Talk:Vandalism

NEW ARTICLE

Since you all wanna mess with the vandalism page sooSJEWNUOo bad, I made an article called " Vandalism for you can edit" which is a version of this vandalism page that is completely open for editing, so mess with it all you want..and be funny, or Imma send meh doggie to eat youz. --Somefancyshit 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What you deleted my amazing comment dagnabit ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! nonsensical debauchery pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis shit99.254.159.204 07:26, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the "Vandalism" article, not for Vandalizing the talk page. ---- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:31, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Organize Wikipedia vandalism groups here

This section is for anyone who wants to organize (spell it right you american twat) and go vandalize (and again...) wikipedia. just lDIIPPA DIPPPA MONKEY EVIL DASJBIFYUGIGUeave a message here and we can get started --65.102.179.213 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Propose article split

I think that Vandalism should be a self-referencial humor page that anyone can vandalize. As it used to be, it was somewhat of an anomoly on the internet - the one wiki page in the world that was free to vandalize. The current article should be moved to Vandalism (article) because it is also good, but shouldn't replace the actual vWSFKNURIUOERIUOandalism. --Nerd42Talk 18:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have Vandalism/example on wheels!. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think the current version is the best way to go. It's funny to have a completely factual wikipedia-style article as our article on vandalism, and the example serves the purpose you want. :) Best of both worlds.--<<>> 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever took off the giant "Penis" sucks

Vandalism on the vandalism page is the way of uncyclopedia, bot I and my girlfriend agree that it was funnier before. There aren't that many pages that get to have self referential jokes like that. BRING BACK THE PENIS! user:LeisurePirate

It's still there, but only the cool people can see it. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's not compatible with all browsers? Someone with the ability to edit this page ought to fix that. --User:Nintendorulez 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It should be compatible with all browsers. Only the cool people get to see the penis. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Be more specific. Why can only some people see it? --User:Nintendorulez 16:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Because they're cool. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

<choose> <option weight="10"></option> <option weight="1"><div align="center"><div style="letter-spacing:-3px;font-family:'Comic Sans MS'"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big>PENIS</big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></div> </option></choose>, Duh. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: I'm thinking about creating an alternate version of Image:Vand.PNG that uses "PENIS" as the spraycanned text, and then <choose>-ing between that and the original Vand.PNG. (Does the choose tag work inside {{title}}?) That won't have the same dramatic effect as the original big "PENIS," though, so we might want to keey your suggestion in force. Pentium5dot1 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ghelae, I think I have your idea working: User:Pentium5dot1/Storage facility/Vandalism/preview. Please approve. Pentium5dot1 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done due to lack of objections. Pentium5dot1 08:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess I should have objected earlier. As I explained here, the problem is that everyone wants to vandalize vandalism. If it's 100% obvious-vandalization free, it's less likely (and well proven, in the last few months) to turn into a roiling shithole of a page. The problem is in moderation. A full 40-50% of the people who see the page and see vandalization are unable to resist adding more. It doesn't matter how clever, original, or appropriate the initial vandalization was - they add crap. For that reason, I'm insisting on keeping it free of obvious vandalization. (Other than the title, but I'm up in the air about that.) If you have a clever idea, make up a subpage, and tastefully link to it from the main article. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/1 22:58

(cleaned up my own comment) If it really matters that much, I propose full protection of this article. I will instead put the giant "PENIS" on Vandalism/example on wheels!. Pentium5dot1 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At least one person in the Village Dump seems to be in favor of protection. Pentium5dot1 01:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

God Hates Niggers!

Where did all the information about vandalism go? This used to be a prety cool page. Now it has hardly anything in it. Dude this sucks!

I agree. I used to check up on it now and then just to see what latest immature stuff has been added, and to look for any fucked up wikiML, but now I can't. Why was it killed? For anyone who wants a page to vandalize, there's my userpage. I won't mind. --User:Nintendorulez 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have revived a previous edit of this page in my user space:User:Naughtyned/Vandalism. You can go there too. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Redirected to Vandalism/example. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 14:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good. Why can't admins ever put drastic changes to major articles like this to a vote? --User:Nintendorulez 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Vandalism made it funny! Surely you can allow a little bending of the rules for irony's sake?

The thing is that irony, here, actually means the absence of vandalism — you might be thinking of self-reference. —Lenoxus 05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is long as hell

Perhaps we should protect it and creat Vandalism (page 2) or something like that. Or create an archive like with VFD, Village Dump, etc.

