User talk:Boomer/People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness/Archive2

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WOW

Cajek sure got this place working. Now even I can't do one of my second rate Pees --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent OZ! Noobaward.jpg Wotm.jpg Unbooks mousepad.PNG GUN.png 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HEY! Give credit where it deserves! ...Oh, I see you did. I command you to review shit, DJ.   Le Cejak • <Apr 02, 2008 [12:41]>

Forum:Expanding Pee Review Numbers :O

I didn't realize this page existed! Haha, what a weird place. Mightydandylion Icons-flag-us.png (talk) Fk 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. We've just been here talking about you behind your back about how you married that panda. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 23:11 Apr 2
I hear pandas refuse to eat ice cream. Is this true? Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just happen to have a panda right here!   Le Cejak • <Apr 03, 2008 [3:19]>
Dear? Mightydandylion Icons-flag-us.png (talk) Fk 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

THREAD HIJACKED

Why is PEEING doing so damn well? Is it all because of me?   Le Cejak • <Apr 03, 2008 [15:57]>

Obviously. /me bows in supplication. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 16:00, Apr 3
Thanks! Is there any award that goes along with that bow of supplication? Like RotY?   Le Cejak • <Apr 03, 2008 [16:46]>
You get a warm fuzzy feeling. However, I believe that spring break is the reason that Pee Review is emptying, and that it's actually our favorite little noobs (relatively) that caused PEEING to do so well, so you get nothing. Now go review something, minion. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, madam Boomer!   Le Cejak • <Apr 04, 2008 [0:42]>
Ohh, sometimes you make me so angry! *puffs cheeks* Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we make a bit of a change?

Specifically, can we change the rule bit? #2 - you must do one review a week - is not being enforced at all. If we did enforce it, we'd currently have 2 fresh stains, Javascap and DJ Irreverent (who's just joined - welcome DJI!). Frankly, I'd like to see the list of stains stay roughly as it is, reflecting those who can be relied on, when they're active, to give good, helpful reviews, so that there guideline is of no help, and may even be putting off some from getting involved. What say the rest of you? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:18, Apr 11

We have rules and stuff? Oh, that bit at the top... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 11:28, Apr 11
/me looks at the rules again... Ah, yes. Don't forget rule 3 though... So I think we are OK... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 11:29, Apr 11
I evidently haven't really looked at the main page in a while, or I would have seen that. I also would have seen the agonizing pun that I had to eradicate. If I ever find the bastard that put it there... Anyway, the rules are now revised, and I have performed my second depressing forceful retirement ceremony. I was sad to have to add Led, Finnius, and Fag to the list, but alas. 'twas how it was meant to be. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, you know how it is; admin work keeping me peeless. Ah well, maybe once school gets out I'll have some time... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:34, Apr 14
So, looking at it, we have, what, nine active members now? That's quite a cut from what it was... –—Hv (talk) 14/04 17:04

An (un)interesting look into the people PEEING attract(s/ed)

So, I was browsing the awards pages earlier, just to make sure that I'd voted for people, and when I got to UotM (that I didn't really need to check, I knew I'd voted UU, but I was bored), I noticeed something, well, that you'll probably find boring. Anyways, PEEING will probably have three of its steel kidneys get UotM in a row - MrN obviously won last month, UU is walking it already this month, and who would bet against Cajek next month, really? Just goes to show how good the PEEING people really are... –—Hv (talk) 14/04 17:04

Well aren't we just swell? sirIgnignokt.gifsysrq @ 17:19 Apr 14
I'm walking it this month? Who would bet against Cajek next month? I think you are doing yourself a huge disservice with both those statements, Hv. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:16, Apr 14
Under user's walking it this month? Who would bet against me next month? I think you are trying to seduce us with your magical words!   Le Cejak • <Apr 15, 2008 [0:41]>
Ah, who knows. A month is a long time, and I don't do uncyclopedian-type stuff. But, yes, peeing is a really powerful and interesting group when you look at it that way.   Le Cejak • <Apr 14, 2008 [23:54]>
And then, if you look at it another way, it's headed by me. I'll let you think about that. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...Which makes it ironic, since you don't do anything. sirErr.gifsysrq @ 00:28 Apr 15

A formal welcoming to our newest member

On behalf of the other delinquents over here at PEEING, I'd like to welcome young Mr. The Improver as our newest member. He seems mighty promising. Welcome aboard, sailor. sirErr.gifsysrq @ 01:21 Apr 22

