User:SPIKE/2012Kamek98

VFH shitnoms

Is there an appropriate talking-to that someone is in an appropriate position to give to any - (ahem) hypothetical - user who might be cluttering up the VFH queue? Or maybe it doesn't really matter that much? It may be that your A-type tell-it-like-it-is commentary in the templates will do the job. One hopes. But if there is an appropriate talking-to needed, maybe I'm not the guy. As you know, I'm too nice. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 18:44, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

This concerns my Against vote on Uncyclopedia:VFH/New York Yankees: "Meanwhile, why is nominator using VFH to call our attention to various unfinished articles? Is Special:Random broken?" You understand my meaning, and we also agree to wait to see if it is effective. If it doesn't "do the job," the next step would be a note on his talk page; I'll write it if you tell me the time has come. (Are there no other adults left? Romartus?) It is a misuse of VFH and, like Qzekrom's request for comments on VFD on one of the thousands of images on their way to QVFD, is a broadcast that wastes everyone's time to garner attention to one user. Mordillo used to hand out bans for abusing the system pages, though he handed out threats first. Even my favorite method of recognizing UnNews writers, Not a nom entries on the award pages to commend their work to other writers, drew his ire.

Now to follow your link to your talk page. (What a cheap piece of bait.) Spıke ¬ 20:20 18-Oct-12

---

The "shitnoms" continue today and I have scolded Kamek98 on his talk page. Any sterner countermeasures are for those at higher pay grades. Spıke ¬ 11:41 19-Oct-12

Can we not use the term 'shitnom' please? All users, IPS etc can nominate an article for the front page. Whether it is any good or needs more work can be registered there in the 'no' or 'comment' column. With Pee Review currently inactive, this seems the only way to have a list of articles up for consideration. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I thought the term shitnom was pretty subtle. Because I didn't use a space. See? Actually I'm usually the understatement guy. I'll use the term "generally under-qualified nomination" from now on. And why is Pee Review inactive? How do we reactivate it? -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 14:34, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'm not supposed to edit articles then feature them.

If someone else created it.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 01:33, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Doo wut? I've never heard a rule like that! In fact, no one "owns" anything here, and I would tell you to definitely bring an article up to feature-quality before you nominate it as a feature! It is true that if the owner is still here, and he is Watching his babies, as I am, he will be mad if you take it in a radically different direction; be sure you understand the author's strategy before you make yourself a co-author. But we were talking red-links and dumb lists, and in this new nomination you made, I am talking about the fact that the author goes on and on mostly to hear himself talk. Spıke ¬ 02:22 22-Oct-12

PS--See Monika's comment on your VFD nomination. I have just been to Wikipedia (WP:Hairy ball theorem), which is a bizarre but serious page. See if you can make your nominee bizarre but unserious--that is, seriously funny, but still relating somehow to the real theorem, as I think Monika meant. Spıke ¬ 02:26 22-Oct-12

Angry Video Game Nerd

Do you think [it] is ready for nomination? I edited it a little. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamek98 (talk • contribs)

It is ready for nomination on Votes for Deletion. It is potty-mouthed crap with no purpose other than to build a crude caricature of nobody. Have you read UN:HTBFANJS? Spıke ¬ 03:07 26-Oct-12

PS--What you need to do before nominating something on VFH is be able to explain in writing what you find funny about it. I bet you can't do so for this article. Zombiebaron may have given you "permission" to nominate articles--not that it takes permission--but not to counter the purpose of VFH, which is to identify outstanding articles. If you are looking for acceptance as a member of this website, there are many other ways to do so, such as helping the patrols against vandalism or maintaining pages and counts and stuff. Spıke ¬ 12:28 26-Oct-12

Actually Angry Video Game Nerd AKA James Rolfe is quite famous. I do want to expand this into an outstanding article but I will help patrol if you want. --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 19:17, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the article may be famous but that doesn't mean the satire is any good. Please do read UN:HTBFANJS--and ignore the title, I am not saying you are "just stupid." It has good advice about how to write humor in general. Regarding "helping me patrol," I am no longer patrolling--after a brief flurry--due to my current, crappy, metered Internet service described at the very end of my user page. But my point is that there are many ways to contribute here, even if it is the case that you have difficulty evaluating humor. There are also occasional competitions that need administration as well as judging. Spıke ¬ 20:06 26-Oct-12