Na, just leave it. It's on vandalism, and splitting it up would be the equivalent of cleaning graffitti off your walls. Who does that? CX dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Help us

This page is not displaying properly. Please help. Andreus

Yeah. If we did periodic archivings/purges, sorta like long talk pages, this wouldn't happen. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the Vandalism

I fixed the vandalism, turning this into (somewhat) of a legitimate page. Also fixed the vandalism on the talk page. 71.71.102.153 23:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And I find this so damn amusing that I'm protecting it with my life. Well, at least for a few days. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm...where's the funny gone? I'm pretty sure this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia... Last time I checked, factual wasn't really high on the "list of things that Uncyclopedia is..."

Look up. Yeah, way, way up there. That's the funny, passing far, far over your head. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. My mistake.. How could I have possibly missed that!?

This brings Uncyclopedia up to the high standards of humor found on Encyclopædia Dramatica. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just not a funny page anymore. Why do the admins always have to kill good pages? --User:Nintendorulez 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?!

I can understand removing the "graffiti" from this talk page, but for the love of God, 71.71.102.153 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Block (rem-lst-all) • Whois • City • Proxy? • WP Edits • Checkuser) why did you remove the Urkel Heart?!!! --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the Vandalism

Why remove the vandalism? It's a vandalism page on Uncyclopedia....:\ 62.194.248.157

Because this vandalism is subtle, not "bash you over the head obvious" like the previous versions were. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is subtle, like the "Why did the chicken cross the road?" jokes, or the "dirty" joke where the pig fell in the mud. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I like "bash you over the head obvious". Plus it's fun to add more to as a way of letting off steam. --User:Nintendorulez 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's perfect now. The other one was more about spam than vandalism anyway. But shouldn't this be added to Category:Self-references? --Tifego 07:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

try

try "Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is so great it is ahead of its time and unappreciated." Possibly with this at the end ", but centuries from now people will look back and think everyone was stupid for not liking it." 12.72.93.199 07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK?

Famine, why is this page now 100% factual and humorless? The one joke fueling your protected article isn't even there any more! --User:Nintendorulez

You forgot to sign, dimwit... And HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love the current article!!! --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|MDA|+S 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is currently a thinking-man's joke, as opposed to a "haha lol lol lok at me ima vandel w00t w00t!!!" joke. If you don't get it, you are not very smart, and should probably stick to pages like Redundancy. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 18:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's yet another crappy emperor has no clothes article. Gotcha. --User:Nintendorulez 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit has anything to do wtih Fisher Price or Euroipods. At least Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit has a solid bit of literary analysis behind it. I'd have to say that this is closer to Dissociative Identity Disorder than any of the others, yet is far more well done than that article and much more accessible to the intelligent masses. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cunt and Fisher pirce have that funny analysis, but this doesn't. This is LAME. If it truly is funny as you claim, explain the joke to us supposedly idiotic people who don't see the humor in it. People who think destroying the old page for another one of these crap pages seem to be in the minority on this discussion. Perhaps we could bring this up on the VD? --User:Nintendorulez 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called irony...it's that simple. I might as well throw in my two credits here and say that while I don't think the current page is hilarious, it's eighty times better than the prior stupidfest. —rc (t) 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I much preferred the version with the Wikipedia box covering up the one bit of vandalism, that was hilarious (and still ironic). --Tifego 07:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's better than what we currently have. The current version has no joke whatsoever. --User:Nintendorulez 11:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, the current version does have a joke. A pretty deep one, which takes some smarts and an understanding of this website to understand. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that it's at least two-layers deep, and the amusing part is that everyone bitching here hasn't gotten past the first layer. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that there's much more to it than "It's called irony...it's that simple"? I realize your removal of the remaining vandalism could also be called vandalism, but the page already got the point across well enough without that. Tifego 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The joke here is that Famine and the other admins who support him are making fun of us peon non-admin users, same as with Euroipods. They are saying we are administrators we can do whatever we want, our shit doesn't stink, so fuck you! They are getting laughs from our reactions. I know they will laugh at this, I wouldn't post it except as a message to those of you like Nintendorulez and Tifego to stop giving them what they want. Ignore them. Stop posting to this discussion page - go to my Vandalism page or create your own. If you're really feeling ambitious, create your own Wiki and leave behind the petty politics of Uncyclopedia. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawaing preivous comments see Talk:Vandalism/example on wheels!. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...No... The article (without the most recent changes) is uber-good. It actually made me laugh out loud for a good 5 -10 seconds, after which I joyfully basked in the knowledge it was there. It is definitely NOT a snob-joke. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|MDA|+S 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not true at all, Naughtyned. I do usually oppose large-scale changes and protection like this, but if it came to a vote I would vote to keep the current page because I find it at least somewhat funny. I don't even know who started or contributed to the previous vandalism-themed page, nor do I care. I think one version is more amusing than the other, and that's it. (On a side note, the version Tifego referenced above is also pretty snerkworthy.) —rc (t) 03:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Rc, I know you've been reasonable in my past dealings with you, and I respect your opinion, but if you think that this issue is worthy of a vote, then why not put it up for one? If you don't think that it's worthy of a vote, then, while you may not be laughing at us non-admin users, I don't see how your position invalidates the general gist of what I said. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 05:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Withdrawaing preivous comments see Talk:Vandalism/example on wheels!. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's another abuse of power. And Famine still hasn't said what the joke is. --User:Nintendorulez