Yes, he shows much promise with his 100% accuracy.   Le Cejak • <Apr 22, 2008 [1:41]>
Welcome! Do your best! Mightydandylion Icons-flag-us.png (talk) Fk 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool! MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 18:02, Apr 22
Yes... welcome... please, have a seat on my lovely... "couch"... Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
shudder   Le Cejak • <Apr 23, 2008 [0:46]>
Ooh, I've been there before. I still can't get some of the stains out of my pants. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 02:05 Apr 23
It's not my fault you spilled grape juice all over. Do you know how long it took me to get that out of the carpet? Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And now, please extend the warm and slightly sweaty handshake of welcome to Sycamore. He's doing some good work, and it's great to have him aboard! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:49, Apr 25

Sycamore...yeah, I know that cat. Bit of a dandy but a good guy in a sticky nonetheless. Welcome, Sycamore. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 11:46 Apr 25
Shiver me timbers, another fine matey... I'm sure Boomer said something about us being a pirate ship once... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 00:06, Apr 26
Actually, we're a merchant ship, bound for the high seas to trade silk for slaves with the Indians. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, a good honest profession then, nothing like piracy... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 02:22, Apr 26
Not really, see, we often enjoy catching live dolphins and plugging their blowholes with cheese, just for shiggles. Don't ask me how that's occupational at all. Bottom line is we're not good people. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 02:39 Apr 26
Boomer always said, "Cajek, when you mate with a dolphin you mate FOR LIFE. Sign a prenup."   Le Cejak • <Apr 27, 2008 [14:07]>

So... um...

Not to ruin me becoming the Oscar Wilde of PEEING or anything, but I'm afraid we must say goodbye to the subject of the above thread. As confirmed by our lovely Zombiebaron, The Improver is a quite blatant sockpuppet of NXWave. So... yea... I'm taking him out of the roster and everything... heh... yea...... Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

...what???   Le Cejak • <Apr 27, 2008 [20:01]>
NXWave came back, and he joined PEEING. He is now infinibanned. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah jeez, does that guy just not know when to quit or what? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 22:06, Apr 27
Yerr, what a douche. He almost passed himself off as being a decent user, but this whole NotM thing brought out the douche in him that we all know him to be. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 23:25 Apr 27
Someone should really alert him to the intricacies of UN:FAIL... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:32, Apr 27

Javascap for Attending

Score: +5
  • Nom & For only one on top 5 who isn't AU.   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [14:07]>
  • For. Knows what he's doing when it comes to pee. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:39, May 3
  • F♥r. He is by no means a Fresh Stain anymore. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 15:04 May 3
  • For as above. —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 3/05 15:13
  • Yes as above the above. Also, I think we should consider breaking the "Steal kidneys are better than Attendings" thing. Not that it really matters much... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 15:49, May 3
  • Finally. I was wondering when one of you would nominate him. I've gone through a few of his reviews, and I liked what I saw. If you happen to see this, Javascap, I especially liked the numbered points of "what needs work" in the final comments. Also, this was the nicest critical review that I've ever seen. Welcome to attending, Javascap. Now GET TO WORK. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

YesTimeToWelcome

Woo, we got us another fine reviewer. The lil' bugger takes after MDL, and both of em were NotMs. I already expect great things from this guy. Let's give a formal welcome to YesTimeToEdit! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 15:38 May 3

It's nice having this constant flow of Fresh Stains I feel. It gives us more meat for the oven gives us a lot more quality over at Pee Review. Welcome YTTE! —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 3/05 15:45
Awesome. Pee Review is really kicking arse now despite whatever else might be going on. Great to have another fresh stain in our pants... Welcome aboard. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 15:53, May 3
Hi! See, I just wondered in here, when I really needed a piss and I found you guys! Hello you guys! - 16:00 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
Welcome YTTE! Yeah, I bumped into this place by accident too. Don't mind the overpowering aroma of sweat and salt. And torrid unabashed pee parties. Mightydandylion Icons-flag-us.png (talk) Fk 17:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Steel Kidneys

Take a look at the below...

Am I the only one to notice that HV (despite being an awesome reviewer) has managed to completely bugger up the nice pattern we had going of each progressive Steel Kidney having a slightly longer sig than the previous one? I have always suspected that this is the main reason why Boomer voted for me when I won, and it's very important you know... Order!!! Order!!! I must have order. "Um, a small portion of chips and a bag of otters noses please MrStupid..." MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 16:05, May 3

