Uncyclopedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archive 1

Cs1987 for poopsmith

We just makes so many contributions to vfd. I can't remember a single vfd where he hasn't voted.--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

Why have I been blocked from editing vfd? WHY???--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't semiprotection wonderful, kids? I'm going to take a guess and say that your account's too new, but that doesn't really make sense. You've had this account for over three days; you should be able to edit the page. If not, then something's fouled up. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How?

Maybe I'm really slow, or out of it today... but I somehow missed... how do I nominate something to be voted for deletion? This is the article I'd like to do that: Gerard Way. Just because its too random to be funny. Like they were trying WAYYY too hard. AhhDiddums 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind, took care of it -AhhDiddums 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No edit etc

Well I VFD' Chile but I can't edit this page to start the voting process. At least until now, from the discussion page of the article it seems that the majority wants to delete it or blank it.--Guruclef 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)User:guruclef

Sign here if you got here if you were trying to look for the VFD from a series of unfortunate events.

• Well duh. And I absolutely agree with Nerd42. With all due respect, --Maggoty Anne (UTC)
• Signs... in blood*
• Goshzilla 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have said before that we ought to make fun of Snicket's V.F.D. on this page. Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• YES I WAS! THAT IS THE BEST SERIES! Oh, and whoever said the last thing definitely should NOT be sitting next to their computer enjoying theirself-- he should be kept in a cave with dry bread and water to eat and drink. YOU ARE MEAN!!!! --Silly 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Silly
• I have no idea what any of this means. Could someone please explain? --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Help there is no edit button/link

An article I wrote has been put up on VFD, I'd like to discuss it, I can't find an edit button on the project page to contribute anything. I've noticed I'm not the only one. Also, is that the right place or should it go in the discussion on the article itself? Timeblind

• Log in first, then you will see the edit tab. (Also, please use the individual section edit headings). Goshzilla 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Threatening

Is there really a need to threat every single person that mistakenly places something on VFD that should have been NRV'd or such? The new deletion policy is good, but it's also long and you can't expect everyone to read it and konw it well, at least not by now that it's still new. Besides, dismissing the nomnations (without the threats) is enough, people who nominates against the policy will just get bored of getting their nominations dismissed and would just stop nominating or, even better, follow the policy. Can we just make a template that says something like "Nomination dismissed. Please read the deletion policy. Article now tagged with NRV/fix/QVFD/whatever." Well, it's more or less what Gwax has been writing but without the unpleasent and unnecessary threats. And I would take down the threat highlighted in red at the beggining as well.--Rataube 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been friendly in the past and it just doesn't work. The truth is, at this point, my patience has run out. If someone wants to come in and take over for me, then they can run VFD however they want but until people stop making my life difficult, I'm not going to go easy on them. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the beatings will continue until the moral improves. Dear one, if you are burned out then step aside and at least take a vacation by handing over the reigns to someone else for a short period of time. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, I understund your position, must be really annoying. You really need a break, read and write some articles, enjoy, ask for a substitute.--Rataube 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the only way to improve morale is to shoot all the unhappy people. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

hiatus?!

Great! Just great! How am I supposed to rampage now?! This is the one place I could vent my daily frustration!! Now I'm sad... --Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey!19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

QVFD? IRC? Here? The Dump? I dunno... you could just save all the rage for later. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rage is better aged (proverb). Actually, I'm glad to see this improve-instead-of-shoot tactic. It's something I started doing not long before VFD was shut down. It's a good policy, and I'd be rather pleased if it continued after VFD reopens. --Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey!20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived VFD Talk

• Uncyclopedia talk:Pages for deletion/archive1

how do i edit the deletion page? there is no button

You need to register (it is as easy as choosing a name and password). --Splaka 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an account, and I can't edit the VFD page. All I can do is "view source". WTH? -- FunkSoulBrother

The way it works is you have to wait about 3 days before you are "autoconfirmed", that is you have not been blocked in a short period so the MediaWiki software does not believe you to be a vandal, otherwise somebodyu could just create an account and blank the page. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkage?

Just a question: Should there be links to Pages for deletion/clones, Pages for deletion/templates and Pages for deletion/unusedimages? I'm surprised there's not. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There really should be, yeah. I'll pop them in to incide a discussion about it here. --Splaka 05:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No edit.

I just VFD'd this article and I can't seem to get the edit button on the VFD page to come. Please help. Here's the link to it.

The George Encounters

Thanks. --Cray Z. 06:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to edit VFD and list the article there first... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that I can't see the edit button for the "Pages for deletion section". Help!!!.... --Cray Z. 07:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added it in for you, so look and see where it is, press the '[edit]' by the side, and type your vote under mine. Do you get it now?
~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia the Truth!

I consider that you have to delete this page, because I consider that is good unless the fact that it is a plagiarism of the article Wikipedia, has the same sections, the same jokes, the same images , only changes a few things, some templates and some words--User:Atenea26 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well wikipedia doesn't have copyright so :p.--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a blast from the past. That comment was posted six months ago, and the article's been nuked. Why are we dragging this up again? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Necrophilia, maybe? --AAA! (AAAA) 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

/me hides shovel and tries to look innocent. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit not available to this user on the project VFD page

Ok. I'm new around here and got all of a lather about saying how unfunny I agreed the Aufstralia article is. So I registered and all and I find that the edit function is protected. I hope it's ok if I register a "delete" vote here instead. No time to hang around for a reply. I did, however, take the time to bung a NRD stamp on one of the Australia articles, Westralia, linked to from the Aufstralia page. Full of more silly garbage - but more importantly, linked to by many other Australian articles. Not a good look at all for a comedy site. I've been really entertained by much else of Uncyclopedia and these racist/homophobic rants are disappointing to stumble on. Thedarky 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The project page is locked so that only registered users can edit it. Since you look like a registered user to me, you should be able to edit it. A vote here doesn't count, so if you want to vote, head over there.

If you're having issues editing pages, perhaps you want to wait a week or two and get some practice editing non-critical pages before you hit the project page. I tend to ban people for messing up the VFD page. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected?

Hi, I'm trying to nominate Kross for deletion, but I think my account's too new. The page started out on Wikipedia as an attack against an editor over there, but it was speedied, so the editor recreated it here. It's currently blanked, but in the history you can see it's what I believe you Uncyclopedians call 'slandanity'. Can someone else nominate it, pretty please? -- Deni 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been put in QuickVFD, which is where slandanity and other pages that violate UN:VAIN get deleted without requiring voting. It will be deleted soon.

VFD is for older articles the aren't funny, as described in the deletion policy.

Also, thanks for undoing IncredibleJake's other edits. --Sbluen 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! -- Deni 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's with the no love for Darth?

