deadline. Deadlines are ignorable policy anyway. Just keep working and we'll try and have this done by Saturday-ish. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:51, 21 May

Thanks. Do you reckon there's anything else specific that needs doing to this article? I'm looking at it, and it seems fairly decent to me, and about the right length to read during a toilet break. --Concernedresident 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically I think it just needs to be expanded a bit and the consitency issues need to be ironed out. Refer to the previous discussion for the tone we're aiming for. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:28, 23 May

The Concept...

...uh, what exactly is it? Each section seems to have a different concept than the one preceding it. What shall be prescribed to alleviate this?--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The article seems pretty much finished to me, time to move on, maybe we can revisit it at a later date. --CrabPope 18:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the bottom line is we're writing it as if we were writing about Uncyc. A little role reversal with some random silliness thrown in. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:59, 23 May

Fuck it.

One more week (mainly because I see nothing too interesting in the queue right now) to address the consistency issues and add a bit more content and I'm calling it done. So, everybody do what you can in the following week, I got high hopes. Everything for the most part is looking good so far, it all just needs to be touched up and tied together a bit better. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:57, 23 May

Look at this people

Nice, huh. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I like it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN01:11, 24 May

me likes it too Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 12:20 May 24 '09

Pretty funny. --Concernedresident 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I got your bat signal OptyC. That chart is great Socky! If anyone has ideas for chops lemme know, my current level of brain deadness will allow for application but no active creative thought is taking place. --^Dame 00:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A few ideas for today

The vandalism part of the article is quite bad. My eyes haven't stopped screaming while i'm writing this. It differs too much from the rest of the article, and is not even organized vandalism. --silicson 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Organized vandalism? Anyways, it does seem a bit overdone. Feel free to trim it down a bit. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:38, 28 May

I have done some scissoring to it , and a little eye check. Hope is 'nuff.--silicson 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Highlight

So, what are we going to do about this page being featured once? I know that by "today's standards" it wouldn't have been, but I don't like the idea of just getting rid of its featuredness. Then again having the featured template on this page seems like it's not right. Should we keep an old version, like what was done with Obama, and keep it featured? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I meant to keep the featured link template thingy on here. That'll link straight back to the featured version right? Good enough. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:38, 30 May

My template needs help.

Template:Indefinite Help?--Occono 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

hi