5 Responses to “Why are the articles that I edit or write on Uncyclopedia always deleted off?”

1. 
   Moses Says:
   3. September 2010 at 1:14 pm

   Unless you tell us your username on Uncyclopedia, we can’t really answer that question with any specificity. However, the main reasons otherwise-inoffensive articles are deleted there are (a) not funny, (b) vanity, (c) poorly-written, (d) too similar to a pre-existing article (i.e., unoriginal within the Uncyclopedia context).

   If you’re SURE your articles don’t fall into any of those categories, and it’s very difficult to be sure of this, you can still get an article to stick if you do three things:

   1. Make sure the article has a photo or illustration of some kind, preferably a funny one. Upload the illustration first, roughly 4 hours before posting the article itself. NEVER post an article without an image.

   2. Make sure the article is as close to perfect as you can make it before posting it. Post it in one, that’s ONE, edit, and don’t make any corrections or changes to it for at least three days, if ever. However, monitor the situation closely in case someone notices it anyway and tries to have it deleted.

   3. Never, ever, EVER make a series of small changes to one of your articles over a short period of time, if you believe there’s any chance of it being deleted. That only draws the attention of people monitoring the "Recent Changes" feed. Make all your changes in one edit and then go away for at least a few hours, preferably a day or two. Use innocuous edit summaries that say things like, "minor fixes," "tidying,’ or "sp."

   If someone does notice, and "tags" the article for a "VfD" or "ICU," don’t argue too vociferously – that never works. When and if you try again, they have something called "Pee Review" that you might consider using, in the hopes that one of the more established users will constructively advise you on how to be funny, at least in that particular context. (Most of them don’t really know themselves, of course…)

   Finally, I completely agree that since Uncyclopedia was taken over by Wikia, it has declined considerably. But there’s still plenty of pre-Wikia content there that’s worth checking out, if you know where to find it, and if it hasn’t been too badly neutered since then.

2. 
   JIM Says:
   3. September 2010 at 1:14 pm

   I’m told that Uncyclppedia is intended to be a parody of Wikipedia . Anyway, perhaps your posts are considered boring

3. 
   Kohs Knows Says:
   3. September 2010 at 1:14 pm

   It’s probably because the advertisements being run on Uncyclopedia produce revenues that entirely go to the ownership of Wikia, Inc., and none is returned to the contributors who make the content that makes the advertising possible.

   I don’t understand why people would participate in a wiki where they are just being exploited by the management. There are some wikis out there that allow you to insert your own advertising, or link reference sources to Amazon Associates accounts, so that you actually set up a long-term revenue stream as a "reward", if you will, for your editorial contribution.

4. 
   Anthony Says:
   3. September 2010 at 1:14 pm

   It could be because stubs are not really allowed on Uncyclopedia, whereas on Wikipedia stubs can stay stubs for years. If you post a stub to Uncyclopedia, it might be deleted immediately. Or they might give you 7 days to expand it, but if you forget to check it for weeks, they’ll probably be gone by the time you remember about it.

   I’m not saying one policy is better than the other. Or maybe Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia ought to trade policies: if you get slandered with a Wikipedia stub, it could be "huffed," and if you write a gently amusing ribbing stub on Uncyclopedia, it could stay for a while. I don’t know.

5. 
   Ami Says:
   3. September 2010 at 1:14 pm

   Do they have supporting sources?

Leave a Reply