Well, now I see From Wikipedia, the free encylopedia, but that's only one chuckle out of this entire page. YOU KILLED IT, FAMINE. --User:Nintendorulez 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I killed it in the same way that one hand clapping makes no noise. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one approve of this article - and especially the section "Spotting Vandalism". --L

Please insert quote

“In Soviet Russia, vandalism reverts YOU!”

~ Anonymous on vandalism

62.116.68.236 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It would be one of the few actually funny things on the page. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 17:18, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, IMO

You should add a self-link here alongside the link to the actual vandalism page, as well - this page IS an example of vandalisim.

== I agree almost,.... I was just about to ask.... Im really really confused. has the vandalisation page been vandalised? I was tempted to 'fix' it by say copying the vandalism on wheels page over it when I wondered what better way for unencyclopedia to explain vanadalism that to put an example of vandalism wight here on Vandalism. To be a real exaple of vandalism it would say this is vandalism on unencyclopedia it would just be there. it achievce unecyclopedia primary goal, made my head spin..... and no my name isnt Regan MacNeil, and I didnt vomit green stuff.

Vandalism takes a variety of forms depending on context for an examples, click here or here (the second being a self referential click.)

I vote (as if I had one) that the page stay uneditable(because all the other pages are editable and unless there is an exception to highlight the fact it isnt obviously true), but that the links be as above. If unencyclopedia is nonsense and nonsense is random and thus nonsense is 'best' because it is the superset of all smaller(less important) things such as academically credible text then according to the million monkey hypothesis, or the theory of L space, nonsense(unencyclopedia) should intersect wikipedia somewhere. After all wikipedia intersects nonsense in several places, unencylodpedia should intersect back, they intersected first. I vote for that being here. Another possibility could be an uneditable page titled 'unencyclopedia' that describes in all sincerity the misguided attemtps of the other pedia ...

You could if you chose paraphrase the above argument and wedge it into the article as the point of singularity, is it unencyclopedic nonsense or my actual argument. If any one finds out please drop me a note as the shrinks bills are starting to hurt.

InaccurateOne 03:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why ruin the fun?

The 'PENIS' in the background was the best one, get rid of this crap of people trying hard to be funny.

Why can't we vandalize this page a bit??

Why do you revert all the vandalism? This is the page on Vandalism. Frosty0814snowman 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's poor meta-humor. That is all. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A better question

Why does this talk about Wikipedia? Shouldn't it be "translated" ? 68.39.174.238 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Go ask the overprotective admin who will hyperventilate if anyone touches his/her beloved page. --User:Nintendorulez 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. How do you do? UIT UIT UIT!

Reverse Psychology?! wtf??

Ok i'll give an argument as to why this article should be reverted to the random streams of vandalism it once was:

the only reason that the content of the "vandalism example on wheels" page was funny was because it was on the page for vandalism. This is quite possibly the one page where incoherency is genuinely funny in its own right. It's not the incoherency that's the reason it's funny, it's that some newbie walks into uncyclopedia and sees 10 pages of random vandalism on the page for vandalism. It's very unexpected for them, it's ironic, it's hillariously overstated, and it's a good pun as well. The idea to copy the vandalism page verbatim from wikipedia was obviously made by people who are bored of the cliches on uncyclopedia. I'ld like you to know that you are in the minority of people who go here to get a laugh. Someone who walks into uncyclopedia off the street and sees a respectable looking page for vandalism is going to think it's flat-out lame. They don't know that streams of random crap is common, and even if they did, any funny that this article might've had will have worn off by the time they find out.

