Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discussion

Do you feel the need to argue constantly? Are you personally offended by everything? Are you a bigot without a sense of humor?
Well, keep your crap off VFH and put it here!

This page is for discussion only.
Votes belong on the main VFH page.

Removal/archival of entries is for admins only. No touchy! Touch equals punishment.

---

U all sukk!!!! unn

At least Steve Irwin died the way he lived. With animals in his heart. he suks lol Against 2 short.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 12:01, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Against 2 long.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Against This article isn't humorous. Why would someone nominate this article?!? Whyyyyyyy?!?!?! --Captain Radio Willy 18:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"I don't understand why we have to remove articles, or have all discussions on this page, instead of the VFH page. I liked it there! I hate everyone and am maladjusted! I've turned to vandalizing to help me forget that my girlfriend dumped me last night! I'm starting a flamewar with Nerd42 because I think that's funny! My entire life revolves around making people at Uncyclopedia cry! Why won't someone argue with me about this!?!?! I'm horribly offended by both "Reasons to become an Atheist" and "Euriopods"! Why the fuck am I even saying this? Are you saying people with Tourette's Syndrome don't have a sense of humor? I'm mad!"

There, I've covered what would be on this page since I've been on Uncyclopedia if this page had been here since then. If you want to complain about any of the above, I've already done it for you. (Is that better, WhyWhyWhy?)--Bradaphraser 21:17, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"I'm mad."

Better, WhyWhyWhy?--Bradaphraser 17:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

what the crap? I told you i got the message and would shut up on VFH. --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  21:35, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nerd. Are you aware that what you have done is something that you're not going to live down. You realize that the more you fight against it, the worse off you look. Plus, your whining is starting to piss me off.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 21:41, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Good articles

On Wikipedia there is a class of articles just below featured articles: good articles. Is there an equivalent to this on Uncyclopedia? Weri long wang 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. There are Featured Articles, those voted the best of the best and Quasi-Featured Articles, those articles not quite featured. You might also want to see Uncyclopedia:Top 10 Articles of 2005 and Uncyclopedia:PFP for a list of featured images. -- Hindleyite 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dice Man

• Disagree. But seeing that my bullet-point style comments have been discriminated in several occasions, I think I'll just take your advice and shoot my bullets here - I just don't want to see another disgruntled user throwing rocks in my talk page.

-- The Colonel (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Quote. Discretion [is] the better part of valor. --Cicero

The easiest way to avoid having rocks shot through your windows is to not arm the "disgruntled" with sling bullets in the first place. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My Pictures

Honestly, just tell me what's wrong with the pictures and how I can get past "Hitlerbear" material in the future. Tripod2282 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• To me, they're just far too clearly and obviously photoshopped to be funny. And they're all just the same incredibles-head-stuck-on-random's-body. It may not be quite as bad as the crap you get in VFD, but in my opinion it's just not front page material. Also, if you'd read the self-nomination regulation, you'll see you have to wait at least a week before nominating your own article. Just so you know. --Spang 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I object

To Rc's very rude Against vote for Kitten-related human fatalities for a few reasons. First, it was created back on March 19 and was actually one of the first kitten pages. Second, it has a double-digits vote total, which seems like automatic admittance to the front page nowadays. Third, it was written by me. PUT IT ON THE FRONT PAGE!!!! KHAAAAAN!!!! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 01:52, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Bad News

I'm of the opinion that if Worst 100 Ways to Deliver Bad News is featured, Doug should receive a featured article award. I put this here because it is clearly a collaborative effort and many people have added. However, it seems to be his baby and he started it and put a lot of effort into it, with images and formatting and so many different parts of the list. So, what do you say, are you with me? --KATIE!! 15:19, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kakun could be up for consideration as well. --KATIE!! 15:51, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I always awarded it to the major authors, not just who started it. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:04, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kakun?? I think the biggest contributors are Doug and Carlb. They should receive the award, IMHO. --Boy Toy bitch at me 00:37, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A list is a list is a list