• Why not nominate all the Jesii, or all the xzillas? or get rid of all the mexicans? maybe next you can lead a progrom against the Jews... you're a stone racist... yes... feed off of the anger... it is strong inside you... it gives you power... --Mindsunwound: (NS) Astroglide Diplomacy There 22:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't nominate. If you would like, feel free to nominate the Jesii and xzillas, for I will delete them all too. As well as the Mexicans and the Jews. I'm an equal-opportunity deletor. No mercy. No remorse. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh... well you're just carrying out what the voters wanted... It's the nominator I'm miffed at... --Mindsunwound: (NS) Astroglide Diplomacy There 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Both Darth Hitler, and Darth Cow had more than twice the keep votes than delete votes, and both were still huffed? that makes no sense! --Mindsunwound: (NS) Astroglide Diplomacy There 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Must be a counting error. Perhaps you are under the assumption that "rewrite" means "keep". It does not. Either rewrite it yourself, or don't bother voting. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if a page gets rewritten, it should probably get the votes wiped so that people can re-vote on it. Or I could just be a bastard and delete anything that was linked to the former {{Darth}}. Humm...sounds like me. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough... but even so... Darth hitler and Darth Cow did have some good chuckles... it's too bad those two in particular didn't survive... --Mindsunwound: (NS) Astroglide Diplomacy There 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that 95% of the pages people vote "rewrite" on never get rewritten, and just end up back on VFD a month or two later. I'd much rather see someone take a crappy page under their wing and rewrite it than submit it to VFD. If they had some good chuckles - good! Take that and make a real killer of a page. As it was the rewrites (no offense to the person who rewrote them) didn't really add much to the already poor articles. If you'd like, get some like-minded friends together and make a nice rewrite up.

We've both got our parts to play in keeping the "gold-to-shit ratio" high - I delete the shit. You are more than encouraged to add to the gold. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You huffed Cow and Hitler? The vote was 'rewrite. they were rewritten! It was written right there? Is there something I am missing here? I see you standing there with a pail full of stupid and a shit eating grin... yeah i'm talking to you famine. --Darkfred 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down now. Sometimes things on the VFD are rewritten, but still get deleted for the following reasons:

1. The rewrite still sucked, and did little to improve sections that got the article VFDed in the first place.
2. If it's in the process of being rewritten, an administrator will tend to check the current state of the article. If it hasn't been rewritten yet or doesn't seem to have much improvement (it's given some time to be revised), it'll end up getting deleted because it doesn't need to sit on the VFD, taking up space when it can be resubmitted after its deletion with a much better version (the "rewritten" version; we have a flow here on the VFD).
3. The administrator(s) paid little or no attention to the discussion section; this happens a lot, and as a result the rewrites don't make it in time. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that cow was still stupid. But hitler was actually funny and everyone who voted after the rewrite liked it. The problem here is not The problem here is that the vote was NOT DELETE. The pages were put up wholesale, and even before the rewrite were better than 90% of the crap on this site. I see this a less a comment on the system and more a comment on the type of people who want to be administrators. The only real power they have is deletion so it attracts article psychopaths. --Darkfred 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can leave a comment stating that in the event of deletion you'd like it moved to your user space to work on in your own time. Then when it gets deleted you can get about the task of rewriting until it's good enough to put back into the article namespace. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be great, but the admin simply did not read the VFD so it wouldn't have worked. I did ask another admin to undelete it to my user space. --Darkfred 17:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

i broke it

someone invent me a breathaliser keyboard :/ - jack mort | cunt | talk - 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

fucking shit dick-ass, i think it's fixed. don't beat me - jack mort | cunt | talk - 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mastadon

Mastadun, like many articles in your competitor's Universal Encyclopedia (Wickihpu), simply suffered from the lack of an expert's input. There are few competent elephant mammologists who have time left to offer free work to endeavors such as this after hauling 37,000 pounds of bones up from the basement to their lab. In addition, it suffered, like Wicki-poop, from an excess of input from a person who apparently actually liked and had listened to the band, Mastingdun. The article will be fine, with a little copyediting, some pictures, a complete rewrite, and a quote by world famus mammoth hunter IckyPoop about the mammoth found with the erection. PopOught 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bastions in place?

Why? I want to vote. John Reaves 12:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF?!

Why is the page uneditable? Blueray 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

/me scratched forehead. It's semi-protected, I think. You need an account that's a few days old to edit the page. Or, I'm wrong. One of the two. A crapshoot, really. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am also getting this problem. I've had this account for about a week, and haven't even dreamed of deleting anything yet.

Could somebody do it for me? The article is "Runescape Weapons", and it just blows to high heaven.

Copy/paste votes?

Noticed that somebody pasted the following:

• 'Delete Any article here has gone too far - nice to use copy/paste for a while Guutog 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This was pasted on votes for every entry, including for articles already deleted hours back. Clearly he hasn't even looked at them. Does a vote like that still count?--220.238.175.38 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. I've told on talk page. —Braydie 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cared...

I made a Userbox for VFD editors... Here's the code: {{User:Capercorn/User VFD}} Feel free to use it all you like!

I care. Good though. —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 12/04 22:14

Yay - thank you Capercorn, I shall go and add it to my userboxbox right away. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad people like it. Capercorn 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes to VFD template

I think that the Giant "X" in the template should be replaced by

This

. Capercorn 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the entire thing should be replaced by this disturbing picture of Doug Henning. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not disturbing, thats hot. Ceridwyn^talk _contribs ^arc2.0 03:20, 02 May 2007

Substitutable template

I created Template:VFDTable for users who hate selecting text for every nomination. Does anyone like this idea? The template will need protection. Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It would still need to be put into the comment bit of the page as the normal table is to avoid confusing people though, wouldn't it? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Mark the survivors

What about pasting the VFD discussion to surviving articles' talk pages? This way we would know if an article was already here once and avoid re-nominating it. Also, I guess it's an important part of the article's history. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably a good idea but bags not being to one to have to do that :( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 10:47, 12 May 2007

The Chile Article

As far as I see it, it is just horrible. And the earlier versions are just as dumb. I am Chilean and I'm sad to say the Chile article should be deleted or blanked. Juggler 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand before the Common gates but, lo! they open not for me.

How old should an account be before you can edit this?--VyvyanWilde 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think three days is the norm, since the page is only semi-protected. --Andorin Kato 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was 4 days. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Any way to reduce edit conflicts?

