Talk:Main Page/Talk Archives/1

From Wikiality

All of the useless vanities and NWTF articles

Does anyone else think we should have a policy whereby only registered users can create articles? Just wondering. --DeagleSteagle

October 18, 2006 - Yeah, baby!

Plugged by Stephen on the show tonight! We are the rulers of The Internets! --DeagleSteagle

WOOO HOO!!!! WE HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED!! --JesseLangham

I can hardly bear the thrill. Colerbert Worshipper 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you think I feel? My head is still spinning, and its not cause i'm drunk still from celebrating. --uno 18:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Was this the result of your mentioning it to Stephen uno, or was it just a happy coincidence? --JesseLangham

One word - presidential pizza - what is that you say? perhaps reading the article will explain --dmaycovski82

October 17, 2006

I'll be attending another live taping of The Colbert Report tonight. I'll try to ask him to mention the site on air or at least visit the site. I can't wait.--uno 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can always try a sign or a t-shirt. This is the anniversary show, so how about: Wikiality.com wishes you a happy anniversary.

Aww man, I wish I had another day or two, there are a couple of projects that would definately get his attention. Damnitalltohell. Well, it seems if you call him "Your Highness" that gets his attention. Have fun!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the site to him beforehand during the Q&A. He said he's been here, loves the site and hopes it blows up. He then came over to me, asked my name and shook my hand. I take that as a very positive step.--uno 22:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet!!!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My head is swimming. Stephen Colbert has probably read my goofy contributions to a website. That is amazing. -- Kudzu 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

October 10, 2006 Re-skin

I put a new format for the front page, complete with section notes for ease of editing. Please post comments, advice, criticisms, etc. thanks.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Only admins have edit access, and that's good. The colors could be a little more patriotic, but the pastels and tables are a huge improvement in both look and organization. Sooooo cute. ;)--Pro-Lick 06:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to put pics in backgrounds yet...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks a million times better. Perhaps a pic of a flag on the right side of the top content area. I agree that the site should have more of a red-white-blue kind of feel to it like ColbertNation.com --uno 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

Wikiality.net has a pretty good idea on how their main page should look- these wikialities should combine because its been realized that you're both in need of each other. - Johnny wales

Ummm, because I'm largely responsible for the layout, links, terror alert, and background color there, I agree. :) It's not my site, however. I do think the news section I setup there would be a nice addition here. The question about merging depends on whether both site owners would be willing and the Wikimedia software would support it. Both owners seem nice and generally open to ideas. Of course, at the end of the day, sharing the position of Decider in Chief may be difficult.--Pro-Lick 23:45, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

I've sent the owner of the .net an icq, but never got a response. If you want to help me give the main page a makeover, I'd be glad to. Please email me at webmaster - @t - wikiality dawt com

It seems like there is more on this site. I haven't explored their site much, but good grief, there isn't even an entry on Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle yet. --DeagleSteagle

Dictionary-type Entries

Please use the Official Truthiness Dictionary™: Watch What You Say for definitions.

Drop me a line if you have any questions, TALK TO HOMER--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 13:42, 19 September 2006 (PDT)

Wikiality Definition?

I believe Mr. Colbert already provided an excellent definition on his show. Wikiality is the reality we all can agree on. User:tumbleman

Submitted to Digg

http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Colbert_Based_Wikiality_com_Launched

--ASSMAN 19:17, 1 August 2006 (PDT)

Latchkey Kid

Need a new entry:

Latchkey kid or Latchkey child refers to a child that returns from school to an empty home because their parents are away at work, or a child that is often left at home with little or no parental supervision.

Statistics show that Latchkey kids have a high probability of becoming axe murderers later in life. Only mothers staying home with their children can prevent this inevitable result.

-JesseLangham Aug. 03, 19:42:29 UTC

Altogether too facty. I did some revision:

Latchkey kid or Latchkey child refers to the youthful actors and actresses of Sidney Leef Studios' "Latchkey Kids" series of shorts made in the early 1930s as a low-rent competitor with Hal Roach's "Our Gang." Unfortunately, the series never caught on, and Leef was forced by his creditors to instead make a series of child porn loops that, even today, demand top dollar from avid collectors. Despite this monetary success, nearly all of the 13 original "Latchkey Kids" became axe murderers or worse by the time they were 30, with the sole exception of Donna Reed, the 1960s television star, who spent much of her fortune on blackmail payments to the aging Leef.

