Wikipedia talk:Silly Things/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Next Page Title

Want to help choose the next outrageous title for BJAODN?

Go to Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title.

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title for article size reasons. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New page instructions...

I made a new page instructions page here: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/New page instructions so that the next page title can be easily added using those links on that page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I edit this?

Hey, am I allowed to put my own edits into BJAODN?

Sounds like a questionable practice to me. Kevyn 16:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only if you ask really nicely and give us muffins.

lol my "because they are truly great, and the geniuses behind these impressive jokes must be extremely intelligent" edit is still there... 216.120.137.146 11:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Big page

This page is getting big. Really big. Would it be a good idea to break it up into subpages based on the initial letter of the article from which a bad joke was deleted?

It certainly looks like it's as long as it ought to managably get!

btw, re the last line - Free will is wanted by 11 articles... oh no! What if we give it to them and they stage a revolt and take over the entire Wikipedia! {sorry, I couldn't resist...}

Thank you!

Thank you one and all.... I needed a good laugh tonight! luckymama58

OMG! I love these pages! They are amazing - few other things in the world are as hilariously, outrageously laugh-out-loud funny as this...I truly have big time stomach pains, about to literally roll on the floor laughing - and i haven't even finished the first page! I LOVE IT. Please continue to submit these articles - what undeniably top-notch wacky hilarity.--Chao 00:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Pages going on too long

The new pages have to many jokes on them, some of them have 200, which is to many imo. They used to have just 30 to 50 jokes per page which made it a lot more navigatable.--IvanKnight69 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing for a laugh

I'd love to vandalize a page to make it as funny as possible but of course I DON'T do it (not important)== (from the village pump)

Copy the page, put a m : Category: Humor on it, and vandalize to your heart's content!!--Jondel 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go to Uncyclopedia. MicroFeet 05:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Microfeet's idea is the one I would use. ~Step trip 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This topic has moved

This topic has moved again, this is its new page: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Funny vandalism

Gingerbiskit

Could you please add Gingerbiskit or is it Ginger biskit? (try Both), Big Hard lads of chorley and Monkeys with guns to Bjaodn

From vfd

Add to this deletion debate

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and all BJAODN pages must be deleted immediatelly because it violates the GNUFDL license: When a user creates a new article or submits an edit, he owns the copyright and agrees to publish it under GFDL, which requires attribution. That's why Wikipedia has page historyes. The history of a page is the attribution which assures us that Wikipedia is in legal compliance with GNUFDL. If someone thinks the edit is nonsense, it is deleted and its contents are being transfered to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense by copy and paste. But this is illegal! It destroyes the page history and fails to provide attribution, so badly needed by GNUFDL. At this time Wikipedia has collected a vast amount of content which IS of interest to many people (someone could write a dissertation discussing the nonsense being written in Wikipedia) and FAILS to provide proper attribution to the original author and copyright holder. For these reasons, nonsense pages must not be copied-pasted but moved into a separate namespace, keeping the page historyes. Administrator 21:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... I agree with this idea - does that mean deleting all the old funnies :o( Zoney
Keep, unless our legal team says otherwise. (Drop me a note on my talk page when we get a legal team :) Fennec 22:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If it gets down to copy and paste, we do a fair amount of that as we transfer material between pages on a largely ad hoc basis already- merging articles and what-not, for instance. Furthermore, IANAL but I don't think that this poses any sort of a legal threat whatsoever. And if it does, we can always offer to remove individual jokes. Does anyone *really* care? :) Fennec 23:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Fennec. Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Massive overreaction to a sleeper of a problem that goes beyond BJAODN. IANAL either but IMO any author who tried to assert their copyright over this stuff would get laughed out of court. (;-> Mind you, if there is stuff in BJAODN that shouldn't be there, this could be a problem, as it might be necessary to remove it from the history as well. Cross that bridge when we come to it, but that's a more general problem that may come up some day. Andrewa 23:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Geez Louise. Ashibaka 02:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Fennec. Niteowlneils 02:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. More Fennec agreement -- Cyrius 05:22, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Hephaestos|§ 05:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't really see the point in this. -- Friedo 06:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We'll deal with the lawsuits if they arrive. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. By the same argument, it breaks the license to delete any page or to turn it into a redirect; these destroy page histories or send users to pages with different histories. Smerdis of Tlön 20:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I've already voted keep, but I don't think that making a redirect is the same issue at all. In that case the history is still there, it may be more difficult to access it but it's perfectly possible. In the case we're discussing, the history is lost. This point seems lost on many, judging by the number of times we see merge and delete appearing as a vote. As the deletion policy clearly says, this is not an option (yet). Andrewa 03:12, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. RickK | Talk 02:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We need to keep some humour in Wikipedia even if it is a bit strange -- User:195.92.168.179 15:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Sgeo/BJAODN

I added a link to one of my user subpages where I put in all current BJAODN pages. --Sgeo | Talk 02:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Separating BJAODN content from BJAODN templates

What I want is seperation of the actual jokes from the templates, so the page most people would access would simply have the normal BJAODN templates, and have something like {{{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}/raw}}. The actual jokes would be at the /raw subpage. This would be useful for something like User:Sgeo/BJAODN. --Sgeo | Talk 22:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC). Late addition: I created Template:subpage which could be used like: {{subpage|raw}} --Sgeo | Talk 22:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, your User:Sgeo/BJAODN idea is excellent. I've copied it to the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Bad jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Encyclopaedia BJAODNonica.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to differentiate between content and formatting templates here. It's an unnecessary creation of more work (see: m:Instruction creep) for a Wikipedia maintenance page of decidedly lesser importantance.

Really, it's no biggie if User:Sgeo/BJAODN has redundant headers and so forth. The BJAODN content isn't exactly elegant in the first place. :-) • Benc • 22:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Custom BJAODN

Would it be possible to host a page for BJAODN we made especially for the BJAODN page? KirbyMeister 16:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fictional BJAODN

How about a page where we could put what we would think is funny, but was never added to an article.? --Sgeo | Talk 22:03, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Waaay too much potential to explode into something truly huge. That's actually a good thing, but not for an encyclopedia. Take it to our sister project Wikibooks instead, please. • Benc • 22:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Our wiki, uncyclopedia: collects things like that. I recommend you post there, or with wikibooks, as suggested. --130.245.23.124 18:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN on the comedy Wikicity

I think any future criteria for BJAODN should be transwikied to "The comedy Wikicity" rather than retain it on Wikipedia since Wikicities dosen't have as strict of a policy concerning article styles and content in the article. --SuperDude 19:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Announcement: Wikicomedy just had it first transwiki from Wikipedia: come check it out!. --SuperDude 19:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, previous discussions have shown that users prefer to keep the content on the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia should not be without any humor, games or what not... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it's one thing to argue that something like Wikipedia:Chess championship shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but it's a whole 'nother matter to argue that content which originated on Wikipedia can just be transwikied elsewhere. The argument used ("Wikicities dosen't have as strict of a policy concerning article styles and content in the article") makes no sense either: neither does BJAODN, that's the point. OK, OK, in the particular case of ASCII cows, which never started on Wikipedia to begin with, we could transwiki (though nothing much seems to be gained from this either). But certainly not the main BJAODN pages. JRM • Talk 12:16, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Chess is fine, but this stuff really doesn't make any sense outside of the Wikipedia context. Things that were funny because they were briefly in a Wikipedia article are not necessarily funny in their own right. Please keep this content here. I don't think it adds any value to Wikicomedy. Angela . 05:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about Wikipedia's "policy concerning article styles and content in the article", as BJAODN by definition has been deleted from the article namespace. Copy stuff to the comedy Wikicity by all means, but keep it here and add new stuff here as well. the wub (talk) 12:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh no! You Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense!

Why is Oh no! You Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense! a red link? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's because you pointed it into the article namespace. You have to add 'Wikipedia:' in front of it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question

I can put anything I see funny on these pages right? Oh and I'm not going to put stuff that I wrote on, but if someone wants to see my warning box, it might be BJAODN quality. Rentastrawberry 05:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You can put content from other Wikipedia pages which you consider funny. - Sikon 15:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Global TOC

How about creating a global table of contents for BJAODN, with links to corresponding pages? Of course, there's an option to list all of them on one page, but this is very traffic-consuming. - Sikon 15:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't ever delete this!

This is the best Wikipedia page (of course the links contained on it are the most important, but you get my point). Don't ever delete this page! Matei Tache 6 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Sorry. r3m0t ^talk 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Votes for Transwiki

It seems some people feel this is inappropriate content for Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be more appropriate as a subpage of b:Jokebook? I don't mind doing the transwiki myself, and I'll tidy it all up in the process. Besides, we have content at Wikibooks which we'd like to put in there, and I feel it's inappropriate to put BJAODN from Wikibooks onto Wikipedia. - Aya 42 ^T C 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Calling for Votes for Transwiki (VfT). Choose one of Transwiki or Keep:

Transwiki: More appropriate location. - Aya 42 ^T C 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep: don't bother users who want to put stuff here. Although our archive is large enough already... r3m0t ^talk 21:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Traditions, people, traditions. - Sikon 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How to pronounce BJAODN

Is there a way to correctly pronounce BJAODN? I just say bj(like bzzzz)-ow-done. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 10:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)bay