I think that the problem is that people's sigs are sometimes too long, and sometimes too short. That's what's wrong here. Definitely. You can have your otter nose when I get my Moons over My Hammy!   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [16:30]>
Heh, I noticed that... Couldn't you re-order it so the pattern continues but the dates are mixed up? - 16:48 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
Now there's a great idea... Na, hang on! That would just be silly, pointless, and a complete waste of time... Not like this talk page topic obviously... HeHe... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 17:11, May 3
Obviously, this topic is very important. And it's serious too...You've put an "an" before "great", I think you need to change that so you have correct grammar...see, serious? Very serious, very important. - 17:31 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
Thanks, fixed now... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 17:38, May 3
And that just goes to show what a not waste of time, not silly topic this really is. - 17:39 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
Also, you've put a "yo've" instead of a "you've" (I assume that was what you were trying to spell) when you were attempting to correct MrN. Shame! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 22:58 May 3
Actually I was saying "yo" in a satirical....fine...Ok...thank you for correcting me SysRq. - 23:04 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
Ah, but I could argue, if I were so inclined, that Cajek's sig is longer than yours. And UU's. And mine (just). If I were so inclined, of course. —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 4/05 16:35
It's true, I'm glad you have brought this issue back into perspective for us HV. It's certainly true that UU's sig is longer than mine as is SysRq's. I'm not sure about Cajek's, but as you say, I guess that's a matter of opinion. As for what's going to happen if ever OEJ ever puts his sig onto the list... all hell is likely to break loose. I think Cajek summed it up rather well with his "I think that the problem is that people's sigs are sometimes too long, and sometimes too short." position, and I guess it's just something we are going to have to learn to deal with... Oh, also... Pee Review kicks arse currently! MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 17:17, May 4
It's true, you guys have done a great job. Keep up the good work! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:22, May 4

oh shit, it's that Finnius guy

Hey, I should be back in a few weeks...need any help? Finnius.png

Hey Finnius, welcome back man! review mah crazy artickle!   Le Cejak • <May 11, 2008 [12:53]>
Of course Fin! I have noticed a recurring pattern actually... Every time we review stuff, someone comes along and gives us moh stuff to review! The buggers. Good to see you pop your head around the door. :-) MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 12:56, May 11

New awardy thingy

Since Uncyc has nowhere near enough awards, and since there are quite a few good reviewers out there in need of some form of recognition, I has created {{Gold Urinal}}. This is to be awarded to anyone who has completed 25 or more in-depth reviews, either according to the list, or before the list was created. I'm off to dole them out now. Anyone who objects, er, oh well. I just thought it's a decent way of giving recognition of an impressive achievement and stuff. RotM is a different thing and stuff and whatever. Oh I'm rambling now. I thought I'd mention it in passing anyway. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:07, May 19

Awesome. It's true, Uncyc has nothing like enough awards. We need more which is why I'm humbly suggesting perhaps a Platinum Pisser for those doing more than 50, or maybe even a Diamond dumper for anyone daft enough to do over 100? I'm sure that no one would ever be crazy enough to do that though... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 16:41, May 19
Oh, there is a Titanium Toilet option available also, but perhaps some people might consider that a bit silly. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 17:21, May 19
One {{Platinum Pisser}} for 50+ quality reviews duly created. Over 100? Well, I don't think any of us have done over 100 in-depth yet. We'll see. That should be enough for now - will it be enough of an incentive for SysRq and Hv to finally break the 50 in-depth barrier? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 13:15, May 20
hurm...perhaps it's about time for me to come back and claim my "goldie"...it appears that I have 17 quality pees under my belt. (that didn't sound right) Probably wouldn't take me long to get to 25 Finnius.png
So you're coming back, Fin???   Le Cejak • <May 20, 2008 [23:05]>
It ain't about tha awards, man, 's about tha experience. 's about comin' in, lookin' at tha Pee Review, laughin', 'n waitin' for someone ta notice ya haven't reviewed in, like, weeks man. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Mate ! Finnius.png
What about a Silver Urinal for 25 reviews, and a Bronze Urinal for entering PEEING? Warm Regards, Javascap 23:04 29 days since December began

Too Busy at the moment

I'm sorry to say I won't have to time to do a proper review of Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/George Washington Carver, I've got a fair bit on, I am sorry about this; hopfully i'll be able to return more fully to peeing soon--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

...who are you announcing this to?   Le Cejak • <21:31, 21 May 2008>
I think me. Which is odd, because I have nothing to do with the article. You are a peculiar one, Sycamore. I like you. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 22:36 May 21
I don't. There's just something about him. I think it's the lazy eye. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Orian57 for Attending