Lists don't have a place in an encyclopedia, even a satirical one. There are tons of crappy, crappy lists on Uncyclopedia, and highlighting this list (which, while hilarious, is still a list) will only contribute to more horribly unfunny, non-encyclopedic lists. I'm personally in favor of killing all the lists, including this admittedly high quality one, if we can have a "no lists, just articles" policy. That's just my take on it, though. I'm more than willing to entertain explanations of why I'm wrong on this matter.--Bradaphraser 20:47, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Unless they are already categorized within Category:Lists, feel free to slap an {{Anti-list}} tag on them, and Famine will peruse them next week.  :) -- T. (talk) 21:17, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with al this anti-list business. Uncyclopedia is a bubbling organic mass of random inconsistent crap, with a couple of bright spots. The ideal of a polished internally consistent perfect one-on-one parody of Wikipedia is idiotic. We've got games, war/game dialogue, euroipods, AAAAAA! (and children) and all sorts of other crap that has nothing at all to do with encyclopedia's. Lists may be overdone, and most of them are nowhere near funny and never will be, but the same can be said for Oscar Wilde quotes, undictionary entries, 'in the style of' articles, random humour, quote pages and, guess what, articles in general. There are a couple of list that I like very much, and I'd hate to them deleted. This subject needs to be discussed openly before people go around assuming everybody hates lists. Doug 23:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's my deal with the lists. First, there are thousands of them and this one is the only funny one. Second, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's like if someone wrote a knock-knock joke, and there were a million unfunny copies. That's why I'm anti-list. It's true, this one is good, and I freak out or anything if it's featured, I just fear the "side-effects" of featuring a format that is traditionally one of the worst kinds of "articles" on Uncyclopedia.--Bradaphraser 04:12, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That should read "won't freak out," I need to proofread what I type before posting. :/--Bradaphraser 00:02, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Lists are okay if they have some sort of cohesive content... a bad list is something like "Here is a list of people who have eaten sandwiches:" with a simple list of names, but a "Worst 100" list is okay because the list items have content and humour. The fact that the sentences have numbers beside them doesn't make it bad. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 23:55, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DUDE - Where is the list of people who have eaten sandwiches??!??! I NEED this for SCHOOL.

You have two cows is a list. So are List of weapons that don't exist, but should, The Official List of the Best Things in Existence, Greatest Inventions, Crimes inspired by video games, The Oldest Trick in the Book, Alternate Universes I Seriously Hope Do Not Actually Exist, Seven Deadly Sins, most of Banned from the Internet and probably some other featured articles that I'm forgetting. Nothing bad happened because they were featured. --EvilZak 13:41, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Point taken.--Bradaphraser 20:12, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

There are several categories of crap. There's the "list" category. There's the "repeated letter, character, and/or word" category (AAA, the original Meow). There's the "name of conflict (video game)" category. And probably others that I'm too ignorant to know about not yet aware of. I'd suggest that each month includes one (and only one) highlight from each of these stylistic categories. Each month, our victims visitors can look forward to a video game, a list, and a string of random letters. Of course, articles that are just good would still make up the bulk of highlighted articles, but this proposal would eliminate the cries of "Against! We already featured an article like (insert meme here)!" -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 20:24, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we had a "diamond in the rough" section, where people took formats that almost never work, and made them funny? I think that could work...--Bradaphraser 00:02, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we please feature real writing, please?

I am sick to bloody death of seeing stupid gimmicks and non-articles on VFH. Yes, AAAAAA! was funny once, though most of you don't seem to understand why. Yes, Euroipods was marginally funny once, but can we please stop beating the microscopic film that once long ago was recognizable as the pulpy remains of a dead horse? Todd is absolutely right when he says that nominating and voting for blank pages and Euroipod clones and meta-jokes, etc. is sending the message that real writing is discouraged.

When we do shit like this it sends two messages: one, that it is worthless for community members to spend time on well-though-out articles, and two, that we are some sort of ED-level site whose only purpose is to celebrate itself. Having real writing on the front page makes us look good. Having jokes about how an article that doesn't exist is being featured or featuring a carbon copy of another article makes us look bad. It makes it look like there isn't any talent here.