I must be hanging out with the wrong kind of people, seeing that the topic of BJAODN has never ever cropped up in my everyday conversation and I never saw a need to actually pronounce it :P In internal monologue (stuff like "oh, let's see if there's anything new on BJAODN"), I usually just spell out each letter -- Ferkelparade π 11:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really use it in conversation, just wondering how people say it :). --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 12:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In my head I hear Baja-Odj-en ;) --Neo 14:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pronounce it Bee-Jay-Odon. Pacific Coast Highway 20:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, here in the south, we pronounce it buh-JAO-den. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I mix up all the letters and pronounce it "bad jon", although you say I'm calling it "BAD Jokes (and) Other (deleted) Nonsense". Thryduulf 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Little late to be getting in here, but I'll offer up that the only time I've ever actually mentally pronounced it was in reading the title of Encyclopedia BJAODNinca I came up with an instinctive BUH-joN... a pretty hard N because of the D. Similer to the differences between su and tsu in japanese. subtle, but there. -M^ask 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the correct pronounciation is /bya.on/ - the D is silent, and the J is pronounced like a Latin I. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it's probably actually /byao.dən/. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can actually be bothered to learn IPA, in which case it's something like /bjæ.a.dən/. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggesting taking out the "bad" because it's subjective POV to state quality of jokes and also unverifiable without an IRL study. So JOADN would be Joanne or like J + Odin. DyslexicEditor 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you also suggesting blocking Christian Wikipedians because the Bible doesn't cite its sources? It's just a bit of humour. (Sorry about that, I tend to blurt out random things). Oh, and it'd be JAODN - /dʒæu.dən/, or similar. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe The Bible is a citable source. DyslexicEditor 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's citable, it just doesn't cite it's sources. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's either Yahweh and prophets originally. Then the stories were passed down orally. Then monks copied them by hand for centuries, each with different slighly altered versions. DyslexicEditor 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the books of Kings cite thier sources in other books that were around at the time. But apart from that, the Bible appears to be Original reasearch. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 08:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All research must begin as original research somewhere. DyslexicEditor 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I sorta pronounce it lik "buh-JOW-din" but really quickly so the syllables run together. --Cyde Weys 07:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Its pronounced /bdʒæu.dən/--220.238.253.147 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Or /bʒæun/ if you are a frenchman.--220.238.253.147 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce it "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". However, I have increasingly pronouncing it "buh-jow-din" after reading this! SupaStarGirl 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, OMG GHELAE! I AM YOUR NO 1 FAN!!

Second of all, it's Buh Jow Din. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I add?

~~I'm not sure where to add this, so I'll put it here and let someone else add it~~

From Math Rash (deleted by Redwolf24)

Math Rashes-a red rash in the form of plus, minus, times, division, or equal signs that breaks out on the skin of school children who have been doing too much math in a classroom. The cure for Math Rashes is only one thing, double recess.

Redwolf24 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hacked link broken

The link for "administrator's noticebord:Wikipedia has been hacked" is broken, possibly page no longer exists

Not sure how to add this to BJAODN

There's a stub type up for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion under August 24th. The "Hot Jewish Actress" stub. I don't know how I can add it to BJAODN but I think it's funny enough for inclusion. If I put it on BJA... won't it just dissappear when it gets deleted? Is there any way to make sure it still stays up here? Dismas 09:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dismas, I know of that one. Sorry, I can't help you post it. Stopped by to tell you that, believe it or not, a group of stub types named "Porn Actresses Who Really Excel At Anal Sex" (or suchlike) were also created by its creator, with ratings of 1, 2 and 3, depending on their level of skill. WP'ians who create such items are often referred to with the word "saga" after their names. paul klenk ^talk 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greatest Hoax Article Ever

What is the most convincing hoax article ever placed on Wikipedia? Something that stayed here for a long, long time, or perhaps was up for deletion with everyone completely stumped?

I would love to learn of such examples. Hope you all have some.

paul klenk ^talk 05:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No doubt it hasn't been discovered yet. --Kizor 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
We should all go out and make fake articles, and see how long they last!! and then get bored and forget about them until it ends up on the news and then we get sued for libel!!! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-10 16:47
John Seigenthaler Sr. --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thump25 I'm clearly convinced that it was the Upper Peninsula War article made by user tjproechel it was only up for two weeks, but it structure was the best hoax yet to date. I've reinserted on the page, if anyone can find a more convincing article please feel free to add it to the category. thump25 24:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clever idea: deface the other article

Here's a clever idea: instead of defacing the George W. Bush page, adding offensive remarks or images, do the opposite: Deface the Jackass article, adding the smiling image of our esteemed president. (It was reverted pretty quickly.)
--GraemeMcRae^talk 03:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bad joke, that's just stupid. Bush isn't a Democrat. --Kitch 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN? More like BJODN!

Why is the "A" in the acryonym? A is a word that doesn't get capitalised or abreviated unless it is the 1st word--Benol 21:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"And", I think you mean. Actually, since the "nonsense" isn't even deleted, the whole name is arguably wrong. Who cares? It's BJAODN. :-) JRM • Talk 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It IS deleted from one place AND recopied elsewhere. "RADAR /reɪdɑɹ/, from RAdio Detection And Ranging," from Acronym and initialism. So "And" is perfectly legitimate to use. On the other hand if it is either nonsense or a bad joke why is it here? to laugh at. How bad can the joke be if its good enough to save for others to laugh at? WAS 4.250 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this belongs here

See for your self. [1] Pacific Coast Highway|^{Spam me!}

No, It's neither a bad joke or nonsense which has been deleted. I think it should be at True Facts and Other Deleted Prose. --l E ☺N2323 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian reporters are reading BJAODN

Is this the first time BJAODN has been referenced by the press? - Banyan Tree 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

SbOCl

This user purges violently both upwards and downwards.

Created by User:Grm wnr. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-10 17:01

New idea for how to gently convince pranksters to stay off of Wikipedia

I created a new template:

This way, when you tell someone "please don't post your jokes here, there are other sites for that stuff," you can also give them a shiny box to click on so that they know where to go to post their nonsense in peace. This is not intended to dry up the well of new content for BJAODN (nothing short of a fascist revolt will do that), but rather to dry up the complaints that come when the BJAODN is deleted from the encyclopedic portion of Wiki. --M @r ē ino 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN main page proposal

In the listing of pages, I think the current one should be listed first and in bold, so people know first to post new stuff there. --Kitch 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia BJAODNonica

Yeah, that's right. Following this link does give you this:

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 52428800 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 7078117 bytes) in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/MagicWord.php on line 295

I think maybe we should just delete the link. It's weak... and BJAODN's outgrown it. ;-) -LambaJan 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Locking

I think locking the BJAODN page so only registered users can edit it should be considered. Sometimes anons will add stuff on here just for kicks even if it was nevera added to an article. --D-Day ^{Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody!} 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Don't their additions qualify as bad jokes? -LambaJan 04:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not offical BJAODN. It's supposed to be for stupid additions to articles. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Number 41: So Long, and Thanks for All the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Assuming this a reference to the hitchhiker's series this should really have been 42--Greasysteve13 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

XD ya that would have been much funnier. Unfortunately that didn't happen... -Jetman123 10:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is This Fair?

Question: how can Wikipedia possibly claim objectivity when its articles have names like "In Soviet Russia, Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense Delete You!" and most of the other titles refer to Western pop culture?

It doesn't have articles with those titles. This is in Wikipedia space (hence the "Wikipedia:"" part of the title). So it's not an article. In any case, if you want to propose non-western-based titles, go ahead on the proposal page! Grutness...wha? 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new BJAODN-related page

I'd like to create a page titled something like Wikipedia:Weird titles from deleted articles, for articles that have been deleted but whose titles are either surreal or just plain strange. It was prompted by two articles currently on AFD: List of magical negroes and Allah-Kitten controversy. I thought I'd better suggest it here since it could easily become a fork of BJAODN. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles. --WikiSlasher 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops found out you were the creator. This's what happens when you respond to 11-month old comments! --WikiSlasher 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates?

I think it would be really handy to put the start and end dates of each BJAODN so we kind of know the timeframe of where the jokes are coming from in time-sensitive issues, such as the 2004 presidental election (I ran across it whne reading BJAODN #17) - Hbdragon88 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

That the "BJAODN 42:" be removed from the current title. Redundant, doesn't need to be part of the actual title, and might not have originally intended to be such. At the very least the "BJAODN" part has got to go. Morgan Wick 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikia

In addition to (or instead of) the Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense collection on Wikipedia itself, it may be advisable to create a Wikia, formerly known as a Wikicity (or you could use another wiki host) to house them, in line with the Wookieepedia and the Uncyclopedia. scienceman 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SUGGEST RENAMING: URGENT!

Some of them are good jokes. Not all are bad. I suggest this section be renamed to "Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". I'm not sure how to go about making this an official vote. Any ideas? DyslexicEditor 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is itself a joke, judging by the userpage :) -M^ask 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am serious. Wikipedia should not label the quality of a joke. DyslexicEditor 05:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately we don't keep it because all of the jokes here are "bad", we keep it because that's the way it started - it's tradition, you see. And if we renamed it, that would mean all the jokes involving BJAODN (Encyclopedia BJAODNica, etc) would not be funny. -Jetman123 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

yo sup

wat lvl of languag allowed? many of my jokes got swear words lol

Well this isn't an indiscrimate collection of jokes. These are things that got posted or created in articles, or other areas of Wikipedia and were deleted, or otherwise noteworthy here.--Adam

^(talk) 12:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And from the look of things, BJAODN is even more not censored. -- Filliam H Muffman 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Featured Bad Joke And/Or Other Deleted Nonsense

Like a featured article, but instead a featured Bad Joke And/Or Other Deleted Nonsense? Maybe a pretty green box or something, like the mainpage. --Dwiki 10:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN 44

Two things I thought when I saw that:this hadn't much support... and if BJAODN 42 is BJAODN 42: The Answer..., why is BJAODN 44 not BJAODN 44: You gotta ask yourself a question...? igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Because "The Answer to Bad Jokes, the Universe, and Other Deleted Nonsense" is modifying "BJAODN 42". You can picture Deep Thought saying: "The Answer to Bad Jokes, the Universe, and Other Deleted Nonsense is... BJAODN 42!" But Dirty Harry wouldn't say: "The You've gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel like Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?' Well, do ya, punk? is... BJAODN 44!" -- Filliam H Muffman 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Announcing new BJAODN-like page

Further to my proposal above (see: Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#Suggested new BJAODN-related page), I am pleased to announce Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles - or WP:DAFT for short (yes, the word freaky was deliberately chosen to get the acronym right!). it's still very embryonic, but hopefully it'll catch on and more names will be added... Grutness...wha? 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about protected pages and rouge rogue admins.