See how much better it is to work with truthiness? doggies 00:36, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Censorship of Wikiality on Wikipedia

There are literally a couple of Wikifascists who are insulted and hurt by this word, who are not only refusing to add the word, but are even censoring the Discussions! Some of those folks are a real bunch of arrogant idiots, and they are proving that Wikiality exists! They are making total fools of themselves. Wikiality now gets 1,830,000 Google hits. But the Wikifascists are still blocking putting the entry in for Wikiality, thus proving the thesis of the word itself! What is going on, is that the tiny clique of Wikigeeks, is insulted by the SATIRE by Colbert, so they are trying to CENSOR it. But in doing this, they are showing that Wikiality is a real thing. The wikigeeks are trying to say, "Wikiality does not exist" and thus refuse to enter it. Meanwhile, it has close to 2 million entries in 2 days!! WHAT A JOKE. Wikigeeks, you better smarten up NOW, and put Wikiality in, or you are going to be ridiculed forever.

Uh, you do know that this is Wikiality and not Wikipedia, right? Because we don't really have a problem talking about Wikiality. Liberty 02:38, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

yes, that is why it is posted here, as one particular arrogant Wikitool is removing these types of criticisms from the Wikipedia site. Its so funny that by blocking the entry on Wikiality, they are actually proving that the word exists. So by trying to pretend that Wikiality does not exist by blocking it, they are proving that Wikiality exists. So Colbert's writers hit the nail on the head. I bet the founder of Wikipedia is the one who sent orders to block the word, as he has commented that he would unblock Stephen Colbert's username if he apologizes for what he did! I think they will be forced to capitulate at some point. Colbert and his writers did a good job with this one.

Yeah I was witnessing that also, it pissed me off and I protested -along with endless others- in the discussion page, but they won't budge. Fuck you wikitards. --Assman 04:04, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

I didn't know much about the inner working of Wikipedia until the other night. I enjoy the Colbert show, and saw the piece on Wikiality. Noticing how the Wikidiots were behaving, I looked into it a bit more. Wikipedia is a joke, and it overrun by a bunch of jackasses. I predict Wikipedia goes belly-up sooner than later. It was a social experiement, and it has failed. Its a piece of junk.

As a wiki editor and huge fan of Colbert, I resent your ignorant comment. Wikipedia is a most extraordinary concept and has and will redefine how human administration can be handled and resolved through group participation and co-intelligence. I do agree that the current AfS process at wiki is faulty, and I adore Colbert's satire about it, but your comments are based on ignorant understandings of What wikipedia is and what it has to offer14:14, 4 August 2006 (PDT)User:Tumbleman

Personally, I think Wikipedia has failed as an encyclopedia and lately has been getting significantly worse rather than improving. Despite all the hippie rhetoric, it basically boils down to a free for all where might makes right. My opinion is based on several years editing there, not on ignorance or a lack of understanding of the concepts behind Wikipedia. There are others with similar opinions. [1] - 81.179.69.230 18:11, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

Tumbleman, is a typical, arrogant Wikiasswhipe, who's only trade is personal insult attempts. Any type of comment like he made here, would be instantly deleted from Wikipedia. I actually can see how Wikipedia works quite clearly. You have the founder, who's idea of "free knowledge" is idiotic, its not going to work. What has happened to Wikipedia, is that a small group of fanatics take over certain areas of it. Those who are fanatical, or just sit in front of a computer all day, build up their Admin privileges, and then these losers let that "power" go to their head, and delete anything they disagree with, on the topics they care about. So any type of subject with controversy, gets taken over by those who are most fanatical about that idea, while claiming to be "objective". It is EXACTLY like Colbert and his writers have stated. WIKIALITY. A small group of fanatics makes pronouncements about what they think is "true" and then begin to believe it. They even lie openly, as one can see in the Wikiality discussion, which they also freely censor. Sure, some of the Wiki folks are ok, but many of them are basically psychos and wackos, who love to spend hours a day editing their own articles, for their own reasons. The top two clowns at Wikipedia are not fit for the job. Wikipedia is dead, I predict it will either go belly up, or get sued into nothingness, or get completely taken over by Scientology or something, if it hasn't already. Groups like Scientology would LOVE to control something like Wikipedia, and they would send their drones to try and take it over. Just watch!