So to some kind-hearted admin, please, just put these out of their misery and unilaterally remove them.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, all gimmick nominations should be automatically removed without having to wait for a -3 score. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--Bradaphraser 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the gimmick nomination thing has had it's best day, and we should not feature stuff like EuroJesii or nonexistant pages. However, I don't agree with automatically killing all gimmick nominations blindly. I think it's quite possible that (in a little while, when gimmick nominations are but a faint memory) someone might come up with a really funny gimmick nomination that deserves feature. I would hate for some overconditioned admin to automatically huff it because it's 'against policy'. I agree on everything else. Doug 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because a gimmick is funny doesn't mean it deserves a feature. I'm not saying delete all gimmicks, just don't let them be featured. I can't think of a single gimmick that would be funny to feature to anyone except the person doing the featuring. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 23:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ridden what crest of funny that it had and is descending the other side into cheap.--Bradaphraser 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I don't believe in featuring this crap. It's just fun to nominate it every once in a while. Get things like this. People thinking we're serious. Heheh. Dance, my puppets, dance. --KATIE!! 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think _you_ are serious about featuring it, despite your vote. I do think you are serious about pissing people off by keeping it on this page longer, though. And honestly that's worse than if you had been serious.---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we still keep the talkpage?--Rataube 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To be clear on this: I am opposing featuring, not advocating deletion. I think it could be funny, I just don't think it can be funny enough for feature. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much agreed. Yes, I know I was the force behind Euroipods, and I think I even voted for one of its subsequent VFH spinoffs (maybe, I'm not sure), but...well, I don't really have a "but," I'm just a hypocrite. Personally, I dislike the page-written-in-the-style-of-its-title articles, like Binary and Morse Code, unless they are extremely well-written and aren't one-dimensional, "oh, that's sort of clever" jokes (Writer's Block was one of the pretty good ones). I'd like to get a consensus on this, actually, so you might want to bring this discussion to the Dump. I'm personally not going to unilaterally remove gimmicky nominations if they get support, but I will gladly start doing it if the people wish it. --—rc (t) 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about the new header

“Bitch, bitch, bitch, Brad. That's all you do.”

– User:Bradaphraser on Bradaphraser

I use the weak votes because I have two criteria I use for featuring: quality of writing and quality of the humor. If something meets one but not the other, then I choose which wins out and give a weak vote. The header would force me to stop voting on every article, something I take pride in. If that's how you guys want it, I'll do it, I'm just saying it's not the way I want to do it...--<<>> 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. Also, who is "we?" I have not seen the discussion on this and last I checked Slack was not an admin, so at least including "opinion of the cabal" would be a helpful note so we know this isn't just one person asserting his/her will. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

N00bish Questions (or Sorry)

I'm just wondering why Asshole was pulled so quickly... it seems that it was only up for about four days, while there are clearly things on this list that have been up for far longer. I really am looking for honesty here. I realize that something is amiss and, not to semi-brag, but I am clearly not an idiot. I hate having to do this because everything I am about to say is clearly unfunny which, to me, is defeating the purpose of this site, is it not? But I feel compelled because, well... I really enjoy this site and the premise, but since my discovery of it about a week and a half ago have certainly had a mixed welcome. There seems to be something going on, which to me sounds pretty asinine because, let's face it, this isn't Boeing here. I am relatively new to many aspects of the internet, having just got my first computer about a month ago. Aside from this I'd say I'm pretty sharp, so I'm fairly confident that I am not mistaken. My logic dictates several reasons for whatever is going on here:

1. I made a negative comment about an article or picture done by someone "in the fold". If this is the case, I do apologize; as a newcomer I had no idea that it is only possible to say slightly harsh but funny comments to other newcomers and that if someone is an accepted member of this community then I should most certainly refrain from honesty and lean toward asskissery.
2. My humour is not your thing. This is fine... some of the humour on here isn't my thing either although some of it is, in my opinion, some of the finest comedy out there. But I assure you that this type of humour does have an audience (even morons like me need humour, too).
3. Rumours. As a member of the Non-Idiot Party, I've heard things. Weird things. Things that I didn't even know the meaning of until I looked them up on Wikipedia. Evidently a few people on here, or at least one of you, feels that I am a "sock-puppet" (as a template of this nature was placed on my User Page). I assure you that I am a very real little boy and actually, this accusation is really what got me in this vile mood in the first place because, as a perpetual free-thinker I really can't stand being told that I am somebody else's product. If anyone would like to vacation in the armpit of America this summer (yeah, New Jersey) I would be happy to welcome them and explain more about the state's unusual stench. I have no idea why this was thought to begin with, and the only thing I can conjure up is that somebody feels threatened by me, or just doesn't like me for some arbitrary reasoning, and I really think that is unfortunate.

I really am perplexed by all this, mostly because I shouldn't care. I just got here a little more than a week ago and this certianly isn't the most important factor in my life, so why do I care? Well, because this place is a good idea, intelligent and funny (for the most part), it seems like a very clever bunch of people, which is rare in the world and I enjoy writing. In fact, I write a great deal. But this is an entirely new format to me so I apologize for my ineptness sometimes. I'd hate to think that a bunch of people got together on here and arbitrarily decided to give me a hard time, or that this is the way all new people are treated, or that I said something or made a comment that was not within wiki-ettiquette and nobody can just say that to me directly. I know that all this makes me come of kind of silly, which is fine. I'm of the age where I'd rather be honest than perceived cool, so if you care to laugh at my honesty that is fine too. But when I drop in the chatroom here for advice and someone just keeps telling me "to go to Encyclopedia Dramatica" and "go away" and things of that nature and then on my nomination for "n00b o' the month" I got someone else saying that "the cabal" has reasons against me (and I gotta hope that this is a joke, right?), and then on here Asshole is yanked out from the middle, long before other things that have been on here for far longer, I just gotta assume something is going on. And instead of just leaving I wanted to lay it all out here. My only hesitancy, as I've said, is that this really has no place on a comedic website and I regret it came to that (and so quickly too). Can anyone clue me in here? --68.44.24.112 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is me... I talked too much and timed out. --Imrealized 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominations are pulled due to vote count and nothing else. If it goes below -3 at first, it gets pulled. If it has more votes and is averaging about 0 or 1, it gets pulled. This is because it'd take an inordinate amount of for votes to get it to featured status after that point, and so it's pulled before it just stagnates. That's all. --KATIE!! 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer the initial question: "00:37, 23 March 2006 Rcmurphy m (→Assholes - 4 days, total of 0 votes)". Rc removed the entry because it was time to cull the number of entries down and the math was not with yours. As for why people voted for or against it, you will have to see their comments. Go to the history and see the edit prior to the entries removal and you can still view those comments. I myself hadn't gotten around to reading it yet. As for all the other stuff with the cabal, the sockpuppets, etc.: it is complicated. If you really must know, leave me a note on my talk page. My advice, however, is that it will be simpler if you concentrate on writing articles and steer clear of uncyclopedia politics. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Keitei and Isra already explained it...VFH consistenly has a fair number of articles with pretty high vote counts, and it takes quite a bit of support these days to for an article to last there for very long. The number of votes required to survive a culling changes depending on VFH length, stagnation, etc., but it's safe to assume that any article that has a total of 0 votes (Fors - Againsts) after more than a couple days will go. If you think I am being inconsistent, please point out which articles it looks like I'm favoring. I try to be objective in removing nominations (honestly, the majority of articles on VFH I don't even read, so I have no bias for or against them in any case) but I'm bound to miss things sometimes, especially since I've been busy the past few weeks and I can't dedicate that much time to Uncyc. --—rc (t) 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New!!!

I propose we implement a new voting... thing.. on a trial basis.

{{for|comment|your user name|~~~~~}} or {{against|comment|your user name|~~~~~}}

It will remove the distracting sigs, make votes less ambiguous, and one need not even say for or against in the vote at all.