In the interest of streamlining the process of unprotecting wrong-version-protected pages and quickly removing the admins who perform this heinous act, I've created a simple form which can be filled out and attached to the talk page of the malprotected article, the admin in question, the admin's user page, the talk pages of any associated users, Jimmy Wales, and the talk page of Star Trek, mostly because those guys have nothing better to do.

The original version was a simple page on MetaWiki, but has been modified somewhat for form-filling use. In order to make this form Policy^TM, I'd like to ask the people here to review and assist in updating this form to meet current WikiPedia needs.

Thank you for your attention. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Joke namespace

Maybe we should make a Joke: namespace, to clearly segregate all jokes from real articles. There are various jokes on the BJAODN page, and other humorous essays in the Wikipedia: namespace. These should be moved to the Joke: namespace, e.g. Joke:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Pcu123456789 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a funniest blocked usernames section?

Could we consider adding a funniest blocked username page to BJAODN?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames

I have added a page to BJAODN dedicated to bizarre blocked usernames. Feel free to add any you come across there.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 04:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't the proper title of this page be Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense per the Manual of Style? --MZMcBride 02:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this page is very old, and the odd title case is probably a throwback of the famous acronym: BJAODN. I'd reach a consensus before doing anything. Setokaiba^✌_≝ 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN redirect

"BJAODN" article doesnt exist anymore. Wouldn't it make more sense for the acronym to redirect here? I could have sworn I used to type that in back in the day to get here... What happened? Roffler 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users have begun to crack down on cross-namespace redirects, and the BJAODN redirect was in article space, so it's gone now. However, on the upside, the incident has made me use the shorter redirect, WP:) . --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You still have a whole host of other redirects to choose from ... WP:BJAODN, WP:-), WP:BJ, etc. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposal for a new BJAODN page

I've seen many silly edit descriptions, and I was thinking that a new BJAODN page could be made out of them. The following edit summaries could be included in the article:

dude, this freaking rocks
LOLOLOLGOATSE!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!!!!
JIMBO WALES SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JIMBO SUCKS@
WHAT KIND OF IDIOT ARE YOU, I'M NOT A TROLL, I'M A VANDAL!
untidying up
Reverting good edits

I created that new BJAODN page

If nobody's commenting on my proposal, I might as well make the page. Check it out! Wikipedia:Vandalism edits with silly edit descriptions

Too bad it was deleted, I think it's a great idea. (Then again I often think things are funny when everyone else doesn't.) --WikiSlasher 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I did this vandalism and don't want to put it in just because I did it...

So, I'll paste the vandalism below, and you guys can decide if it belongs or not. I think this was on the Helen Keller page for about a half an hour.

Appearance on To Tell the Truth

In 1960 Keller appeared on an episode of To Tell the Truth. She was completely unable to stump the panel consisting of Kitty Carlisle, Peggy Cass, Bill Cullen, and Orson Bean. She failed miserably due to the fact, that in the opening segment, the impostors' speech differed greatly from Keller's. This memorable segment is written below:

Announcer: Contestant #1, what is your name?

Contestant #1: My name is Helen Keller.

Announcer: Contestant #2, what is your name?

Contestant #2: My name is Helen Keller.

Announcer: Contestant #3, what is your name?

Contestant #3 (The real Keller): Ehruhruuruurhrhhhrrrrr.

That's it. You decide. FireSpike 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users with bizarre usernames

I noticed that this page has been deleted because it was said to glorify vandals. Technically, all of BJAODN glorifies vandals and their stupidity to some extent, so I'm not sure how this page is any different. I'm not proposing that BJAODN be deleted, I'm just curious as to why that page was singled out.--Lorrainier 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN doesn't glorify vandals. It glorifies humor. People have the right to show their sense of humor outside of Wikipedia. However, pasting humor on an article on Wikipedia is considered vandalism, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page is not a Wikipedia article- it is a Wikipedia page. The humor was deleted from Wikipedia, but lives at this page. This page's URL begins with en.wikipedia.org, but is not part of Wikipedia, because it's not an article. Since people have the right to show there sense of humor (however stupid) outside of Wikipedia, the humor should remain, and none of the BJAODN pages should be deleted. SupaStarGirl 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but how do we restore the page? -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it here asking that it be restored since it was deleted without discussion. Feel free to request that it be restored/stay deleted here.--Lorrainier 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The deletion has been overturned. An admin should restore the page soon.--Lorrainier 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

French

They shoud make this page in french, I have to read something in french for homework and I want to read something funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.248.105 (talk • contribs)

You may have a look at some pages on the French Wikipedia: fr:Wikipédia:Bêtisier, fr:Wikipédia:Anthologie, fr:Wikipédia:Pastiches... --Korg (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian/American war of 1963

This is a classic piece... Ansell 05:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the largest title for a Wikipedia article?

Whilst pressing the Random Article button, I came across this article: Kites, Kung Fu, Trophies, Banana Peels We've Slipped On, and Egg Shells We've Tippy Toed Over. Burritos, Inspiration Point, Fork Balloon Sports, Cards in the Spokes, Automatic Biographies. Could that possibly be the longest title for an Wikipedia article? --tgheretford (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's quite close. The longest current title for a wikipedia article that I know of (an outdated list can be found at User:Interiot/Reports/LongTitles) is How Hedley Hopkins Did a Dare, robbed a grave, made a new friend who might not have really been there at all, and while he was at it committed a terrible sin which everyone was doing even though he didn't know it. Graham87 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAFT also lists several lengthy former titles, including (with apologies for the language...) FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING CUNTING COUPLES. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN AISLE 6 OF TESCO FOR YOU TO EAT EACH OTHERS INNARDS OUT. THERE IS NOT ROOM IN MY LIFE TO HAVE YOUR SNOGGING SHOVED IN MY FACE ALL DAY EVERY DAY. JUST FUCK OFF. and This page may meet Wikipedias criteria for speedy deletion The given reason is It is a very short article providing little or no context CSD A1 contains no content whatsoever CSD A3 consists only of links elsewhere CSD A3 or a. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how the title of the article is longer than the articleAdam Y 04:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you not forget Mirwin's prototype of synergistally rationalized collaboration as an example of developing liquid resources from ambient commons in USA, tailor as required? Just wondering...~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lamest Edit Wars

Can we add Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars to this page? Just wondering.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a bad joke

I realized that I just made an edit that may well be worthy of BJAODN status... is there a nomination process? It's not likely to be deleted as it's a talk page comment on the notability of a person mentioned in an article, but I just realized how unintentionally hillarious it may be... Wintermut3 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, spit it out! We've been waiting to see this for 3-1/2 months. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

I notice that there are some fair use images on these pages. According to fair use criterion #9, fair use images are not to be used outside of article space. Is there an exception for these pages, or should the images be linked/removed? Khatru2 09:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Link them. --GunnarRene 09:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Searching

Hi.

Is there any way to search this for something I heard has been BJAODNd without slogging through all those very long pages, anyway? 74.38.35.171 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First thing I would try is Google. Wikipedia gets indexed frequently. ~ CZeke 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The wages of sin

What normally happens to those who make the silly edits that get posted here? Vandalism is supposed to result in at least a warning, but it seems odd to scold the poster and then turn around and enshrine his work in BJAODN. Some of the better ones in here are so elaborate they must have been perpetrated by experienced Wikipedians; does that "go on their records," as it were? (Or are they just always careful to make the edits while logged out?) ~ CZeke 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense deletion

This page should be deleted because it is the "hall of fame" of vandalizing actions. I can bet many of them are accessing this page every week to read the newest deleted bad jokes and nonsense they wrote somewhere, and which are immortalized here and presented to the community.Page Up 10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No one ever reads this stuff anyways (or do they...); Mfd? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither you nor I, for sure. Wahkeenah 11:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya guys, take a look at this. The Sky May Be 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

I nominate Zbl's Michigan bashing in the Sandbox as hilarious. 70.105.122.79 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure How to ADD

I recently saw two moves of AL Gore to "total idiot" and a move of Miley Stewart to "The new page". Also, Michigan has been twice attacked with changing random links to "idiot." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbl (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

DWWE

I know it's been about a year, but can someone add pieces from the DWWE and Digimon Wrestling articles to this BJAODN article. They were hilarious. They talked about a "10 ft bohemoth" and somebody getting knocked out by a bookbag or something. Priceless. I would put them on here, but I don't know how to access something that has been deleted, or if you even can.--Pelican 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Best Pick #5 finnaly up

Just add some of the really goo ones to it. Dark Ermac 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would slightly humorous non-jokes that aren't deleted be added to BJAODN?

See the template at the top of Talk:Child pornography--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a line from the Wikipedia article about many of Wikipedia's articles not having citations ending in a {{fact}} template was included on one of the pages, and is still on the article, so, yes, I think. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new shortcut

Could WP:HAHA be a valid shortcut? ~Step trip 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it didn't already exist, the answer is no; there are already far too many shortcuts for this page. Picaroon 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't at least one more be added to the shortcut box? ~Step trip 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

In case no one noticed, earlier today or last night, I forget, WP:AN tentatively proposed MfD'ing the whole thing (BJAODN) I think. Aside from the serious aspect, doesn't that seem like a BJAODN candidate itself?

Secondly, (sorry if this is a dumb question; I rarely come here and contributed an entry for the first time tonight) does it literally have to be a bad joke, or nonsense that was deleted to qualify? What if it's was an edit by a legit editor that is just incredibly funny or ironic?