So far, we've had vandal attacks, disagreements, and more thrown at us, and we're still standing. Hey! Look at that! We haven't even had an admin to protect topics or anything of that sort. In the end, the majority has come to a consensus, and everything has straightened out. I think that this is a very good demonstration of what Wikipedia hoped to accomplish, but got disrupted by the Communist Left. --Paranoia 18:57, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

also, this Jimmy Wales guy obviously sent the order down to BLOCK the entry for Wikiality, as evidenced by the moronic "arguments" put forward by the Wikigeeks for not including it. Jimmy Wales has stated that Stephen Colbert is blocked from Wikipedia until he apologizes. So this is the kind of person Jimmy Wales is, very dishonest and petty, as can be seen in how Jimmy Wales tried to cut Larry Sanger out of the credit for founding Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales sent the order down to block the Wikiality entry, as it is a valid criticism of Wikipedia. Some of the people who have worked there for years and quit, say its become like a religious cult or sect, and that is obvious when you look behind the scenes. I bet Jimmy Wales will figure out a way to sell it, or sell parts of it, to get some cash out of it and then run.

Actually, Jimbo took an interview with MTV about the issue. Why would he take interviews if he was trying to hush it up? And why do you think Jimbo "sent the order down"? What reason do you have to believe that? Jimbo's also sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into the project without seeing a return, has released all content for public distribution, and is only one of five members of the Wikipedia board. Considering there's a staff of, what, three people? You say it's "obvious when you look behind the scenes" that Wikipedia's become a "cult"; I'm wondering what view "behind the scenes" you have. Finally, as Stephen has said, Wikipedia's a great resource. This isn't an anti-Wikipedia web site; that would be disagreeing with Stephen, the greatest truthiness resource we have. Sorry, I was wrong: "finally" is, sign your comments with four tildes. Liberty 15:17, 5 August 2006 (PDT)

You realise that Stephen Colbert (the comedian not the character) obviously has a negative opinion of Wikipedia right? And Jimbo has almost certainly profited from the publicity caused by Wikipedia and its spillage onto his commercial projects. - 81.179.69.230 23:14, 6 August 2006 (PDT)

Why does he "obviously have a negative opinion of Wikipedia"? And what projects in particular are you referring to? And if he wanted to make money, why wouldn't he just go back to being an options and futures trader, a career from which he became independently wealthy in six years? And you still haven't told me why Jimbo would take an interview with the media on an issue that you say he's trying to hush up. Liberty 00:21, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Agreed that Colbert is a Wikipedia fan, otherwise he and his staff wouldn't know exactly how to tweak the wikians' sense of self-importance. His antics have created a lot of busywork for them, but the ones who howl and complain -- the real deadweight on the project -- don't realize that everything SC has done is for their own good -- the wiki can only emerge stronger. doggies 00:50, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

When did I say that he was trying to hush anything up? And when did I say that Jimbo's primary goal was to make money? You're one of those guys that can't differentiate between people with differing opinions from yours, aren't you? And assume that everyone that disagrees with you must all be in the same boat and hold the same beliefs? Colbert's main target of satire was the Bush administration, but he was clearly criticising Wikipedia at the same time (not that it matters much in relation to Wikiality), but once again due to your obtuse nature you failed to understand, just as you fail to understand the concept of this Wiki. - 81.179.69.230 02:22, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

Wikipedia is NOT going to fail. It gets millions of hits a day. It's a website that shows facts from books and facts from books ONLY. It's not corrupt, we all saw how quickly they blocked the elephants thing. They're there to preserve facts, we're here to preserve Truthiness. I just wish they'd stop putting Wikipedia articles on here. Doing that is just being hypocritical. I'm currently trying to fix the entry on the Colbert Report. - AeroCooper 03:28, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

GNU FDL

This article has been put On Notice.