About one-quarter(?) of the time that I'm voting in VFD, I end up with an edit conflict, despite my (unsuccessful) attempts to write quickly and concisely. These aren't edit conflicts with myself, so I know I'm not glitching up the system. Is there any way we might be able to rework the process to cut down on this problem? Pentium5dot1 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you get psychic powers of some sort, I doubt it. The only thing you can really do is make sure to vote on individual sections, rather than the page as a whole. Of course, with my psychic powers, I know that you already know that. Also, your lucky numbers are 3, 41, and F. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that can't be fixed, as far as I know. As Modus said, editing the individual sections will give you far fewer edit conflicts than editing the whole page. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 05:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's what I'm doing! (most of the time, anyway) And the edit conflicts just happen to be votes on the same article... Okay, I admit I've been exaggerating a bit, but please don't completely blame this on PEBKAC. I'd rather blame it on other people not remembering to edit specific sections. Notice that Wikipedia uses subpages for AFD... *wink wink, um, sorry for ill-formed feature request* Pentium5dot1 22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I never get edit conflicts on VFD. Are you pushing the save button more than once? - that would cause it. Otherwise I'd check the page history and try to determine which time of day voting is the least active. Or copy and paste each message so you're really fast. Slithy Tove 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do tend to be long-winded and preview a little obsessively (and still end up with poor wording). Read: I plead guilty. Pentium5dot1 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

15 Article limit?

Why is that 15 article limit really necessary? I find crap pages all the time but I can't nom them because there are too many pages on the vfd list. Jedibob5 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just how crappy are they? Consider using QVFD, {{ICU}}, {{construction}}, etc. as appropriate. Pentium5dot1 22:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be something in the pipeline that will help those such as yourself. There are stirrings in my brain of a thoughtful nature. [/cryptic comments] -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruft

Why was the article Cruft kept? The vote was 5-2 to delete. The last version before it was removed from the page is here:

[1]

It also doesn't appear in the archive. The first time it was nommed is archived, when it was kept because I forgot to put a VFD tag on it. I re-nommed it with the tag, and the second version is not archived. The vote was to delete both times.Slithy Tove 20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably some shady conspiracy. I'd leave well alone in case you get chucked in the river with concrete shoes! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Marking the Survivors

Guess what I've been wasting my time doing?

Since there has been some desire to have a list of articles that survived deletion so we don't keep renominating them, I have compiled such a list. I'm not sure where to put it. It has 281 articles (in alphabetical order). I don't know if anyone else wants to re-check the archives to see if I made any mistakes. Here is what I did:

• Looked only at blue links in the archives (obviously)
• Only included those where the vote was to keep. There were a lot of blue links that were voted for deletion, but someone has written a new article of the same name or just put the old one back on again - these did not make the list.
• Some seemed ambiguous, for various reasons. If there was any doubt, I did not include the article so that it can be re-nominated.
• I went back to archive 34, in April 2006. Prior to that the votes were not neatly boxed into "keep" and "delete" sections, and it would be tedious to count all the votes. Besides, our standards have (hopefully) improved since then, so I figure anything older is fair game to be renominated.

We could just keep the list to cross-reference, or tag each article with a template such as on the top of this page. The only problem is that people who wish to avoid deletion could cheat and put the template on pages that hadn't been voted on, to avoid deletion. Maybe we could be more subtle and just make it a category. If we are going to have a master list, it should be blocked to editing by anyone other than admins.

By the way, other than the VFD page, the article with the greatest survival was Camp Fuck You Die, which survived three separate votes. Slithy Tove 09:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now put the list here. Slithy Tove 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I've got the archive #s and dates kept listed beside them all, so they're ready to put templates on. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions? Slithy Tove 09:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow - only just spotted this whole business. Let me first say a big fat well done to you sir - this is a job that has been resisting being done by anybody for like forever. Your dedication to tedious duty gets a ninjastar for definite.

Also wow, I can't believe that's all we've kept in a year! Puts things into perspective.

I say go for it with the templates - if these things are to stand any chance of not being renommed they need a prominent marker on their talk pages rather than a little dinky category. (And it's not easy to fake a deletion discussion, which is what I'll check with the help of those links.) I reckon the template could use a better picture than Wikipedia's generic one though, and maybe funnier text somehow. But we can always worry about that later. Once again, well done, and see your talk page... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or did MadMax beat you to it? Like this. It's probably best that you liaise with MadMax and combine forces. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware he's done anything except put the template at the top of this page. I'll check with him, though. Slithy Tove 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MadMax and Insineratehymn have been working on this, but mostly on older articles. We have joined forces. The list shows which have been tagged and which not. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to - note that the others have been putting the {{talkheader}} template on at the same time. Slithy Tove 11:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not fond of that talk header thing. It's so Wikipedia-ish, telling us what we can and can't talk about on our own talk pages. But that's probably an issue for another place. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreating Deleted Articles

This has probably already been addressed, so I'm sorry for repeating it, but when an article has been deleted through VFD, surely it shouldn't be allowed to be recreated again so it's the same as it was before it was deleted like Big Boss has? The Oblong Lobster 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that should be taken care of on QVFD, methinks.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did put it on QVFD with an explanation yesterday but it was spared. The Oblong Lobster 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When I went through all the archives, there were quite a lot that had been re-created. Some of these were probably completely different authors, but most were likely someone not wanting their article deleted and putting them back on again. I don't think there's much we can do about this, since a person can always re-create under a different article name. I would leave these alone and come back to them in the future, when at least some of the authors will have moved on and forgotten about them. Slithy Tove 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, these should be QVFDed and the perpetrators banned, at least for a little while so they learn their lesson. But as long as it's not a massive outbreak of mutiny and they're not the worst articles in the world, it might be best to just ignore it. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fat Albert's mine. Don't delete!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree sith Strange But Untrue that it would be best to ignore it. 90 percent of the stuff deleted doesn't come back. If you ban people, you're just adding insult to injury; I know people should follow the rules but they're probably already defensive enough when something is deleted. We have better things to do than getting into a battle over it. Slithy Tove 23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that SBU was a sith. Totally got my vote for admin. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/11 23:38

You couldn't tell from the dual-ended red lightsaber and the hood barely disguising her red and black striped horned face? I thought it was a dead give-away. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 05:54, 12 July 2007

Wasn't Mr. Sith bigger than that? I thought Sbu was an Ewok or a leprechaun or an amoeba or one of them quantumy things that them big-city scientists are always talking about. Seriously, she's about this (/me indicates "small") size. When you see her you just wanna put her in your pocket to keep her safe from the neighbourhood cat. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

/me singes neighbourhood cat's tail with my itty bitty light-sabre. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

/me squeals and runs around-Cat

2005cruft

I don't usually pay attention here, and so I have a question: What exactly is 2005cruft? Is it the notion that anything written in 2005 is unfunny and doesn't belong here?—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've managed to gather yeah, theres an opinion that the caliber of work in 2005 is no longer up to our high 2007 standards and much of it needs to be deleted. We don't all automagically subscribe to this opinion though. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 04:33, 13 July 2007