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was proposed before (but on April Fool's Day, so there were comments like "Send to BJAODN", and it was claimed to be deleted with the "I" in "Deleted" changed to an "l" (capital "i" to lowercase "L")), and it wasn't deleted then, but... no, I don't really think it seems that ironic. But then again, I have a very weird mind.
Yes, you can add things like that, but it should be clearly marked as such. Like something from the Wikipedia page was added, although it is still on there for its factual accuracy^{[citation needed]}.

~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

April fools

As so many, why not move the lists to a separate page, say Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/April Fools Day? Simply south 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete this page

You should delete this page, it will push people to vandalize, because they will get in the hall of fame of deleted jokes. This page is a bad idea, cuz everyone wants to get his joke on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs)

Ditto. • AndonicO ^Talk 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has existed since March 8, 2002. How could it possibly be encouraging vandalism now? --myselfalso 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Add an infobox about Uncyclopedia

We should have an infobox on this article about how you should go to Uncyclopedia if you want to purposely add stupid stuff without feeling you are a vandal.--213.66.131.204 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Laughing cat Icon

Should probably be changed... I have high res graphics etc. but the scaling is bad and i asked a few people what they thought it was and non could tell its a cat. I think the info box resizing is making it look really weird.--Dacium 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a cat? Wow, never noticed. I thought it was a trash bag or something. --tjstrf talk 07:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

next parts name

How is this decided? 70.152.16.131 06:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BJAODN:The Next Page Title--24.20.69.240 19:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Largish PSP joke revision

~~Is this [2] revision of PSP too large for BDAODN?~~ Never mind, it's just a copy of the unencyclopedia entry, hardly original. Marasmusine 09:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BJAODN_Deleted.

Deleted???

WTF? Why was most of BJAODN deleted? :(

BRING IT BACK DAMN IT!!!! Those were HILARIOUS! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

No need to get like that. I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere... Belgium EO 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What now?

I staunchly support the notion of BJAODN, and would hate to see it die quietly. Two concerns have been raised:

It's not funny, so it's a waste of time.
It violates the GFDL.

The first concern is nonsense - who is anyone to judge? The second concern is legitimate but not insurmountable. All that needs to be done is to post a link to the diff of the nonsense alongside the nonsense. This makes the editing process substantially more annoying, because you now have to do two copy-and-paste jobs instead of one, but it will maintain the connection between content and its original authors. Diff-linking is standard in places like WP:AN3 and can easily become a habit. Entries can be monitored for compliance and deleted after an arbitrary waiting period (7 days?).

I made another suggestion on the WP:AN thread, which is probably less practical.

Jokers of the world, unite! Yechiel Man 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This move for deletion is total rubbish. Don't take our nonsense away from us! At the very least, move it to the Illogicopedia so it isn't lost forever. But I guess that would be violating licensing also. Sigh. -- Hindleyite 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Go here! Quick! Time to rebuild! Dark Ermac 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For vandalism diffs, the diff alone is sufficient. For deleted articles, the names of the authors should also be used. The more formal archiving system suggested by Dark Ermac is not necessary. Yechiel Man 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be sure, to prevent what happened to this page. Just add stuff before someone deletes it. Dark Ermac 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got all the BJAODN pages on my computer except 29 (Bad Jokes? We ain't got no stinking Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense!), 50 (The first rule of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is you do not talk about Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense) and 57 (57 Varieties of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense). If any finds these could they please put a link here to them? Thanks. If I can get those three I might create a Wikia site or something similar and upload all of them to there or something so they can live on. So many people have worked on this project, and looking back, there actually WERE entrys that were funny and witty. Some of it was some pretty good shit. Shame the fun police had to come in crying crocodile tears. And please don't revert this comment, what I am saying isn't against any policies, you have no right to gag me simply because you don't like the concet of BJAODN. --IvanKnight69 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very sad that it was all deleted. Some people have no sense of humor. Copyright vios? Maybe. But sometimes we need to think outside of the rules. Oh well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thinking outside copyright laws (not rules) can only end well. Trebor 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shame the fun police had to come in crying crocodile tears. - Hey, we had nothing to do with this! -- Wikipedia Fun Police

Please everybody, just leave the old nonsense behind. I know, some of it was great, but honestly, a lot of it was crap. Also, new nonsense is being made and added to Wikipedia just as much now as it was in the first years of Wikipedia. Let's not waste our time scouring deleted articles for attribution and instead look at how we can keep new nonsense. r3m0t ^talk 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

I would like to see BJAODN rebuilt in a way which corresponds with Wikipedia's obligations and rules. I opposed the deletion of it but we have to move on from that now and decide where to proceed from here. The community appears to have decided based on the MfD etc that:

BJAODN should survive and continue to be part of Wikipedia as it has for a long time
However, GFDL violations and libel of living persons cannot be tolerated within that
There is a wish to rebuild it in a way which answers 2 and satisfies 1.

It should be noted that given the precise brief of this, almost every entry will violate at least one other Wikipedia policy, however notability, nonsense, no context, verifiability (so long as it doesn't violate BLP) etc should not be an impedance. What might work is a box format - page name, link to diff (or user and date in a genuinely deleted article), date, contributor, content. (Note I'm not being prescriptive at all here, I think it's better to have an idea and people to go "no, that's crap, we should do it THIS way" than to have no idea at all :))

Firstly - do we have any BJAODN classics we want to get back? I'm sure out of 64 pages, some people will probably find 2 or 3 individual entries priceless compared to all of the others, keep coming back to look at them, pass around their mates etc. Those should be our first target. Orderinchaos 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea, bravo. I agree there are many entries that need to be brought back from the old BJAODN, but the only question is how, as they have being deleted?It may be easier to find a few a few voluteers so slowly re-add the old pages in the new format (logically, it wouldn't take that long), but no matter what, I'd like to see the first entry of the new BJAODN numbered #65, with a title being a humerous refreence to the deletion of the old BJAODN. The libel of living persons can simply be avoided by automatically changing the name to *john doe* or *name removed* which is something that should have happened in the original BJAODN.One thing I'd like to see would be a 'Best Of BJAODN' where we actually vote on what makes it into The Best Of BJAODN, and keep Best Of BJAODN fairly limited. I never found the entries in Best Picks of the old BJAODN to be any funnier than the rest of BJAODN honestly speaking, they seemed more like randon pictures. --IvanKnight69 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with the sourcing, if someone can send me an XML file of one of the BJAODN's, I'll find the sources in the histories of the pages and then keep a list of pages for an admin to find out the authors.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me as well. As for problems with items violating other policies, most of those policies relate to article space, whereas this is in Wikispace - so there shouldn't be much of a problem. As for them having been deleted, yes, but admins can still see the records of deleted files for the most part (there are some exceptions with really early files, which seem to have used a different system for deletion, but the majority will still be available). Perhaps it's a case of restoring as many as possible of the non-libellous and GFDL-compliant ones, and then working on a "best of" after that in a similar way to the "next page name suggestions" subpage. BTW, I've always been partial to "Crust of the Andes", if you're looking for favourites. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is, we're going to need a task force of admins to help. For deleted articles that were put on BJAODN, the case is simple: just have an admin go through the deleted page history of that article and write down all of the names of those that contributed to it. But it's clear that we will need admin power to do this, so given the value BJAODN holds in the eyes of most of the community, it would be nice if a couple could commit. Exporting the deleted page histories of the BJAODN entries as XML and then emailing them to people (without publishing them) seems like the best solution. Damn, it would be nice if we could have a license that was meant for an encyclopedia, not a user guide! Gracenotes^T § 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to say that but didn't want to be the first to - as an admin I can see all deleted entries. I'd like to see a few nominations from the crowd first for "all time classics" so as to keep our workload down and resurrect the truly best entries first (if we can - some may not be able to). Orderinchaos 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. The mind boggles at the amount of work that will require. And to think it could have been expended doing something useful. How utterly pathetic – Gurch 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The rogue actions of one Wikipedian should not force armies of people to do massive amounts of work. BJAODN should be restored in toto and people can improve sourcing, etc. as need be. --The Cunctator 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is common place for those who want to retain content that they must perform the work themselves, and those that want it excluded need not do anything additional.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The idea that an editor who thinks that we should stick to the GFDL, and who deletes content after three years' notice that it isn't compliant with the GFDL, is "rogue" is clearly wrong. Uncle G 12:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for XML. Go through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Find the discussions where people thought that deleted articles should go to BJAODN. (You can even use Google Web for this.) Make a list. Check that they aren't copyright violations (including unattributed derived works of other articles), libel, advertising, or attacks. Get an administrator to go through the list undeleting the articles and renaming them to sub-pages such as Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Rolypology Theory. Delete the redirects left behind. List the sub-pages on the main BJAODN page. Full edit history is preserved. The GFDL is satisfied. Simple.
I'll start the list for you. The rest is up to you. This is the opportunity for the editors who have said that they are willing to do the work to actually demonstrate that with action. Uncle G 12:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally feel that GFDL compliance is not the only issue; BJAODN needs to be smaller and more focussed. We're not a humour archive, so imho it should be updated on a rolling basis with only the absolute classics kept on a permanent basis. This is, after all, an encyclopedia; if folks want a massive BJAODN archive let them take it elsewhere. --kingboyk 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly agree that it should be small, actively maintained like any other wikiproject, and auto-archived regularly like a lot of talk pages. It should also concentrate on April Fools type jokes and not vandal worship or humiliation of the sincere but stupid. Not so sure about restoring old entries though - they are archived offsite already, saving them here would take a lot of admin time, and they'd overshadow the new stuff. Even great jokes get boring after a while, and I'm sure no newbie has ever read thru all 65+ pages in the old version. I certainly didn't! I'll miss the dinosaur rolypology theory though... :-) Moyabrit 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with rolling updates. Oh and we must store April Fool's Day memoirs somewhere. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

List of deleted articles to be undeleted and renamed to sub-pages, if they satisfy several checks

Sign the answers to the questions, to say that you have personally checked.

