Forum:Hi there

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Hi there

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4936 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Why did you guys remove my nomination from VFH? It was a legitimate nom. --141.114.217.44 15:33, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fonchezzz, we may as well call you that since that is who you are when you sign in. The nomination was removed as it was essentially a self-nomination which is deemed invalid since you completed the Pee Review yourself in order to make it legitimate, you simply signed out to do so. If you would like to contest this and claim that you are simply Fonchezzz's biggest fan then we can easily check that. It's just your only contributions to the site have been a Pee review of his article that declared it superb, a VFH nom proclaiming the same thing, and now this forum asking why we deleted. So please stop sockpuppetting. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 15:42, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Fonchezzz. I'm an unbiased, objective third party. Besides, self noms go through VFH all the time, why would that even be a problem? --141.114.217.44 15:56, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't go and screw up your nascent Uncyclopedia career by playing silly buggers with sockpuppets. Your efforts at writing have showed some potential thus far, so it'd be a pity if you got permabanned before your talents have a chance to develop. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 15:59, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Self-noms are subject to a Pee review, and, while I am unconvinced that you are not the same person then the nom will not go up. I will check whether you are Fonchezzz or not, if you are lying to me you will win a considerable amount of time off, I have very little patience for such antics, so this is your last chance to admit it punishment free. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 16:00, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, by now you should have confirmed that I'm not Fonchezzz. Can you reinstate the nomination? I love that mad little man... --141.114.217.44 20:15, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

And if you're still not convinced, consider this: If I was Fonchezzz wouldn't my name be Fonchezzz? Think about it a little...--141.114.217.44 20:27, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I didn't take the fellow for this sort of idiocy, but perhaps that is the skewing lens of hope distorting my assumptions. It begs the question, though: if you truly are not, who are you? What is your relation? Such coincidence is, after all, highly suspicious...

And if it turns out you are, shame on you. Shame! *gets out a giant wooden spoon* SHAME! ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101014 - 20:32 (UTC)

Oh come on. I had nothing to do with this. I made an article. and then I put it up for review. Im personally mad that it got a pretty bad review. LEO! Don't put it up for feature. It getting shot down will be embarrassing. -___- --|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 23:50, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for revealing my identity. You lowballing fiend. --141.114.217.44 23:58, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Either that or get banned? Which would you choose?--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 00:03, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Please look:

I am Jack, and Leo, my brother, is Dan. This is a conversation that took place several minutes ago. --|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 00:36, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Love, some bureaucratic checkuser'll verify it eventually, whatever's going on.

And assuming this is the case and not some elaborate hoax of the sort on which the chronically paranoid subsist, maybe you should put the silly article up for re-review... if you give me a dead duck, I'll even review it for you! But you have to kill the duck yourself. *manic grin* You probably don't want that, anyway; my reviews are all horrible and rambly and disjointed and stuff. Something about how I tend to get massively sidetracked and wander off onto forums in the middle of writing them... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101015 - 00:49 (UTC)

But... but... but I love ducks.--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 01:09, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I just might kill you, boy. --141.114.217.44 01:30, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum all of this jostling and loathing and bustling makes me interested in reading your article. And why not give the lady a dead duck (just get a chicken and put a fake beak on it, she won't know) for a review. I've traded worse than that for a review. Why do you think there are no more dogs in my neighorhood? Coincidence? (that's what I tell the authorities) Maybe you can also go vote for all the articles on VFH you think are good, doing so is as good as ducks. Tis true! Aleister 1:43 15 10

Why do you think I chose ducks? I plead laziness. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101015 - 23:03 (UTC)

You know what

I saw the title of this forum post, and thought that it was a new guy introducing him/her/itself. I was excited, dammit. And now look. My excitement has been replaced by sadness and a craving for duck. How could you? Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 02:35 Friday, October 15, 2010

Was it a good article?

WHERE'S THE LINK? If it is a good one, I will nominate it. If it sucks, I will just go fuck myself like I always do when something does. -- Style  Guide 02:39, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

To make this slightly more concise, I will not - repeat: not - nominate the link but the actual article, provided it is a good one. I mean the article, not the link. -- Style  Guide 02:48, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

WHERE'S THE LINK FOR FUCK'S SAKE??