Score: +7
  • Nom & for. Currently our most active reviewer by a clear mile. Dedicated and good too. You know it makes sense. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:37, May 25
  • Nom...he he, I can still be very nooby if I want...I mean For of course. Damn it, stop talking to me Ed, oh it's this guy...in my head...called Ed. Rhymes, huh? Meh, blah, blah, blah, blah. He he...Orian57 is awesome pisser, he must have the bladder the size of an elephant...*giggles*...blah, blah...hey Ed, how are you?! /me collapses - 10:48 25 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
    • For - says Ed, but I guess his vote doesn't count, right? And yes it's fine to call me Yettie, that's how I pronounce it in my head too, but due to overwhelming laziness I still write YTTE. - 12:24 25 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!
  • For. 'Nuff said really. And Orian v. Javascap for next month's RotM has the potential to be me vs. MDL part II. Very tricky to call IMO. —–Sir Heerenveen, KUN UotM RotM VFH (talk), 25/05 11:09
  • For I have seen this young man/woman/thing blossom into one of our greatest reviewers.   Le Cejak • <14:09, 25 May 2008>
  • Five Mightydandylion Icons-flag-us.png (talk) Fk 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

comment seriously Yettie - do you mind if I call you Yettie? It's just that's how i pronounce YTTE in my head - You're wrong i don't have a bladder the size of an elephant; i live in an elephants bladder. Also i think you should probably see a doctor about that schitzophrenia, get Ed to vote too before you do that though! Also, U.U., the top five table needs updating now too, i would but i don't want to look too self-orientated. also there is a review in the queue called "sayings by my father" but the IP that submitted it hasn't even written an article (i checked his/her/its contribution list and everything), it's just one (semi-sensical) line on the review page. just wondering what i should do about it. Have Fun! MuCal. Orian57|Chat|Chuckle|PEE List|Awarded|UnBlog|Icons-flag-gb.pngOrian57.gif 11:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • *sigh* I suppose there's a first time for everything. I'm afraid that for this nomination, despite the overwhelming support for Orian's promotion to attending, I have to decline. It's not that your reviews aren't in-depth; all of your comments are relevant to the topic and offer suggestions for improvement. Overall the reviews themselves are quite good, and if my decision were based exclusively on the content of your reviews I'd gladly make you an attendant. However, your writing tends to shift from containing few to no errors on some pieces to reviews that contained almost-nonexistent capitalization, rare and scattered punctuation (one page had only three commas throughout the entire review), and/or sentences that started and stopped almost randomly. This is no problem for a Fresh Stain; Stains aren't expected to have perfect reviews. However, Attending Urologists are the examples of all of PEEING, the standard by which all of Pee Review should me measured. Their reviews needn't be flawless, and not every one has to be a shining example of Pee Review in action. However, all of the current Attendants are excellent reviewers, and each one has a far higher standard than the rest of the site does. This standard encompasses all aspects of the review's quality, including the prose that is used for the presentation. I'm sorry, but as long as this problem persists I cannot make you an Attending Urologist. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • hummm... Oh well, try again in a few weeks, Orian.   Le Cejak • <2:20, 28 May 2008>
    • I've said it before and I'll say it again: semi-benevolent dictatorships just don't work. Also, for my money, the most important things a reviewer contributes here are time and advice - Orian has given more of both than anyone recently, and I think this decision is a trifle unfair coming from Mr 9 Reviews himself. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:51, May 28
      • Uncyclopedians For Justice! - [10:54 28 May] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
        • Well, it does always make me feel a bit un-easy when ever Boomer actually does something. The crisis we had a while back when he was actually doing some reviews appears to be over though, and I'm not going to argue with the Boomsta. He obviously has looked into Orian's reviews a lot more than I have, so I'm sure he know's what he is doing. This is not the first time someone has been turned down, and will not be the last. I nominated Fag a while back and he did not make it. It's important to keep the standards up, and I think that's all Boomer is trying to do. Like Cajek said, maybe try again in a while... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 11:53, May 28
          • Mmmm... interesting. it appears gaity isn't the only thing me and fag have in common (i'm guessing). seriously though BooMER, i think you are being a tad unfair. considering that in the Pee guidlines it says that spelling and grammar should be something only casually mentioned and that actual content should be considered above that: should it not be the same for reviewing the reviews? it's just that seems to be your primary reason for not saying yes. and the times you're talking about are probably when i didn't have word installed. i usually type stuff up on that as it picks up more mistakes. if you can think up a better reason then please let me know. Oh and you may see your name prefixed by the word "fuck" on several talk pages. it's nothing personal i was just annoyed... sorry. Besides i only wanted to help U.U with the list. that looks like fun! Have Fun! MuCal. Orian57|Chat|Chuckle|PEE List|Awarded|UnBlog|Icons-flag-gb.pngOrian57.gif 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Three (3) thoughts on the decision

  1. FU BOOMER. Orian is a great reviewer. A bad speller, yes. But this is Pee Review, not UN:PS. I think he's one of the most uppandcomin-ist reviewers we got right now, and we need some more Attendings to balance out the ratios a bit (what with all the Kidneys we have) and to give him a little recognition for his hard work.
  2. Alright, I'll stand by Fearless Leader's decision this time. I understand that maintaining the integrity of the position of AU is important, and turning down a reviewer like Orian certainly makes AU a coveted position indeed. I feel a little more honored now to have been one. I'll quit complaining about this one and just let y'all get on with reviewing. Because I'm sure as hell not gonna do any reviews.
  3. I feel like, in light of this situation, we need a more concrete system for AU. I'm not saying make it anything like RotM, but make it a little more formal than a meaningless vote to pass the time while we wait for Boomer to get here. Something more official needs to happen. There needs to be a process. Maybe a vote to decide whether or not we even need a new AU, followed by a vote for nominees, a decision by Boomer, and then an opportunity for the existing AUs and Kidneys to veto it by majority. But such a process shouldn't be any harder than RotM. =/