Article (use {{On AFD}} to link to deletion discussion)	Free from copyright violation?	Free from libel, advertising, or attacks?	Not a deliberate attempt to get into BJAODN?	Renamed to BJAODN?
Rolypology Theory (AfD discussion)	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Rolypology Theory
Crust of the Andes (speedily deleted)	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Crust of the Andes
Calvary Christian High School (AfD discussion) (now here)	No Uncle G	No Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	No Uncle G
Monkey jesus (speedily deleted)	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Monkey jesus
Template:Uw-delmain1	Yes MER-C	Yes MER-C	Yes Radiant	Yes Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Template:Uw-delmain1
Alabama sledgehammer (AfD discussion)	Yes Uncle G	Unsure (names specific people) Uncle G	Yes Uncle G
Richardland Middle School (speedily deleted)	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Richardland Middle School
Urban poet (text saved from speedy delete)	Yes (now) Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes Uncle G	Yes User:Whsitchy/Urban poet
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hughes Complex	Yes MER-C	Yes MER-C	Yes MER-C	not required
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicism	Yes (picture may be copyvio) MER-C	Yes MER-C	Yes MER-C	not required

Add back in the ones we can confirm

Reading some of the pages via mirrors and archive sites, I'm surprised they were deleted. Wikipedia:In Soviet Russia, Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense Delete YOU!, for example, had the vast majority of it's content attributed. Lets use these off-wiki copies and see what we can do to get them restored. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicism, some classic deletion debate humour. MER-C 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should you be surprised they were deleted? They were deleted en masse without regards to attribution. -- Js farrar 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Going Forward?

"Where have all the bad jokes gone? Short time passing... Where has de-leted nonsense gone... Archived ago.... Where has all the humor gone? Flushed in an AfD... When will WikiMedia learn - we all need a laff now and then." While reconstructing acceptable former archieved candidates is OK, and I'm not criticizing that at all (*snif* -miss them!), I'm wondering what the process going forward will be? Part of the AfD seemed to be aimed at the extremely high number of archives and the inability to go back and police them all (yeah, right...) But I'm wondering what the future shall be? Will there eventually be another 60+ archive pages that will again face the ax, or does it make more sense to have a limited number of archives, letting the oldest of them slip away? (A side benefit to that would be that vandals etc. may get their 5 minutes of fame, but they wouldn't get permanent enshrinement...) LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me} ^{or Logical Entries} 15:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean REALLY!!! Why the F*CK is this piece of Wikipedia's history DELETED???

What's next? BARNSTARS??? Dark Ermac 13:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. >Radiant< 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On May 30, 2007, citing concerns he had about this section violating GFDL, admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted nearly all of the content of BJAODN.Notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard --The Cunctator 15:33, 4 June 2007

I was using these entries as references for my term paper. You made me fail the semester, Wikipedia. Thanks a lot :(

This is ridiculous. The articles should be restored asap. +sj + 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

sigh

"I'm going to undelete hundreds of pages which many people worry violate copyright, before any discussion concludes. If they wheel war with me, it's all their fault." -Amarkov moo! 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't deal with copyvio concerns by deleting them before discussion. Where did that idea come from? +sj +

Actually we do - see WP:CSD. >Radiant< 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken to ANI. I believe this will hit ArbCom before the week is over. >Radiant< 14:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- O RLY? (no offense directed at you, it's just kinda obvious...) -Amarkov moo! 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good man! Dark Ermac 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a fan of BJAODN, thank you very much for restoring it, regardless of whether or not it was grossly against Wikipedia policy ;). --IvanKnight69 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put this?

Many sites believe that if they put their website in Wikipedia with a link out to their site, that will generate enough traffic to support a family on. Sadly that is just not true.

I got this from Professional Scrapbooker while trying to save it from AFD. I belive that that reason is EXACTLY why the article was created in the first place... W1k13rh3nry 12:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:SPAM and/or WP:COI. >Radiant< 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at this!

Uncyclopedia's parody page is up for deletion! Dark Ermac 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to huff it? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL violation? I think not.

Just to see for myself the claims that these pages violate the GFDL, I decided to examine each section in a random page to see if they were attributed. As of June 8, 2007 (the page was last edited April 30), this page contains 51 sections. Of these:

2 link directly to a specific edit in the edit history of an article (full GFDL compliance)

Easter! YAY! | this vandalism of the Mars article

2 link to WP:ANI, and the comments are attributed (full GFDL compliance)

Get a Room, Lovebirds | From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard...

3 are directly attributed with author and date (full GFDL compliance)

From Barreiro | THE FUNNIEST ONE OF ALL! BASKETBALL GREAT DIKEMBE MUTOMBO! | Secret Page666

30 link back to the original, still existing, page from which they came (nominal GFDL compliance)

3 are attributed to existing articles but don't link back to them (almost GFDL compliant)

Steve Nash | James Bracey is on Fire! | Vaginal flatulence

2 link back to a deleted article

Pierre du'due | From wikipedia:requests for adminship/JudgeRoberts

4 are attributed to deleted articles but don't link back to them

TigerGardens | Chris Kessel | CallingAll Vandals | Jamlops

1 links back to an image now on commons

From (Prince symbol)

2 link back to a deleted image

Benmark | Anti-hand burning thingers

1 is unattributed because the article name was replaced with "----" (for WP:BLP reasons, perhaps?)

From (name removed)

1 links to an external website and is a possible copyright violation

penis reading

Given that our reuse policy for forks and mirrors doesn't generally require much more than link back to our article and a copy of the GFDL (though a list of authors and dates is "encouraged"), I don't see the 30 linked articles as violations at all, and compliance could easily be improved by including a link to the actual edit in the edit history where the deleted content occurs. That's 37 sections which comply with the GFDL as much as most of our mirrors do; and 7 are in indisputably full compliance. Also 3 sections name an existing article but don't link to it; that is easily remedied. That's a full 78% of the sections which pose no or little problem with the GFDL.

Now for 9 of the remaining 11 sections, GFDL compliance could be fixed with administrator help; i.e. undeleting the article and moving it to "BDAOJN-space", as others have been doing.

The content from the BLP article could possibly be fixed by an admin with a bit of work, by digging for the original edit and simply attributing the author and date here.

The section attributed to an external website could be deleted, but we could still leave in the external link (unless it becomes stale).

So out of 51 sections, only 1 poses a possible attribution problem, and 1 may actually be a copyright violation. Now, can someone explain again why minor violations such as these warranted speedy deletion of all the pages and wheel wars to attempt to keep them deleted? DHowell 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do if a BJAODN is really funny, it came from a deleted page, and we have no sources in the deletion logs?

If the source is no longer known, some editors have suggested deleting such material as anti-GFDL. I disagree: we should make our best effort to credit all known editors and edits, and if there are still unknown editors, credit it to "unknowable Wikipedia editors", or some variant of that term, explaining below why the editors couldn't be known. Apologize, too (after all, we didn't take the GFDL too seriously in BJAODN for six years!) — Rickyrab | Talk 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"[W]e didnt' take the GFDL too seriously.... for six years!" That's the cited reason why this deletion kerfluffle came up in the first place. More than suggested, it was done on those grounds once. Do as you will, but if you give ammunition over to the deletionists, you have no grounds when you get shot with it. MVHO is that if it's even coming up to the edge the default should be "don't include", as there is plenty of humor to go around. LaughingVulcan 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there are two areas for inclusion of new BJAODN - GFDL compliance and humor. BJAODN editors tend to take humor more seriously than GFDL compliance. (User:Rickyrab in anon mode) 204.52.215.107 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, Wikipedia's BJAODN tends to come from anons using IPs to stay anonymous. Yes, we must do our best to credit all contributors, but, frankly speaking, those are mostly contribs who intend to contribute without being known. Furthermore, when there are old BJAODNs whose pages (AND deletion logs) have vanished, the contributors become practically anonymous anyhow, and as far as I know there's no evidence that anyone has sued over such old edits from long-deleted pages - and I consider it unlikely, given that it's tough to remember making some specific edits a while ago. Admittedly, the possibility exists of such a suit, but there'd be a need for such a suit to have evidence to have a snowball's chance in hell. 204.52.215.107 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Takes humor more seriously..." *chuckle* Ahem. LaughingVulcan 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(slips out of anon mode) However, this does not exempt us from the mitzvah of attributing to contributers and verifying edits whenever possible, whether in a page accessible to an edit history, an edit history itself, a reference to deleted edits, stuff at the bottom of the page, etc. And searching for edits in order to attribute can raise some interesting insights into how articles get edited. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with any of the particular points you've mentioned. I'd agree that, except for a remote possibility of copyvio for humor already created elsewhere and then c/ped to Wikipedia in the hopes it will make it here, a lawsuit over BJAODN is pretty unlikely. (Also, libel concerns might provide a source of legal risk, however minimal.) But it is nevertheless evident that GFDL concerns were what initially lost the Archives - whether one agrees with that decision or not. And, having happened once, it can happen again. If it's a choice between a BJAODN which has every bit of humor possible, or one that is as safe as can be from deletion or lawsuits, I'd choose the latter. But that don't mean I'm right. LaughingVulcan 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to copy and paste into the next BJAODN page or move a page to a subpage of BJAODN?

