Forum:Forest Fire Fired?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Forest Fire Fired?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3886 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I was against the Forest Fire last time it occurred, but due to a complete lack of integrity and a hungry and uncontrollable desire for hypocrisy, I am now suggesting that the trees should burn. Uncyclopedia is so fat it can't move. It is wallowing on a cum-stained couch watching porn and eating butter encrusted scones. It will die.

One of the most stupid reasons given for an "Against" vote on VFD is "Notable". This is one of these faux, pseudo-intellectual fuck-wittingtons that allow said voter to pat themselves on the back with their iPhones, but frighten away new users. The big subjects that are grey stupid cliffs that no one can climb need to be brought down so that someone new can give it their sponging.

There is an old saying: "You have to speculate to accumulate". But this has no relevance to what I am writing here, so really...fuck knows why I put it there. mAttlobster. (hello) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Haven't got the slightest idea what you're one about, mate. But, I am in favor of a forest fire week. We were having a vote on one that was looking to be headed that direction, but then the move happened, and it wasn't a great time to start deleting everything while we still weren't sure if everything worked yet. Should we vote or something? -RAHB 21:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Shrm. Agreed. FFW. —  (talk) (contributions) 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to focus on writing new stuff rather than deleting old. We need to write not huff currently IMO. MrN 04:15. Mar 11. 2013

 Against. I'm with this N guy. The last forest fire week created thousands of red links and the huffing of many good articles and orphaned pics. It was a horrid mess, and people spent months cleaning up the red links (many of which still exist). To go tripping into another one without a net...anyway, why not just pick 100 articles and then everyone choose two or three of those to actually improve and not huff. Or, if this horrendous thing does occur, just huff 10 a day in total so people like me and other morons can actually look at the pages (last time there were hundreds of pages to look at and save a few. Everyone has a different opinion of what is good, and some users tried to huff pages they had previously "lost" on on VFD. Aleister 11:25 11-3-'13

 Against. I loved the FFWs I've participated in, but at the moment there's not much to burn. When they were first instituted we were just getting started at tagging and tracking cruft, but now we're pretty good at it. As a result, FFWs are almost never needed. VFD can handle any low-hanging stragglers we happen across. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2013.03.13.07:13

• There was a vote to hold a FFW in the 3rd week of January. However, I got busy with class and I didn't run it and everyone forgot about it. So basically what I'm saying is we should do that FFW starting like next week or something (maybe sooner?) -- The Zombiebaron 06:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I couldn't find the forum vote on my watchlist, but I did find this, which is almost as good. -RAHB 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Oh here is the vote. -- The Zombiebaron 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, excellent. It wasn't on my watchlist. Brilliant, RAHB. Brilliant. -RAHB 22:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Like I say elsewhere - you don't even need to improve an article. You can write an article that uses a sucky article as source and makes something out of it that way. Flexibility. Like that one dude with that thing. -- Style  Guide 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)