Uncyclopedia talk:VFH/The Radio Star Murder

1. Y'know, I don't normally comment on votes on my articles, and I don't like drama, and I don't understand why people are voting for this. But... 1. Not all links need to add humour, sometimes links just need to add links, this being a wiki and all. 2. Thanks for the opinion, Mr "6 edits this year, which are all reverting edits to your only (listy) article created in 2006 apart from this vote". I'm flattered you care enough about stopping this being featured to vote on it and nothing else this year. In fact, since 2006 all you've done is make occasional edits to your article (mostly reverts) and vote against the occasional article on VFH. Why not try doing something else around here, then I may care about your opinion. --UU - natter 08:48, May 23

   I'm sorry you've taken offense at my attempt at constructive criticism. I'm sure the wikilinks for: Los Angeles, Suicide, User:Drama, Murder, Crime, 20th century, teenagers, Future, TV, Oprah Winfrey, Hot, Nude, HowTo: Be a Supervillian, Freddie Mercury, Queen, music, Really Big Tree, Rock, Bohemian Rhapsody, Star, People, N'sync, Attention Deficit Disorder, Porn, Britney Spears, Pan, Hawaii, Nude (again), Easy, Public, Polish Inquisition, Friend, Bastard, and finally Internet just make your magnum opus of Hilarity all that much better. I'm also sorry that my having a life and not wasting a day on Uncyclopedia has offended you. Not all of us can post 50 times a day with such inspired genius such as "That's brilliant dude". I've not made this personal and I won't since this is just supposed to be about the article, but I would have recommended this for Pee Review first. There just isn't much here. If you're going for a strict satire using wiki as a basis, there just isn't all that much depth to the article. Wiki would have said this article was a stub and needed more work. My comment about the abstentions was targeted to trying to avoid this being a circle jerk. No one was actually saying anything. Nothing gets better, if no one points out issues. Necropaxx, Mnb'z, and Sir Guildensternenstein should all have been in the Against Column. They essentially had the same conclusion I had, it's good but it's not great. Quasispace 01:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   Let's try to restrict the drama here. First off, I really wouldn't say this article is overlinked. You're not supposed to click every link in an article, you know. Also, it's not like people are blaming you for not visiting Uncyclopedia often enough, but you shouldn't just expect to be instantaneously respected. Additionally, it's not up to you to decide how people should vote, even if their conclusion seems to match yours. A sentence like "I have no idea why so many people have chosen abstain" is bound to get you a displeased reaction. Why can't we all just get along? I prefer living in peace and harmony myself. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   True, the world is made of peace and love. But until I do something to justifiably lose it; however, I think as a human being, I should be granted at least a modicrum of respect. I'm not expecting to be worshipped on high. I'd just prefer it, if people didn't think I was insulting them personally. I said the article needs work. It's fine to disagree with my opinion, because it's just that my opinion. You can agree or not agree with it. That's Peachie Keen. My comment about links was just that, a comment. If you have IMO too many links, it distracts from the article. Mr. "6 edits this year, which are all reverting edits to your only (listy) article created in 2006 apart from this vote", doesn't have any bearing on whether I thought the article was good enough. I didn't think it was, I voted and I offered comments since I thought sections could use some work.

   And I do have no idea why it was voted in like that. The reason I looked over the article is because I was wondering what article was good enough to elicit a 100% Yes vote. Was it a great article that everyone loved, was it merely because it wasn't that old of a nomination? As my sparse editing/commenting hopefully shows, I don't say stuff to troll. Guildensternenstein edited the article, so there's a possible conflict that would require an abstention, but he agrees with the people above him who said that it isn't enough for a Featured Article. In my book at least, that's a No. Que sera sera. Quasispace 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   As I said in my own comment, I never thought this was good enough to be a feature, and I was never intending it to be. It's a throw-away article and not meant to be a "magnum opus of hilarity". I wasn't taking offense at your "constructive criticism" either, I don't take offense at against votes in general, as I realise humour is a subjective matter and don't expect everyone to find my stuff funny. However, now I am taking offense at your superciliousness. I don't think this article should be featured, and I don't want it to be either, but to criticise it for the links seems pointless, to me - not every link has to be a shining example of hilarity, it's just good to link to other articles because more often that not that's how people find other articles that they either like, or want to fix up, and either of those is good with me. But mainly I was commenting that your contribution to this wiki seems to consist of the occasional revert to a listy and not particularly good article, and voting against articles on VFH, which seems to be quite a small-minded way to contribute. I could find only one for vote amongst your history, and a bunch of againsts - that's a pretty negative contribution, I have to say. I'm not suggesting you start editing daily, not everyone has the time or inclination, but if you do want to contribute, don't just vote against stuff, that does make you seem like an uncharitable sonofagun. Also, if you start handing out unsolicited advice to people about how their work can be funnier, it has more weight if you can back up your comments with good articles of your own. (I also love the way you neatly imply that because I contribute regularly that I have no life. Thanks.) I didn't want to incite drama with my response, and it looks like I have - so I am going to apologise now for all of this: sometimes you feel you have to get things off your chest, and as I'm under a lot of IRL pressure right now, I'm reacting a lot more than I usually would, so I'm sorry I've snapped. I do understand your view, and I don't disagree with most of your points, TBH. So how's about we leave this here, and I go ban myself for a little while to cool off, you go do your thing, and we all pretend this never happened - 'kay? – Preceding unsigned comment added by Under user (talk • contribs)

I've never seen a VFH talk page before. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 22:24 25 May 2009