While handling speedy deletions, I camme across Poop egg and moved it to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Poop egg. Did I do this correctly, or am I supposed to cut and paste (the old problematic way)? Jesse Viviano 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would contest the deletion of that page, so you're probably safe.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" is just a euphemism for "Featured Vandalism"

And, per WP:BEANS (not policy, I know) it is a bad thing. Doesn't seem to serve much purpose, although an element of humour is widely seen as permissible in the Wikipedia namespace.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well? Does anyone agree or disagree here?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a relief valve for the times we take things too seriously, it's a very lengthy example of what kinds of crap to not put in Wikipedia (an anti-exemplar if you will,) its proof that vandalism occurs - though one really shouldn't need that, and it's something that provides many Wikipedians with a giggle. Oh, and it could also be considered an archive of certain contributions which fail to be in mainspace, but we retain anyway as a historical archive of the ways people miscontribute. LaughingVulcan 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BEANS may help here if vandals see BJAODN and increase their chuckle factor; if they're going to vandalize anyway, make it worthwhile and more obvious. And then there's stuff like this. –Pomte 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up the defention for euphemism.--71.170.106.104 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect suggestion

"BJAODN" should be redirected to this article page. Jackiespeel 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, no cross-namespace redirects except pages beginning with WP: –Pomte 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is a general acronym (see above etc) and has so been "for some time" (and the redirect has been set up again). Jackiespeel 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Move this and other 'wikipedia history' somewhere else - proposal

The use of the wikipedia space is supposed to be to support the creation of an encyclopedia. The material on these pages is clearly interesting for a lot of people, but it has no bearing on the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Problems:

It is easy to get side-tracked into a sort of general discussion and humour trawl.
It provides evidence for those who wish to denounce wikipedia as a some sort of non-serious, jokey, 2nd rate undertaking dominated by chat, rather than a serious encyclopedia.
This kind of material may serve to confuse and put off newcomers who do not understand the in-jokes and wikipedia jargon.

So: I propose that this subject matter and that of WP:UR is moved to another wiki ('transwikied') which could perhaps be devoted to the history of the wikipedia project, where all this miscellaneous stuff could be kept.

Clavecin 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be self-sufficient (IRC notwithstanding). Besides, we can only collaborate with another wiki if it's GFDL, so we may as well stay on this one. Shalom ^Hello 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not Illogicipedia? I think that's GFDL. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a great shame, bit if it is found that there is no place for BJAODN on Wikipedia, the Illogicopedia would be more than happy to accept contributions, as it is indeed GNU FDL. -- Hindleyite 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Very old BJAODN

http://web.archive.org/web/20040321050921/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense

Enough said. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please

Ok, so I know i'm a like a ubern00b here, but please don't delete the bjaodn page--it's what keeps me sane at work [i work at a call center and deal with screaming and annoying customers all day and this is one of the few approved sites we can view]. I just learned about bjaodn about 2 or 3 weeks ago! ! ! c'monnnn. . . . .Missmissy 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does what suits Wikipedia, not what suits the whims of individual users, as harsh as that may be. Wikipedia is about consensus, and the current consensus is probably heading towards deletion. I'm sure someone will save this material before it is finally deleted for good so that it'll be online somewhere, but not on Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any alternative outlets that you can use at work? 71.31.153.30 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The future of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, or a Modest Proposal

I think the best way to ensure future contributions to this are properly attributed is to use a template for new sections. I have a prototype in my user space here: User:Phirazo/Bjaodn header, and an example of what it would look like here: User:Phirazo/Bjaodn example. Any contributions to BJAODN from the main space that do not use this template can then be removed, and the terms of the GFDL would be met. Thoughts? --Phirazo 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea. We must keep the BJAODN!!! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. Post it on the deletion review. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should work quite well. We should be able to set up a tool or link that automatically preloads that template when people try to make a new section. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds a good idea. There are pages being archived, so add that template to them. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample link for that, by the way. The link's really long, so hit "edit" if you want to see it I've checked it, it works. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a note of this on the current MfD. Hut 8.5 10:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly Things?

Has there been some discussion I am unaware of (ie not here or in the MFD) about renaming this page Silly things? Two attempts to move it back to its correct title (one by me) have been reverted, mine as "per MFD closure". I am not sure what rights a closing admin has in these matters, but I am unaware of previous cases where closure has included making up an arbitrary title and imposing it without further discussion. I propose that this page be put back in its proper place (at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense) or that a fitting new title be agreed upon. -CarelessHair 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the point was that BJODL is gone, so it needed a new name to say "Hey! We're not going to glorify vandalism anymore, so stop trying!"....Silly Things seems very wrong though, and I agree it should probably get an agreed upon name. No reason we can't work toward that, leaving this for now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did the move tab go? The Transhumanist 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See log. --Quiddity 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it's called. The point is, it's been tagged as historical and no longer relevant to Wikipedia, which was what I and the majority of the community wanted and thought was most appropriate to Wikipedia's aims.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For reference, in his addendum to the MFD close, Phil Sandifer, the closing admin, wrote: "I will also note that I, as part of the close, moved the main BJAODN page to Wikipedia:Silly things to emphasize the break from the previous tradition of BJAODN. This is part of the close, and probably shouldn't be edit warred over." —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How about 'Humor and Other Silly Things'? Keeps the flow of the original. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Silly things" is short, sweet, and to the point. That is good to my mind, and a goal for all page names. The closing admin also mentioned the desire for a clean break from BJAODN. I think he's on the right track there; if it is to be deleted, being different ("flow") is a good thing. Finally, and most important, I think dickering over the title of this page is the past thing we want to do. We need to move on. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional subpages deleted

In the MFD close, the closing admin wrote:

I am also persuaded by the claims that the page is an institution. To this end, I have left certain subpages unscathed - things that compile non-encyclopedia edits (Help desk, unblock), deleted articles with freaky titles, two that were just reposts of a discussion, the Colbert page, stupid article ideas, and the best-ofs. I do not close the door to some of these being individually nominated, and would not consider such nominations querrelous or cases of asking the other parent.
— Phil Sandifer

I see that these pages have since been deleted, by a few more admins — Coredesat (7 pages), Alkivar (2 pages), and Ryulong (1 page). There was no new nomination or discussion that I can find. • While I am sure the deleting admins were acting in good faith in their beliefs, it does appear to contradict the closing commentary. I am somewhat concerned that these deletions are unilateral actions without adequate discussion. It may well be (indeed, I suspect it is) consensus that some or all of those should be deleted, too. But I wanted to at least raise my concerns, and give the deleting admins, and others, a chance to comment. • Full disclosure: I was against the bulk BJAODN deletion; Coredesat and Alkivar were for it; Ryulong did not comment (that I can find). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which specific pages do you think should not have been deleted? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As they have been deleted, most people (myself included) cannot examine them to comment on their content specifically. That is part of the problem with deleting them in this way. • In attempt to address your question, I have added a list of the pages which the closing admin left untouched, but were deleted by others. See the top of this section. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did not delete those in my close - it looks like the deleting admins misunderstood. I'm restoring all. Phil Sandifer 15:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Most likely an honest mistake. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another website

Can this link to a BJAODN archive be put somewhere on this page? 71.31.145.104 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why? It's on a completely different website. 71.31.145.104 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because linking to the content isn't substantively different from hosting it in terms of the message it sends, which is why the content was deleted. Phil Sandifer 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN was deleted mostly because it had become "a monument to vandalism". I expect linking to same would incur the same problems. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm willing to talk with admins as to implementing such a solution. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ha, phony deletion. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and if you don't put it on the main BJAODN/ Silly Things page, I will put it in boldface here and I am continuing to request it be put on the main Silly Things page. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to make your point. Making threats certainly will not help your cause. I've removed your linkspam. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

some threat, seeing as I carried it out in the course of making it, lol. Oh Well, my mind is always working. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an odd double-standard. All the rubbish that's been dumped on my user page since 2004, including User:OrphanBot's carefully-worded text insinuating (bot not actually stating) that images I'd shot myself were of somehow questionable origin, gets kept forever as "part of the history of the project". Try to delete any of that and you folks would scream 'cover-up' instantly. Yet somehow bjaodn.org isn't part of this project's history? You've lost me here... this isn't making any sense. --carlb 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN was page-deleted because it was a "monument to vandalism"; the obvious concern is that linking to same would have the same problem. Your user history has not been page-deleted. Note that "page-deleted" means more than just removing the text from the current version of the page. That still leaves the previous versions in the page history. "Page-deleted" means the current and all previous revisions are no longer available. • I would advise against an immediate campaign to get links added. Tempers are still running hot from the MfD. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction. BJAODN was page-deleted from Wikipedia because some admins and other editors considered it a monument to vandalism, and versions of BJAODN continue to be available on other websites. When tempers have cooled down, I will consider a campaign to get links added (or to get more of BJAODN reinstated to Wikipedia). — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean you'll intend on making a WP:POINT because of the MFD closure. I'm not sure if you want to go down that road. — Moe ε 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making thinly-veiled threats; they are not a constructive addition to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.239 (talk) 21:27, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't thinly veiled, it's pretty straight forward. Continuing disruption = blocks, in most cases. — Moe ε 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The "continuing disruption" started with whichever rogue admin unilaterally deleted the entire series first time around - a few months ago. Are you suggesting that this person be blocked first; it would only be reasonable under the circumstances? --205.150.76.89 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you troll someplace else. — Moe ε 06:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Much as I disagree with BJAODN's deletion, which I will not harp on about, if it was to be deleted I think it would have been much better if it had been deleted lock stock and barrel rather than leaving this gutted BJAODN under a different name. In effect, all this is is an unupdatable BJAODN with a different name containing the same material, which "glorifies vandalism" to probably much the same degree. If an archived version is to be kept, surely it would be better for it to be stored on an external website? The Sanctuary Sparrow 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin explicitly left open the possibility that any or all of the remaining pages may nominated for deletion separately. Under the spirit of the closing decision, I suspect the "Best of" pages probably also warrant deletion, as they are still a "monument to vandalism", and are fairly random in their selection. "Stuff", the two hoaxes, and the Colbert incident are all, I suspect, sufficiently creative, unique, and focused not to be fuel for additional vandalism. The Colbert incident also has historical value; it's become a real (albeit minor and self-deprecating) part of Wikipedia culture. • This is all my opinion, of course; others can and surely will disagree. • All that being said, I wanted to wait at least a week or two before proposing any course of action. BJAODN MfD #6 attracted a fair bit of passion, and I think giving tempers a chance to cool and people a chance to reflect would be a good thing. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It IS on an external website. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't disrupte Wikipedia to make a point. — Moe ε 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a hyperlink that is relevant to the discussion can be construed as disruption to make a point, y'know. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing linkspam is disruption, that site is a worse GFDL violation than what was at Wikipedia. — Moe ε 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The original BJAODN content was drawn from GFDL sources, the only issue in determining whether bjaodn.org is GFDL-compliant is obtaining attribution for the original text - and that's a problem that was created by none other than the deletion-happy Wikipedia administrators. The attribution was there, but deleting the content here deletes the history. That's an issue, but WP has no one to blame but themselves here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlb (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 August 2007

