Uncyclopedia talk:Reviewer of the Month

I have a few ideas I'd like to pitch:

• Shorten it to "Reviewer of the Month".
• Consider changing the number of required Pee Reviews, maybe from 8 to 6, or have no minimum number of Pee Reviews at all. In other words, for the Foolitzer and Writer of the Month, there's no number of articles you have to have had written. Sometimes it's about quality rather than quantity. Somebody might submit 5 really detailed and constructive Pee Reviews and not be eligible to win against somebody who submits 20 poor and nonconstructive Pee Reviews.
• IP votes should still be considered half to prevent possible voting abuse.
• If it becomes an official award, the winner(s) should become a CUN.

--EMC ^[TALK] 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My response:

• Probably a good idea. I've already made 4 variations of Reviewer of the Month redirect here, so I'll go ahead and move it.
• I think I'll take it out. If neither Writer of the Month, the Foolitzer Prize, or UnBooks Author of the Month have minimum requirements, guess there's no reason for this to.
• I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, IP's still use Pee Review and can appreciate a good one as much as any user could. On the other, dynamic proxies and users signing out to give themselves an extra vote could be a problem. I think I'll take this up with an Admin when I try to move it to mainspace, but for now I will keep it as is.
• This will also be taken up with an admin, but I think it's a given. Any user that gets this award definately deserves a place in the Order of Uncyclopedia.

On the whole, I liked your suggestions. For the IP issue I think it might (surprise surprise) be put to a vote, or simply be decided by an Admin that I'm scared of (cough). Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EMC. Ask an administrator if you can move this to the mainspace and if approved, winners would become CUN. Also, the number of required reviews should be 3, 8 seems a bit extreme, we're striving for quality, not quantity.--Sir Manforman 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So Boomer, are we ready to consult an admin? --EMC ^[TALK] 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna go to Strange but Untrue. She seems to be the most sympathetic admin that isn't already involved in PEEING. That and she's active. That helps. I'll post on her talk page in a few minutes (I'm still trying to catch up on what I missed during the day). Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll bring it up with Mhaille in the IRC as well. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mhaille said we should just officialize it, bypass a community vote, and announce it. He did the same with the UGotM. Additionally, he strongly supports it. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're screwing the system? Awesome! I think I should move and announce it November 1, because that's when voting will officially start. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to move this page to Uncyclopedia:Reviewer of the Month whenever you want. --EMC ^[TALK] 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing TKF's shenanigans first, though. Bloody frog. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is all ready for the big move. However, you might want to create a template to put on nominees' user pages, similar to this. --EMC ^[TALK] 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I already did, here. I was using the other user awards pages as examples for PRotM and all of Tom Mayfair's had one to accompany it. So I ripped the code from one and changed the wording and picture around to match the award. I'll move this into the mainspace with the award. Good job formatting the page for the move. You've really been more of a help with this award than I ever really expected anyone to be. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I can help. I'd recommend moving the award before November 1st. Some work needs to be done after the move, like redirecting all that links to this userspace page to the main award page, adding the page into the awards template, incorporating this award in the Pee Review, and getting some additional feedback from other administrators. It might not be such a surprise when we announce the RotM to the community, but it'll take some of the pressure off come November 1st. --EMC ^[TALK] 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead an move it now. Then get redirect the redirects. Oh god, the redirects. They haunt my nightmares. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also took the liberty of editing the awards template to include RotM under "Ranks and Honors". I also refuse to back-dent. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. I fixed a few redirects myself. Everything seems ship shape. Now we just sit and wait. Yes...wait... *rubs hands together menacingly* --EMC ^[TALK] 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One-eyed Jack (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

• Nom and For. Why? That should be obvious enough. Always on the ball, always thorough, always helpful, always there. -- 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 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations do not begin until November 1st. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Can't we just give it to him now, and vote on it later? -- 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 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NEIN! Also, this is just a prototype/sandbox/dungeon. We're still working on making this an official award rather than just a userspace award, ya' feel? --EMC ^[TALK] 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad froggy! You only have to wait 14 more days, have some patience. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

wat we gna dew gize

Okay, so let's say that HV and MDL were to tie this month. (which they very well may) Could we get away with giving it to both of 'em? I think they both deserve it. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 18:00 Apr 30