See here for test. --KATIE!! 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pasketmaul discussion

Moved from voting page —rc (t) 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Re-Nomination - I've had a big fiddle with this article, and I think its a huge improvement on when it was last nominated a couple of months ago. (Das Boot 05:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

• Yes - Brilliant article, major improvements, far better than when last nominated. (Fall-asleep-now 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Comment What do you know about "improvements"? Your userpage was created the same day as this entry!-- Swami A. Suresh 04:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck does that have to do with anything, Suresh? —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well if you want to know, i was registered before i created my userpage, you know, some people are busy, you know , they actually have lives. CALM DOWN and go get a friend. That usually helps you calm down Suresh. (Fall-asleep-now 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

• Good For - It has a network of articles now, should be good. Wahoo 9:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Easy for a co-writer to say. -- Swami A. Suresh 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• YES - Im addicted to this one,i check everyday for updates. Pantera102 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If U "check every day", how come you have not yet even created an own userpage?-- Swami A. Suresh 04:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Because some people have lives, they only have a small amount of time to spend on internet sites debating shit like this. Pantera102 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• For. Golly, the world government has been overthrown by Pasketmaul. Bloopy 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Against I can't decide. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• For I like articles that have linked full-article inside them, like this. I think that needs to be done more. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against I don't get what this article is trying to do at all. Google only gets four hits on 'Pasketmaul' one of which says it's some form of elephant polo (which does bring up an amusing visual of elephants on horseback playing polo, but that's beside the point). I feel like this is some in-joke I'm outside of. Other than that, the word Pasketmaul is inherently annoying and the article is extremely light on stuff that's actually funny and not just random. Doug 03:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • First up, as far as I know, Pasketmaul is not actually a sport; its just a heavily revised version of elephant polo, with a new name. Second, elephant polo is like polo, except played on elephants instead of horses, not elephants ON horses. I agree with you on the annoyingness of the word Pasketmaul though....one part of the article I did not write. Das Boot 04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• For, on the condition that this is featured with it. :] --KATIE!! 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Time has been taken to create. More articles like this please. Hindleyite 10:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. This article is awesome. —Hinoa KUN (talk)
• Against although you do get points for the largest amount of gibberish in article in a long time. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against-I was going to vote For it but that template at the beginning sucks--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 12:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against Utter clan member internal vanity shite. Besides - the article starts with some messages about how to win the VFH-contest. Are those messages supposed to remained when featured? If not - how can I vote for an article that is going to be altered once featured. (Please all Pasketmaul lovers: Get a talkpage or your own hosted website or a life or whatever. -- Swami A. Suresh 04:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First up, I really think you should've take this to Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discussion; I think it clearly states that at the top of this page that VFH is for VOTES ONLY, not to start flamewars and shit like that. However, since you've already started here, let's get a few things straight. 1. Those messages were put there AFTER I nominated the page - I did not put them there, and have no idea who did. 2. Yes, two of the co-authors are friends, but I can honestly say that we have made a conscious effort to keep the article vanity-free; You be the judge as to how successful we have been in this effort. 3. I find no problem with us voting for our article - WE find it excellent, some established users have as well, and that's what VFH is for - to vote for an article you find excellent. 4. Before telling other people to get a life, I suggest you take a look at your User Page - you seem to have written an awful lot in your time here. You seem to love making fun of other people's articles - see your latest Worst 100 Quick Detections that an Uncyclopedia Article Sucks. Could it be that you're a pussy in real life, so you feel the need to assert some authority online. One gets the impression that you spend your life on this website. Your life revolves around Uncyclopedia. Go fuck yourself. Love, Das Boot 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Both of you calm down. Though a few of the votes do raise some eyebrows, I see no real evidence of vote fixing or anything, and several of the For votes are from long-time, established users. —rc (t) 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That template up the top of the page is kinda ridiculous, I'll probably remove it if someone else doesn't. The claims that Pasketmaul has anything to do with vanity are complete nonsense, it's just writing about a made up sport in an attempt to be funny. Too bad if one or two of the minor editors are getting horny over VFH. Bloopy 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of ethics

• Comment: HF seems to be a bit heavy-handed this time and has change the article quite a fair lot. Since he is in fact quite a reputed user here, I think I'll just let others read his version on the corresponding Pee Review page and leave my version here as the official nominee. How does that sound? -- The Colonel (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's weird, but it's your show. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 05:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when have we allowed users to temper other people's comments and stuff [1]? But, well, if he thinks his version is terrible, then so be it. -- The Colonel (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

All edits removed. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? -- The Colonel (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I hold my hand up to it. I changed your comments, and I apologise for it. Sannse gave me a good slap and I saw the error of my ways. All I can say is that I only did it because I thought it was funny and I was mostly putting myself down with the comments. It was never my intention to make anyone think you wrote those parts. Actually, I would much rather they thought I wrote them.

