User:Some user/archive7

New Message From TD

There, that should annotate this clearly enough. Ahem. Just thought I'd toss a quick line to you... Noticed the pic you added to Or Else. First-Class, mi amigo. Though still only in my Uncyclopediatric infancy, I've already seen that some contributors are good at helping articles, while others... ah, how should I say it... "Deserve to have their brains scooped out of their fucking skulls with a snowshovel" See Ninja Skills for Bokunsushi. You, my friend, are one of the good ones. Give yourself a cookie on my behalf. TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here)

I already eat way too many cookies than I should, but thanks, TD! It's a good article... Somebody took out the last section a couple days later, though, and I noticed it but didn't revert it for you. (I guess I thought it was a "non-detrimental edit," at least to some extent.) And let me say that your efforts on the VFD/NRV front are also much appreciated. (This isn't why you changed your /sig back, is it?)  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still playing around with my sig... I am looking for that "perfect feel", you know? After all, If I am ever going to take over Uncyclopedia become a highly respected contributor, I can't very well have a lame signature, amd I right? TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here)

• Oh, and I just realised what you were talking about... that last part about the "you better swallow". Some sofa king wrote that bit, and I eventually decided that it was stupid, and didn't fit in with my pristine article and all it's coolness. Thus, I gave it the axe. TD

The Crumply-face is yours

Of course, have fun with it. I'm sure you'll put in to much better use than I, who kept it in the bottom of a pocket. Thanks again. --Imrealized 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm back...I made my first template today (well, copied one and changed some things); rudimentary stuff, to be sure, but exciting for the n00b all the same. Because you welcomed me to Uncyclopedia with a banner, balloons and a tickertape parade I wanted you to be the first to have my Thank You Template, so I dropped one on your user page (hope that's cool). --Imrealized 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And trust me, you're picking this stuff up a lot quicker than most... I still intend to try to table-ize that Mad Libs thingie, just so it doesn't move around quite so much when you resize. (That's if you don't get to it first, of course. What browser and wiki-skin are you set up with in User Preferences, I wonder?) Anyway, a few VFD's, and then I have to go to bed early! --Some user 04:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey hey...umm, my user skin is the Uncyclopedia (default). As far as browser I'm not sure; I didn't see that there (I am sucha n00b). But my question is this...are admins able to go into an entry while someone is editing it and affect that entry without the other person knowing? Last night I decided to give the whole VFD thing a try finally and stumbled across Assholes, which was really awful. The person or persons responsible had written a couple things that I couldn't help but comment on. He had written something about doing my mom (your mom, all our moms I suppose) from behind and not giving her a reach-around. So I wrote a quote up top "If you're giving a "woman" a reach-around, you're probably doing something wrong." and signed the thing "Scott the Tranny" and for the "on" part I wrote "you again" referencing a previous quote. Wow, is this story ever going to end? When I clicked Preview it came up all the same as I wrote, except instead of "on you" it came up "on anatomy", which I'm sure I don't need to tell you is infinitely better. Then when I clicked Save the whole page emptied except for my two quotes and an Oscar Wilde quote that was there. Everything else magically vanished. I clicked back and tried to get all the data (even though it was really Bad, and not Badgood but BadBad) but it was gone. Was this an admin or a god? At first I was a little upset because I liked the quotes and almost wanted their horrible entry to remain up for a few days; without it the added quotes would make no sense at all. So I did what anyone in my situation could do...stayed up all night and hopefully made it better (and still managed to retain a piece of its former awfulness). Just thought you'd be the guy to ask on this. Sorry for the novella. --Imrealized 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, not knowing that "browser" refers to the actual program you're surfing the web with (on a Mac, I'll betcha!) and not a user-preference setting is a dead-giveaway for n00bishness. Not that I intend to hold this against you. Anyway, I guess one theory for what happened with Assholes (which IMHO is a huge improvement over the previous version, thanks!) is that an admin (or, perhaps, God) deleted the previous version while you were editing it. And you shouldn't stay up all night doing Uncyclopedia stuff - you need your rest! I wonder if this latest article might be nomination-worthy...? If that's a worthy goal for it, then I guess it could stand to be a little less punk-nasty - you know, for the kids - but it's close, I think. I might just ask for some other opinions on it, such as those of David Gerard or Todd Lyons or Prettiestpretty... Hmmm.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. It looks like this might be a good opportunity to merge the current Asshole (i.e., the three quotes) into your new Assholes article and leave a redirect in its place. Then if you want, you can get rid of one or more of the quotes later while nobody's looking. I'm going to go ahead and do that, and we'll just have to see if it gets reverted - the original really was pretty sucky, and a glorified list at that, so it might be fairly safe, even though a lot of articles link to it (as one might expect!)... c • > • cunwapquc? 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PPS. Maybe I shouldn't point this out, since the new article is so much better than the old one, but what appears to have happened is that you put in a {{Q|||}} template without the closing curlies - so the "parser" thought that what started out as the main body of the article was now the subject of the last quote - and just dropped it, for being too long and/or having line breaks in it. But if someone wants to get rid of the new redirect and revert to an earlier version, they can. Personally I'm hoping they won't, but it's not like you can control them or anything!  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Right on. I'm sorry to have done that (glances to the left as he says this). And I just realized that I opened a new window at one point and started writing Assholes instead of Asshole. Do you think those old quotes go along now? I'm kinda feeling no on that. The one would be perfect for a transsexual article, but alas we do not have one and I don't foresee that being a topic I will tackle (though maybe it could mined for comedy gold?). The other quote just makes no sense anymore so I thinks I'll just delete that one. As far as the other, do you know of a suitable place for it or should I just delete that too? Thanks for cleaning it all up by the way, it looks much better now. In terms of nomination-worthy (which, by the way thanks for saying)...ah, it would be kinda cool, I suppose. I really just get a kick out of writing them and whoever finds 'em finds 'em. Hopefully people with a sense of humour I respect, like yours - I'm glad you're getting some laughs. And I'm really enjoying your writings and some of the others on here (I'm starting to recognize the same sets of names on my favourites). I see what you're saying on the punk-nastiness, but to be honest I'd be hesitant to get rid of anything in there. Now if you or these people you mention up top (who, incidently are on my list, no, no, no- the good list) were to sneak in like ninjas and steal little chunks of offense, I'd certainly respect your opinions. Anyone else will be shot. And btw, I've got a Dell, no Mac here (though I really should). Now is browser my internet connection (ie Comcast) or something else? Man, I'm really asking you some stupid questions, huh? And wasting all your talk space. Do people use the chat room here? I'm not sure what I've got to do to get it running. I swear I just got my first computer about two weeks ago (I've used 'em just never had one, not a real one anyway) so everything on the technical end is lost to me, as you've observed. Well, thanks again, again. --Imrealized 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote...I just went to delete those quotes and went through and reread everything (I hadn't done that when I thanked you, I just noticed some of the formatting) and thank you, thank you, thank you!(and I barely ever use exclamation points so rest on that laurel). You worked wonders on it with the little touches you added (I'd list 'em but you know what you did) and I really do appreciate the time you spent on it. Very cool.

