User talk:Rcmurphy/archive3

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at user talk:Rcmurphy.

Apologia

RC, I wanted to apologize for voting twice on Rocky Mountain Oysters. I honestly didn't remember
DAMMIT! You KNEW he'd catch you! And you did it anyway! DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.
having voted on it before, and of course my ID is so generic, it's not surprising that I'd just
Now what's he gonna think? Cheater. Ooooh yeah, you've really put your foot in it now. That's just great.
completely miss it! Anyway, would you mind if I just deleted the spurious entry completely?
--Some user 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Way to go, sooper genius.

I removed it. --—rc (t) 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'll remove your face too if it happens again...

Tx:

The only thing left to make Tx: ready to go is to substitute in the most recent "Recent Articles". I have done most of them and I left two spots for new ones, which can be either filled or just deleted if I am not around whe you want to put it up. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As the Template:Recent itself is meta data, couldn't you just incorporate it? Reformatting the code in Template:Recent_meta to plain text? --Splaka 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC'd --—rc (t) 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Psycho Warrior
This user is completely insane and is a notable member of the Uncyclopedia Psychobabble Club.

For your psychobabble skillz, and

Savethemooses has awarded you a cookie!
Now go play in traffic.

For excellent Uncyclopedia trivia knowledge.

Woof

I hope I'm not being a pest, but if it's not too much trouble, could you please restore the edit history of Woof as BobBobBob did with Meow? Thanks again for restoring the article.--Naughtyned 20:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not.

Er, I mean sure. I should have done that in the first place, I just wasn't thinking. --—rc (t) 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again and I get what you mean about Todd "not [being] around right now." 1 Who'd have thought that one of those silly templates at the top of a page would actually have valuable information? :-) --Naughtyned 03:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. When I left that message on your talk page I actually didn't even know about Todd's...acquisition. I just found out about it a few minutes ago myself. It's good to know he has a good reason for shirking his Uncyc duty! --—rc (t) 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

heh

<rcmurphy> Later fellows.
* rcmurphy (i=rcmurphy@x1x7-15x-112-xx5.auto.) has left #uncyclopedia
<miss> adios
<miss> I can't stand that admin anyways
<miss> I can say that since no one's listening anyway
<miss> fucking asshole

--Splaka 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. I was beginning to get a reputation as a friendly admin. --—rc (t) 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No one wants that. They're hard to shake... not that I'm giving up. I think Keitei's starting to dislike me, despite my giving her too many awards and talk page messages. I just need to branch out more. :) --T. (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

css reskin movement

Hello, your reskin has been moved to facilitate a reorganization of the reskin process and to make your life generally more complicated. This is a form letter. -Splaka --Splaka 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rcmurphy/ebay.css -> MediaWiki:Skin/EBay.css (You can delete the redirect when you wish.)

-_- why me?

People are fucking with my articles again, I checked the VFD and QVFD, and the Category "sandwhich wars", keeps getting deleted, it happened twice today.

If you've noticed, there's been an effort to scale down the number of useless categories lately. Your articles are already plentifully categorized without you making a special vanity category for them. Truth be told, I was close to deleting Mayonkaizer as NNP, and wasn't too impressed with your linkbacks to your deleted articles under your user page (e.g. User:Jack_Cain/Hattori_Hanzo), but i left that alone. Your persecution complex makes me wonder why I bothered. --T. (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the site has been cluttered with limited-use categories. Only a few article series (serieses?) warrant their own category (see category:Bloodbath or category:Wheeling Jesuit University for examples). Also, please note that I'm not going to try to circumvent other admins without a very good reason, and there isn't one here. --—rc (t) 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, somtimes its very hard to tell between somone fucking with me, and the admins doing there job. Jack Cain 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been cited in Uncyclopedian Bios.
Apparently you are "notable". Don't ask me why; I think you're lame.

Dude!

Totally! - Nonymous 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Say what now? --—rc (t) 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Many combolations on your recent alection to Unicycle of the year elizagerth...but sewiously...I have writed stuff... see...Lincoln-Douglas Debates and No Talent Texas Hold 'Em--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I take it back you dick, thanks for removing Crapmobile from VFH after I just saw it and voted for it yesterday...give a brother a chance--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

:( IRC'd --—rc (t) 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Picture!

Okay, fine. I swear on a stack of Qu'rans that the picture is original and if it ain't may Allah struck me dead within 24 for hours.--Mrasdfghjkl 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to prove it to me. You realize that, right? I mean, I'm rather skeptical by now. --—rc (t) 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By still being here in 24 hours is the most I can do. Sorry.--Mrasdfghjkl 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I am not Islamic! Though if you are dead a day from now I may well convert out of fear. --—rc (t) 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But if I don't die, and you go on to later prove the picture was unoriginal, you'll get to go down in history as the guy who debunked Islam as monolithic rubbbish.--Mrasdfghjkl 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But then I'd probably get fatwa'd and die. --—rc (t) 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Everybody dies.--Mrasdfghjkl 12:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I am still alive.--Mrasdfghjkl 12:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'm not dead.--Mrasdfghjkl 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You still have two hours. --—rc (t) 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Ooh! Ooh! Breath... short. Left arm... numb! Can't go on... describing symptoms much longer!--Mrasdfghjkl 03:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I made it!--Mrasdfghjkl 04:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. However, in that case, I must revert to the previous statement that I'm not Islamic. I'm afraid your 24 hours of fear were unproductive. --—rc (t) 04:62, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're afraid?! --Mrasdfghjkl 06:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

An ill-considered choice of words on my part. --—rc (t) 06:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually Allah has has very little to do with Islam, he is more of an excuse. And other religions have Allah too, they just call him... God, Ychch, Homer, etc.--Mrasdfghjkl 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And Grover. --—rc (t) 07:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Grover is more of an incon for an Anti-Christ.--Mrasdfghjkl 07:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A friendly nooblet who called me a "potato face"

HOWDY :)

I find the site amusing and i am a stranger dont add me to msn stranger danger also why can we add things and alter them on the site ?