As for my vote change, well, I thought I was doing you a favor by adding some stuff to your article and voting for it. Heavy handed or not (and I don't think I actually changed much), that's what this place is about - letting others modify your work. It wasn't easy either, but I tried, and some of the responses seem to have been encouraging before you moved it.

I have no idea why you thought that me being "quite reputed" meant that my additions should go on Pee Review instead of letting the words do their magic here where it counts at the sharp end. But I was obviously voting for the version I worked on, or I wouldn't have worked on it, so I now have to abstain and I would feel a bit weird going to Pee Review and telling myself to do better. You can remove the "probably terrible" bit from the page if you want. That was only a joke too, and I am terrified to touch it in case I am banned for life! --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bottomline: Changing other people's comments will not help anyone in improving an article. What you have done creates nothing but drama. Put yourself in my shoes: having seen your comments in the IRC chatroom as regards "minions" (which were nothing more than a bunch of lame allegations asserting that I was controlling some kind of meat/sockpuppets), and having been threatened with a kick in the same place by you, you have pretty much crossed the line in every respect I can possibly imagine. And now you are asking me to offer you any trust by any chance? Not in a million years, buddy. You can ask sannse for it and she'll more than happy to offer you hers by a good measure, but well... Let's say people with multiple faces are just a bit too abundant out there, and unfortunately I have seen them just a bit too many times. Seriously, I don't know what you are up to, and everyone has their own agenda, right? Making fun of someone, avenging oneself, climbing up the ranks, a bit of everything... who knows? But after all, who cares? The world is still running as per normal.

Look! I voted against your stuff at least twice, and in each instance you went no less hysterical than nintendorulez whines about my stuff in the Benson forum. And all of the sudden, now you are saying you are helping me out. Wow! That sounds just too good to be true. Besides, puns are cheap. I mean, c'mon, where is the amazing stuff I have seen in those featured articles of yours? Or did you just suffer momentary loss of your sense of humour? Or did you come to the conclusion that one can actually be funny by being... well, not funny?

Anyway, as a form of courtesy and a response to your *ping* in my article, may I say here, "pong"?

-- The Colonel (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, well now I am surprised. Let me assure you, Col. S. that I have absolutely no secret agenda whatsoever. My only agenda here is to try and be funny. Nothing else. I can't really remember the exact context in which I used the word "minions" on IRC (something about the devil wasn't it?) - but I can tell you straight that the only reason I used it was because it struck me as a funny word to use at the time. This thing about sockpuppets never even occured to me until I read it in your comment above. I had no idea you were thinking something like that because I certainly wasn't. I don't deal in subtext like that. It's not a funny thing to do and being funny is my purpose here.

As for threatening to kick you, again I have no idea what you are talking about. I know nothing about the technicalities of IRC. I couldn't kick anyone there if I tried. In fact, as I recall, during our conversation someone made me room operator and I immediately asked them not to, because I preferred just to be "in" the room. I have no idea how to operate one.

You say you don't know what I am up to - well, it's just this: being funny. I always look for the funny in everything, it's just who I am. So, I immediately found being banned funny and I thought I'd make it even funnier by writing a prison journal. I was just making something positive out of it, and I have been very careful not to mention any specific circumstances about the ban to keep you out of it and not tread on your toes. Someone with a secret agenda against you might not have been so careful, no? Equally, I think they might have come back and voted against your article out of revenge - which, you will note, I did not do.