Thereisaidit. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 12:57 May 28

OK, calm down everyone. Look over there! It's a sausage. Dave his name is I'm told. Although I think it really is Bob. He's just pretending to be called Dave. The bugger. Also... Calm down everyone. We have a system, and all is well. I don't feel the need to change anything. The last thing we want is to make things more complex than what we have now. At the end of the day in situations like this someone always has to make the final choice. For us that's Boomer. A lazy bum he might be, but he is our lazy bum and we all know, everyone loves bums. Dam I'm really starting to sound like an old bastard now... I can remember when all this was woods you know... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 16:37, May 28
I trust Boomer, for some reason, and you can't win 'em all. I like the idea of high standards for AU's, even if I don't quite understand them.   Le Cejak • <16:39, 28 May 2008>
Just remember that applying pressure to someone like this is not really helping. We all agreed it was OK for him to make the choice and it would have been a lot easier for him to just agree. The fact that he's making a stand here is actually something we should be grateful for. So don't say Balls to a Bum, when actually he's got the best wishes of all our balls in mind. So remember, Boomer thinks about balls. Most of the time I understand. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 16:45, May 28
WTF?! I don't want Boomer anywhere near my balls, thank you very much. - [16:50 28 May] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
Note that my panties are still unbunched, fellow PEEING buddies. I'm fine with the decision. I'm fine with keeping Boomer as our lord and savior. But I just think that there should be something just a little bit more concrete than what we've got right now. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 19:45 May 28
As a compromise, how about we poor concrete around Boomer's legs, and throw him off the pier? MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 19:53, May 28
Even better idea: let's set him adrift. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 20:12 May 28
Only if there is a hole in the bottom of the boat which is slowly leaking water... In-fact...
Oy. I've been typing a reply for a while, but it appears that I should inform all of you of the fact to keep you from going nuts. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Interesting...

I expected there to be some opposition to my decision, but I didn't expect it to become unanimous. I've read the arguments here, but I still stand by my decision. I don't care if a Fresh Stain does what I've outlined above. But the Attending Urologists are the examples. If ANYBODY wants to know what a good review should be, they should simply look at the reviews that the attendants have performed. I want the attendants to be able to show new reviewers what they need to do to join PEEING without having to say a thing. While punctuation may seem trivial, it still has an effect on how the review is received. Who would you take more seriously, somebody that takes an hour (or at least that's how long I usually take) to type up a review that focuses on every aspect of the article, or somebody that, even though their review is still just as in-depth, looks like they took five minutes to type it out? I know this point in particular will be argued, so let me support it. These are the lengths of the two most recent reviews from every Attending Urologist in PEEING, plus me and Orian:

Javascap

  • 598
  • 485

Under User

  • 428
  • 640

Cajek

  • 669
  • 523

Mightydandylion

  • 823
  • 1,130

OEJ

  • 736
  • 778

MrN9000

  • 1,239
  • 1,551

SysRq

  • 619
  • 807

Heerenveen

  • 527
  • 481

Boomer

  • 1,157
  • 368

Orian

  • 576 (because this is against the norm, I'm adding one extra review to better illustrate my point)
  • 384
  • 343

In a matter of perspective, if you were a new user and you got a review from somebody that took their time to look at the article and showed a very clear understanding of how the site works, you would hold on to every word that was said and look seriously at anything that the reviewer commented on. However, if the review were written as if it was a mere side thought, the user would be far less likely to seriously scrutinize their article afterward. I know that Orian's reviews aren't lazily done, and he certainly takes Pee Review seriously based on how much time he invests in it, but other people don't see that. This is PEEING, and we focus completely on Pee Reviews. No up-and-coming reviewer escapes our notice, mostly because of Cajek's list. However, it's doubtful that any other user on the site knows how active Orian is, and it's dead certain that no new user would even know he exists. I don't consider Attending Urologist to be a promotion; remember, I didn't set the special restrictions and privileges associated with the ranks, you all did. To me, Attending Urologist is nothing more than a title, something sought by Fresh Stains but that doesn't actually hold any real benefit. If anything, being an Attending Urologist should be more responsibility. As I've said, attendants are the examples of Pee Review, and the with the title comes pressure to constantly be at peak form. Peak form means peak form, in every aspect of the review, prose and punctuation included. I'm not trying to deny Orian the right to perform reviews; as it is, without Orian the Pee queue would far more crowded than it currently is. I'm just saying that his reviews are not the examples we need to show new users.

