Talk:Obnosis

Hi!

This is the talk page for the subject of Obnosis.

NOTE: This is Neither a pro Scientology, nor an anti-Scientology page. It references ludicrious hacker Internet history only!

The theft of the word for a domain name from Scientology is considered a word hack. It might not seem terribly funny, but it is.

Please help add some levity to this valuable page (while keeping the links for basic history, until I drop em)!

http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/obnosis

A cold shower

I have scrubbed Sections 3 and 4 to try to make them funny. Lisa, you will note that I have omitted the particulars of your case against Wikipedia/Wiktionary. In glossing over the details of the conflict, I may even have introduced inaccuracy, and I don't care. My approach to Sections 5 and 6 would be to delete them entirely, as they serve no humor purpose, but only invite the reader to read about or join various Wikipedia or engineering "communities" to further get your side of the story.

I have no idea how to convert Sections 1 and 2, which are an overt attempt to state the history that defends your property interest in the word obnosis, to make it funny. It isn't funny. It isn't here to be funny. Satire motivational posters that relate to one word in the section don't make it funny. I have no faith that it will ever become funny and, as I told you on your talk page, I suspect you might even resist attempts to make it funny if they undercut your case. On that basis, I would rather nominate this for VFD (Votes For Deletion) than VFH, except that it's not how a promising new editor should be welcomed. However, like ITSCON, where another author tries to work out his two years in the airline-terminal incense-and-pamphlets begging scam, and which I didn't send to VFD solely out of respect for the canon rule to Don't be a dick, I can't understand why some new users' first goal is to win a vote. It won't get your property back; we are just a bunch of clowns. Spıke ¬  01:58 28-Dec-09

Okay! Laugh! I think I can make it funny ---> Thanks for your help.... ITSCON is Funny! I have until February 2010 before a VFD! Give me a chance already... I prefer Asshole Personality Disorder! Hey Go pick on Man Boobs for a while?

L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 04:35, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the original last night - I think Spike has greatly improved it by removing the obvious problems with it as first posted. I personally thought if the Scientologists tried to copyright the word Obnoxious it would have been possibly funnier. However this is your baby - it just needs to put on more of a clown make up to make it here.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:39, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Romartus, don't say that! surely Lisa has about a hundred Motivational Posters featuring clowns!!!

Work left to do

• I thought the quotations at the start would be a litany of people asking themselves a question, and the answer is always, "Obnosis!" (Sort of like, "C'est logique!" or "Who is John Galt?") But you seem to have different ideas.
• Sections 2 and 2.1 deprecate the term or use the irony of stating the exact opposite. This humor is less subtle than the humor used elsewhere--the irony of stating something that (only after analysis) can't be true. I can't fix this because I still don't know what obnosis means (nor want to).

okay! Good suggestions! That was recommended by another editor! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs)

• Please get rid of the techno-babble intro to Section 2.2 and replace it with a couple very short list items.

Good suggestions also - looks great! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs)

• I am not happy with your late-night edits of 2.3 and 3 because (as I warned) you are finding it irresistible to add details of your beef against Scientology and their edit war against you, which detract from the humor. I had simplified the "bad science fiction writer" sentence but you have recomplicated it. No one cares what the cost of Scientology training is, how many days the Religious siege lasted, who has bots, nor the real identity of the (yawn!) engineers defending the engineering definition.

Hey it's not my fight! I just want it to be ironic and accurately satire real life... A neutral stance of anything is not satire, fails context and humor! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 14:15, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Damn it, "obnosious" was a pun! which you have twice replaced with the word you thought I meant.
• The "See also" should relate directly to the article, not list articles you think people would get a kick out of, e.g., Man Boobs.

Section needs something, I agree.. Man Boobs relates back to the first Travolta quote, and is a very funny photo! Plus.... the Man_boobs article is considerably in need of some LOVE, so it makes obnosis look better! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 14:15, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

For style points: Some administrators like it if you use a smaller number of longer edits (clicking on Preview to see how your work will look). A large number of one-word edits overstates your contributions and makes the edit history harder to navigate. I violated this with you last night as we were both editing the same thing at the same time. When you see the "edit conflict" screen next, please study what has changed on the page that you didn't change, and carry your changes from the bottom window to the top window; opting for an easier resolution discards other people's edits. It's been fun! Spıke ¬  13:00 28-Dec-09

Okay Thanks you [kittens]! I know we both edited in sequence and did a good many of short changes without notes! I have a good deal more to add...I think? Brain cheese graphics and dead scientologist zombies! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 14:15, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! a new Frankenstein monster. I would instead have you get it to a good stopping point, walk away from it for a week, and see how you like it. The article at this level is a tour-de-force of all the obvious fun you can have with the word. Adding a lot more stuff will necessarily be autobiography and/or grudge-based.

Your defense of Man Boobs proves my point. The quote fleshes out the subject, it is not the subject, and See Also should not help your reader understand your examples, but only understand the subject. No, scratch that, in the case of Obnosis, it's funnier the less we understand. Spıke ¬  14:21 28-Dec-09

Hokay - Promise me you are not grooming it for MOVE to Undictionary? L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs)

I promise! all I do over on Wikipedia is as a favor to my local semi-pro basketball team. They are set to play an exhibition game tonight, and I am torn--this has been more fun than driving 8 hours to watch a two-hour practice game. Spıke ¬  14:51 28-Dec-09

WAIT? What does Wikipedia have to do with anything? I was referencing grooming obnosis for a move to Undictionary as an alterative to deletion? Does that happen here, like on Wikipedia/Wiktionary? L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2009

I read your message superficially (or maybe just wanted to talk hoops). There are no alternatives to deletion, though Pee Review is almost as good as a filibuster. I was arm-twisted into doing Pee Reviews once (notoriously including ITSCON). What you got was better than a Pee Review (I hate number grades!) and I doubt the article will be vaporized soon. Spıke ¬  01:08 29-Dec-09

Basketball is foreign to me... Millrats do have a nice dance team [1]! I really love seeing healthy people do amazing things up close. Arizona is a another world.

Words fail me - thanks! L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 01:46, 29 December 2009

Millrats did have a nice dance team. On Arizona, November baseball is an allure, but I know Albuquerque better. (Drier heat!) I did not indeed travel, but will tomorrow. Tonight, Celtics play in California and I am staying up late with you. Spıke ¬  01:57 29-Dec-09