They moved it over days before the deletion and had many attempts before that to move over the content and leave Wikipedia out of it. I checked that site when BJAODN was still intact, and the history was just copied and pasted, so don't think that deletion here means deletion there. They weren't deletion-happy, that was consensus formed at the MFD. Blaming the administrator for closing it doesn't solve anything. — Moe ε 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's on more than one external website. Evidently the deletions themselves are perceived by many as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? --carlb 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad caps

Is there any need to have "Things" capitalized? 68.39.174.238 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts on This

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of the vandalism on Wikipedia of a sort that would both be found unfunny and never end up on this page in the first place? Almost all vandalism I see has to do with a serious destruction or misconstruction of information in the article (e.g., blanking, inserting curse words, vanity pages) or insertion of advertisements. In other words, stuff that is neither funny nor notable. Just destruction.

The type of vandalism in question here is both obvious and has a merit to the community, in that it lightens things up a bit and shows that, even at the end of the day, even vandalism can be funny if done right. In a way, I don't even see it as vandalism -- Yes, it is "destruction of content", in the same way that pirating is somehow depriving content from others, but it obviously stands alone in both an inherent quality and what it contributes to the community, a notice to "lighten up a bit" and to not see this as some sacred duty granted by a faceless server farm.

This is just my opinion, but I think "glorification of vandalism" is being used as a front by what are essentially bureaucratically-minded, humorless editors and their uncomfortable notion that something that is counterproductive to their work -- vandalism -- cannot also have its own inherent humor and worth.

Vandalism gets reverted regardless of whether or not it's funny. I honestly doubt most vandals even know of this page, since the truly malicious ones aren't out for jokes, just to make some noise. Those reverting the vandalism are taking time away from whatever else they're doing, yes, but to think that this page contributes, in any way, to a problem in vandalism, is ludicrous.

Lemme put it this way: BJODN causes an increase in vandalism ^{[citation needed]}

The point here is, sometimes it's funny, and to just throw away a good joke seems almost like a crime to the late-night warrior in front of his trusty keyboard-and-monitor. Basically, it's an old, traveled section for a reason: It's funny! Removing it only shows an uncomfortable shift away from the idea of a living community that takes pleasure in its work, both good and bad.

crtrue 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"It contributes to the community", in what way? What BJAODN provided was a place where vandalism from various articles were found funny by at least one editor and, sometimes without attribution, were added to a sub-page to memorialize the fact that an editor came to the site to fuck up content. How does that at all help Wikipedia grow to be a more trustworthy, reliable and overall better site? It doesn't. We are here to create Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not BJAODN the policy violating funny farm. — Moe ε 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We are here to create Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. But the number of people who are so committed to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that they would continue to create it were there no thriving community is very very low. This particular thing may have been a bad idea, but it's not true that anything which does not directly help an encyclopedia article is bad. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have clarified that. The community is just as important as the encyclopedia aspect, but BJAODN did nothing to provide anything positive for the community or the encyclopedia and was potentially more harmful than the good it was worth. — Moe ε 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Moe. I disagree. It was one of the things that made me get involved in Wikipedia early on. Even now when I'm cleaning up vandalism or trying to reduce the backlog in CAT:CSD, the notion that some bit of vandalism might be delightfully awful keeps me going through what would be otherwise pure drudgery. That you can't see the benefit and don't personally experience it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. William Pietri 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please see Category:Wikipedia humor for more humorous stuff that isn't potentially harmful. Thank you! — Moe ε 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, but it's a different kind of humor. Vandalism humor is almost like meta-humor, playing off of the established encyclopedia and its various elements as opposed to simply being listed. It's its own thing and I don't see this as a suitable replacement. crtrue 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I really see no benefit to re-hashing the MfD here. Everything that you wrote has already been said. We can go re-read the closed MfD discussion if we want to see it again. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think another DRV is called-for (this one on certain more coherent subpages of BJAODN, such as the Wikipe-tan Temple page). Some of them are classic statements on Wikipedia culture (or jokes related to it). — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would almost certainly be seen as disruptive at this point. Phil Sandifer 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be no more disruptive than any of what has already taken place. There have been previous, failed attempts at getting this content deleted. That much is very common knowledge, and a fair amount of the content was recovered and posted to the uncyclopedia:meta: wiki the last time we went through this. So here we go again. That those who want BJAODN to disappear for some reason just kept retrying the same antics until they got their way is disruptive, no? --carlb 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for or against something changing is not disruption, otherwise every repeat XFD would be tossed out as disruptive. — Moe ε 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and majority opinion are two separate things. There is an obvious reason this debate has been dragged out for so long -- it's not obvious. A lot of people are going to be pissed off either way, in this case, myself and those who feel it had its place and did not significantly contribute any real "threat" to Wikipedia. crtrue 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Democratic or not, just because a majority of people saw it fit to be deleted, does not mean that there was a lack of value in the page itself and that a minority did see some redeeming worth. Yes, the issue is over, and I'm not trying to get gears turning yet again. I just feel that this is a shame-and-a-half that Wikipedia has chosen to take itself so seriously now that it is scraping anything that doesn't fit directly into a mission statement. crtrue 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You say you are "not trying to get gears turning yet again". I say: You're either trying to make a point, or you're just a troll. You don't seem like a troll, so I can only assume you're here with constructive intent. So own up to your opinions — be proud to have them! • That said, repeating arguments already made in the MfD doesn't really get us anywhere. Try for constructive suggestions, rather than "I don't like this outcome". • Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that there is still a lot of silly stuff in the project namespace (and I, for one, regard that as a Good Thing). Wikipedia is in no danger of becoming humorless. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is going to be a bad joke. (association)

The title to this reminds me of a British radio show. Therefore, "Wikipedians were given 'silly things' to shows by vandals and the like', which is just kind of like "The panellists were given silly things to do by Humphrey Littleton". (Sorry!) :) Simply south 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia humour page

The BJAODN pages were getting somewhat tedious at times - rambling, "words and references some might consider offensive" and vandalism (whether or not with the intention of being moved to BJAODN) etc.

There is an argument for noting the "weird and wonderful", jokes (whether or not weak), accidental humour, mistranslations, bizarre requests etc.

With some monitoring and applying a gate to pseudo-vandalism and similar, it would last a few years before the above discussion is repeated. (g) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 10:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Please check out CAT:HUM, which has several such pages. >Radiant< 10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the same.

If the "nuisance people" could be banished to "Vandalopedia"/"RevertWarWik" and similar life would be much simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 12:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

BJAODN has been deleted. If you're looking for this material, possible archives include:

archive.org (a partial collection, ends just after #50)
bjaodn.org (reasonably complete)
uncyclopedia:meta: (fairly complete)

There may be others - this is not a comprehensive list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.76.42 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Silly Things/Archive one#Another website, do not add links to BJAODN archives. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that, in future, you refrain from editing comments left by others. If you wish to reply with your opinions, fine, but please do not remove existing content. --08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a link to the old archives would solve alot of trouble. Rather then having a flood of regular postings saying "Where did it go? I want a look... (Etc.)", we can just leave a note somewhere and helpfully preempt all of it. 68.39.174.238 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you both go read the previous discussion, and stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you'd prefer, I'll call an admin in here and see what they think. Seeing how they endorsed the deletion last time, I expect the same will happen this time. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 68.39.174.238 does not appear to by trying to be disruptive. However, that user should still read the past discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By linking to this fragment of the past discussion, you seem mostly to be quoting yourself. I see nothing there that constitutes a consensus among admins to censor the talk page in the way you propose. --66.102.80.239 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that linking should be allowed, except...some people might consider the GDFL violations reasons not to. This is getting silly though, as I can't see any hard in having them here on the talk page for any other reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting User:Phil Sandifer, the admin who closed BJAODN MfD #6, and User:Moe Epsilon, and yah, me too. Other attempts at reviving BJAODN have already been deleted in their own MfD. But fine, if you want to keep putting them back, I'll ask for more involvement via WP:RFC. Who knows, maybe doing this again for the eight time in a month will yield different results. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The community does not just consist of admins. It also consists of anonymous editors and named editors. Consensus is generated by all of those. Admins sometimes tend to forget this, unfortunately. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to BJAODN archives

Request for Comment

The issue

The question is: Should we maintain a list of links to off-Wikipedia archives of BJAODN?

Background

"Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" (BJAODN) was deleted in accord with this MfD discussion.
- That deletion was reviewed and upheld.
Recreation of BJAODN in userspace was deleted in MfD.
- That deletion was reviewed and upheld.
The "Best of" pages have been nominated for deletion as well. That discussion is still in progress.
A short discussion of the issue of links was held previously, and concluded against such links.
- However, that discussion may have been too short to reflect consensus.