Thanks! I really think it may be VFH-worthy, though there are a few people here who'd vote against it, if only because of the tone and the profanity. The question is how many, I guess. Also, I have to say that VFD'ing Kurt Vonnegut, while certainly gutsy, probably is overly aggressive. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that certain subjects here aren't going to be treated the way you'd like them to be, and sometimes you can't do much about it, either... Tell you what, though, my own next big effort is going to be rewriting about 70 percent of what's currently listed under Category:Musicians, and I'll need all the help I can get. Most of it's dreck, and that's unfortunate, given that a lot of people hear about Uncyclopedia from fan mailing lists and web boards for various bands. It's a job that hardly anybody else wants, but I think those who participate should get a fair amount of kudos for it, given the current state of things. Btw, I think you should definitely visit the #Uncyclopedia chatroom at some point. You might even hear some very interesting things about me, none of which are true, but that's one of the great things about narcissism - anything that reinforces the enigma also reinforces the ego! Anyway, I'm off to offend some Christian-Right types.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, after I slapped the tag and hit save on the Vonnegut thing I asked myself for the 27th time, "Am I being too hard on it?" I still can't answer that. I guess the fact that it has survived this long should have been some indicator for me, huh? I do feel like I'm coming across like a bit of an ass for doing it, though. Moving forward... QuoteUnquote:Jesus Christ is fan-fuckin'-tastic; I can't believe I hadn't discovered that myself. And you did a great job on your own Joycean experiment (it gets kinda fun, don't it?) and thanks for the link. Include me on the tour bus for your little music endeavour...definitely something I'm interested in. In fact, I went right over there after I read it and off the top of my head for rewrites I'd be into: REM, Marvin Gaye, Jello Biafra, Beastie Boys, and maybe even Flaming lips. Or whatever. Let me know of any way I could help out. --Imrealized 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Merde, I forgot to say that if you'd still like to put WWJJD? on QuoteUnquote I'd be most honoured...I think that the quality of QU's content is exceptional and am gracious that you feel WWJJD? is up to par. So yeah, let me know. --Imrealized 06:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dickheads

