User talk:Isra1337/archive4

VFD Forum

I'm sorry Gwax seemed to think our conversation was 'bloated,' I thought it was a good explanation of the issues and counter-issues between users and admins regarding new material, but it's interesting that it seems that he eventually has described a working policy that is not unlike what I initially proposed, reserving NRV to no redeeming value, and expand for articles that are good, but too short: (see Forum:VFD2)

This means that articles that are just bad because they're short, no other reason, would have the expand template applied to them, and articles that have serious writing problems, or are just stupid and have no humor potential, would remain within the scope of NRV. I still stand by my position that articles that are NRV templated should have an explanation in the edit summary. It's just too much to expect someone to do work to try to save an NRV tagged article without even being able to know why the template was applied to begin with, and if the edit comment indicates it was a bad idea to begin with, that could dissuade people from trying to save the bad idea, and move on to articles that are worth saving.

--User:RudolfRadna 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made your views known. Gwax and I are largely in agreement with each other over policy, though we have agreed to document it more fully. No one is agreement with you that NRV usage should change (sorry if you misread and got your hopes up). It is unlikely that edit summaries will be required, though many users do currently employ them.

The conversation was bloated for two reasons: first, you should preview your edits first and do not post until you have said all that you wanted to say. There is really no excuse for repeatedly making 3 or 4 edits in a row when one will do. We understand that it is something that noobs do, but you have now been warned, so please use the preview button in the future. Second, you came in with a lot of assumptions about the proper way to do things was (even calling people narcisistic, acusing them of misusing the system, and calling people who are only following protocol dicks) without having any real understanding of how the system works. That meant that most of the thread was information other posters know.

You have now made your views known publicly. People can vote on them if they like them. Mostly you will find that the way things are done are time-tested and the result of pretty broad consensus, so I wouldn't hold out much hope.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make uncyclopedia a better place. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have bothered participating in the process. Whether or not people agree with my ideas is out of my control, and whatever happens will happen. This sort of thing seems to have a way of working itself out with time.

--RudolfRadna 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. We are all trying to make it a better place. And, indeed, things will work themselves out in time. And don't worry to much: we were all noobs once, so when you make mistakes they will be forgiven and eventually you will become more familiar with the system around here. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness

Someone recreated this page in a pretty much similar form, and I think it was deleted earlier by you. Just trying to help. --RudolfRadna 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought behind it, though that is the sort of page someone will usually get when they do a patrol of new pages. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

UotM

Nominated Uncyclopedian of the Month

This user has been nominated for Uncyclopedian of the Month—you can vote for them or nominate your favourite users at Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedian of the Month.

--Rataube 18:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Randomize APPL image

Can you randomize the Babel:APPL image with Image:APPLUnN.jpg, like Apple's main page? - Nonymous 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As such perhaps:

WOW!

I am speechless. Babel:APPL is f*cking incredible. I don't know if lowly plebes can award these, but still:

Feather in Your Cap Award

This person has done something very helpful for Uncyclopedia, and thus is deserving of a Feather in their Cap. Respect this person.

---

- Nonymous 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WOW, you must be a genius (and all others who helped, too, of course). This april fool's joke is really marvellous! Thanks a lot from me and presumably thousands of other anonymous users. -Stefanie 07:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you all to both logged in and anonymous fans. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the finest work I have seen here in a long time. And by long time, I mean like a year. I dunno where you get your time from, but if they have a week or two to spare, let me know, since I've been carrying a negative balance for a few months now. Damn, that's a fucking amazing, amazing bit of work. So kudos, even if you keep ruining my fun on Vandalism. ;) Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 13:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah nice work Isra. Very classy indeed. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Kane

I need help on this article Kane please!!!

Sorry. Didn't see this message since it was at the bottom (please do like the sign says and add new messages at the top). Your article was NRVed and deleted because it was a stub with very little content. Also the formatting was very off. If you want help with it, recreate it in a user subpage and do a bit more work on it. You can then submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Goofy

• Greetings, Isra1337, is the Goofy article funnier now? If not, how can it be improved? SnoopY 02:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't have time to read it at the moment, but since you lengthened it to the length the article needs to be I am taking off the NRV tag. I'll let you know if I see that it needs to be improved more. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bang, zoom, straight to the sun

Please can you delete the two articles Saturn V and Gemini (Which I wrote). I’m going to merge these together in the hope of creating a longer and funnier article First man on the sun.

