Wikipedia talk:Silly Things

Deletion discussions
To understand how the majority of the content at Wikipedia:Silly Things aka Wikipedia:BJAODN aka Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense came to be deleted and moved off Wikipedia, please study the following discussions.

Main BJAODN page

 * March 25, 2004 - Miscellany for deletion #1 - Keep
 * March 24, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion #2 - Speedy close
 * March 31, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion #3 - Withdrawn, procedural keep
 * May 31, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion #4 - Nomination withdrawn
 * May 31, 2007 - Deletion review - Deletion endorsed
 * June 2, 2007 - Deletion review (of subpages) - BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations
 * August 14 2007 - Speedy Delete
 * Pages unilaterally deleted due to ongoing lack of progress on GFDL issues from June decision and vandalism concerns (WP:DENY). Minor controversy ensues, with some pages being undeleted, a Deletion Review being opened, and a MFD case (#5) being opened in parallel. The MFD case was closed in favor of the Deletion Review case, which itself was closed with the decision to relist on MFD (#6) for a formal communal decision.
 * August 14, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion #5 - Speedy close in favor of Deletion Review process.
 * August 14 - 18, 2007 - Deletion review - Transfer to MfD to allow full discussion
 * August 18 - 24, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion #6 - Basically delete

Subpages

 * April 28, 2004 - deletion debate about WikiSex subpage - Delete
 * July 19, 2005 - Articles for deletion (WikiProject Disinformation) - Delete
 * August 26, 2005 - Non-main namespace page for deletion (Willy on Wheels (on wheels)) - Delete
 * May 20, 2006 - Miscellany for deletion (Encyclopædia BJAODNonica) - Delete
 * March 21, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion (Close Encounters...) - Nomination withdrawn
 * August 16, 2007 - Miscellany for deletion (The Next BJAODN Page Title) - Deleted

Hung Jury.
At one point (not recently I saw a version of Hung Jury which said that it was a jury composed of men with large penises. I reverted it immediately, but it might be of some interest to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.74.215 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Silly gem I found while patrolling
Hi, sorry if the Talk page is the wrong place to submit these things, but I just thought this story was really funny:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Morse&type=revision&diff=721042502&oldid=721042465 Lovkal (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spoke&diff=1049835315&oldid=1033698975 is also funny, got me thereLeomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  08:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

links to external sites
I removed certain external links, and mention of those websites, under this edit summary: "Remove mention of external collection, which defeats the point of freezing the local collection. If we advertise that future vandalism to articles may be immortalised, this can encourage it. It is immaterial whether the collection lives here or elsewhere". I stand by this.

My edit was undone using the default undo message, in flagrant violation of the instruction that states "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."

If you have a view on whether we should or should not advertise an external website where recently added vandalism may be immortalised, please discuss it here. If there is no discussion very soon, I will reinstate the edit that was undone without discussion.

Thank you.

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This has probably been debated a lot, but I don't see it as particularly encouraging vandalism, no more than Lamest edit wars encourages edit warring. Most vandalism I've come across is either unsubtle blanking or the insertion of low grade nonsense, and is hardly worthy of anything other than being reverted. Linking to a few external sites is hardly likely to affect things at all, in most likelihood. The contents of these sites are mainly historical anyway, and where moved off site when it was deemed to be inappropriate. I don't think we need to worry particularly. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Historical
BJAODN is a great idea, what happened to it? I would completely support bringing it back. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a massive WP:COPYRIGHTS quagmire. At face value, a clear violation of copyright policy, and would have been a massive task to correct. See WP:MAD. Deletion and re-use, while possible, is to be strongly discouraged.  Even when done right, it is non-ideal practice, and makes for very complicated attribution records.
 * You can, however, find it offsite. The copyright violation there is not our responsibility.
 * I disagree that it is worth bringing back, or is of lasting value. Very little was project-related and of any project-related educational value.  Much was humour in the run, funny in the telling, in the moment, but of seriously diminished quality when preserved.  Like recordings of a comedian’s early works, it was good to be there, but few derive much value from watching reruns of slapstick. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that's true. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Sam.L (123e443) 123e443 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to be a killjoy, but should we really be keeping a section including a joke about prison rape in BJAODN?
In the "Buying Chocolate" section of "More Best of BJAODN," the original editor (the person who wrote the nonsense, not the person who put the nonsense in BJAODN) wrote "When you are in prison, saying to other hardened criminals that you are inside for nicking a bar of chocolate could result in you bending over for the soap." (wikilink mine). While BJAODN is for keeping things that editors find ridiculous, often to laugh at how bad they are rather than how funny the actual joke made by the original editor was, including a joke about prison rape in a page for "silly things" seems a bit too far.

If anyone else agrees with removing the rape joke from "Buying Chocolate," there might be a copyright issue with removing one sentence rather than the entire thing?

Thank you for your consideration. QuietCicada (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Bold 2409:4070:4215:60A2:28D2:E0D1:AB1D:EEE6 (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)