Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:08, 27 July 2006

Perhaps a place in the "Wikitainment" section for the following ~~two~~ pages might be found:

IMHO ~~they're both~~ very funny. Paul August 23:12, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see now that Religion and Wikipedia has been added. No takers for: User:Theresa_knott/Those_who_disagree_with_Angela_must_not_sign_their_comments, I guess? Perhaps it's an acquired taste ;-)

Paul August 17:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Could I join the Department of Fun because it sounds like well...Fun :)--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 06:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just add your name under the member's list! This is Wiki. JesseW 06:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ohh allright. Thank you, I'm new here :)--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 07:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archived sandox link

Under the 'Humor' section, the link to a sandbox edit, titled 'This version is amusing' does not appear to be working.

Clicking it gives me the error:

"The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Wikipedia:Sandbox,oldid=7310538"." Hazzamon 10:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've also encountered said error. - RoyBoy [∞] 06:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Me too. The link as it currently appears goes to

[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=7310538 ] Anyone know where the amusing old Sandbox page is archived? -- PaulHammond 00:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably that version got deleted. Since the sandbox gets modified very frequently, the no. of entries in its history become "unmanageably large" so developers manually hack the database to remove some of the oldest versions not yet removed. At least this has been done once, so I assume it is still continued. HTH -- Paddu 21:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6 Degrees of Separation

Hey, I have an idea about the 6 degrees of seperation. Instead of following links just seeing where ever we end up. I propose that a start page be chosen at random and then a goal page be selected at random again and see how long it takes to get from the start to the goal by folowing links in the manner described of say every 5th link. The start and the goal pages could be announced and then when someone is tired of following the links the last page that they were on could then be announced for someone else to pick up on and follow. I think it would be a cool idea! Jaberwocky6669 09:29, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Want to organize it? Feel free to set up a page, pick the links, and annouce it on the Dept. of Fun. I look forward to playing it. JesseW 17:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Ardonik/I ate my cat

Should User:Ardonik/I ate my cat get a mention here? -- Paddu 21:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott/Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments too, at least for the sake of the options for the vote on Appendix B at the end. ROTF typing this comment. -- Paddu 22:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that I want these links to be added to the page:

Now I've found another page that should be mentioned IMHO:

meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

I don't want something from the page to be removed. -- Paddu 20:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Idea: Votes for inclusion

Well, I just came up with this fun idea. It's like a competition on article writing. There is a page, where people add random tasks like "create an article that links both to Bart Simpson and Exploding whale" or "create an article that contains a phrase "jumping off the bridge is bad for your health"". Articles should be created as subpages or sections of VfI. Then the fun part begins: people vote for inclusion of these articles in the main namespace! If one manages to create such article, he is considered a winner. Grue 11:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Movement to unshift "|"

I was wondering if there would be any interest in starting a movement to replace the "\" key with an unshifted "|" key? And someone please don't say, "Set it as a macro," because where's the fun in that? -- addesso 22:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I envision this turning into something like a "C programmers vs. sh programmers" holy war. Nickptar 05:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifiction ?

I was thinking about starting a page labled WikipediaFiction:Deletionist-Inclusionist War, creating an alternate history fiction about a battle that occoured between the two viewpoints of wikipedians. This would make a new category for search and such, WikiFiction or WikipediaFiction. I would have went ahead with it, but I am a little shy since I am a new member. If someone else starts off or says its a good idea, i'd like to try it. The idea would be to illustrate actual historical events of wikipedia that lead to the formation of such groups as the Association of Apathetic Wikipedians,the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians , the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, or the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist

Any ideas? -scnd

Obligatory

All your fun are belong to us. --Wikipedia.

C'mon guys. Department of fun? Gimme a break! Silly rabbit, kicks are for Trigs.

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Challenge

I've decided to take this challege on the road. There are not so many links now (well, I mean there are, but not sooo many) - but there will surely be after the next database dump! BD2412 T 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Propsal

Ive created the following humor articles. Does anyone think they are well-written and humorous enough to be added under the humor section?

--TBC 11:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Idea

WikiHunt

Concept

On various pages around the wiki, a tag is put reading something like:


In addition, there will be trails of clues that people will need to find in order. These will look something like:
<!-- You have found Part 3 of Wikihunt Trail A. IF YOU HAVE FOUND PART 2, sign your name after this message. IF YOU HAVE NOT FOUND PART 2 YET, YOUR SIG WILL NOT COUNT!

Those who find the final clue will get 100 points.

So...how does it sound? -AtionSong 14:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object the idea of vandalizing Wikipedia pages in this way. -- Ravn 17:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't vandalizing since the messages are put into the html comment thing and won't show up...but you have to be clear to players that they sign their name inside the comment tag. If they sign outside, well, that would be unintentional vandalism. But I like the idea, except there is the problem of anons and unawares going wtf? --Osbus 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup initiatives

Perhaps in the light of all the bad press we've had in the last year, perhaps Jimbo should follow President Shrub's lead and declare a War On Error? Wikipostate 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea.

I would like to see a game similar to this or this. They're Choose Your Own Adventure style games, using the wiki software. Since Wikipedia has a signifigantly larger userbase than Uncyclopedia, I imagine this would grow and get much longer than those versions. Anyone like the idea? I'll start it if enough people are interested. --Nintendorulez (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song Survey

I just wanted to let you guys know that I'm conducting a Classic Rock survey for the most liked classic rock song on my user page and was thinking that maybe it would be considered as a part of the DOF so tell me what you guys think on my talk page. Right now I'm only accepting songs that I feel are considered to be classic rock, however if the DOF has a problem with it being only for one specific genre, I'll change it to all songs in English. The only thing I won't do is start off the survey new. Hey...classic rock is the superior genre anyway. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add this external link?

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Departure_of_Fun

From Uncyclopedia, a parody site of us. --Nintendorulez talk 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics

How about adding a section for user-submitted webcomics in the Department of Fun? --Gray Porpoise 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that, but are there any out there? --Nintendorulez talk 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could start on making some. --Gray Porpoise 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BULLYING AUSTRALIAN ADMINS Heyo I note that you questioned the veracity of an anons additions to Gundagai regarding a 19th century aboriginal massacre. Further editing by a similar looking IP address has made the article even less encyclopaedic. Personally I would just delete everything the anon wrote but wiser heads like yourself may be able to incorporate the changes without it looking like a harangue by a semi-literate. Cheers. --Roisterer 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Roisterer is a prime example of why this place is so badly regarded. If roisterer knows the above what is his source or is he just guessing? Maybe he is having delusions. Its good other Internet sites are setting up in opposition to you lot and they will do heaps better as they dont have the problems wik or its admins seem to have. I have to say in the many years I have been online I have never run into such an ignorant rats nest as what I have seen here. You make multiple errors, can't interpret what u read so then go and put up rubbish and display a very low level of intelligence and interpersonal skills. You are a disgrace to humanity and some are racist to boot which this nation does not need.

BULLY BOY ADMIN CONTINUES - DOING WIK GREAT PR DAMAGE Semi-protection I have invoked semiprotection for this article. Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.

I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Reversion of edits and blocking I have reverted the unsigned and abusive edit of 203.54.9.97 (talk • contribs • block log) and blocked for three hours. Avoidance of the block by this editor would be a breach of wikipedia policy.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another revert and block of 203.54.186.172 (talk • contribs • block log) - again for 3 hours for deliberate and provocative breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette--A Y Arktos\talk 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WIK NEEDS TO REIN THESE BULLIES IN They are hunting new users. Is that what wik wants????