Bluesockapedia
From Bluesockapedia
(Difference between revisions)
Corruption (Talk | contribs) (→Reasons Why Bluesockapedia is better than Wikipedia) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*Believes [[Red Socking]] is worthy of an article. | *Believes [[Red Socking]] is worthy of an article. | ||
*Believe more templates, the better. | *Believe more templates, the better. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Further Reading== | ||
| + | *[[This needs an article]] - ''stuff that really needs an article. Let your creative output go nuts!'' | ||
| + | *[[Bluesockapedia:About|About Bluesockapedia]] - ''important, unfunny and serious stuff about Bluesockapedia''. | ||
[[Category: Bluesockapedia]] | [[Category: Bluesockapedia]] | ||
Revision as of 21:09, 20 November 2007
Bluesockapedia is what you are reading now. If it isn't, I'd be worried. Really worried.
Reasons Why Bluesockapedia is better than Wikipedia
- It actually tells the truth.
- It doesn't need a citation every two sentences.
- We don't believe in deleting pages. If it's funny, it stays.
- Then again, if it has text on the page, it stays.
- Is ran by monkeys, not hampsters.
- Believes Red Socking is worthy of an article.
- Believe more templates, the better.
Further Reading
- This needs an article - stuff that really needs an article. Let your creative output go nuts!
- About Bluesockapedia - important, unfunny and serious stuff about Bluesockapedia.