Can you help me out and/or should I keep at the article? --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:59, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the article, I don't know where you are going with it (as I set out above) so I can't help you get there. Regarding finding a different way to have a role, ChiefjusticeDS, Romartus, and Frosty are active and pleasant Admins who can tell you where bodies are currently needed. I simply cannot tell (especially from these recent VFH nominations) whether you have a sense of humor. If not, other ways to help are satisfying requests for Photoshop shoops or audio clips. There is a lot of multimedia stuff done here that isn't immediately evident. Spıke ¬ 21:06 26-Oct-12

I'm working up my sense of humor, thank you. Haha --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 01:36, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Samurai Warriors

Any idea what I should do here? Please check my Ancient Aliens update and judge if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 19:48, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. Strikeout and censorship may feed a joke but they detract very quickly from the encyclopedia motif, as the real writers of an encyclopedia would eliminate evidence of their first draft. You explained to me on User talk:GlobalTourniquet that your goal was to show the warrior himself trying to edit a criticism of him, but it's extremely unclear in this short start that that is what's happening. Other authors have used italics to get a point-and-counterpoint. I suggest that you read more articles and get the knack of writing straight encyclopedia parodies before you start experimenting with these alternate voices. Spıke ¬ 19:55 2-Nov-12

The more common, and I think better, way to tell this joke: "ripoff stand out" is like this: "stand out" -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 19:59, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors is a game that's spinoff is Samurai Warriors and they are almost very the same. I wanted to make it so an angry Dynasty Warrior originally wrote it and was explaining that the Samurai Warriors are copycats and almost exactly the same, in which the Samurai Warrior doesn't want the reader to think that. So he crosses off those points and edits it. I thought it would be quite funny to place in the see also section Similar, and then strike out it and place Different. --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:01, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Globe, I saw that technique in Why?:The Other Kids won't play with you. I wanted to do something different.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:03, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Hmmm, that's not really coming across well. There may be a better way to execute that. Let me think a bit. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:07, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to quibble with GT (before the Edit Conflict). A link that goes somewhere you don't expect is a common technique to prank the reader, but it doesn't convey that some alternate voice is wrestling with the text of the page. My problem in Samurai Warriors is simply that there is nothing that makes it clear that that's what's happening. Spıke ¬ 20:10 2-Nov-12

Agreed Spike. Check my idea on the article now. It may be a solution, but does it have staying power for the whole article? -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:17, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I love that idea!--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:20, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

It does the job, but the problem is overdoing it will just turn it into an uninteresting bickering match of uninteresting "do not" opposites. I would work on ways to push the joke further without using "do not" again. In fact I'd remove a couple of the existing "do/do not"-type incidences. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:26, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

That does it: Pranks the quotes and sets the ground rules for the reader. I agree, it will get tedious if pushed to article-length unless you add several more twists. Spıke ¬ 20:28 2-Nov-12

For instance, once or twice where appropriate (and I don't know the games at all so I couldn't say), have the Samurai voice admit that "OK yeah that one is pretty much a rip-off" or something like that. Also, have him start to make excuses like "Well really what else could you do different? I mean, a ninja's a ninja for crying out loud." or something. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:31, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on keeping it long. It's gonna be a short article to avoid that problem of uninteresting bickering. In fact, I've already made a quick sloppy copy of a few more details. Such as finishing stages and maybe the excuses. Then the See also. A couple images too.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:33, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's generally a poor strategy to keep an article on subject matter like this (which really must respect the encyclopedic conceit) short so as to not belabor a gimmick that you aren't confident enough to execute at at least medium encyclopedic length. I think in this case if we can't make the gimmick work for the length the subject calls for, then the problem is with the gimmick, not the length. But it might succeed if we do it right. Good comedy is hard work. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:39, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

What if, after some of this bickering, the detractor strikes an entire paragraph and starts trying to tug the article in a completely different direction? Or--them being Warriors and all--what if they actually start dueling? Spıke ¬ 20:35 2-Nov-12

Like as if the Dynasty Warrior came back and saw the edits by the Samurai and scolds him and then the Samurai is like all defensive. Then the next section is labeled Bring it bitch! I cut you until you die! its a message by the samurai and something like that seen in Samurai.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:39, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

One key point to maintain (and which many of my edits fixed) is to make absolutely certain that the article reads grammatically correctly when you remove the samurai edits mentally, or it will break the fourth wall. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:44, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try. And when its finally done do you think I should nom it on your judgements?--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 20:45, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just bask in the satisfaction of a job well done, as I did for my first year here, rather than seek for instant fame? This is the damnedest Scout troop, where everyone puts in for merit badges before attaining the rank of Tenderfoot. Spıke ¬ 20:53 2-Nov-12