How can you know for sure they are sockpuppets? How do you tell a sockpuppet from a non-sockpuppet? I don't get it™ - Definitely not Sikon 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Guest, the people involved in this latest round of ultra-stoopidity have already proven how asinine, childish, and moronic they are. Don't join them, Guest; I would at least hope that you, of all people, would be above that sort of thing. And if that turns out to be the case, then who knows — maybe I'll even stop calling you "Guest." --Some user 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a little amount of childish won't hurt. AAAAA-day (see main page) is childish, too, but Uncyclopedia was never supposed to be serious. After all, they aren't the only people who use sockpuppets, one of them didn't even do anything malicious besides editing its user page, so I don't understand why you ban-patrolled this innocent sockpuppet :) - Sikon 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't call that malicious? It's about as malicious as you can get on a wiki, man. It's one thing to use sockpuppets, it's another thing entirely to use them to make direct personal attacks on another user, regardless of where those attacks are posted. Hmmm, I guess this might help explain why the Soviet Union never got around to nuking the USA! You guys must've thought all those short-range missiles pointed at your major cities were just a "practical joke"...? Well, thanks for not nuking us, anyway. I, for one, appreciate it. --Some user 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal Disclaimer: this section was originally called "Sockpuppets"; it was changed to "Dickheads" by the owner of this talk page. Some user, why do you act like everyone's out to get you? Relax, enjoy Uncyc, I can assure you it's not true, the admins (and I, amd I think most Uncyclopedians too) really adore you and your contributions. Sockpuppeting by itself isn't malicious, trolling is, and these sockpuppets didn't attack other users... as far as I can tell. - Sikon 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume I think everyone is out to "get" me, Guest? It's pretty clear that it's precisely one person, isn't it? Stop exaggerating; it's beneath you, and you just sound like some whiny-ass conservative when you do it. And if they "adore" me so much, why haven't those accounts been banned? Are you saying it's OK to attack me, but nobody else?

Ehh, tell ya what: I've just posted a nice little article. It's the last thing of substance this site will ever get from me until those accounts are gone. I'll stick around for maintenance, but that's all, my friend. If they're going to pretend to have standards, then they should at least pretend to apply them across the board. And if you think I'm not serious, then just you watch me.

End of discussion.  c • > • cunwapquc? 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear (from Imrealized on my talk) that you're so pissed off about the User:Lir thing you're on article strike, though I don't really understand why. I do suspect it errs more on the side of 'dick' than 'funny', but I suspect a sorely pissed-off Wikipedian. The famous Lir from Wikipedia really did piss off tremendous numbers of people that much. Though if someone is going to create a User:Lir here, I'd hope they'd do something really good with it. Meh. - David Gerard 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. You know precisely who this asshole is, and frankly, unless you're part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Sorry man, but I thought you were better than this. --Some user 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I don't know who it is. What kind of proof do you want? Lie detector logs? Sorry, I don't think it can happen. - Sikon 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you knew who it was, Guest... By the way, "Sith" are fictional characters, and whether or not I deal in absolutes isn't the issue here. I'll admit I was wrong about it being one person; it is (or was, hopefully) two people, possibly three, but that's hardly surprising, since cowards work better in pairs (so as to bolster each other's deservedly low self-esteem). From now on I wish you'd just stay out of it; you should never have gotten involved in the first place. If this ever ends - and apparently it won't, from the looks of things - maybe we can delete all the relevant talk-page entries and just get on with it. Don't hold your breath, though.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Attack you? Lir "attacked" Imrealized, not you, and if by "attacking" you mean praising him for copying your style (I think you should be proud to have a style), then yes, I guess it's a personal attack, and everyone's talk page is full of personal attacks... I don't understand who you think is trying to get you, if it's me, it's untrue, and I'm 90% sure nobody haolds any malice against you. Maybe if you say who this is, we could try and get this problem solved? (P.S. Strange, you recognize my Russian origin but apply American categories to me, as if I'm familiar with U.S. political life...) - Sikon 07:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PP and I were indirectly attacked too. User:Someone's_User is most likely an attack...unfortunately I think I was an afterthought rather than a target. (Unsigned comment by Mahroww)
"Content" moved here

In regards to your messages on Ban Patrol

If you are serious about coming to a benefifial resolution of this issue for all parties, then you may wish to see this message. It is lengthy, but you may find it usefull. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)