Yes, I've always been a bit resistant of the term because it makes people think this. But it's kind of become VFD vocab by now, so there's probably not a lot we can do! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It refers to articles that have not had a single edit made to them since '05. Most are crap. JediBob Things I've said Things I've done 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem

I cant see any edit things... i want to vfd the osama bin laden page.... ITS NOT FUNNY!!! --Faza 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have to have been a registered user for 3 days to edit it. You can always add articles to User:Strange but untrue/Poopsmith's Lounge if VFD is full. Also, new stuff at the bottom thanks. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 09:37, 23 July 2007

15 Article Limit

Do articles that have been deleted(titles are redlinks) count towards the 15 VFD limit? Ie, will I get banned for adding an article above 15 if three of the current articles are already gone?     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)      20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Over 15 articles is allowed only if there is inactive voting. This is either when there is a red link at the top of the voting table, or when an admin has said that the article has been kept." Clear as mud? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

People keep telling me I'm a genius, but I miss the obvious 9 times out of 10. D'Oh. Thanks.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)      03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Manforman

It would be nice to acutally be able to nominate an article, but user:Manforman seems to be somewhat monoplising this page. Could the rule about not flooding this page be maybe enforced just a tiny bit? I've just been to UGSOTM and noticed Manforman was nominated there and then cried so much everybody felt guilty, but he could of learned some kind of lesson. The Oblong Lobster 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although to be fair he can write good articles. The Oblong Lobster 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave spaces next time, sorry about that--Sir Manforman 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I had to get Hit Points on, it was burning into my soul!!! The Oblong Lobster 15:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Proposal

The current Vote Archiving system is driving me nuts as it does not reference dates in them just Archive 1, Archive 2, and so on. What I would like to see is the archiving system changed to go by weeks Such as Week Begining Oct 7th 2007, Week begining Oct 14th, ETC. This way it would make it easier to look up past VFD discussions and reference them. The past discussions which are already archived could be moved going through a process which I would be glad to help out some on it. All it would be is a simple cut and paste job that could take a little while. --Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That just seems a little... unnecessary. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Way agreed. The archives are for reference purposes only. Hell, they're not even for that. They're just there to show that we talked about the deletion/salvation of a page. People don't even need to read 'em. It's just a comfort thing, to show we care. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:17 Oct 02, 2007

Not able to add votes

Hey all, I've not been able to add votes to pages on this page for some reason...--Razorflame 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a week. --  Le Cejak • <-> 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Nominations at the Top of the Article Rule?

What ever happend to the rule of where new nominations should be added at the top. Did it even exist? I know when I add my articles I placed them at the top of this list, however looking at the recenrt history over the past month I noticed that there is no set rule on placing them on top or putting them on the bottom. This made me wonder becasue NXWave placed 6 in a row at the bottom of the list, when most everyone else placed thiers on top like I do. So do we need to start putting new noms on the bottom or on the top? And can someone add it to one of the rules templates to where we place new nominations. ----Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the instructions anywhere? The hell? I've amended it into the commented-out instructions. If the hint isn't taken, then I'll add it to one of the templates.—Hinoa talk.kun 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though you placed it there NXWave is still placing them at the bottom. Shall I place a notice on his talk page, giving him intsrutions on where to place them or shall I allow an Admin to do it? ----Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete vs redirect

I often have problems where I suggest a redirect target for a page that is up for VFD, people agree with my suggestion, the page gets deleted anyway, I try to create the redirect, and it gets deleted too. (I have discussed one recent issue at User talk:Tom mayfair and User talk:Zombiebaron.) Is there some good policy-based reason for this? I recall Zombiebaron telling me that "two people do not constitute a consensus," but I don't see how that makes creation of a redirect inappropriate.

I would like to suggest that if admins are closing a VFD discussion with a decision to delete, and they really do not want a suggested redirect to be created, then they should write "Delete, do not redirect" as the closing comment. Pentium5dot1 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Pentium. I tried redirecting Wikipeidia or whatever it was, but it was immediately deleted by ZB. I think there should be an option post-voting for redirects, not just automatically deleting them.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 3) @ 05:19

Along the same lines, if the outcome of a vote is CVP, then that should be clearly noted in the closing statement too. Pentium5dot1 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can i nomitate a redirect for VFD?

--Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just list it on QVFD or notify an Admin. MadMax 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Since this article is under protection, I can't nominate Anarchy for deletion. My comment/reason for deletion: This is unfunny and stupid, and has no place in humor. Makes use of untrue stereotypes of anarchists such as terrorists with bombs. Nonsense. How can I nominate? —Ionas Dalton Freeman 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VFD tag Responsbility

There has been a rash latley of articles getting listed for VFD and fails to place the {{VFD}} tag on the article in question. I am wondering is the responsibility of placing the tag falls into the Nominator or not? Also I think the only exception to the rule is templates even though If I ever listed on I would add the tag in the <noinclude> section of the template. ----Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fatkid

Concerning Template:Fatkid It's an organizational template. It helps by allowing you to know what forms of the Crazy Fat Kid there are. Instead of deleting the template, why don't you delete some of the duplicate images.– Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.211.235 (talk • contribs)

You could always register an account and put the images up for voting here. As for the template, what you're trying (I think) to do could be done much easier, and in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing, with categories. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:22, Feb 1

...or through the medium of interpretive dance. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

VFD....the Problem

The current deletion rate on VFD has highlighted a few issues, specifically were a number of quite decent articles have ended up deleted, in some cases with as little as -3 or -4 in the against votes. In a reversal of this, no one would expect to get a featured article with just +4 votes. Maybe its time to add a provisio to VFD that in order to delete an article it needs to reach at least a specific number of minus votes. Or alternatively we could perhaps thing of an alternative version of the "health" system that we use on VFH? To delete articles based on the opinion of just 3 or 4 people is crazy...lets see if we can find a fairer system that protects people's work just a little bit more than is happening at the moment.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I think the problem is a lack of voters. Unlike VFH where we have 20 voters, we only have 5 voters here. I think the only way to fix the problem is to get more people to vote at VFD--Æ 14:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have the whole "VFD History Month". Maybe we can use that theme and attract more people to vote. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 15:02, Feb. 10, 2008