Where? -- Style  Guide 11:33, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Here! http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Egg_sighted --141.114.217.44 16:04, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

OK - I won't nom that. The idea is sort of funny in a kiddie way, not bad at all if you like that kind of thing, but the writing leaves something to be desiréed - for instance: "However the vast majority of professionals are sure that this is its own condition, based on a study done in 1956 by students of Mrs. Connolly's third grade class at Maple Elementary." The condition is based on the study? That can be a joke too but it somehow doesn't fit this case. I have a gut feeling, not a rule, that if you want to write about something off-the-wall wacky, you should be pretty careful with it and write it as absolute truth, very seriously. -- Style  Guide 19:20, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to nom it either, because it fucking sucks. pillow talk 19:29, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

You could put it that way too - but the dude actually has taken some trouble writing an article, so he deserves a bit more than that. -- Style  Guide 19:35, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

When you listen to Hootie and the Blowfish, do you think "Wow, Hootie really deserves credit for writing a song and trying to make it listenable!" or do you think "This fucking sucks!"? pillow talk 21:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hootie and the Blowfish? I love them! No, seriously, if you welcome someone who tries to be funny by saying his stuff fucking sucks that's a bit over the top. It's just humour, after all. They might be a bit pissed off by your attitude, even if their articles are not as good as yours. I fail to see how that's productive in any way. I would just tell them to try something different the next time, whatever my personal preference. He might be some 12-13 y old kid for instance. Even if his writing is dumb as hell I'm not sure he deserves to be told his article fucking sucks. Also, that's by far not the worst article on Uncyc. -- Style  Guide 19:13, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's productive in that it might help discourage him from writing a similar article. pillow talk 20:15, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

But equally unproductive as you would not want/have not enjoyed anyone criticising your work in a similar manner. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 20:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's been helpful in the past. Quite honestly, the best feedback I've ever received on my music came in 2001, when my friend said "Your voice fucking sucks and I cannot stand to listen to it." That's what inspired me to learn a little bit more about compression and vocal effects, and took my recordings from "unlistenable" to "listenable." ("Good" still seems a little bit out of reach). pillow talk 21:17, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Such feedback is less demoralising coming from 'friends' than from strangers, though, I've found. Still not quite sure what 'friends' are. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101020 - 21:25 (UTC)

Really? Your voice still fucking sucks and I cannot stand to listen to it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:56, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I am now squarely on the path to becoming awesome. pillow talk 08:30, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

The path is triangular and not big enough for a square of your size... really, what were you thinking? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 12:16 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said my feelings weren't hurt. It fucking sucks, Oh hey. Why dont you write a review? thanks though for those who actually gave me constructive criticism. I am aware though that I am not feature quality, or quality at all. Remember: I didn't nom it... Ya know... that stuff is just my sense of humor, and thats why I like illogicopedia so much. Just... I would prefer a bit more than "It fucking sucks".--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 23:59, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll see if I can find time to give it a proper review tonight. pillow talk 00:41, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. pillow talk 06:34, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hype, that review is hilarious; it had me laughing all the way through. --Black Flamingo 13:52, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated Quotes Guy was a legend. And I still stand by my originial review.--141.114.219.160 14:49, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

UNRELATED QUOTES GUY IS GONE!!!! WOE AND PESTILENCE UNTO YOU ALL!!! --141.114.219.160 14:53, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Why? WHY!?!! WHYYYYYY?!??!!!!!! Yeah I'm gonna move the article to Illogicopedia where it belongs. But why's Unrelated quotes guy gone? Thanks for the honest review. I laughed.--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 20:49, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if all of Uncyclopedia improves by Hyperbole's recipe

Hi, friends! Your articles fucking suck! -- Style  Guide 18:16, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck he took some of it back, sort of. All right, your articles don't suck. -- Style  Guide 18:19, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! My articles don't suck.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  22 Oct 2010 ~ 19:33 (UTC)

My articles do suck. I win! ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101022 - 21:01 (UTC)

No no no you got me all worng! The idea was that I say "Your articles suck!" and then you write BETTER articles! -- Style  Guide 19:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather just tell other people their articles suck more. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 19:04 (UTC)

No no no you got me all worng! The idea was that "my articles don't suck" and then "Hooray!" (but I wrote it all reverse-like 'cause I thought it got the point across better.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  24 Oct 2010 ~ 20:08 (UTC)

What point? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 20:18 (UTC)

That I've found the Mountain Wumpus so I'm getting out of the M.U.L.E. business and am using the treasure for my retirement. Duh.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  24 Oct 2010 ~ 20:44 (UTC)

Triangles...? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 20:51 (UTC)

You both are messing this bit up and ignoring the point, my point, which is the most important one anywhere in Uncyclopedia or elsewhere in the world. Hey! I have an idea! Let's feature this! -- Style  Guide 05:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

My articles suck! What's my prize? ~ Readmesoon 05:17, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

You... er, actually, you have more features than I do. I think that means I win the 'my articles suck' game, thankyouverymuch. *shifty eyes* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101025 - 05:31 (UTC)

Has this improved any? -- Style  Guide 19:16, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Not really... my articles still suck, he still hasn't written anything new, there was a shark attack, and now all the cookies are gone. So no, no, it has not. ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20101025 - 19:26 (UTC)

So then... if nobody posts any objections, I hereby (mumble mumble) the recipe a failure. OK? -- Style  Guide 19:33, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I could feed you to a shark. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101029 - 20:52 (UTC)