Please alter it so there is more Truthiness or it will be Dead To Me.
Reason: Spewing Untruthiness.

People, if you copy content from Wikipedia, you need to cite Wikipedia as the source, as its text is only released to you under the terms of the GNU FDL. Otherwise you do not have any right to copy it. You probably also need to then re-release it under the GNU FDL, but I'm no expert. Please go to Wikipedia and read the license at the bottom of the page.

You've been put on notice. --Paranoia 15:43, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

Nailed him! --Buddydave 15:47, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

Okay, I get it. You're trying to do something like Uncyclopedia. How... original of you. Except they don't break the law. Neither does Colbert, now that I think of it. But whatever. Have fun.

I'm pretty sure that we're protected under the 'parody' concept. Just like Weird Al. He gets permission from the artists, but legally, he's under no obligation to. What are you doing here anyway, factstapo? ComebackShane 16:40, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

We're not breaking the law. This is an open-source project, like Wikipedia. We have no control over what gets put here, and cannot always ascertain the copyright status of the documents. It is not the fault of the site if a user posts something in violation of the copyright. Don't believe me? Check the YouTube lawsuits. And this could also fall under the "Fair Use" clause, as well as parody, as ComebackShane said. --Paranoia 16:42, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

I don't like your Attitude, Mister.

Reason: you are a dumbass.

I've tried to comply with the notice I got involving Jon Stewart and replied to the person from wikipedia to comply. If I'm still in violation anywhere, I'd like to know where and I'd like it fixed ASAP.

News/current events section

How about having one under the external links as a sub-grouping. We're up to 13 news articles according to Google. More if you count stuff like Slashdot and Fark:

"Within a day, Colbert's report had hit some of the Net's geek nerve centres, Slashdot.org and Fark.com. Wikipedia's protection log was recording ongoing attempts at vandalism." - [Within a day, Colbert's report had hit some of the Net's geek nerve centres, Slashdot.org and Fark.com. Wikipedia's protection log was recording ongoing attempts at vandalism." - Toronto Star - a Canadian newspaper

That's the most recent article. And Wikipedia has setup an ongoing discussion page that's very long and proves that wikiality is in fact the new truthiness of the wordonistas.--Pro-Lick 16:14, 8 August 2006 (PDT)

I can be contacted in several ways:

Email webmaster -@t - wikiality.com

ICQ 111914

MSN unozmailaddy@juno.com

AIM Da Orgasms --Dauno

This Site Needs Direction

This site is currently lacking in direction. I, personally, would like to see something along the lines of [HRWiki] that has notes on shows, detailing what happened during the broadcast. These show pages would include:

The notes on the intro (i.e. the opening before "this is The Colbert Report," the word in the opening sequence {Lincolnish, Megamerican, Grippy})

Talking points for the day's news

Recurring Spots (i.e. the word)

Special Features (i.e. Balls for Kidz, Better Know a District)

Guests

Again, I'm still learning wiki and working on it. I've been a webmaster for 10 years so I pick up on these things reasonably fast. I'll try to add new features and spruce up the site as quickly as I can. --Dauno

An actual transcript of each show would be out of the question. Also, I am not saying that the current pages should be scrapped. They are important to the site; however they are currently random. I think the biggest problem with this idea is finding all of the old episodes. [YouTube] has some of the old episodes uploaded, but we may have to delve into the depths of the [torrent sites] to get the rest.

I am putting this idea out there in hopes that others agree that the site is lacking direction. What do you think? Is this idea too ambitious? Should the site not move in this direction at all? Or should this website be a passing fad taken over by the anti-establishment Geraldos of the world? --Fuzzy 1157CMT, 10 AUG 06

Fuzzy, there are already sites and blogs that do this kind of stuff. We could summarize and link to them in an article or 2 such as "episode lists", "transcripts", etc. Wikiality is an encyclopedia. Not the big-ass factinista kind. Getting into the exact notes of what Stephen did or did not say on each show is infringing upong the truthiness that one experiences in one's gut experiencing the word of Stephen directly from the TV.--Pro-Lick 10:10, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Pro-Lick, I still feel like this website is lacking in direction. If it continues to be pulled in 100 different directions, it will not last. That would be a shame. This website has A LOT of potential.