When I was a young Tenderfoot, not only was self-nomming outright banned, but even suggesting one of your own articles might be feature-worthy was frowned upon. We allowed our talent to make room for us when it would. And we liked it. Kids these days. Get off my lawn. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:59, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I guess that that rule (rather than humility) was the reason I never did it. Anyway, if you either believe that Kamek is going to write Kansas City Royals .OR. accept the rule that Socky once gave me that red-links are acceptable by way of denoting an article that, though it has not been written, deserves to be, then you may certainly nominate Talk radio and spare me the humiliation of self-nomming, as though anyone thought I were averse to it. Spıke ¬ 21:04 2-Nov-12

PS to GT: "The fourth wall (between the speaker and the audience) is not usually a factor in Uncyclopedia mainspace (at least except when someone tries to turn an article into a stage play), as the putative encyclopedia article writer is talking directly to the reader. At some point the contention between the two Warriors directly concerns the impression given to the reader--so one or both will break the fourth wall. Spıke ¬ 21:10 2-Nov-12

Yeah I may have stretched the term there - I just meant it breaks the ruse if the grammar fails. Anyway, regarding Talk radio and its lingering red link, I've written four baseball team articles. While I could possibly see my way to a fifth, I would not want to wait to nom Talk Radio until I or anyone else was done with it. So I will nom. Nom nom nom. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 21:12, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Globe, vote for Hairy Ball theorem! NAWR!--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 21:39, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

He has now done so, making the vote 10-1. However, if I read the signs aright, you corrected one red-link, at which point I rewrote it. If featured, I will count it. Incidentally, a local rule on my page is that you indent each of your contributions the same. (I have a low-resolution computer screen and don't like it when paragraphs continue to get shorter. Cheers.) Spıke ¬ 21:55 2-Nov-12

How much indents do you want me to put? One? Also, how can I put like a giant sign-like text saying this page is a secret for Secret, which I'm creating. Would that be a good idea like Nothing does? --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 22:00, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

The same number all the time, in a given section; in this section, 0, since you started it. What you want to do is put a template on your page. However, I discourage templates. You should not use graphics to tell the reader how to interpret your page; good writing will induce him to interpret it your way. With {{Title}}, you can change the page title that is displayed. Spıke ¬ 22:10 2-Nov-12

HowTo:Master Debate

I'm going blank. Any help when you can would be accepted. Thanks.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 21:50, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I confine my work to mainspace and UnNews. I hate HowTo:, as it is dominated by youngsters most of whose nearest approach to clever is preachy, not that I know for a fact that you are one. Moreover, I don't care about an article that is a thinly veiled masturbation joke, nor to chat about masturbation with a stranger whom I assume is 14; moreover, even doing so might be illegal in this jurisdiction. Spıke ¬ 21:59 2-Nov-12

You assume correctly. See I'm advanced for my grade/age. I don't really have much many friends. Yes, I read a college level book in third grade. I'll just write the Master Debate page over time by myself, it is quite an uncomfortable topic. Sorry. --General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 22:02, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Discomfort is a function of lubrication. Spıke ¬ 22:06 2-Nov-12

Boston Red Sox

Wanna know if you think it is ready for nomination yet, if so, would you nominate it for me?--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 19:41, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

First, I already have two nominations in already--in fact, the most recent two nominations, if you disregard Anon's flawed nomination of a disambiguation page that he didn't even have the competence to vote for. I don't want to hog it, especially to stick articles there as a favor. If it were my turn to nominate another, I'd send my recent collaboration with Romartus, Donald Trump.

Second, I don't agree that VFH is a place to advertise any recently finished article to the community. I still believe it is a place to assert that a given article is one of Uncyclopedia's best. Leverage and I debate this point today on User talk:GlobalTourniquet, or perhaps one of them will turn it into a Forum as I suggested.