Add a link to the mainpage and the sidebar, that should attract voters as well--Æ 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of number of voters I still believe we need a policy were articles cannot be deleted we such a low count of negative votes. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm with Mhaille, I think a minimum number of voters should be set before deleting an article. Also, in case of ties, the article should be kept. Also also, all "VFD bypassing" initiatives should be agreed upon before initiation. Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Defiantly need to change something. It was my understanding that we would always err on the side of keeping an article. If the vote was 50/50 or even say 6 deletes with 3 keeps it would still be a keep. I thought VFD was for getting rid of the real crap. If enough people care to vote it's surely a keep. Part of my suggestion to increase the VFD limit to 20 was to allow noms to stay on the page a bit longer, but currently we have a number of votes clogging up the page which obviously have enough people who care about them to make them keepers. Obviously we need to still let Admins use their judgement if an article is obviously rubbish however. Perhaps we need to rework the guidelines for making a nom also. For example getting people to check the "what links here" as well as the history and talk page before they nom. Also, agree with some sort of time based thing. Maybe if a vote is going in the direction of delete it should stay on the page for at least a day unless it's got more than a certain number of votes? If it's quickly getting lots of keeps, I think it can be removed in less time however. MrN 19:27, Feb 10

Talking about the "what links here" thing. That appears to me to be a better guide as to what has been put onto VFD before. If there is a link from a VFD archive page, then it's been there. It looks to me like we have not been that consistent in the past with putting the "survived VFD" thing onto ever talk page which has survived. MrN 19:32, Feb 10

I currently delete after the Deletes outnumber the Keeps by 4 votes, in all cases, but this can be subject to change. On long-term nominations, the policies are a bit of a grey area, so I suppose I just... improvise? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this is entirely due to a lack of voters. Occasionally a page will draw users from all corners of the wiki, for example when TYATU was up for deletion, but other than that, there are very few active users on VFD at the moment. I believe that the VFD History Month should be in some way represented on the Main Page, however, at the moment, there are both PLS and VFH banners, and I don't really want to add anouther. So, basically, we need more people in order to balance out the radical deletionists who seem to be pushing through all of the border-line articles. Just as how pages that can recieve +30 on VFH in a matter of minutes are featured, we need to increase the number of active voters in order to increase the number of votes required for deletion. -- The Zombiebaron 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I say we nominate more well-known articles to attract voters to defend them. We gotta sacrifice some good articles for the sake of VFD! It's the only way to get attention! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF (@ 22:45 10 Feb, 2008)

I say all articles must stay on here for at least 24 hours. And SysRq, no. That's not a good idea. --Dexter111344 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating recent features for deletion isn't a good idea? Really? I thought it was great. </sarcasm> ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF (@ 23:09 10 Feb, 2008)

RE the 24 hour thing. Surely the noms which quickly get a large number of keep votes can be removed more quickly than 24 hours? RE SysRq: You're joking right? MrN 23:12, Feb 10

You're really asking me that? I'd like to think you all thought better of me. And yeah, there should be an either-or type deal, where if an article accumulates enough votes within 24 hours it can be deleted, or if it has a majority of Deletes after 24 hours then it can also be deleted. I'm not gonna bother reading the above jarble even though I'm sure this idea is up there somewhere. Someone just needs to establish this NOW instead of us just talking about it. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF (@ 23:16 10 Feb, 2008)

• If I may take this and go into a completly different direction. To me the problem is a combination of factors. In my eyes, its not the number of people who particpate in the VFD process, but the recent number of articles get listed here that are good in premise and poorly written and/or articles that get listed here because its more convenient to delete them then it is to find someone to put some work into them. I have saved a good number of very workable VFD nom's and turned them around to better success (case in point: Queef which earned me a Poo Lit Award for best rewrite in the go-around before last) with a little effort. I just wish that there was more effort put into nomming articles that have been throughly considered before they are listed - because right now I don't always get the feeling that its happening. As for compelling more people to vote, that is a mistake becausde there is a significant different between featuring something and deciding its ultimate fate. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS is what I'm talking about. We are deleting too many articles that are acceptable in my eyes. I don't think we need a link to VFD on the front page, I'd much sooner see a link to a Fix Up page, and have people putting the same amount of effort into helping to improve articles that they put into deleting them. The problem we have is that within online communities people are more likely to act on something they don't like, rather than on things they do like, much like the Letters page of your local newspaper. Often silence is viewed as acceptance. What we need is a system that makes deletion only possible if a sufficiently large number of people believe an article should be deleted. Maybe that should be -5, maybe more, I don't know. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• Then let me throw this down your shorts (full moon, high tide time folks): I would also like to see a reason why the article is being listed other than "violates rule #1". I say this because a) humor is subjective and b) there is a broad definition between wry wit (Dorothy Parker) and slapstick (Three Stooges). Trust me, there are people who find Danny Kaye (if you don't know, look him up instead of being ignorant) to be a stitch and people like me who prefer Clair Booth Luce (look her up as well). I would rather be in a jail cell then have to watch Danny Kaye movies - but that doesn't mean that I don't understand that others find him funny.

While I am loathe to promote another layer of bureaucracy Maybe what we need is an Uncyclopedia League of Extraordinary Rewriters that have the interest and the time to take a look at some of the stuff filtering through VFD and see if its rewritable. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My addition to this: make it unofficial and I will join. Make it some sort of stupid guild and I'm not going to be bothered with it.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So which would you be OK with Uncyclopedia: Unofficial League of Extraordinary Rewriters or Uncyclopedia:League of Extraordinary Unofficial Rewriters? Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think VFD in its current form is a little harsh. There have been some half-decent articles that are funny for some but not for others, and then they get deleted when all they need is a little love. Perhaps give articles a "grace period" to allow people to improve them and/or allow people to move them to their user-space to salvage. This could be as simple as slapping something like a Template:Rewrite on the article and giving it a few days (similar to ICU/NRV) before it can be VFD'ed (unless it's so bad that it belongs on ED, in which case it won't need as much of a grace period). I've seen articles that were funny, but ended up getting deleted because the VFD voters didn't find them funny, and the ones that did were outnumbered. --WillMcC 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An aside: What I did when I was the/a schmuck who cleaned out VFD (yes, I used to do it) was if a.) the score was at -6 (or -5, had I not voted myself) and b.) the nomination was at least 24 hours old, then it got deleted. Y'know, kinda like UN:WWGD. —Hinoa talk.kun 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(/me wishes he'd seen this earlier). I agree we have too few voters on here for starters. I'd be happy to see a higher number of votes required for deletion, because the few of us who are regulars here can miss the odd gem amongst the crap after the thousand yard stare kicks in following a few real stinkers in succession. However, I think many of us who nominate articles for deletion do consider alternatives first - everything I put up, I look at first to see if I think it should be rewritten, and if I don't think so, on it goes. If others disagree - well, that's why it's a vote! I've rewritten a few bits of crap, and will rewrite more if I like them, but short of lining people up and frogmarching them down here, I don't see how we can improve the turnout - we may have an initiative or a template or something that raises interest for a while, but they soon subside again. Same with a rewriters' club - there'll be a few more rewrites for a while, then back to normal. See how much the Pee queue is backed up again after the temporary success of PEEING for a case in point. I'd love to see a decent, long term, workable solution, but I've no idea how we'd implement one. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a minimum voting time/number would be good. 24 hours sounds alright. Also, it might be a good idea to have a level of votes where the article is automatically kept, on account of there being at least a significant minority who think it is funny, or at leasst not bad. And a lot of the things suggested would be possible with an updated VFD in the style of VFH, which comes with all the same pluses and minuses, probably. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:34, 11 Feb 2008

