Talk:Uniting Friends in America

It has become clear that anonymous editors are going to continue to vandalize this entry with implications that our social group has something to do with another popular acronym used on the site. Anonymous editing--particularly when the editor is not signing in with the intention of purposefully hiding his or her identity--is usually done anonymously because it is invalid. Show your faces in Talk and we can hash it out. That's how wikipedia works, not by warring back and forth with edits. UFIA is a group that has been in existence for a while now, and if you don't know that, perhaps it's because you're not a memeber. We can't help that. But don't try to put your own meaning onto our group, Uniting Friends in America.--Minaflorida 16:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all know the true meaning of UFIA. What you are trying to write is just vandalism - no matter how fun it may be. I am not the person who outed the sign, I actually think its rather funny. But no reason for this to spill over and add more noise into wikipedia. Yes I realize it's ironic someone with my IP vandalized Coco Chanel's page.

Why not sign in and sign your posts, then?--Minaflorida 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy? Plus to avoid the wraith of rabid farkers who think they rule the internets. I can restart my computer and get a different IP - it is a pain in the butt to get all new login names.

Whatever. It'll likely be deleted anyway, because our group doesn't have very much of a historical or social signifigance to the population at large. It just seems that the wiki page is a good idea so folks don't get confused about what the name means, since, yeah, it has more than one meaning. It just seems like by remaining anonymous, you're sending a signal that you know you're doing something wrong.--Minaflorida 16:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of UFIA is certainly different from mine - maybe we should make UFIA not redirect to the Fark wiki article, and instead define it using both of our definitions? Then you wouldn't be panty-twisted and we could both go back to eating lunch. --Radiumsoup 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information contained in this article is not encyclopedic. If this becomes a major event, or if this new definition for UFIA becomes a sufficiently important cliché, then it belongs in the appropriate subheader on the Fark entry. Otherwise, the only appropriate place for this is a separate Fark Wiki, which is something that I would personally support, as it could drain the creative (if slightly misguided) energy of overzealous Farkers away from here. ---Bersl2 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed67.172.31.111 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Agreed 63.84.231.3 21:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]