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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Laff alert.svg This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally. In case you didn't see the nice little italicized note at the bottom of the page, and are coming here to rant about us all being homophobes, this page is intended to be humourous - it is satire, so laugh, dammit!
Votes for deletion This article was previously nominated for deletion. Before doing so again, please review these discussions.

Contents

[edit] TEST

Pardon me while I practice typing here using my gay friend's enormous penis.

Why the hell are you doing that?
Because I want to see if it will work.

[edit] Why don't we implemment some of these suggestions?

Proposal: In the recent changes list, if an edit trips one of the following conditions then it will appear in red.

  • Any character is repeated 4 times or more (e.g. "aaaa")
  • The word "test" appears
  • The word "gay" appears
  • If an entry that was at least 3kb before the edit, lost half or more of its size.

- Lotsofissues



This page is merely a parody of other unwiki proposals to restrict access to Wikipedia. It's a fun joke, and I've tried to make sure it doesn't come across as homophobic. That said, it has a good chance to attract the enthusiastic attention of the same [mouthbreathers] it makes fun of. If that's the case, I'd like to see it deleted. --Evan 23:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well at first I thought this was a proposal is disallow my friends to edit. But then I read the page and got the joke. :) --mav 05:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like that idea about flagging edits like that so they stick out in recentchanges. --22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this nonsense? It's beautiful! Evan? Never heard of you. No matter: you are instantly evelated to my "always read what this person writes, he's good" list. Tannin - 05:05, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. B-) --Evan 20:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And I'm afraid i would have to agree. - en:user:Celestianpower
Restricting the flamboyant typing students from using more than 4 instances of a certain character in a row is most likely to lead to discrimination of friends of fat people who need to state the size of their friends' clothing out loud - not to mention friends of individuals with xxxxl penises. --anon. coward.

All I can say about this revision is: Knock it off, Mom! You're embarassing me! --Evan 20:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also: the note about Wikipedia running out of letters cracked me up. ---Evan 20:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

likewise 24.190.96.44 14:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that peple shud hav to sine that leter to rite on here. Insted you shud make the note on the top more clearer to make ser you do not do such stuf. It is OK if you ar lerning how to type, or ar curius, or gay or no sumbudy gay, just make ser thay do not rite about it on the Wikipedia. And that shud be a note on the top insted, not a leter you hav to sine to do it.

I moved the following comments from the article : chocolateboy 13:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On a less parodic note- there are some more fine-grained Anti-vandalism ideas around ;-) - Gwicke 01:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Opportunist! --Evan 08:07, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
=>;-)) Anthere
There's a fine line between trolling and humor, and you have both feet firmly over that line (not sure which side! ;-) --Ed Poor
Who cares which side, we're all enjoying ourselves!

Note that there are exactly zero vandalism instances that say, "I AM VERY GAY"

I'd just like to say that this edit apparently proves this observation false. Raul654 08:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As does this one. Raul654 21:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also this. Professor Fiendish 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've changed "exactly zero" to "almost no", so this should be more accurate now. ;) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see happen is possibly having checks on all submitted articles to see what kind of changes were done. Say, a huge article gets written down to 10 words or less it would automatically get rejected as an edit. just a suggestion --AppleBoy 04:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with a sanity check like this is it would reject the turning of a page into a redirect after it was merged with another. Boffy b 20:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

maybe one solution would be to open a typing school as part of wikiversity... The bellman 02:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not simplify this rubbish stuff to "those who have any friends at all are not allowed to edit"? :p I would easily qualify. :-) 217.171.129.72 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this here?

It only refers to Wikipedia - why isn't it there? 210.50.25.36

[edit] happy?

Doesn't gay mean happy? Gerrit 15:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I expect you know English as a foreign language :). Gay used to mean happy, but now that use is archaic. It now means w:en:homosexual. R3m0t 21:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Let's now make it the eighth word you can never say on TV. Professor Fiendish 05:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] LOOK AT THIS PAGE

This title cannont be real i have no ide where to comment on this

[edit] Confusion

I'm confused, is this a discussion?

No, it's a joke. Hence the Category:Humor tag. Angela

[edit] I don't see the point in this.

If this is supposed to be a real discussion, please change the title to sometime less offensive. There are other types of vandalism, as listed on the article, so the title shouldn't refer to just the last given source of it.