You did vote against me before and I did react with a comment. I always do that when I don't understand the reason for the vote. On one occasion you accused me of being unoriginal and too "popular culture", which got to me because even if I am not funny, I at least endeavour to be original and I though that the premise behind Humosexual was entirely original. So, I made the comment and that's it. Finished. I moved on.

So, I know you say it will take a million years, but please believe me - there's no secret agenda. Life's too short, and yes, too good to be true or not - I was genuinely helping you out there. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell you what - you are forgiven, freely, along with nintendorulez, famine, and whoever I might still be holding grudge with. I am moving on, but then what is there I can really offer everyone here? A featured article? Maybe. But after a chat with rcmurphy, I began to realise that not quite the answer. Of course, I would really like to see one of my articles featured, but after all, that's not really this place is all about, right? This place is supposed to be for fun and for leisure, and that's why I enjoy being here. To me, forgiveness is free, and so is apology. (Although usually I need at least two years to just lay off my resentment to one person, but I suppose that's something I really need to work on, right?) Again, my reputation is not really outstanding, and I don't know how many people out there I have already offended. So, here is an apology, from me, to anyone I have crossed. Absolutely no question asked.

Trust, on the other hand, is something to be earned. You see, I got quite a few messages from individuals saying how much they would miss me when I left. But, really, should I really trust them at all? And more importantly, have I even seen them in real life? No. Not even once. I don't know who that "Severian" guy really is. He said he served in the US Army and stuff, but do I, or will I, ever have a chance to verify that? Now that's something not going to happen perhaps in a million years. But, hey, we talked about stuff a bit, we mucked around a bit, he doesn't seem to be a bad dude, and that's good enough for me. I don't know about you, but prove it - prove that I do have a bit of trust in you, prove that I am really wrong about you, and prove that I am indeed a liar. I am just that simple and easy to please.

-- The Colonel (talk), the bogan, 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Women are Stupid

(discussion moved from VFH)

• For - David Gerard 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

comment. This was a for vote added before the article was taken down and renominted by the Sturgdawg, i'm not sure if it can count or not, if it doesn't just take it down. The score was +3 when it was removed - --Uncle J 18:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: Above vote removed because it sets a bad precedent. See comments below.--<<>> 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ~ The re-addition of deleted votes from previous nominations should not be allowed, lest others see this as a green light dredge out old votes for their renominated articles. While this might work if people could be relied upon to dredge out the against votes as well, who's got the time to police this? It's a do-over, not a carry-over. --The Bard of Uncyclopedia 18:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The Bard is right, though Uncle J is encouraged to let DG know that his vote wasn't counted and that he should re-vote (on his talk page, perhaps.)--<<>> 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

QFH procedure

I feel I should put this somewhere, just so people know the procedure that is used to take noms off VFH. Keep in mind that I always try to keep about 20 articles on VFH at any given time since that's the most I think anyone will read in one sitting, and since we won't feature them more often if more articles are put on the page, if a lot of articles get put up in a day, a lot are going to be taken off, as well.

• Darwin rule: This article is the worst in relation to the one directly above and below it on the page, and it thus slated for removal. If there is a tie (ie two articles the same distance from the articles nearest them), the younger article will die. Note, however, that Darwin rule also relates to articles that have fewer votes than an article slated for removal that is younger than it. For example: if a +2 article is nestled between two +6 articles, but there are a couple of +1 articles that are older and have been protecting one another, the two +1 articles would go before the younger +2 article, giving it more time to build up enough votes to stay alive on the page.
  • Special protections for day-old nominees: Articles less than 24-hours old cannot be removed unless they've hit -3 (the usual euthanasis for all articles).
• Stagnation removal. An article that has recieved no new for votes for two weeks is slated for removal for stagnating. This unpleasant removal method has thankfully become mostly obsolete due to the fact we feature twice as many articles as we did before.
• QFH is given to articles that have a score of at least 25% of the score of the most recent feature. In this way, we honor articles that, in different circumstances, might actually have been highlighted.