Strong Against making more pages like what VFH looks like. Keep stuff on my watchlist, kthanx. -- The Zombiebaron 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that we bring in a 24 hours minimum, would everyone agree that an nomination with lots of keep votes could be removed from the page in less time? This would help keep the page moving faster, and not clog it up with "bad nominations". MrN 17:32, Feb 11

• VFD should not work on speed and volume - isn't that why we have QVFD? And let again raise the point that humor is subjective. There should be a greater reason for voting and article into the ether because it violates rule #1 (and we have had an awful lot of those of late). If we are going to look at voting, it should be done with ratios (so many DELETE Votes to KEEP votes needs to be obtained). But I agree with Zombiebaron that VFD shouldn't be as complicated as VFH - some of these articles that end up here really are turds that need to be flushed. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GMA

Alam mo ba history ng article na kini-claim mo na sinulat mo? Na ICU/rewrite yung version mo nung una at si MidwayHaven ang sumalba, tignan mo muna ang history ng ginawa mo bago mo sabihin na nakakatawa. Tumingin ka sa Google, positive ang reviews ni MidwayHaven. Hindi ko kilala si MidwayHaven personally pero witty ang sinulat nya. Ngayon ano napala mo sa revert war mo, pare pareho tayong hindi mageenjoy dahil sa ginawa mo, forever nang mawawala ang GMA article gaya ng Philippine article ko. Obviously di mo alam ang rules ng Uncyclopedia about reverts. Next time wag kang tira lang ng tira, makipagusap ka sa mga existing active writers ng article. Di naman kami nangdiscriminate at pinapayagan namin iedit ang ginawa namin. Nakakahiya kasi dalawang article na about the Philippines ang nasa radar ng Admins dahil sa mga kalokohan. Friendly reminder na lang pre, gawa ka na lang ng sarili mong article and iwasan mo ang mga articles namin kung di ka marunong makipag cooperate. --Gilgal1(Talk to me bitch!!!) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are and what you are talking about. Do not involve me to your issues with others who are also involve with that article. If you have some issues, go directly to the person you are after to and do not pick up some random users like me. It is not I who nominate that article for deletion in the first place and I don't like that to happen also. I am also not aware and involved with your reverts or if ever, even victimizing my edits also because of the revert. Don't feel like a hero and be proud of contributing so much in the article if you also wanted for the article to be deleted and please refrain from using your language to conceal what you want to say to me for others not to understand. Look, what I am doing is to improve the article that I have started long ago because there are new issues about her in the present. I hope the reason why you wanted to delete the article is not for you (or anyone) to be known as the creator of a new article of the same name. I hope the creator issue would not be the cause of our understanding since what I am after to is editing in good faith. Now, don't focus your blame to me and try to look at others who are also involved in that article and... also please be professional. Thank you. --Kapuso 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I did not ask for your help nor MidwayHaven to improve the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. It is your own initiative to contribute something there as other users like myself and it is my freewill to edit something here without any intervention from others. I am sorry for what happened to the Philippines article but to set the record straight, I also have nothing to do with what happened in that article. Anyway, regarding the Google issue, how can be we sure that the "MidwayHaven" that appears in Google is the same with "MidwayHaven" in Uncyclopedia? Assuming that all "MidwayHaven"'s refer to the same person, who cares about his "positive reviews" in... whatsoever? What we really care is the attitude you have shown to us when it comes to dealing with edited articles of the users whether it is done in either good faith or bad faith.

I just want to stress it out that I really don't care whoever contributes to the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article or how many they had contributed since what I know is the most important one is the CONTENT of what they are contributing and not the PERSON who contributed to that article. It is also very funny to tell that this article will be deleted and be recreated again in the future so that the one who recreated it will be the first one in the history list. Is that what you are after for?

Anyway, to set the record straight, I did not prohibit you or anyone (including anons) from editing the article so you also don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone of us here from improving the article according to what we think is helpful.

Its also sad to say that contributors in this article like me interprets our contribution as bad faith and a form of vandalism just to stress it out that what have they contributed is very good and others are not. I am not telling that all contributors are not vandals but it is up for us users to interpret such change as a form of vandalism or not. Unfortunately, there are some who interpret our work as a form of vandalism and I am very sad that the one that will accuse me of such is a Filipino (as he identifies himself). I hope that we leave our crab mentality behind and not show it to the world through Uncyclopedia. It is so embarrassing enough. However, what I would like to advice to all of us is to accept that there are some aspects in us where there are people which is more excellent than us. I am not perfect, nor I am identifying myself as such nor claiming that I am the best person in existence. I do not claim that my edits in various articles in Uncyclopedia are very excellent enough and very funny. That's why there are other people like you present in order to help one another to create an excellent article. Anyway, I think this crab mentality is the reason why improvements that we had made in the article was interpreted as a form of vandalism that we cannot accept other ideas from other people just because it didn't came from ourselves. Do you want us contributors tell you our ideas in your talk page or other means of communication so that it would be your username to reflect in the history list of the article in behalf of our ideas?

Don't you ever blame me solely for the article to be ICU'd. Anyway, if you or anyone here ever informed me through my talk page about the problem then I would help as much as I could for the article not to be ICU'd. Is not informing me intentional so that you will get the "sole credit" if the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be given a "second chance"? Brilliant, huh? I hope that if in case the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article would be given a "third chance", those users who nominated it for deletion would be man enough to be in their position not to recognize the article like not editing that article forever.

I just like to clear out the point that I have nothing to do with anons nor other users on editing that article. I never influenced anyone to edit the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. Anyway, is the anon you are talking about still alive after you have bombarded him with malicious comments and reactions just because he is editing in good faith? He might have been already embarrassed then.