When I first saw the title I was actually a bit shocked and thought the title itself might be a result of vandalsim. But having read the article, I must say that it's very witty, and the title is entirely justified by the context. DrKinsey 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, if this is supposed to be a joke, I can only wish the creator would show some maturity and compassion. Ryan 08:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a rather amusing tongue-in-cheek joke (and a rather old one at that). Raul654 22:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Wait, so this guy is suggesting that if it's a real discussion to ban bad typists, curious people, and friends of gays, that's peachy-keen as long as they change the title. But if it's a joke, he wishes the creator would show some maturity and compassion? I'm sorry sir, did you mean to reverse those? Because your priorities seem pretty backwards to me. --66.18.231.70 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a point, it is satire. Laugh and move on.

And when I first saw the title, I thought, "Oh, goody, something funny to read!" And sure enough, I was right. Some personality types just do not understand certain types of humor. As long as they keep this problem to themselves and don't flaunt it, by trying to squelch everybody else's good laugh, I have no problem. --Queezbo 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] teh funny.

This is one of the funniest post in the Humour cat, very clever too... kudos to the writers =D. - 202.7.176.134 01:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's just superb :-D --194.226.235.251 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the best thing I have ever seen on a wiki. —Frungi 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Test

Testing testing 1, 2, 3...

Does this thing actually work??

Hy! Thr must b a vandal diting, bcaus Mta sms to hav run out of 's!

[edit] Whoops

Re: this edit summary - stupid firefox autocomplete. Raul654 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Borgx, this is a humor page. Anthere 14:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROTFLMAO!!!

I was led to this page via a wikipedia link, and couldn't stop laughing for ten minutes after I read it! :D 139.55.52.11 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humour Notice

I felt that too many people weren't bothering to read the whole article and see that italic note at the bottom, so I added a (humourous) explanation at the top of the talk page. That should cut down on the number of confusions. -Jetman123 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In the process ruining a lot of the humor in a very funny article. People who don't have a sense of humor won't be helped by the notation that this is a joke. People who do have one, would rather not be told it's going to be funny. Sbharris 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refutation of the principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Becket&diff=47812158&oldid=47810847. Sam Korn 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that, while the article claims gays and lesbians are "exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors," it makes no such assumption in regards to LESBIONs.
Indeed, proud, vandalising LESBIONs have been known to run rampant many a time. 69.211.125.101 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Look further up this page at my comments from way back in July 2004 - "I'd just like to say that this edit apparently proves this observation false" Raul654 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it was changed to almost none since then. And to be fair, it is fairly accurate there are very few people who feel the need to announce their sexual orientantion via vandalism but a lot of people who feel the need to annouce their friend's/teachers's/whoever's. This one [1] is a poor e.g. since it sounds like disruption to prove a point to me :-P Indeed I strongly suspect the Ellie Doherty example is a friend who has poor English skills and doesn't know they shouldn't write in the first person if they're referring to a friend not themselves... So we only have one good e.g. so far :-P Nil Einne 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to edit summaries?

Does anyone think this page would be improved by adding links to edit summaries supporting its arguments? (Not counting ones from this page, that would be a bit silly.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


In addition, vandalism is kinda gay. (User: J. Th. on swedish wikipedia)

Even if all vandalism enjoyed romantic exchanges with the opposite sex, I don't believe that its sexual orientation determines its quality. 66.82.9.76 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like to point out

I absolutely approve of the title of this page. -b 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like to point out

If it's meant to be funny, it fails miserably. -71.224.12.181 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed this, but not everyone in the world shares the same sense of humour. Sorry about that, mate, but a lot of people actually do think this article is funny, myself included. 99.243.164.126 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good one!

Note that there are almost no vandalism instances that say, "I AM VERY GAY" or "I, Anita Flugelhorn, appreciate a good roll in the hay every once in a while with a member of my own sex." It can be inferred that gays and lesbians are exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors, and only some of their very proud but misguided acquaintances feel the need to broadcast their friends' sexual orientation.

