User talk:Muffinscope

ToblerONE

This article and its sub-articles appear to be some sort of inside joke with a lot of vanity references and as such have been nominated to Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion. If you would like the article can be saved as a personal page by moving it to User:Muffinscope/ToblerONE; I will probably do so for you if it is voted for deletion. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. Since your own talk page mentions not replying there, hopefully you will see this message soon. I have a point I'd like to make regarding the toblerONE page that you listed for deletion, and a question to ask.

First off regarding "vanity," I would like to mention that the user name was chosen specifically because it was a key point in the article (and not the other way around, i.e. it's a key point in the article because it's my username, which would be vanity). I don't know if you'd still consider it vanity in this case, but it does change the scenario. We (there were four writers) only created the username so we could upload the various images, hence the username being based off the article.

Secondly, you list it for deletion because it "seems to be another fantasy world sort of thing." Could you please point me in the direction of the elements of the article that lead you to believe this is about some sort of fantasy world? There are plenty of Uncyclopedia articles about time travel, which is the only major stretch the article makes, in my opinion.

I apologize that you find it stupid and not funny. We put a lot of effort into it, and it does make a lot of (in fact, it is mostly) inside jokes. Because of that, it probably will not be saved, but I like to think that at least some people will see the humor in it, or catch the references (they're not just inside jokes to my circle of friends, there are inside jokes to things that potentially plenty of readers will catch).

Thank you for your time. Muffinscope 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Two other points I want to make (and I hope you respond to these soon) regarding the inside joke status of the page. First, if inside jokes are seriously that frowned upon, why is there an entire category devoted to them? Secondly, I'd like to point out that large parts of the article are not inside jokes (for example, the conspiracy theory section should be fairly universally understandable and funny). I would appreciate it if you responded to these points soon. Thank you. Muffinscope 17:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to accept the possibility that I just don't get it, which happens sometimes but it really does seem like an inside joke to me. In general, inside jokes are frowned upon; Category:Inside jokes primarily contains jokes that are inside to Uncyclopedia and funny to the general public (Kitten Huffing, AAAAAAAAA!, etc.) or that are inside to admins and manage to sleeze past policies (Edit War (video game), Fisher Price, etc.). Based on my analysez of toblerONE and the possibility that I might be wrong or other people would find it funny, I put it up on vfd and as such it's no longer a matter for me to make executive decisions about. I strongly recommend weighing your case on vfd and seeing how other people feel about the matter. Thanks and I hope this can be resolved amicably. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

VFD

Are you following the discussion on Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion? There's some good discussion going on there and a few suggestions that might allow your article to remain in the general namespace. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)