Yep. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia style peer review facility on Uncyclopedia? I want someone to check over my rewriting of the article God. I've removed some of the dumb and meaningless sections and rewritten most of the article in the hope of improving it.--Weri long wang 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Pee Review. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm just wondering if the user Guffawing Crow who left comments in n00b o' da month is a viable voter, beings they have never contributed a single thing to this site? I figured you'd be the guy to ask... --Imrealized 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We have never articulated a policy concerning who can and can't vote on award pages. Several voters this month have made it likely that one will have to be formulated. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thing is... I'm no idiot. I am familiar with JohnnyRaven, and Lirath Q. Pynnor. Having done my homework, it just seems a bit odd to me that there was a person harassing me as "Lir" and now a "GuffawingCrow", which, I'm certain it will be said that this is merely "wikipsychosis", or some other cop-out. Or, this was done because it is thought that I am these people which is, in my mind, the only form of psychosis around this place. This is really getting to be extremely immature. Can I just invent a bunch of "socks" and vote for myself the way some admin. is inventing socks to vote against me? Seems kinda one-side to me. Maybe I should call all of my friends and have them create accounts and vote for me, just to even the score. I mean, do these people who are doing this realize that there is no monetary value to this "n00b o' da month"? Do they really treasure 1's and 0's so much that when they are formed into neat little templates that read "I am the Assmaster for March 2006" they simply lose all rationality and become raving idiots? This is madness. This is all because, as I said, they think I'm someone I'm not. I've asked people what there problem is with me and I never am able to get a straight answer. Is everyone really twelve years old here? Is Ashton Kutcher setting me up? Am I being Punk'd? Where are the camera's? Wow. I knew there was some viable explaination to the idiocy around here. Now that makes sense. --Imrealized 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

<Ashton Kutcher> YOU'VE BEEN PUNK'D!!! </Ashton Kutcher> -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

As I said, there have been several votes that have been brought to my attention as being suspect. As you say, you could get all your friends to create accounts and vote. These accounts would be largely indistinguishable from multiple accounts held by a single person. In the past this issue has not been numerically imporatant enough to make a decision about and we have not. I suspect one will be made now.

Regarding the accounts you mention that some suspect are held by you, the important point is that those individuals caused trouble, acted in bad faith, and behaved in an ill-mannered way all on their own. If you are the owner of those accounts, don't act that way. If you are not, don't act that way anyway. Ultimately your fate will be determined by how you act now.

As for any direct attacks made on you, give me edit links and I can take a look. We in fact have a bunch of very immature posters. Keep in mind that I am not an errand boy. The judgement I make will ultimately hinge on whether the activity is seen as damaging to my ability to help maintain the site. You will have to suffer a few slings and arrows in the form of petty comments and such.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to make links to things yet, nor do I have the time to sit and go through the hassle of all this anymore. This whole drama is sorta defeating the purpose of this site, don't you think? Now I've only been here for, I don't even know, maybe two weeks (perhaps a little less, it's irrelevant) and so this site is really not an important part of my life at this point. But these people are acting like a bunch of lower bipeds, flinging shit all over the place- I haven't seen behavior of this nature since my last visit to the Philadelphia Zoo's Monkey House. Anyway, I really am just gonna drop this whole thing because, as I said, it is really defeating the purpose of this website. I have one more thing I've been throwing together so I'll probably post that and then move along. I thank you for your time with the matter. --68.44.24.112 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, that was me (not logged in) --Imrealized 01:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this sort of drama does seem quite destructive to the site. It concerns me, but my powers to combat it are very finite. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

VFP

The pics are wandering on the page. I imagine it's an IE thing. Let me know if you need help troubleshooting the problem... – Mahroww a.k.a. Hattie Yee Morrison  04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahroww, Have you looked at Template:Vfp to see if it might be the problem? You could copy the VFP page to the sandbox and subst in Template:Vfp and see if any tweaking alleviated the problem. --Splaka 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Does it crash? see Uncyclopedia_talk:VFP#Wtf.3F --Splaka 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to tell you to reply on my page...I'll get back to you on the questions.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Hattie Yee Morrison  06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, it didn't crash and ironically it fixed the crashs from the previousUncyclopedia_talk:VFP#Wtf.3F trouble shooting session. The test page is fine so it most likely has to do with the VFP format.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Hattie Yee Morrison  06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

So I don't understand what was wrong with the article. Is anything here that starts out as a stub and/or created by anon users automayically deleted? -4.243.230.22 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Anything under a paragraph is deleted shortly after creation. Everything under two paragraphs is given a time limit in which it must be improved. You may certainly recreate the article if you have more content, but we no longer allow users to create stubs and just leave them for others to improve. My apologies if you were just starting the article and were distracted. I encourage you to resubmit material in greater length. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, alright. I'll draft up something more substantial to begin with. Thanks for responding. -4.243.191.145 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Problem

I'd like to push this page to VFH-standard. Do you have any opinion about it? -- Swami A. Suresh 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly it's a lot of work to get the joke (and I am still not sure I have). Could you provide a better example of what you are talking about in the text of the article? I didn't really follow the one you did give. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's enough. I trust your judgement. Either I am too esoteric, or it's the language differences that blurs it out. To me, the sentence "That's your problem" is a quite rude eufemism for "I do not bother to discuss this with you. Sort it out for yourself". -- Swami A. Suresh 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)