I loved this part. :) Congrats to whoever wrote this article, it's very funny! Raystorm in en.wikipedia 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so not true!!! --Anita Flügelhorn 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More appropriate places

There are joke wiki and ones completely devoted to satire. This probably isn't good enough to go on most of them. Personally, I don't think it belongs in this wiki. I understand the desire to satire stupid users and vandals, but it lowers the quality of the site. However, I'll let those of you who are more active contributors decide. --CocoaZen 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humornotguideline

The {{Humornotguideline}} at the head of the article makes this page much less funny. I've left the template but moved it to the very bottom of the page. —Benjamin Mako Hill 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. I'm going to kill it again. Sbharris 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dig it

w:WP:LGBT is linking to this now.[2] Please make sure you drop a notice to w:WT:LGBT if there is ever a deletion discussion on this. Coelacan 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's thanks to that link that I read this essay. It is hilarious! I'm amazed at the humor-challenged individuals who don't get it. Sad for them. Thanks Coelacan, or whoever added the link to w:WP:LGBT and thanks to Evan for composing it! Aleta 02:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ha Ha Ha

Very funny! Now what are we going to do about the vandals? --Chris Grant 10:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One sort of vandalists is missing

I really liked this article, but one sort of vandalists is still missing. The vandalists who makes funny edits, like this. //Moralist 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

for those of you who have some foreign language as your mothertongue, and thus have been wondering for the last year and a half what the "funny edit" in the diff. linked by Moralist here is really about - despair no more and quit the Swedish class you've signed on to - here is the Answer: Someone replaced the entry for Earth at Swedish wikipedia with the phrase Mostly harmless. Finn Rindahl 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gays do edit

look [3] there are edits by gays. Does this page need to be updated? 147.161.1.25 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant

I wish some people would learn to appreciate humour. This actually reminds me of the poster for Wadham College's Queer Bop - "Homophobia is Gay!"

Isnt that an insult to people who are actually gay i mean what if i said that i was gay which im not and started using wikipedia to find another women or men so i could tell them some personal info and then they could come over my house to do some buisness ???

[edit] wow, that was hilarious

well, i just said it all with the title--68.157.23.56 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree! The person who wrote the proposal is an absolute brilliant!
Cheers mate!
Aua 10:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with this proposal

I read this proposal with interest, and I can see its potential benefits (even though I, a self acknowledged acquaintance of homosexuals, would have to stop editing). However, there is a faulty assumption. It is stated that no-one is proclaiming their own homosexuality, but as WP:STYLE [4] discourages the use of the first person in articles I would say it's possible, even likely, that many people are merely using the third person, as should be expected in an encyclopaedia. en:User:AlmostReadytoFly

[edit] Wow

I'm amazed they let this article stay up for longer than 5 seconds. :P --NightKev 22:04, 13 February 2008 (GMT-8 / UTC-8)

[edit] Get rid of 3 new sections

Cut it back to the original five categories of vandals. Much funnier that way. Of course the essay leaves a lot of vandals out. That's a good thing. 208.120.198.119 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meta Critique

This page is bad and you should feel bad.

I feel rather well, thanks. --Dweller 12:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Poop"

I laugh every time I see this page, but do feel that "poop" vandals are now so common on English Wikipedia at any rate, that they may be deserving their own subcategorisation. --Dweller 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Perhaps we need new rules to keep out scatologists, both professional and amateur. Fishal 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This joke has five sections, not four, and I think we should make it six.

At the bottom of the page, it is mentioned that there are four sections of this apparent "proposal," but unless you guys have some special system of counting, then there are actually five. Also, why not add a section covering "Wiki-haters" that are against Wikis for reasons such as their reliability (people who think that the fact that they can be edited makes them untrustable), people who are angry 'cause they (or one of their friends) got blocked or banned, and people who get mad 'cause they disagree with consensus on a Wiki? GO-PCHS-NJROTC from Wikipedia 67.233.7.159 22:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm... and this?

What about the people, that - uhm... how can I describe it?

It seems to be some kind of tourette-syndrome (my english isn't perfect), but not the ordinary one like:

  • "FUCK!FUCK!FUCK!"
  • "ASSHOLE!"
  • "Dude, Rudolph, you're a NAMES!"

It is more complicated. So that you can understand me, I'd like to begin with my hypothesis: While producing some kinds of information in wikipedia, people with ... THAT syndrome get to start thinking about other subjects. And then they have to write it. And within that we can read:

  • "Mineral water is usually not used to flavour." (Subject: to flavour)
  • "The child blow-dries the umbrella so that it is dry." (Subject: Child)
  • "Even if the violin didn't change much since it's beginnings, there have been many tries of artistic and technical reforms" (Subject: Flagellates)

What about that folks?

Or maybe redirecting the Main Page to w:Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber. Professor Fiendish 05:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How about another group?

The opposite of the critics, the "this __________ is the best EVAR! i love this ________!" editors? Umrguy42 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] German version

There's a German version (intentionally poorly translated) in my userspace...here! Protactinium-231 14:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles"