User talk:Hinoa/archive/7

Talk Page Archive #7 Kick it old-school with Hinoa's Talk Page Archives! This archive dates back to 5 October 2006, and continues all the way up until 8 November 2006. Vandalism strictly prohibited here (duh). If you want to vandalize something, get a can of spray paint and tag some bathroom stall. Violators will be shot on sight. I have a banstick and I know how to use it. This page is only here because I am a packrat and can't bear to part with my old stuff. Anything here isn't current. If you have to leave me a message, do so at User talk:Hinoa. That's the page I pay attention to. You can return to my archive index by clicking here. —Hinoa talk.kun

Semi-Protect

I was wondering if you could semi-protect Nobody cares. I had to make 4 reverts against IPs (and one user), and I'm getting tired of it.

It'd be greatly appreciated if you do. --Micoolio101 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101

Done. Also, I'd like to inform you that the four tildes thing automagically adds your name in. You don't manually have to write it in afterwards. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (07:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Liberals

I would like to go back to my most recent version of the article. I believe it is based more on humor and irony than on political views (which the present one undoubtedly is). Here are my reasons for wanting to revert:

• The caption to the Clinton picture which says one of the liberal ideals is “killing babies” is NOT FUNNY and is definitely a facetious comment based on extreme political views which when judged impartially; are wrong. Plus it breaks the chain of words in the caption that make up the ironic joke – of liberals hating liberty. I thought that humor was allowed, points of view weren’t. The old caption to the picture highlights the ridiculous attitude towards liberals, it is not based solely on a point of view, it is logical and most importantly, it is funny.

• I also like the former Bill Clinton layout because it is split into one main heading and two sub-headings. Once again this is a nice neat and tidy and logically flowing layout. I believe it works better than the “symptoms of liberalism” layout. I don’t mind the heading “symptoms of liberalism”, I believe some very clever and funny things could be written, but the current section only mentions Bill Clinton. Perhaps Bill Clinton - a typical liberal, might be more appropriate?

These are just my opinions. I worked hard on the article to make it as funny and ironic as possible without introducing my personal political views and assumptions. One such assertion present at the moment is that a) Liberals always support abortions and b) Conservatives always oppose it. As much as the Christian Coalition would like to believe that is the case; it isn’t. Therefore abortion has no place in an article about liberals. Thanks for your time.

If you don’t fully agree here is an insulting haiku:

You smell really bad

The stench goes through your modem

Into my bedroom

(this is merely meant as a joke by the way. Kissing your arse Thanking you in advance for any help given.)

Weri long wang 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(points to the talk page) — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

That's all very well and good, but I'm asking you to unprotect the page, or at least revert it to my old version. Your the only person here who can. Weri long wang 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And I told you, go discuss it on the talk page. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I’ve been ‘bitching’ about the liberal article on its discussion page for several days now (as you asked me to). As far as I understand there is only one user (hidden behind an I.P. address) who is upset with the article. He seems to contradict himself on many occasions.

Here is the compromise that is the result of this bitching:

• Don’t mention abortion on an article which is about liberals. Abortion hasn’t been historically related to liberalism so it has no comedic value being placed here. Also any mention of abortion will be motivated by religious or political convictions.
• If somebody feels so strongly about the pro-choice/pro-life argument that they have to include it then let it only be mentioned on the article about American liberals. Outside of the USA abortion and liberalism are not connected to one another in any way shape or form. May I suggest also that a link should be placed to the American liberals article at the top of the liberals page.
• Remove the vicious and nonsensical caption of the Clinton image (All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life (i.e. killing babies), gun control, and the pursuit of Stalinism (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.) and revert it to its old form (All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.)
• Let the article be politically neutral – make fun of liberals; don’t call them names.

Will you put the wheels in motion? Weri long wang 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Knock yerself out. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. As soon as I regain conciseness I’ll change the article to a more appropriate form. Weri long wang 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry to have to say this has happened, but an I.P address has reverted the liberals article again. Can you just recommend that he be banned to prevent another tedious revert war? Weri long wang 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The I.P. address 204.214.145.6, who was arguing with me on the discussion page, has reverted the article again. I will ask you to please check out the liberals discussion page to see the kinds of things he was saying, then please leave a note on his discussion page asking him not to revert the article again. Thanks. Weri long wang 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with HowTo:Get Started on Editing Uncyclopedia

I'm assuming the "rather humerous error" (may be paraphrasing your edit remark) was a user actually trying to create a page called User:TheNameYouRegisteredAs.

The funny thing about this was that the original version of the article that was considered offensive actually made a joke out of this, saying multiple times words to the effect "you don't actually type TheNameYouRegisteredAs, you n00b!!!!": this text was excised due to vocal complaints about offense.

So then we have the problem actually occur, and you were kind enough to do a better job than I could have fixing it with a template I wasn't familiar with that makes it much clearer. Thanks, but to a certain extent, I do think that this episode may indicate that the original concerns with the tone of the piece, while valid, did result in the unintended consequence of the article becoming more confusing and harder to use in this regard.

Thanks again for fixing it.

--Hrodulf 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lemon Demon

I quit a little while ago, but I just checked back to see if this article was deleted. To my surprise, it wasn't. Delete it or Chuck Norris will roundhouse kick you in the head. --The llama 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban Patrol

LOL. that was a nice "ban" msg. anyway, thanks -- mowgli 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Hi!

Did you give me those links because you were trying to tell me subtly that I'm doing lots of stuff wrong? Because I'll be blunt, I have a hard time with subtlty. So be blunt! (if that was your intention...if not, then all of what I just said is pointless and a waste of time) thanks! --Anyone 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can be very blunt sometimes. Let's just say that if you had done something terribly wrong, you'd be banned right now (albeit for something like 10 minutes). That's just a little "heads up" so I don't have to be blunt. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

THANKS BRO!!

Yo thanx for the advice! I really didn't know about that! Anyways please don't get angry at me, I succumb to your righteous fury! (Jagermeister 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Uncyclopedia:Vanity Policies

I noticed that you added a bit in under "Personal Information" - I'm wondering if it should be there at all. It seems that information about "teachers, principals, and the like" by default is violating our "no vanity" policy. If they are famous enough that they pass the "mum test", they probably aren't a principal, student, or teacher. Except maybe Aristotle.

I'm approaching this from David Gerard's long-standing theory that "less rules are better, and more likely to be followed". Is there any real reason we can't whack that whole section, using the far more streamlined

Might Codeine's Mum have heard of this group/individual/organization?

• If the answer is No, the page gets deleted. Immediately.

bit? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whack away. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry about my Forum behavior

I referenced my articles too much, and while I was trying to joke around with Tourette's Syndrome like the noob and you did, it was way out of line, despite my best attempts at trying to make it funny. I apologize for that. I do want to bring up my history since 2005 on Uncyclopedia and show that I have helped the noobs in the past as well as other members and admins. I even helped revert pages that vandals and spammers scribbled over. I also started a lot of funny articles that the community finished and contributed to which made them funnier, as well as wrote quite a few funny articles on my own and adopted unfunny articles to make them funny. I hope to clear up this blotch on my record, perhaps I deserved it, I will try to do better in the future. I even got nominated for Uncyclopedian of the Month and voted for by others that I had helped and continue to help. When we had our conflict it was like 2am my time, I couldn't sleep, and my schizo-affective disorder was getting to me, so I wasn't in the best frame of mind I could be in at that time. Usually that is when I am at my funniest, but I can be like Andy Kaufman sometimes and the joke does not quite go over. I was going to write an UnNew Article about the whole thing, but I decided to be merciful and kind and not write one and include you as a subject. I respect you for your blocking/banning of people that deserve it, and huffing aticles that need to be huffed. Even if you did DE-MOTE me, I respect you for it and hope you do the same to the next Uncyclopedia you see stepping out of line. Although you might have to PROMOTE a member without a rank, and then DE-MOTE them to a lower rank. :) --Off DesLt. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I respect your activity at Uncyc, which is why I didn't demote (or DE-MOTE!) you to Off. Cadet. ;) In all seriousness, I don't know why I took it so seriously. The officer ranks are like the goggles—zey do nuzzink. We're both at fault for this entire mess. However, this doesn't mean I'm promoting you back to 2LT. Why? I have my reasons. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Well thank you very much sir. That means more to me than any rank. I am glad we could work out our conflict into a cognitive one and reason it out. --Off Des Orion Blastar (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaint #8,972,497 or something

Why do you keep huffing my articles? 169.244.143.115 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

They're too short and lack anything remotely resembling funny. Take some time on an article. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

okay to short i can fix that.

Please for the love of god

I have great respect for you. Don't use the new sig! Oh, and speaking of which, can you actually make a few sigs that each time you sign each one is used randomly? -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, but I discontinued that because a.) it was getting on my nerves, and b.) I have reason to believe that it makes Wikia's servers do more work than they should have to. And there is no way this can be worse than the Gay Sigs of about a year ago. —The Right Honourable Major Sir Hinoa KUN UmP UotM Bur MDA NS CM (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooo! Gay Sigs, sounds like a gang. "When you're a Shark/you're a Shark all the way/from your first cigarette/to your last dying day!". I, too, prefered your previous sig. It was regal, somehow.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't change your sig I shall be forced to start yet another petition to restore your previous! -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone might think you're me or something. That could get confusing... -- The 'Other' Hin 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was here first. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. He gets me every time. (Goes off to sulk in the corner) -- The 'Inferior' Hin 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

SANDYBELL

WHY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DID YOU MAKE OUR BELOVED SANDYBELL-ARTICLE GO AWAY?! Okay, so maby we were a little mean, bu come on..! what would you say if i deleted your work just like that with out saying what was wrong with it? We are most willingly to remake the Sandybell-article, if you'd please tell us what we did wrong.

Take a good look at that notice again. The first line reads: "This page has been deleted for violation of Uncyclopedia's Vanity Policies, and should not be re-created without a good reason." Have a good look at those policies (here's another link to them). Also, this and this are good resources. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

SANDYBELL 1.1

—The preceding unasked for gibberish was spewed forth in an effervescent pool of filth by none other than 213.89.107.55 (talk • contribs)

No... I mean 'Sandybell' at uncyclopeda.org, the article you just helped delete... cheers.

SANDYBELL 1.2

—The preceding unasked for gibberish was spewed forth in an effervescent pool of filth by none other than 213.89.107.55 (talk • contribs)

Yeah sure... but could you be more specific? What EXACTLY did we write that caused you som much pain?

Garland high school

hey man im not critisizing u or anything lol but well me and a bunch of idiots from school decided to make a page for our school, and our school is actually pretty well known, were featured in the movie "Friday Night Lights", so ya to the point, we made a pretty big site and then i think it was you that deleted it. well one of my friends got really pissed off and deleted one of your page, which was stupid, becuase our school IP adress was blocked off lol. i forgot the IP adress, but i was just asking, IF we make it again, can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE not delete it because seriously, i know some serious nerds and we can brach this thing out pretty deep if you give us a chance.

thanks though man, and sorry for the idiot that deleted ur page, he didnt know that you could just paste it back on lol.

sokdiddy

and GARLAND HIGH SCHOOL!!!!!!!

Bored?

If you've nothing better to do than police my edits, I have other things I could be doing. I took your Scott Douglas revert with a grain of salt. Wikipedia tends to regard this site as a dumping ground for shit, and I like to discourage that by sending their recruits camping.

If you want to encourage prose about "how Scott and Ernest Hemingway reunited the broken pieces of the Masamune and defeated Lavos the Devourer of Time in the epic battle of 1999", we're clearly not on the same page.

Have a nice day, and feel free to pick up the slack.

~ T. (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cranky, are we? —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I may be a little testy, given the amount of stress I am under at the moment. This doesn't undermine the validity of my issue with you the other day.

