Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Any objections to adding Truthiness to the See Also: section? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the factual accuracy of this page. However, I don't want to vandalize it, because that would be against the rules and violate consensus.
Instead, as a suggestion on how we could build consensus around this issue, I created a workshop at WP:The truth sandbox. Thank you. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, The Truth is that everyone alive is alive. There's no doubt about it. I'm alive. You're alive. We're alive. Ian ( talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is fucking horrible, why ruin something with so much potential? I hate this page, it contains no valid inforation, and is a joke. Yes it belongs in Uncyclopedia.
Its worthless, and a waste of time.
5 stars! I could've sworn that I was reading one Uncyclopedia's rare well-written articles. Esn ( talk) 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It is koan-like and leads to enlightenment.
Zezen ( talk) 22:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know if someone has an argument against deletion of this article.
From what I can tell, this article fails to comply with any of the requirements listed on
Wikipedia:Humor namely:
1- Neutral POV: The article is an opinion, solely.
2- Until proven otherwise, it constitutes original research.
3- Reliable sources: as there isn't any source listed at all, reliable sources have yet to be found.
4- verifiability doesn't really apply here (because the article doesn't meet the previous three requirements).
Are there any reason this article should be kept?
Olivier Diotte (
talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Olivier Diotte ( talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Especially point 5. Right on the nose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Any objections to adding Truthiness to the See Also: section? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the factual accuracy of this page. However, I don't want to vandalize it, because that would be against the rules and violate consensus.
Instead, as a suggestion on how we could build consensus around this issue, I created a workshop at WP:The truth sandbox. Thank you. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, The Truth is that everyone alive is alive. There's no doubt about it. I'm alive. You're alive. We're alive. Ian ( talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is fucking horrible, why ruin something with so much potential? I hate this page, it contains no valid inforation, and is a joke. Yes it belongs in Uncyclopedia.
Its worthless, and a waste of time.
5 stars! I could've sworn that I was reading one Uncyclopedia's rare well-written articles. Esn ( talk) 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It is koan-like and leads to enlightenment.
Zezen ( talk) 22:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know if someone has an argument against deletion of this article.
From what I can tell, this article fails to comply with any of the requirements listed on
Wikipedia:Humor namely:
1- Neutral POV: The article is an opinion, solely.
2- Until proven otherwise, it constitutes original research.
3- Reliable sources: as there isn't any source listed at all, reliable sources have yet to be found.
4- verifiability doesn't really apply here (because the article doesn't meet the previous three requirements).
Are there any reason this article should be kept?
Olivier Diotte (
talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Olivier Diotte ( talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Especially point 5. Right on the nose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)