I understand that this is a satiracal website; however, are we just quoting Colbert or are we making our own satire? If we are making our own satire, then why do pages like a bar in Kansas get erased, whilst others like Jagermeister live on? If we are ever going to be one of the three sites Colbert visists, we must have a path to get there. Currently this website is a random assortment of Colbert-related quips and confusion. We, as a community, need to write a mission statement for this site, or better yet a consistition. It is what our Four Fathers would want! --Fuzzy 1409CMT, 10 AUG 06

Well I think we're using Colbert and his "truthiness" as a jumping off point to additional satirical concepts; first and foremost I see this as a "If Wikipedia were run by Stephen Colbert" site; as if this site saw the world the same way the Stephen Colbert 'character' does. This in no way inhibits new creativity, and I think enhances it by giving us an idea of where we're working from, and going to. As far as the "bar in kansas" and the like go, they seem to be there just for the sake of being there. Adding "so-and-so frequents [[a bar in Kansas]] and that page not having any meaningful or satirical content seems rather pointless to me.

Again, this is just my point of view, but I think that the "truthy" viewpoint of Stephen Colbert is the best lens to view this site through, and ultimately the one that will make it worth visiting. ComebackShane 12:53, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

New Logo?

Anyone think we nned a new logo? I made one, it includes Colbert, of course, with his favorite expression, the raised eyebrow. It also has the word "Wikiality", something the current logo dosen't. Plus, it's "fair use" and all that crap. I'm not sure if you need to be an admin to change the logo, but I do know uploading things under the name "Wiki.png" will change it. I'll upload it with a different name, and put it right here. Aido2002 22:40, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

Possible new logo.

I like the current one. --Assman 22:48, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

I can't say I completely disagree with you, except, look at it (the old one)... it doesn't look... logo-ish. Aido2002 02:54, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

I like the current logo. It makes me happy to see Stephen giving me the thumbs up everyday. I like this one too, but I think it needs more thumbs-up-atude --Fuzzy 14:23, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

I'd toss up some text on that picture, but I don't want to cover any part of Stephen. --Dauno

Another idea...Aido2002 00:38, 28 August 2006 (PDT)

Another idea.

unfortunately that wouldn't fit into the logo area. It can be scaled down

I like most of the logos, including the current one. The only one I don't really like is the hexagon thing. If we have Wikiality in it, we should do the W the way the C in Colbert gets done - oversized. It would also seem smoother if the background was transparent so it could blend in with the backgrounds. I can hack something out, but whoever did this probably should be begged for their talents:

--Pro-Lick 21:51, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

The logos look good, but I think they should include the motto: A Truth we can all agree on. (or whatever the exact wording is) Also, we could have people vote on them, like they do at Uncyclopedia--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:36, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, truthiness has to go. I'd like the motto if it would fit and not look like Africa overpopulated with elephants (which I heard somewhere it is). Maybe on the t-shirts we sell to takeover the Internets and create "a reality we can all agree on".--Pro-Lick 23:23, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

I like the new logo but who ever shrunk it made it fuzzy (and not the good kind of fuzzy). I am also fairly sure that it isn't the correct size. The logo is located here. I think that it has to be ftp'd in, so it was probably done by Dauno. --Fuzzy 15:18, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

I'm still in the bahamas. If someone can resize the proper one and reupload it so it fits/looks better, that would rock. The max height for this template is 155px. -- Dauno

I added 2 transparent versions at 155px, adjusted without distorting Stephen's head proportions (GIFs because JPEGs appear not to support transparency), both without the fuzzy slogon. I'll try again when there's a little more vertical space to work with. Both feature goodies in Stephen's gray matter, but may not be enjoyable at this size.--Pro-Lick 17:57, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Uncyclopedia

This site looks like Uncyclopedia (a Wikipedia parody). Only with a better sense of humour. I hope it keeps getting bigger! 71.31.157.7 14:09, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

What would you like done?