CONCERNING THE "PENIS" Even with the giant "penis" it's still lacking. The Penis doesn't look like it's really vandalism. If you're going to vandalize something in a funny way, you can do it in two ways: One way is to make it subtle yet significant such that it's difficult for people to notice, but completely changes the context of the object. For example: changing a few letters on a given word such that it completely changes the meaning. Another way is to forego the subtlety and change the context of the object through brute force by drastically overstating a theme which is opposite to the object's original purpose. For example: drawing a mustache/devil horns/a monacle on an otherwise respectable looking portrait. The "PENIS" is ok... but it really doesn't look like it's vandalism. It falls into neither of the two categories. It's definately not subtle, and it falls short of being overstated. It might be funnier if it looked as though someone had actually scribbled "PENIS" all over the web page, but as it is now, it looks too appropriate. It's in a neat font with no misspellings...it's too obvious that it was intended to be there. it doesn't look like the work of a vandal.

EDIT: oh ya, you could go for the subtle approach and put a bunch of light grey "PENIS"es as the background for this page. That way they blend in and it'll be a surprise when someone notices them. That would be funny, but would probably alienate people who aren't perceptive or have a short attention span. (i.e. most people who go to uncyclopedia)

Uncyclopedia's tone: Uncyclopedia is constantly using a sarcastic tone by pretending as though it is wikipedia. This is half of what makes uncyclopedia articles funny. Even if you go here expecting crazy stuff, the good articles still make you wonder whether it's an uncyclopedia article or a wikipedia article. This page goes contrary to that theme. You go to the main page and see the respectable tone contrasted with absurd articles and it's funny. You go here and see a respectable tone...and that's it. There's no punch line. You shouldn't make articles that are this much of an in-joke. Uncyclopedia veterans are a tiny percentage of the overall population. Making articles about topics that anyone is familiar with such that only a few can understand is just setting yourself up for failure.

gg flame on! Ziv 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As you noted, "One way is to make it subtle yet significant such that it's difficult for people to notice". That is what has been done. Did you not notice? Oh, that's right, nobody notices. Just like I don't notice 3 month old comments on a talk page. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11/30 01:09

That only works for things that are blatantly obvious once noticed. It can't be both subtle and serious at the same time Ziv 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, why not? It is serious. Except subtly, it's not. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/1 00:22

YAWN!

This page is boring. Did they just copy it from Wikipedia or something? --RedPooka 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very boring. The link to the example of vandalism is what should be here. --SpiderDave 13:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It initially was, but Famine decided to move it to that subpage and create this boring article. And compare the votes on the two articles. Nobody likes this one. --User:Nintendorulez 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article sucks. --Nerd42Talk 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See the image Ive just made!

Vandalism, as simple as the following.

-- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cue dramatic music... --User:Nintendorulez 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

that is perfect! :) --Nerd42Talk 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha

The external link in the first paragraph no longer works. Thank you. SRXT. {{{td}}}

Request for removal of redlink

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the link to "Vandalism Box." If the page was deleted, it stands to reason that we don't want people to recreate it as something stupid. Thank you. Pentium5dot1 02:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...thank you. Sorry I disobeyed my own philosophy by originally having a wikilink in my comment. Pentium5dot1 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

{{editprotected}} In the section "Spotting vandalism," there is a spelling error in the sentence It's arguable that most (indentified) vandalism has consisted of really quite obvious cases. The bolded word should presumably be "identified." Please examine and correct at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Pentium5dot1 01:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ta for that. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

adding id

Please adding id:Vandalisme thx Borogx 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sucks

and you call this shit "humor"? this sucks!! And i have no sense of humor.

Vote

Can we put this article up for a vote as to whether it should stay the boring in-joke that only poopsocking uncyclopedia moderators get, or whether it can be made into a decent article that anyone could find funny? Ziv 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Penis

Uncyclopedia:Vandalism

It redirects here, which I find to be highly inappropriate for a project page. I propose we start a legitimate page to document what kinds of edits are unacceptable here, as new users such as myself have no other way of determining what kinds of content is not accepted. Outstanding citizen 02:43, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

We have tons of those pages. Read UN:VAIN. -- PLEB SIR Lollipop (TALK) - updated on 12 September 2011, at 02:50

I understand that, but this is a crucial page to have. Outstanding citizen 02:52, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

cy:Fandaliaeth

Please add this to the interlanguage links. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 19:30, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Admit it! it is not that the page is protected, you simply wanted me to become the victim of Abuse Filter 17! The link is added. Spıke Ѧ 19:40 9-May-13

That was quick! Thank you. Using cy: won't trip the abuse filter anyway though, so I don't know what you mean... ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 19:59, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it did (see the tags at Special:RecentChanges), and I got my own warning. Also, I had to put it on the page without the initial colon so it would go in the sidebar rather than into the article. Spıke Ѧ 20:06 9-May-13

no thanks

A lot of us disagree with the current state of the article, and I'm one of those. The 'vandalism' displayed just looks fake. Mildly amusing, but fake nonetheless. An article containing realistic wiki vandalism, probably while also talking about the subject in an encyclopedic style, would be far more appropriate and funny. Two examples of what I'm thinking of. (Yes, I created them, but based off ideas I'd already seen floating around.)