To Orian: I apologize that it seems as though I'm ripping into you with this whole ordeal. I didn't want to have to post the review lengths yesterday, as I hoped that the explanation that I offered would be sufficient to ease any hostilities generated, but I was evidently wrong. I'm glad for the reviews that you perform, and I hope that his whole ordeal doesn't turn you away form Pee Review.
To Under User: I was actually considering promoting one or more users to Captain Catheter yesterday. It seems that this entire incident has made the matter more urgent than it ever was before, and I very well may have to end up sharing or giving up the power that I created for myself by the end of this. I'm getting overly cynical, it would seem.

Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay... I see what Boomer's saying...   Le Cejak • <22:20, 28 May 2008>
Yeah me too. And i'm sorry about kinda bad mouthin' you a little, I was being a dick. I do see exactly what you're saying now and I geuss I'll try and keep a better eye on my punctuation and things... oh well, no hard feelings? Have Fun!Mgr Orian57.gif Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 21:14 28 May 2008
Completely unrelated: Orian: where you currently have {{subst:User:Orian57/sig2}} in your prefs, put {{subst:nosubst|User:Orian57/sig2}}. Stops the code leaking. And, FWIW, I agree with Boomer. Shocking, I know. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 28/05 22:30
Ah. Sorry. Thanks. Is that it? Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57.gif Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC!
No harm no foul. I'm sorry I can't in good conscience make you an attending. If there were another rank as a buffer zone between Fresh Stain and Attending Urologist, I would gladly bump you up a rank. When I formed PEEING I originally had plans for a third rank, but that kinda fell through since it was rather unnecessary. It looks as though you have RotM tied up for next month, though, so with any luck you'll be a Steel Kidney soon enough anyway. Now, the new matter at hand is what the hell you just posted. When I saw +2000-something characters on my watchlist, this isn't quite what I expected. FU EDIT CONFLICT Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, yes. FU DOUBLE-EDIT CONFLICT Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What the? Everyone just started having sex with each other and stuff? What the hell is going on? Look, I have got a delivery of 25 tones of quick setting concrete coming tomorrow. What am I supposed to do with that? Also, when did everyone say that they disagreed with your decision Boomer? If you wanted to make UU and Cajek Captain Catheter's that would be a great idea, but then what if there was no agreement from the Captains? Looking over this whole AU debacle I think it's clear that we need one person in charge who has the final say in such matters. Personally I really regret not taking more of a look at Orian's reviews, but truth is, actually I just took a quick glance, saw that everyone else appeared to be voting yes, and added my sig. Had I taken more time I would have agreed with Boomer in everything he had said. OK, I'm typing another of my essays now, so in an effort to say something which might actually be useful I'm talking it upon myself to make the following statement regarding nominations for AU in the future...


Also. Does anyone need any concrete? MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 23:14, May 28

Sorry, MrN, I just saw that everybody seemed to either disagree with my decision and oppose it or disagree with my decision but go with it anyway. I didn't see that you actually supported me. When my new world order is established, you can be my head secretary or something. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Finnius.png walks into the room, approaches the chalkboard, and proceeds to drag is trusty nailbat across the green surface. Everyone's ears begin to bleed. "Ahem" he announces. "Here is my two cents on the matter. YES, doing good reviews is what we are after. Part of the review process is to go over humor/concept/PROSE AND FORMATTING. Let me repeat that...PROSE AND FORMATTING. This includes grammer, spelling, and punkuashun. YES, this is not the proofreading service (WE are supposed to refer them to the proofreading service if the need is moderate to drastic)...BUT I do feel that one needs to be able to spell efficiently in order to FIND spelling mistakes...I have nothing against Orion57 personally..hell i don't even know the guy..never met him...never even read one of his reviews. I DO cringe at the thought of excluding a competent reviewer based ONLY on his/her bad spelling...but I DO feel that the level of Attending denotes some sort of mastery of the craft, including the ability to spot out spelling, grammer, punctuation, tense-slips, etc. All these mistakes could mean the difference between a FEATURED article and a regular article. I would say that most of the people that submit to Review are looking to be featured. Would the UN-community like to show poor prose on the main-page? I dare say no. (exception for those articles that are intentionally playing with the prose, for the purpose of the joke). It is my opinion that Orion57 COULD type his reviews into a SPELLCHECKER, then copy/paste them here...that would probably be the best solution to this dilemma."

Riding off into the sunset, Finnius promises to return in a couple weeks....