Discussion

BJAODN MfD #6 was closed as "Delete". Consensus was that BJAODN serves as a "monument to vandalism"; that such a monument was inappropriate with the spirit and mission of Wikipedia; and worse, actively harms Wikipedia by encouraging further vandalism. I respect the community's decision. I believe that linking to off-Wikipedia archives of BJAODN accomplishes the same thing as maintaining BJAODN on Wikipedia. If the one is inappropriate and encourages vandalism, so will the other. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple, anyone here to disrupt the community will be blocked. Rickyrab intended on reviving BJAODN and linking to the offsite BJAODN. He was also blocked for a week. Any questions? — Moe ε 04:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not intent on reviving BJAODN as an on-Wikipedia project. What I had intended to do was to create a personal bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page, which is not the same thing. I also intended to link to offsite BJAODN. I didn't see that as disruptive, but apparently others did. Currently, I have solved the problem (at least in theory) via a personal wiki in a libertarian wiki farm. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was inappropriate to block people for making links that are relevant to a project page or historical project page, anyhow. WP:NOT censored. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamlinks are removed, not censored, and thats what you presented yourself as when you went and on every post starting to link to the same offsite trying to promote it. You made it very clear that you didn't like the result of the MFD, encourged editors to look elsewhere for the information and created a subpage that stated that you created the page for the sake of not being in accordance with the latest MFD. You were being disruptive. Do you wish to furthur press this issue? — Moe ε 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't consider it to be spam. Item 2)yes, I made it clear I didn't like the result of that MfD; item 3)yes, I encouraged editors to look elsewhere, item 4) I created a page that stated that it was not necessarily meant to be in compliance with the MfD, but it also stated that it was not necessarily intended to disobey that MfD, either: I was trying to stay neutral, and this was a response to User:Shalom deleting his own personal BJAODN in what he felt was compliance with that MfD. I didn't see the MfD at the time as reaching to all similar pages or BJAODN subpages, and I had called upon the closing admin to use discretion when deciding what to delete. Item 5)I am not so sure I was intentionally disruptive, but I admit to being excessive in my recommendations and activities concerning BJAODN. However, I still feel that linking to off-site repositories of BJAODN to show potential editors of BJAODN where they are was the right thing to do, lest they go about disrupting Wikipedia with the creation of a new project page (and the accompanying problems that editors are so sick of). In context, your removal of the links was disruptive. I'm wondering if you wish to further press the issue. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a somewhat misleading statement in that Rickyrab isn't merely stating that bjaodn.org, archive.org or anyone else online had a copy of this stuff (and many do). He was actively creating user-space subpages on the English-language Wikipedia itself to archive content. Apples and oranges. Whether you agree or disagree with the use of wikipedia:en: userspace for this is an entirely different issue to that of various Wikipedians objecting strongly enough to what's happening here to create their own wikis and recover the content there.

As for disrupting the community? We have a non-administrative user here taking it upon himself to actively edit others' comments on the talk page. Most of these edits archive or remove all mention that any of the off-site archives exist... including well-known commercial sites like Wayback Machine. Editing others' talkpage text in this manner is not just rude, in the current context (where the Wikipedia community is still deeply divided over the question of the original deletions) it does amount to disruption solely to make a point. Enough. --carlb 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with carlb. It's HARDLY disruptive to add external links on a talk page. Again, I can see that, IF it's a copyright infringement (because of the GDFL), it can be ok to remove the links -- but seriously, removing mention of The Wayback Machine?? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree: editing others' comments to make a WP:POINT is rude and disruptive. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Humor turned to a guideline

I do not think BJAODN should be deleted. It is not that bad. In fact if it is rewritten it could even be a guideline!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 15:21, 3 September, 2007 (User Talker Contributor)

You obviously have the wrong idea about what a guideline is, and what Wikipedia really is. — Moe ε 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community that is building an an encyclopedia and having pages such as BJAODN helps builds the commnunity BJAODN helps build the encyclopedia.--71.170.106.104 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a question of whether BJAODN should be deleted, it already has been deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by "rewritten ... guideline". Do you have something specific in mind? Make sure you address the various arguments against BJAODN given in past discussions (see #Background); it appears the community is growing weary of rehashing old arguments. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN is by definition that "bad". That's what the B stands for. >Radiant< 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

There is a case for Some sort of "funnies (deliberate or otherwise)" page - but not including the previous "long stretches of seemingly turgid debate".

Items are posted to "a page" and have a keep/delete debate on them - after a week/month they are deleted if they do not reach a certain number of keep votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.240.26 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Something based solely on "keep votes" would fun afoul of Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not supposed to vote on things, we're supposed to discuss them. Now, I suppose one could try and have some sort of approval process based on discussion, but the problem with that is that humor is a very subjective thing. Could it ever be more than people saying WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT? There's also the fact that there is strong consensus against BJAODN; see #Background for a good list. I suspect a proposal to reinstate BJAODN with some sort of inclusion criteria would still be shouted down. Can you address any of these concerns? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong consensus? It seems that more people were against deletion.--SuperElephant 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the closing nominator. — Moe ε 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On which attempt, number 1048575 or number 1048576? This is getting ludicrous even by BJAODN standards. --205.150.76.42 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Something that fits in under "Other funny stuff" to put "creative misspelling and inspired writing": non-punning swearwords, and the "turgid stretches of text passing as debate" that characterised much of BJAODN meaning automatic exclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just put your favorite jokes in a personal wiki, link the wiki to your user page, and move on. Let's cut this crap out already. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not what I was referring to - and most vandalism/bad editing etc is annoying or silly. There might be a place "somewhere" for the Benedict XVI/Palpatine switch, the please expand stub on a food issue relate page etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to consensus there isn't a place. I suggest you let the matter drop. — Moe ε 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, what consensus? The community is divided deeply, and every time the ones that want everything deleted don't get their way, they just keep nominating and renominating this for the dustbin. We're up to attempt #6 now? Certainly not the same as "letting the matter drop" by any stretch of the imagination. --carlb 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at attempt number 6 consensus changed according to the closing administrator. Deletion review, which it's already been at once for that closing, is that way. — Moe ε 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And one might think of a "miscellany for creation" page, too.... — Rickyrab | Talk 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Would add the "dubious quote" on Tony Benn's talk page. I think there is a certain concensus on "BJAODN as a sequence of pages" not being worth keeping on various grounds (encouraging non-amusing vandalism, turgid paragraphs etc etc), and most typos are uninteresting - but there is room on Wikipedia to a place to smile at the quirks of multiple usership etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.10 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-vandalism pages being deleted

I couldn't help but notice several non-vandalism related pages being deleted, but with the reasoning of the last MfD. Much of this stuff was even in user-space. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I also can't make heads or tails of stuff like Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Delete the main page this. I'm guessing something was moved, then deleted where it was moved to, then someone deleted the redirect. WTF? -- Ned Scott 01:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently enjoying any sort of non-serious page means we're horrid hideous people and should shoot ourselves for not spending all our free time making extensive contributions to article space. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes. --Kizor 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Can someone do the redirect for "Wikipedia Silly Things" - ie without the colon.

Rather than arguing over whether BJAODN should be resurrected, should there be a discussion on creating more "Other funny stuff" entries - to include items such as appear on the various "Best of..." lists.

There is an argument for having "one or several" pages covering things considered amusing - the problem is how to provide effective gatekeeping. Jackiespeel 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The redirect without the colon puts it in the article namespace, no that is a cross-namespace redirect which are generally disallowed and deleted. The best of BJAODN is an archive, no furthur material is to be added. — Moe ε 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Only on the Wikipedia version. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just entered the above term - got nowhere. Jackiespeel 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

aww, i had lost many hours browsing this stuff. --smadge1 03:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent 2 minutes looking at this stuff. I want them back. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is it now?

The top boxes say "Be aware that there are places off-Wikipedia where BJAODN exists as a project"; where are these places? —Toby Bartels 11:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the bjaodn.org site?

When I tried it today, it was a complete blank (0 bytes). I don't know what's going on, but it's apparently been that way since last night. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of moving the cache over to an unused BJAODN wiki that Wikia had granted someone else, bjaodn.wikia.com. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Something went screwy in the software- I'm in the process of reinstalling MediaWiki. The database itself wasn't affected, and I have a dump on my server. Don't worry- you can't keep BJAODN down for long! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And BJAODN is back up! The "/wiki/whatever" URL's haven't been set up, along with a few extensions, but BJAODN is mainly back online. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

w00t 204.52.215.107 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Uncyclopedia favouritism (bloke)

Why is UN favoured (bloked) against ED? Why does encyclopedia of silliness go to UN, not ED? I'm tired of the uncyclopedia-worship here, why is ED hated and nthat sack of shit ripoff loved? ED pwns. Orthodoxbush 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia consensus, right now, is to deny the existence of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Whilst Uncyclopedia is little more than silliness, Encyclopedia Dramatica is actively hostile towards Wikipedia and other people and groups online as well as being silly. Right now, ED has a better Alexa ranking than Uncyclopedia, and I do get the impression that since Uncyclopedia is hosted on Wikia and does not encourage trolling, vandalism etcetera, it is allied with the Wikimedia projects more than ED, a website that mocks Wikipedia really badly. Still, many people find Encyclopedia Dramatica more entertaining than Uncyclopedia because they think the former is actually funny, whereas the latter is just unfunny nonsense, and is censored in comparison. Encyclopedia Dramatica does not hold back with its humour and is willing to go to extreme lengths to demonstrate it, whereas Uncyclopedia seems to many as just trying to be funny, but failing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so where does this go?

My U.S. experience has always been "fill-ay." ...Posting on a Wikipedia article talk page about the Filet-O-Fish, good lord, what am I doing with my life?--4.245.23.94 09:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
— Talk:Filet-O-Fish#Pronunciation of "Filet-O-Fish"

(and: Is "cruft" cruft?) Jason McHuff (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know it is pushing into territory covered by the deletion/WP:DENY, but take a look at Talk:Hallmark holiday#Feb 14 comment (referring to these edits by 136.242.114.115). Maybe someone can move this to the off-site collection or somewhere. Jason McHuff 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [talk page comment] Jason McHuff 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For those that wish BJAODN is still around...

I found an alternative site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Ermac (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)