Bluesockapedia

From Bluesockapedia

(Difference between revisions)
(Further Reading)
 
(2 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
==Reasons Why Bluesockapedia is better than Wikipedia==
==Reasons Why Bluesockapedia is better than Wikipedia==
-
*It actually tells the truth.
+
*It actually tells the [[truth]].
*It doesn't need a citation every two sentences.
*It doesn't need a citation every two sentences.
*We don't believe in deleting pages. If it's funny, it stays.
*We don't believe in deleting pages. If it's funny, it stays.
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]]

Current revision as of 21:10, 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

Personal tools