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Finnius Jones. Give 'im a hand, folks. Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Who was that masked fish? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 08:37, May 29

/me comes back after an evening watching footy instead of looking at Uncyc and stares in amazement at all this. Blimey. I just said I thought it was a trifle unfair, I didn't specifically contest the decision or anything! For what it's worth, I too like the idea of high standards for this sort of thing. And as a side thought, I should note that I could probably point the finger at one or two more AUs for spelling and grammar issues in all sorts of places (MrN's "poor" concrete on this page being an example that amused me - poor old concrete!) And as a response to Boomer's point, yes: given the choice between a month long wait for a perfectly spelled, grammatically unquestionable review from Cap'n Catheter and a day or two wait for a helpful review from Orian that may lack for a capital letter and a comma or two, but which gives me all the help I need to continue and improve my article, I think I know which I'd pick. But that's not intended to be a dig at Boomer, merely an observation.

My final thought is this: the queue is still relatively low. Articles are getting reviewed within a week or so on average (apart from the obviously really tricky ones we all pretend not to have seen), which is better than I remember it ever being last year. I suspect we have more decent reviewers than at any previous time. We have people who gently nudge those who provide poor reviews, standards generally are improving - fuck this minor disagreement, PEEING is going from strength to strength, and we should all give ourselves a little pat on the back. Now if someone can give me a hand here please, this horse is rather a high one, and I'm gonna have trouble getting down from it. Guys? Guys? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 08:37, May 29

My point above was that, if you submitted an article, you wouldn't wait for me, now would you? In all likelihood, one of the other Attendings or Fresh Stains would pick it up. This seems like a trap question, and one that I really really don't want to have to ask, but in all honesty who would you rather have a review from: Cajek or Orian? Or SysRq? Or MrN? If you could choose between any of the PEEING members that you wanted to give you a review, would you choose Orian above any attendant that's already there? Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you mostly here, Boomer, but I'll say this – I'd take an Orian review over one of my own. Just sayin'. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 29/05 22:35
I have now completely lost both the thread and point of this conversation. Um, what are we talking about? HeHe. Bet UU is a bit pissed he did not get mentioned in Boomers list though. /me passes Boomer the Peeing stress balls, and encourages him to juggle them vigorously.. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 22:42, May 29
To be fair, this conversation looks like it hasn't had a point for about a day. Probably because I've mainly abstained from it! ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 29/05 22:45
What list? This one?
Also, FU AND YOUR DAMN EDIT CONFLICTS HEERENVEEN. >:( Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm surprised I was included in that list of names. Secondly, I would never take a review by myself. There would be no point. Why would I review my own article? You're silly, Boomer. Of course I'm going to take the Orian review. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Orian is still a great reviewer, though. If he steps up his game I'd say he'd make a great Attending. Also, edit conflict. Also, edit conflict. Also, FUCKING TRIPLE EDIT CONFLICT. Also, I'm a T-rex. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 22:52 May 29
Jesus, it was an observation, not a dig. MrN - I think I wasn't in that little list just there because he was asking me who I'd prefer a review from, it being as direct response to my comment and all. And besides, I don't get pissed. I'm mildly narked right now, but only because I appear to have caused drama without intending to. So I'll just say, once again, that I wasn't contesting the decision - I do think it harsh, but that's just my view, I'm not trying to force it on you! As you asked the question, I'll say I wouldn't choose any Attending over another as I think we have a great crop of reviewers, but equally, I wouldn't choose any of them over Orian - I nominated him in the first place because I personally believe him the equal of the others, and that stands. But I just want to let this go now. It's a very big deal to be making over something like this. Apologies to anyone whose feathers I've ruffled, big pats on the back all round for us being so good 'n' stuff, and a friendly, winning smile to all in the room. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 08:29, May 30

Petition to cover Boomer in concrete, put him in a small boat (with a hole in the bottom) and set him adrift

Score: 0
  • Non+for Appears to be the best compromise. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 20:20, May 28
  • F♥r. Absolutely. I say we assemble a small boat committee to get to work on Boomer's coffin boat. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 20:45 May 28
  • Against Not because I like Boomer, but because I feel sorry for the concrete.   Le Cejak • <22:00, 28 May 2008>
  • Against I actually feel a bit sorry for the boat... Warm Regards, Javascap 23:04 29 days since December began

Pee Lists

OK, I have made some changes to the main page. Most active reviewers keep a list of their completed reviews, and I think this needs to be on the main page next to their name. OK, I know some people have a link in their sig, but not everyone does and I think it would be a good idea to standardise it a bit. I have added the ones I could find, but am probably missing some. Sorry if I could not find yours, please add it. If you don't currently have a completed pee list, shame on you! Get one ASAP. If anyone has an idea for a better way of presenting this, please edit away. Basically I want to encourage everyone who is a Peeing member to keep a Pee list, and hopefully this might do that a bit. Also it gives new reviewers an easy way to find examples of good reviews done by Peeing members. Cajek, where the hell is yours! YesTimeToEdit, you're messing with me system man! Grr! OEJ, any chance you could put together a list for us? Javascap, I thought you had a list?!? I must be seeing things. :-( MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 00:49, May 29

Petition to put all of this Attending drama behind us and start a new discussion on vaginas.