Uh, I didn't mean anything specific. I just hope it keeps growing.

its growing more and more every day. We have some really talented people here who contribute articles that help further the satire and Stephen's truthiness.

I agree. Uncyclopedia is too cynical and tries too hard to be funny simply to get a laugh. It even admits that on its about page. We should consider the licensing agreement they use. It obviously protects them from Wikipedia licensing whiners. It would also provide some additional protection to the creative contributions here while still letting them be freely abused elsewhere on the Internets. Growth and size is here, now we need a bit more speed to keep up. Anybody know how to start a 527 organization? We can call it Americans for a Free Reality. (Copyright 2006 Pro-Lick, all rights reserved.)--Pro-Lick 16:06, 29 August 2006 (PDT)

I agree about UN, they are funny at times, but when they aren't it is so very, very bad. How about: "Americans for an American Reality" (Copyright 2006, WatchTVEatDonutDrink Beer, LLC, All Rights Reserved)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 13:34, 30 August 2006 (PDT)

Hmmm, we need truth or free or veteran in there some place. Veteran Americans for a Free Reality. We can always create specifc "action" funds with modifications like American Truth Action Fund. I wanted to use unfiltered, but that's just another way to say free. Technically, we can create as many organizations as we want which than all "support" wikiality. So we could also have Americans for God's Reality, etc.

True, they could all be called: The Coalition of the Willfully Ignorant of Reality. One of them could be: Swiftboat Veterans for America's Reality. Hell, we could just plug in a few choice words, and have a computer randomly pick a new name for us every day!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 09:15, 3 September 2006 (PDT)

Wikia merger

Right now, Wikia does not link to us or return search results for us. Except:[2]

  1. Rejected wiki requests (34,754 bytes)
     391: #wikiality: can start at scratchpad

Are we building up toward a huge, glorious announcement or is this software?--Pro-Lick 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this with Wikia and should hear back from them shortly. --uno 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Login

I'm having problems with the login. It keeps forgetting me even though I tell it to remember.--Pro-Lick 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this still happens. Seems to be that if I go to wikiality.com instead of wikiality.wikia, it forgets me even though I still end up here.--Pro-Lick 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be fixed as of 10/8.--Pro-Lick 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's broken again 10/9.--Pro-Lick 15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it working for you now? It has seemed fine for me for a while.--uno 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam Protection Images

Some of the letters are unreadable (at least on a 1600x1200 19 inch screen). Not all the time, but frequently enough to be annoying. Did you actually have problems with automated spam reading 4 letter graphic images in a more readable type?--Pro-Lick 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked them to fix or change this. --uno 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Now the logo is gone (has been for over a day).--Pro-Lick 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Visible again as of 10/9.--Pro-Lick 15:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone named "Splaka" or something like that changed the image used as the logo.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Sparkla to enlarge the text a bit and make "The Truthiness Encyclopedia" a bit bigger and easier to read. --uno 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Except for the contracts being signed, its pretty much done. There are some more refinements and customizations that still need to be made or redone, but I'm happy with the direction we're going in.--uno 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am admin of colbert.wikia.com, a non-parody site for Stephen Colbert. A while back I was told that wikia.com were thinking of subsuming my wikia with wikiality.com content. I of course pointed out to uno that the content of the two sites is completely different. I eventually persuaded wikia admin to see it that way too, as no further requests for compliance have been received. Pulp 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Offsite Links

The main page is protected. I moderate the site known as Official Stephen Colbert Love Association, or OSCLA, and I would like the link updated as follows: OSCLA

Thanks Pulp 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

the nerve of Wikipedia!

My addition to US History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_Channing) has ben deleted from Wikipedia because...shudder...they could find no cross reference to it in the Library of Congress or any other source? Why do they hate America? How could they not want another historical figure associated with that great American achievement: the underground railroad? Wikipedia doesn't care about black people!

Here's the original article, picked up by another "truthy" site: (http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-channing).

Help me keep America free and racism a thing of the past. I'm banned from Wikipedia, but you can do something! Create cross references for Freedom throughout the Internets. Live, Free!