Thank you very much! Thanks for the nice and appreciative welcome for me in Uncyclopedia! That's all... Hope that you will have a good night sleep. --Kapuso 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfunny Article about harming cats

I know it's not serious and just a joke and all, but it's not funny. Can you please remove HowTo:Skin_a_cat? I'm hope I'm doing this correctly, that I'm addressing this in the right collum. Nacky 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Nacky

OK, Nacky, firstly new messages on talk pages generally go at the bottom. Sometimes people request that they go at the top, but that's rare. Secondly, no this is not the correct place to put make a nomination for deletion. Um, the nominations go on the VFD page. Not the talk page. If you edit the page you will find a template which can be copied and filled in as appropriate per your nomination. You put the VFD tag on correctly, but did not actually make the nomination! Regarding this article... Obviously this is only my opinion, and I'm far from an expert, but I think that if this article were to be nominated on the page, it's very unlikely that there would be a consensus to delete (although I may be wrong). Rather than nomination for deletion, could I recommend that you attempt to improve the article, in a way which would make it more funny, and acceptable to you? If you really want to nominate this for VFD, go to THE PAGE, and follow the instructions at the top. For now, I have removed the {{VFD}} from the article, as the nomination has not been yet been made. Have fun. MrN 09:25, May 18

sigh This is why email is so much easier. Okay so what you're telling me is that I voted for a page to be deleted that could not be deleted? And that I did something incorrectly. I still don't understand but what it sounds like you're saying is that I have to follow about a dozen steps for a VFD to actually work. That sucks. So I guess I'll just give up and cringe! I hate that stupid article because it just isn't funny. It's not even about the bad taste of it, but it's so lame. Surely I can't change the name of the article, and want NO involvement in something like that. Come on! I'm hating this. What should I do now? Nacky 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Nacky

How do Nacky! VFD is not that complicated, I think you just got a little confused along the line. So, here are some steps, hopefully they're simple enough to follow:

1Go to the VFD page itself, not this talk page.

2Scroll down a little until you get to the pic of Zombiebaron and Braydie. See the "edit" link above that? Click it.

3This sets up the nominations section for editing. Just below the "New nominations at the top of the page" line, is a table template that looks like this:

==[[HowTo:Skin a cat]]==
{|{{purtytable}}
||'''Keep'''||
|-
||'''Delete'''||
|-
||'''Comments'''||
|}

4 Copy that table, then scroll down a little, until you're above the top of the nominated articles.

5 Paste the empty table in place above the top nomination (at the time of writing, this is "Brian Peppers").

6 Put a delete reason in the delete section, and sign it with the 4 tildes, so the table now looks something like this:

==[[HowTo:Skin a cat]]==
{|{{purtytable}}
||'''Keep'''||
|-
||'''Delete'''||
*'''Delete'''. This is an unfunny article about cats, please delete it. --~~~~
|-
||'''Comments'''||
|}

7 Preview the page and make sure the table looks OK, and the link looks OK, and stuff in general doesn't look fucked up. It should look like this:

HowTo:Skin a cat

Keep
Delete	Delete. This is an unfunny article about cats, please delete it. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 16:06, May 18
Comments

8 Save the page.

9 Now follow the link through to the page, and now you put the {{VFD}} template on the article itself like you did before - this lets the author know their article is up for deletion, so if they want to plead passionately for its salvation, they can.

10 Watch as the other votes roll in.

11 ???

12 Profit!

Hope that's straightforward and easy enough to follow. Tatty byes! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 16:06, May 18

Wow UU. Awesome description. Maybe we should add something along these lines to the main VFD page somewhere to make things a bit more clear. I would do it myself, but I think the templates are protected. MrN 16:29, May 18

I'll give it a shot. I got nothing to lose, so I figure I'll try again. You'll have to forgive me, I've never done this before and although I've been here some years, I'm still a newbie about alot of things. Nacky 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Nacky

From the Mikhail Botnivik discussion

(MrN) I see where you are comming from Hyper, but I'm not sure it makes sense. If they want it restored to user space they can have it, so what's the problem? VFD is too slow as it is. The last thing I want to see is more process slowing it down. Where do you draw the line over who is "active", how long do we wait for a reply and how would we keep track of it all? Are some users more important than others? ... I think it's actually a lot higher than %1 myself... Also, what does "established" mean anyway, and why does it make a difference if they are "new" or not? Maybe you should consider starting a topic about this on the talk page. This is not really the place to debate this one... :-)

Well, personally, I'd say that anyone who's CUN or higher shouldn't have their pages subject to deletion without their input unless they've been inactive for over a month. That's how I'd set the rule. I mean, Rangeley's won WotM. I think he's more than capable of either improving that page or userfying it until a later time without having to go through the headache of pulling it out of whatever void it's gone to. And, yes, I think some users are absolutely more important than others. I think the ratio looks like this - 1 active admin::1.5 XotM winners::3 users with features::12 noobs::40 IPs::5,000 NXWaves. pillow talk 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If a user, no matter how old, mature, famous or naked, has a page hit VFD and fail, then it fails. The page in question is clearly unfinished and, since Rangeley's last edit was in September 2005, he's never going to finish it. That, in combination with the fact that nobody else took up the torch, makes it VFD material. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the author was Rangeley in which case they just hack it up, ignore the previous VFD vote, and put it back into mainspace. Apparently... If that's not what has happened here, I apologise in a really big way Rangeley, but this looks REALLY bad to me. MrN 18:24, Jul 24

Um, yeah. That. I am bothered by that as well (userspace, sure, but he put it back in mainspace. That's just crazy. Someone could lose an eye). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just see it as a sign that we need the guy to weigh in, here. Did he do that because he intended to finish it, and then forgot about it again? Just because he hasn't done anything since 2005 doesn't mean he wouldn't if gently prodded. pillow talk 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Userspace

Evening guys. After a recent vote, a few of us think that sometimes we need a procedure to let the deleting admin know that it's probably a good idea to move an article which has been voted for deletion to userspace. Sometimes this can be when a new active user is likely to continue working on the article, or perhaps if another user has volunteered to adopt the article, and work on it in their own userspace. As it's not always practical for the deleting admin to read the entire discussion for each VFD vote I suggest the following method be used:

"If you want an article moved to userspace (yours or that of another users) please add a bold red link to where you would like it to be moved at the bottom of the Comments section with a note explaining why you would like the deleting admin to do this. When the vote is completed and a delete consensus has been reached, it would then be at the deleting admins discretion to decide to move it or not. If the user who requested the move was not the user who's userspace the article had been moved to a message would need to be left on their talk page explaining what had happened." ... It might look something like:

Pants

Keep	Keep Not pants. MrN 19:59, Aug 16
Delete	Delete Heads. MrN 19:59, Aug 16 Delete Shoulders. MrN 19:59, Aug 16 Delete Knees. MrN 19:59, Aug 16 Delete Toes. MrN 19:59, Aug 16
Comments	Userspace User:MrN9000/Pants. I will rewrite it there. MrN 19:59, Aug 16

Any thoughts on this idea? MrN 19:59, Aug 16

That looks fine, if maybe a tad easy to overlook, especially if there are a lot of comments. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 23:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave a comment somewhere in the vote, and if it's missed by the op, just poke them on their talk page. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:44, Aug 20

Trouble is, how would we know if it had been missed? If there is a red link, when it turns blue, it's done. The OPs miss comments which are made in the vote on more occasions than not in my experience. MrN 08:38, Aug 21

I like having the big red link at the bottom. That way it's like "oh shit, there are 6 delete votes but there's this huge red thing in the comments section. Let's see, oh yeah, it's MrN wanting me to move 'pants' to his userspace. Alright, I'll just do that." -RAHB 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Why can't I edit the VFD page? ÷ 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you been here for three days? Some of the pages only let you edit them if you've been here for that long. Those pages are stuck up. They're all "Ooo. We're too important to let people who have been here for less than three days edit us!". Pricks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you planning to nominate Wordpad? If so, don't worry. It's already on QVFD. pillow talk 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How do i vote for the Votes for deletion

Hi, while i was exploring articles here, i found my favorite article,Princess Victoria. I wanted to vote for the page whether to delete it or not. How do i vote(i mean the VFD page cannot be edited, i can only view the source). I really wanted to vote, but the VFD page cannot be edited, will someone please help me.