Hope this clears this up. Any other questions about this can be asked at my user talk.--<<>> 19:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the QFH thingy be 75% of the score of a feature?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've wanted something like that, an award that recognizes the ones that were near-misses like that (75% of the featured score, as you say). Some kind of happy template for that would be nice; if you'd work on it, I'd use it for the near-misses. I still like our current template for QFH as a nice nod to articles that at least were able to get a nod from some users. Part of the problem with changing the current procedure is that we've already got so many QFH that don't fit that criteria.--<<>> 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought QFH was always 75%...12+ (but less than feature) got QFH. Am I extrapolating my own experiences as the whole?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is because 75 > 25. Anything over 25% got the QFH tag, with no distinction (which kinda annoys me a bit). Thus my wanting there to be levels of "not quite featured." Maybe a "Quasi-featured" as is now, but a "nearly featured" for stuff over 75%.--<<>> 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that Darwin rule also relates to articles that have fewer votes than an article slated for removal that is younger than it. - shouldn't it be "fewer or equal to" since if two articles have the same number of votes, the older one has had more time to accumulate them?

If there is a tie the younger article will die - once you put all the rules together, the article with fewer votes dies anyway (or an even older article with fewer than either). But if they have the same number of votes, the younger article dies, when it should be the older one. Rogpyvbc 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you're misreading what I'm saying, partially because this almost REQUIRES a practical demonstration of what I'm doing to understand what I'm saying. I'm leaving a detailed example at my talk page so that it doesn't further clutter up this page.--<<>> 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, I've placed one here that explains what's going on.--<<>> 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything - your example does exactly what I've suggested. But your example doesn't follow your rules, since your rules say "fewer than" and the example suggests "fewer or equal to." And if there's a tie in distance from neighbouring articles, the article with fewer votes will always die: the younger article by virtue of the "younger article dies" rule, or the older article by virtue of the fact it has fewer votes and is older (unless there is an even older article with fewer votes). These are the exact points I was making. The only thing you need to do is to clarify the "or equal to." Rogpyvbc 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's been done then. PROBLEM SOLVED! WOO! Party at my place!--<<>> 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How about changing quasi to a minimum number of For votes (say 10). Then you'd have articles that nearly made it plus things like sauce and yaks which a lot of people liked but were eventually shouted down. --Kelpan 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pages get featured through the wonder of magic...

The reason we use a percentage is that sometimes things are featured with only +10, but others things get taken off with +15 and are Quasi-featured. Voting seems to come in waves.--<<>> 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it decided?

What is required for an article to be featured? A certain number of votes, a certain number of votes per day or in a particular time; what is it? Weri long wang 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We feature the article with the most votes at the time of feature (or about midnight Pacific Daylight Time in America. I think that's 0800 GMT. The time isn't set in stone, but it's usually updated around then.).--<<>> 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it’s been featured now! Praise the Intelligent Designer! Weri long wang 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Homer Sucks Bitches

I friggin' love whinin' and startin' flamewars biatches!!!!!!!! 71.251.2.147 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You sure told us. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what sucks about it

It seems apparant to me now that American (species) is not only "not good enough" to be a featured article, it is downright awful. Since I've already run it once on Pee Review, where it got a very positive review, should I just ask for a Pee Review a second time, and hope I get a more fitting review (with suggestions for improvement), or can I just ask you guys here? I'm looking for specific suggestions for improvement.
---quite Humbled Acolyte of Humor, Radioactive afikomen

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but what gets me about it is that it's too bitter. It reads like a racist manifesto, except directed at a nation rather than a race. It needs less bile and more funny.

Now I'm not American, and as such I enjoy seeing the Yanks taken down a peg or two. But there are limits; I have a lot of American friends, and I didn't care for the idea that they are all sub-human monsters.

So, yeah, that's basically it. Less bile, more jokes and you might have something. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not awful. You have to remember is that Pee Review is just one user's opinion. Maybe try making the page more like an episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, observing Americans in their natural habitat, with Marlin Perkins providing commentary while Jim Fowler gets too close to various herds of Americans. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not my intention to treat Americans as "subhuman". My intention was to present a zoologists view of Americans. Also, I have removed some of the more blatantly racist stuff. Is is better, or still incredibly offensive?
---Humble Acolyte of Humor, Radioactive afikomen 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)