Nope, because MrN9000 has now voted. Also, that is the only circumstance under which I vote. When there's a tie between the top however many users, I look through multiple reviews from each user and decide which one I believe deserves the award the most. I then cast the final vote based on that decision, as I would have done today had MrN not already voted, as evidenced by my conversation with Cajek under Heerenveen's nomination. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, gotcha. So you're saving yourself as a tiebreaker. Also, you told me you were saving yourself for marriage but then after we broke up you went and fucked your new boyfriend like after three dates. Whore. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 01:59 May 1

I was in Vegas. We were married. When you just suddenly broke up with me, I didn't know what to do! I just fell into the arms of the nearest British smooth-talker, and there was MrN! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably best if I don't get involved in the above conversation... MrN 08:39, May 1

MrN! Where have you been? You promised to call! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody wanna nominate me for next month?

Cuz' I'd be fine with that. Ya know, if you wanna.

Maybe Aethix? --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. —Sir SysRq (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else that doesn't dislike me? I've written 4 reviews today. (Fruitcake, Wand of Gamelon, I fucked your mother, and cosmological argument--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoring yourself out for awards will never help you win them. People appreciate quiet achievement, as it is a mark of dignity. -- 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 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it out quite so explicitly, but TKF's right. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's one thing the anonymity of the internet breeds, it's dignity. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Modus, you speak the truth. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have dignity. I just put that there to see what people would say. Sadly, there was nothing funny said = :( --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

Um, you only have 209 edits. n.m. I thought this was Uncylopedian of the Month. --Mnb'z 05:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good job. That was kinda funny. --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting discussion RotM Feb' 2010

Comments below have been moved from the voting page, they regard a dispute over votes being obtained dishonestly

Comment, what's with this random surge of voting for you? (Especially from people with no counting skills)—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 22:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

HELPME, votes is votes, as Mayor Daley was fond of reminding us. Pat him on the back, smoke a cigar, and put your relatives in city jobs, that's the way of the world, sigh, I mean, yay?!Aleister in Chains 22:21 9 Feb. MMX

I'd be lying if I said I understood that. :p They just forgot to change the count each time. I call it fail.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 22:24, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment. As co-Peeing captain I'm suspending voting for this user temporarily, it is my belief that some of these votes have been acquired by the nominated user asking people on nonsensopedia to vote for him. Until a decision is made by Under user all additional votes for this user will be removed. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Heeey... Didn't you see my signature? I've made a campaign! I believe those guys came here due to my signature. Seems it works! I find suspension not fair Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 22:26, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, the suspension is staying. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:27, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if it was between me and Mordillo for UoTM, and I got all of my friends from MSN to vote for me and I won, would it be fair? Mordillo would deserve it more, so no. It's fine to make a campaign on Uncyc, but not elsewhere. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 22:30, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I thought I've just denied any allegations of cheating. I did not ask anybody, period :P I believe it's due to my signature. Look at it ---> Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 22:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ptok, was getting a few votes worth being banned a week and all of this fucking drama? —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 23:48, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, what are you saying? --ChiefjusticeDS 23:51, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Just saying it's not worth it. Maybe I shouldn't jump the gun like that, I just find this whole thing dumb. =/ —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 23:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit silly, but everything is done with now, back to work citizens. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean slaves, Chief. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 00:02, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Lovely weather for the time of year though Chief? My mum was saying it might snow tomorrow, but I'm not sure. Anyway, chaps as Chief points out and you may have noticed.... I'm in a bad mood right now. This discussion/drama ends RIGHT now. There is nothing further to say. I don't want to have to start banning people for drama, which is what I'm seeing on this talk page now. MrN 00:07, Feb 10

It's snowing here right now! :D—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 00:09, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's just what some admin who's a big tiger-humping fudge bucket would say! PPPHHHHHSSSSSSSS! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 00:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: he was nommed legitimately, so the nom stands. If anyone new votes for him without significant other contributions, their vote will be stricken. But if any active users choose to vote for him, that's their right, their votes will of course stand. If this shit happens again, he'll be lucky if MrN gets to him before I do. --UU - natter 09:22, Feb 10

Yeah, that's just what some Dental Floss-Loving Pee-Pantsing admin would say. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 09:49, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

End of drama on this subject. If there were a cabal, it would order all citizens back to their homes now. Uncle Joe Stalin.

UU cn nevar silance teh voise uf da ppl

row row fite da powa!!!1111!!1!qqq i r teh rbel lolz

Pardon? I can't hear you! Pup 21:21, 10/02/2010