Make sure you're logged in, and then try. If you still can't edit, you may not have made your account long enough ago--I think there's a couple days before you can edit the semi-protected stuff, like this page, after you sign up. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:01, Sep 21

Just wondering

Is there any way that we can code up something to autovote on VFD like we do on VFH? It'd probably increase voter activity. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I have thought about this one myself. I think it's possible. However I personally like the idea of it being a bit "tricky" to make a vote. Maybe it's a good thing for VFD as we are talking about deleting articles and it means that you need to have some knowledge of what you are doing to make the vote. I'm not sure... MrN 20:12, Sep 29

My only beef with that is that on VFH, each nomination is a separate page. Here, they're not. The autovoting script would either have to be individually placed for all of them, or VFD votes would have to be formatted similar to VFH. Personally, I sort of like it as it is now. Also, unlike VFH, this might require some experience on the site; I get the feeling that if we really advertised it to new users and IPs that didn't really know what they were doing, we'd get a lot of nominations of good articles that one person just didn't like. Look at what's going on for VFH now; sure, we pass articles with more voters, but we get constantly terrible nominations as well. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Why can't I edit the main VFD page? I want to nominate something. Lucario! 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few days, then try again. We don't let the newest of the newest nominate articles for VFD, because they're all insane. Every last one of them! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Insane? Me? wioaeruyaiwuethaskjldghadslkjrthweuiorhweoiugfagsdgkjlasdhgljkashgilasdughasdlighawegljkblasdjklvbasklvklhjasdvhasd. Lucario! 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Is there a poopsmith going to each article linked to these templates & removin' 'em? They had better be. 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That... is a lot of work. This seems like a job perhaps better suited to a bot of some sort. pillow talk 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a bot doin' this job then? If not, I say cease this VFD on templates until somethin' can be done. All we need is ½ a million articles improperly formatted. 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it actually breaks anything, since I'm honestly not sure whether

	A Nazist Has Written the article
	If You Don't Like Nazism, Hitler Will Commit Suicide and Nazi Germany Will be SURRENDERED!''

really looks any better than

But, yeah, obviously those red links will need to get cleaned up. If no one is equipped to get a bot working on it, I'd be happy to help. pillow talk 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not equipped to make one & if these get voted off & their red links remain on articles, I will seriously get ban happy :) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, & remove the red links myself & unban the voters when I am finished doin' so. 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed the first two batches of red links just now. Strangely, Template:Blastphemy seemed to still work about half the time despite having been deleted. What's that all about? Some cache somewhere? pillow talk 01:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That or a totally different template. Not sure. 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about dealing with VFD template misuse

What is the proper procedure to take if someone adds {{vfd}} to an article without properly completing the VFD process or giving a good-faith reason for deletion? Is it okay to just remove the template? I have also mentioned this on the article's talk page. --Pentium5dot1|t~^_^~c 05:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was added by an IP, remove it. IPs can't nom here. They can't be trusted, you see. You know when you lose a sock? That's because an IP stole it. If it was put on by a user, ask on the page's talkpage (or the user's talkpage). New users can't nom here, either, but they don't know that. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen a few instances in the last few months of IPs and new users taking VFD templates off of articles, which is a bitch if the nomination gets voided because of the lack of templatage due to n00b tomfoolery. Also: do I qualify for Socio-Anarchist Revolutionary status if I've been both unjustly beaten to the ground by the law and listen to profuse amounts of Rage Against the Machine? I've been hopeful, but sometimes dreams don't go through. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do article nomination get invalidated if the VFD template is removed invalidly? I always assumed a VFD nom was valid as long as the VFD template was placed on the article validly.
Also, on the subject, I believe that ips can't post in VFD at all, even if its just to defend their articles on VFD, and I do think that is a little unfair. Of course, I'm also aware of the fact that ip's never have anything intelligent or important to say. Could the format of VFD be changed so that ips could vote on articles, but not nominate articles? Or it that not possible/too much work.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 14:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why we should want unregistered users voting on here? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see you point about unregistered voting. However, during a recent "discussion" over deleting an article, some of the ip editors were told to "take the discussion to VFD". Granted, the ips were a "bit less than civil" in the discussion. I'm be opposed to having ips nominate (or even voting delete on articles); but, if they are allowed to create articles, they should (in a perfect world) also be allowed to object to their article's deletion of VFD. Also, I believe registered users under 4 (or however many days) old are also prohibited from editing semi-protected articles. Therefore, the ip can't just register for a username then vote keep on the article.

If its a decision between ip's having the power nominate versus ips not be able to edit the page, I'd definitely take go with the current system. Even if its ip's flooding VFD with deletion votes and/or generating chaos of VFD versus the current semi-protection, I'd definitely prefer the semi-protection.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what happened with the VFP flood of late, so I don't think much of IP rights myself. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 22:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The VFD talk page is not protected. I guess IPs who care enough to want to say something can do so there if they wish. MrN 16:49, Dec 29

And now for a trip down memory lane.

I hate to bring up old drama, but I am here to talk about everyone's favorite author who got half of his articles deleted in one week, and got noticeably offeneded, Crablogger. He's still got a bunch of articles out there, and suffice to say, most of them are just as bad as what got deleted already. So, what should we do with them? Most of them are self-contained in his little created world, so I guess they aren't doing much harm. But, honestly, they're just balls. I would vote delete and move most of them back to his userspace, but I would like to see what everyone thinks. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

VFD is going a little slow right now, and I'm generally opposed to massive deletions (or pseudo-deletions) that bypass VFD or other standard deletion procedures. I'd suggest either placing the articles on VFD, at one or two per day, talking to admin about QVFD the whole lot (or some of the worst ones), or placing a {{fix}} template on those articles. (I'd advise getting admin permission before placing fix templates on a whole "class' of articles just to be safe.) --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)