Score: 0
  1. F♥r. Also, vaginas are swell. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 17:00 May 30
  2. Against! Very against. Vaginas, euch! Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57.gif Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 17:06 30 May 2008

This nedsa home somewhere on the article

Antipoop.jpg

I can't figure out where. --CharitwoTalk 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Works well here MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 00:40, Jun 10

For the Noobs

When I recently recieved a Golden Shower, I got to thinking that there should be a template for when reviews arn't up to the standard we want them to be. Therefore, I am proposing the "No Shower" template, which will look as follows.

GoldenShower.jpg Oh dear, Boomer/People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness! Your reviews need a bit of help. While Pee Reviewers are always welcome,
Please Read the GUIDELINES. 		GoldenShower2.JPG
We hope to see, sometime very soon, increased quality in your reviews.

Give me input and advice on how to improve this. Come on, we are (almost) all expert reviewers! NOTE: While the template currently says "Boomer" it is only because it is on a talk page linked to his user page. The template uses the {{BASEPAGENAME}} , jsut as the golden shower does. Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀16:36 June 11 2008

Instead of the golden shower heads, we should find somebody to change them to rusty ones. /me nudges Under User. Come on... you know you want to... Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like this?
Corrosive symbol.jpg TESTING
TESTING 		Corrosive symbol.jpg
Have you read the Pee Review Guidelines?
________________________________________________
You are PANTS!


Cajek and I actually thought about trying something like this a while back Javascap... If you check the talk page of UN:PRG you can see some chat about it. We found rather soon that telling people they were pants reviewers via a template was not particularly popular. Actually Cajek got banned for sending it to one of our admins who did not see the funny side. Basically, I thought it was a good idea back then, but now think our current practice of just typing a message on the talk page is better for everyone involved. We called it the "Poison Pee" actually. Nice name I thought! MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 17:49, Jun 11

Perhaps something more like the welcome template would be nice, sort of like Ohdear or something, just for Pee Reviews. But I like this template, too. sirErr.gifsysrq @ 00:51 Jun 12
Have to agree with MrN here - the last template rubbed people up the wrong way, and generally an impersonal template telling someone they're not up to snuff doesn't really encourage them to improve. A friendly message on their talk page only takes a minute or two to type, and can feel much more personal - you can refer to specific reviews, and generally make them feel a bit more welcome. Personally, I'm happy to carry on doing this, and really don't fancy resurrecting the template idea. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 08:11, Jun 12

Discussion on specific Pee Reviews

I think we need a place to discuss individual reviews. We use User talk:Cajek/Pee to talk about some things, usually reviewers, and we use this to talk about things that pertain to PEEING and Pee Review in general, but I believe we need some way to talk about reviews and requests themselves without cluttering the review/request or filling up the aforementioned talk pages any more than they already are. I was prompted after looking at our oldest current request (for the second time), Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/High Wycombe. Those that have talked about it on the page itself seem to think (and I agree) that the review should just be filled in and archived until the user that requested a review does some significant work on it, but nobody wants to do it on their own because they don't have any consensus. If we had a place to talk about things like this, review disputes as happened between Hyperbole and TKF, and anything else that might pop up, these difficult topics could be decided by group discussion. Not that we would have to talk about every controversial review/request, eventually we'd end up setting precedent, but it could certainly help. The only question is where to have the page? I thought using the talk pages of the reviews might work, but unless somebody happens to have the review watchlisted nobody would see it. We'd have to create another page somewhere that we can all monitor and use freely. What do y'all think of the idea? Good/bad/necessary/irrelevant? Sig pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review? Isn't used for anything specific right now... ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 12/06 15:04

Uh, yeah...

Is it just me, or is PEEING, and the whole of Pee Review, getting a bit stale recently? Just occurred to me during my nn: hunt somehow. Don't know why. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 28/06 20:30

Hmm, the queue is backing up a bit. Maybe I will do a few... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 20:34, Jun 28
It is getting a tad longer, but nothing that can't be tackled. There are a few promising newcomers taking a little of the slack, and all it really needs is a good day or two where we all pick something up, and it'll be back down again. I may get time tomorrow, I think I may actually have a sunday to myself for a change. Let's see. --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 22:27, Jun 28
Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boomer/People_for_the_Evaluation_of_Excrement_and_Influencing_Nominations_for_Greatness/Archive2&oldid=3371714"