I do take offense to your perception of immaturity. Given your age, I don't doubt that you're able to recognize it in other people, but not too adept in recognizing it within yourself. Your 3 word reply to my message above is a good example. It escalated this disagreement rather than solving it.

I'm not convinced that you have the respect for me that you claim to. Respect is evident through action or inaction, not just the profession of an idea. Given our relative contributions of articles, edits, and months as administrators, I would expect a wider berth from interference. I don't police the edits of other admins, even those with a reputation for mass destruction. I trust them to do the job they were selected for, and to work out any resulting fallout. And if they are absent, other admins can smooth out the problems by talk pages or irc. But... I don't follow behind them and reverse their edits, then make smart comments in the edit summary. That would be disrespectful.

I appreciate the recent efforts on this website to create a less hostile, more inclusion-focused environment. That courtesy needs to extend internally as well.

~ T. (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was an honest mistake. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We're good then.  :) --T. (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It was kinda entertaining tho. I felt like I was back in grade school. "Teacher! Suzie pulled my hair!"

Seriously. Don't make me come over and kick both your asses. I need both y'all to stick up for me when I'm overzealously deleting and banning. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 27/10 01:00

Fine by me. We depend on you to be a bastard so we can look nice by comparison. --T. (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think nice is a rather begign term in comparison. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 27/10 02:23

Eh, I got drunk and watched hockey. However you spell it. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 27/10 02:24

Hockey tonight was good even sober. Senators 7, Leafs 2. What a game. ~ T. (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to watch Boston lose. It makes life more predictable. Although some day they'll learn to pass, and might actually win a few games. Then I'll be shell-shocked and sad. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 28/10 00:49

Garland High School 2

Hey ok were out of being blocked, and me user:Sokdiddy and user;Cjagahashi are going to recreate the [[Garland high school]] page, if there is any problem or any reason in deleting it can you tell either me or him? Thanks

Sokdiddy

You might want to read UN:VAIN first. And I can't make any guarantees that it won't get deleted. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Asperger Syndrome is no laughing matter VFH

You were joking about banning me, right? You weren't seriously considering that over a VFH, were you? --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I look like Famine to you? (Nah. I'm not going to ban over a VFH nom, regardless how stupid it was.) —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ali G Quote

Any particular reason why it was removed? Desscroll 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You Win

This is bad grammar Magee or however you put it. I just want you to know you win. I'm done being mad at you for Erasing My much Worked on Page. I've been thinking for The Entire Month I was banned, and I’m not mad anymore. So I hope that you can forgive me for my rudeness. And maybe just maybe some day you will get a heart and not be a Jackass anymore.

HINOOOAAA

I MISS YOU. --KEITEI 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Unbirthday!

Happy UnBirthday!

You have now officially been an Uncyclopedia member for one full year. Must suck to be you!

---

Sorry it's a day late. Also, it's a dollar short... I could probably get you a good rate on a home equity loan, though. Anyway, many happy returns! Oh, and by the way - apparently User:Keitei misses you. It says so just up above this thingy.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. At least some user cares. ^_^ —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oct 30, and you have grown one more year in UNgirth. You'll soon be experiencing many changes, like keyboard pubes or a deepening voice disrespect for users. -- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Things that are beter than the trombone.

I was fixing it asshole

You were redirecting it to a red link, and furthermore, as far as I know, NEITHER of those categories have anything in them. That's not fixing it, that's breaking it further--read HTBFANJS for further details. And I'm sorely tempted to bonk you on the head for that "asshole" bit at the end, good sir. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This page does not exist

It happened again! Swat it. --Micoolio101 ^{(whine • vandalism)} 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with templates

Tom mayfair brought to my attention that since cleanup this, my adorable template has grown considerably. I tinkered with it and got it back to normal size, but after saving it still appears enormous. In fact, it rarely appears the same way twice. Any tips? I've forgotten what little I'd learned about templates...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

^ Back to top

---

<< Previous Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Next Archive >>