Finally, there are aspects of this article that I just don't like at all:

1. Some of the puns and wordplay is just unremarkable. Hey, folks! They call it a Green Monster, but it's not a monster at all! Not funny; it is merely use of figurative language. We have always known it was not a monster. If there is any way to play this, it is perhaps that the encyclopedia writer mistakenly thought it was a monster and continued with the description on the basis of that error. Similarly, most plays on people's names are destined to be lame.
2. Some of the humor is just random. Owned by Heinz? Tickets sell for a few nickels? As someone wrote on VFD recently, "Untrue ≠ funny!"
3. The article swings and misses on hanging curves. The "era" between 1919-2003 must be treated with a large dollop of Gallows Humor. Regarding The House that Ruth Built, any article fit for this franchise must deal somehow with the fact that the proceeds from the sale of the Bambino were invested in a Broadway play. Regarding brawling, the key moment was when elderly Don Zimmer was thrown to the ground; and last year's mini-brawl inside the Red Sox dugout is missed. The article misses the historic end-of-season meltdown of 2011 and the fiasco of hiring Bobby Valentine. Granted that a sports-team Uncyclopedia article has a niche audience, it was your decision to write one, and it must read as though you talked to some die-hard (read, anguished) Sox fans, rather than that you learned all your team lore from the place-mat of a diner a block away. Fan heartbreak can be made sport of in any of a number of ways, but not glossed over.
4. Most attempts to write formulas in Uncyclopedia articles are done by (new) authors who think that that's what you must do. Most attempts are total failures. Yours are indeed formulas just for the sake of writing formulas. In addition, they don't render correctly; this website uses the <math> tag, not backslash codes.
5. Some of the English is awkward or wrong; please reread it with a fresh eye in a day or two.

Definitely good enough to remain in mainspace. I would not mind seeing this on the home page, but I would abstain rather than vote to put it there. Spıke ¬ 20:32 10-Nov-12

Okay. Thanks for your opinion, and I threw the formulas in their because I was doing algebra and I ended up typing it. I don't see what you mean by the code if the backslash still works?--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 00:50, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

My fault; it seems you have to run with JavaScript enabled to see the desired effect. Spıke ¬ 00:55 11-Nov-12

After you take care of the above, there's: Bill Lee and the "era of pitching stoned," the one-dimensional nature of David Ortiz (the league's most powerful slugger unless three infielders play to the right of second base), Fenway's rat problem, three-inning trips to the concession stands, male fans' communion of, essentially, urinating into a bathtub (I'm told this has been overtaken by modernity since the last time I was there), Tom Yawkey's determination to win the pennant without recourse to Negroes, Jimy [sic] Williams waxing poetic over the post-game shower, Zimmer's own post-game love: "Pound the Budweiser, boys!"

Point is, your target reader is steeped in Red Sox lore--much more than I, as I follow Minor League Baseball and lately the college-summer leagues there is no point in describing here. Your article must also be steeped in Sox lore--not just poke fun at the Sox from a seemingly very great distance. Spıke ¬ 01:18 11-Nov-12

I'll try to get to it later this week or month.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 13:38, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

PS--To be clear, the above list is not to nag you that the article cannot be complete unless it addresses all the episodes in team history of interest to me. Only that it has to give a sense that it is steeped in lore. There is certainly no rush, and you may even decide you're not the right one to do it--or you may undertake to learn it as a personal challenge. Cheers. Spıke ¬ 14:53 11-Nov-12

I was thinking the same thing, I kinda love the Yankees so, if I really don't know much about the Red Sox until the 2004 fight, 2007 World Series, 2011 and 2012 f*ckups.--General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 22:47, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sam's Empire

Hey, what do you think of my first and old article I did a couple months ago, eh, what was its name? Oh, yeah- Sam's Empire? --Sir Peasewhizz de New York (talk) 01:19, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a waste of any Pee Reviewer's time; see UN:VFD. Spıke ¬ 12:19 23-Nov-12

I'll just remove the Pee Review request.--SirPeasewhizzdeNewYork Click here to talk 20:11, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Romance of the Three Kingdoms on VFH

I see you haven't voted yet. Lol--SirPeasewhizzdeNewYork Click here to talk 18:54, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I have now commented on VFH. Tries too hard to be funny, as opposed to just being funny, but good enough that I don't mind it being featured, and I don't know the source material. When you discover girls, it won't go well. Spıke ¬ 21:12 1-Dec-12

I have discovered girls thank you very much. And I also love the sourced material. Which is Three Kingdoms era China. --SirPeasewhizzdeNewYork Click here to talk 21:55, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really mean discovered them but hopped on top of one of them; and you do do a hell of a lot of talking about masturbation. Speaking of which, thank you for your vote for me for November WotM. I may exactly return the favor and convert my comment to a For vote eighteen hours after it is either featured or killed. Spıke ¬ 22:01 1-Dec-12

Okay thanks and you're welcome. Haha.--SirPeasewhizzdeNewYork Click here to talk 16:43, December 2, 2012 (UTC)