Part of the realisticity would ideally be including other languages, as the Welsh and French versions do, because vandalism can be in any language and its being in a foreign language, i.e. one that is not official to the wiki, also defines it as being vandalism. That's not essential though.

I don't disagree with locking the page if there's an actual problem with not doing so, but to this version? No way. It's not very funny at all. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 17:09, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. I am in accordance here. The vandalism looks too fake. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:25, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Good to see someone who is willing to be seen agreeing. So why don't we unprotect the page already? It can't hurt anything, only make it better. I'd suggest full unprotection because we want IP-style junk in there. Or we could just move Vandalism/example on wheels! to Vandalism and perhaps lock it to a sufficiently tame version (but of course not too tame).

For what it's worth, the unspeakable mirror has a similarly protected and fakey article and I've referenced this discussion on its talk page. However, I will not link to there; obviously. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 20:03, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised this is protected and I agree it shouldn't be. I am afraid I do not have the power to override the protection. Also I took a look at the proposed replacement, I suppose it is better. I can't judge well because I find vandalism really not funny and I can't decide what good vandalism is but if you say it is good I shall back you. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 20:19, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Have to admit I'm not sure what good vandalism is either. There's been some debate on the subject, notably whether half the page should be porn. I suppose 'good vandalism' would at least exclude the sort of thing that gets revision-deleted. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 22:10, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I could unlock the page to registered confirmed users only (no actual new users or IP's), but really we could still end up with something looking like vandalism/example on wheels. So instead, I propose that you copy the source code of this page to someone's userspace, and do a collaboration on it, then I'll copy and paste the result back to this article. The original point of locking this page to admins only was so that we could have an article about vandalism with ironically no actual vandalism in the text. Let me know on my talk page what the consensus on this is. I think unlocking this page to IP's and New users would invite too much trouble on this one. We don't actually want to make the article unreadable. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 01:42, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what the original point was, but the humour in that idea is too subtle for most of us to get. If you'll pardon my asking, who is the 'we' that doesn't want to make the article unreadable? You and Famine? What exactly is wrong with example on wheels? I'm not quite sure what you have in mind for what this article should be. I suppose I'll copy it to my userspace for now and tweak it until we can all be happy. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 02:09, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

There is already an example on wheels for those who want a completely unreadable vandalism page. Part of the point of having a humor wiki is having something that is enjoyable for both authors and readers. Example on wheels is fun for authors; a readable page is beneficial for readers. The original text should still be vaguely discernable amongst the vandalism, kind of like was done in the section about vandalism at Wikipedia. Check out that section and see what you think. Alternatively, I could see replacing this page with an image that shows vandalism sprayed over the text, as is shown above. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:15, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. In fact roughly the same issue was raised here -- there should be an article as well as vandalism. I suppose you're right. Wikipedia#Vandalism is pretty close to what I had in mind but could still be made a tad more realistic. My main complaint was/is that vandalism spraypainted, as opposed to typed, is not what an actual wiki vandal would do, and fails to be sufficiently funny because it's too contrived. Assuming we're in a modicum of agreement here I'll copy the source to User:Llwy-ar-lawr/Vandalism and shape it into my idea of what it should look like. Then you can tell me what you think and if it's any good you can copy it back into here. If it's really no good throw suggestions at me or edit it yourself.

About the irony thing. The absence of self-reference, by itself, is not that much of a joke. If it were, the Wikipedia article on vandalism would also necessarily be funny just because it wasn't vandalised, right? It simply doesn't make sense to most of us to have the joke lie in the absence of vandalism. Besides, there is vandalism -- just not the kind you'd ever find on a wiki -- and the whole thing just comes apart. We have different ways of looking at this, I realise, but we should try to find a way of writing the article that is clearly, or even fuzzily, funny to all of us. I think it's pretty obvious that the mere lack of self-reference is too subtle to get across to anyone except you, Famine and the like. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 17:55, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Category:Pages that look like the things they're about

This article should probably be added to Category:Pages that look like the things they're about, since the page is vandalized, and though not all of the page is vandalized, it is decently small. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoudAbruption (talk • contribs)

No, those are pages for which the theme is imitation, such as the alternate version pointed to in the box. Here, vandalization of the article itself is a running gag in an article that mostly plays it straight. Spıke 🎙️02:49 19-Jan-21