Because it's a wiki. Since you're new here I recommend the Beginner's Guide and How to Be Funny. --—rc (t) 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To be sure to be sure to be sure would y alike some potato,

So potato face what country are you from i am from australia the land of well umm vewgimite and that isnt even made here anymore

I am from a mystical land far, far away from your prison state. We don't have vewgimite here. --—rc (t) 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you see if there was a flea that landed on a pea the flea would fall in love with the pea and all would be right in the world a friend wants to know why his explanation of bogans didnt come up it said no body likes no body likes nobody likes a bogan ?

Flea-pea relationships don't work out. Just think of the biological complications. --—rc (t) 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It dosent matter about the complications if they love each other thats all that matters and i have registered

I see you've chosen a username to reflect your belief in trans-kingdom romance. It's sweet but I don't think it's realistic. I am sorry. --—rc (t) 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They said that a black man and a white woman would never work and visa versa but they came threw the flea and pea are being wed as we speak

All I'm saying is that I think they need to think it through. Passion runs quick and hot, but a steady flame lasts longer. --—rc (t) 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I care about You

{{Icare}} --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN ³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

testy westy

This is a requested tested. --Splaka 08:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Test successful. Will report new findings at 0900 hours. --—rc (t) 07:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares --Splaka 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG

<Emmanuel_Chanel> Hello! <keitei> Hello! <keitei> how cruel of you to speak when rc isn't here...
I weep for you. --KATIE!! 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he knew what he was doing...to my heart. Actually, he did say something once when I was in the room - I said something to him and he was like "yeah right." And that was it. Emmanuel Chanel is an enigma. --—rc (t) 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A Bother

(cc: from User_talk:Angela#A_Bother at user's request)

That's me, a bother, and I'm sorry about it, but I've edited a couple of pages and while I thought I had some idea of what Uncyclopedia is about, I've had some differences of opinion with a sysop and I'd like some larger confirmation of his actions, simply, I guess, because I'm an arrogant new editor, the kind I despise over at Wikipedia but can't help becoming when you give me a new wiki to edit. It's not really my fault is it? Anyway, after considering the Uncyclopedic style guide and checking out some pretty horrendous pages that make a lot of squirrel jokes (Where did the squirrel joke come from, I mean, it's getting to the level of a mid-90's alien joke both in terms of abominable overuse and sheer stupidity...I guess no different from excessive ellipsis dots, but that's my own hang-up) I don't see how my edits are revert material or how this article is somehow a left-wing critique that negates my edits. I've left a comment on Rangeley's talk page, but as he was the reverter in the first place I thought I'd try higher up as well, not to go over anyone's head, but to get a better understanding of the place (as a new Wikipedia transplant, this seems like some perverse wild west to me, with sysops [not talking about Rangeley, but generally] and admins being rare and articles that run recursively wild). Thanks, --TheGrza 08:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the thing is that I more or less, actually entirely, wrote the Iraq War article, and intended it to be a specific sort of article. There are a lot of articles from a left wing point of view, critiquing the right (George W. Bush for instance) and a relative lack of ones critiquing the left. So I pondered the possibilities, and surprise-surprise, there wasnt an article on the Iraq War. So I jumped on the opportunity and wrote it out one day in a form close to its current form. There is no need for an article to be fair and balanced, and it is 'legal' for one to be entirely from one point of view. Your different perspective is appreciated at Uncyclopedia, ofcourse. It just doesnt jive with the article at hand. Articles are good when they are coherent, and not choppilly slapped together. I try to keep my articles coherent, in one way or another, and give them a flow so that from start to finish it feels like one article, and not a cut and paste job of several trains of thought. As such, your edits adding a different perspective dont really add to the continuity or humor of this specific article. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Though this is a wiki site and collaboration is encouraged, there are some cases in which an article has a very specific tone/POV, and breaking that tone can weaken the overall article (even if what is added is generally funny). Obviously this is different from Wikipedia, where the important thing is to not have a POV at all. So it's not necessarily that your edits were bad, it's just that, as Rangeley said, they sort of subvert the purpose of the page. Also, you're completely right that Uncyc has a ton of garbage. Unfortunately that pretty much comes with the territory (but I actually think things have been getting better the past couple months). --—rc (t) 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed revisited

Mohammad's younger lego figure.

Here. I was determined to find the source(s) of that pic. No luck...though. I pride myself in google image search skills but that one is a mystery. The only other thing to do was a broad search through way too many pics. I am giving up on this one.

Anyway, other than the face (which i can't find), here's a reproducion.

It's a combo of Maharaja Lallu (brown body, could be anybodies), Scorpion Palace Guard (head), and Count Dooku (cape and chest). If you care you can go hereand find the face and I will reproduce that same figure. There's a lot of figures to sort through. I have probably spent a few hours of research already over this stupid event. You busted him in a lie but you couldn't prove it. OH well. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NM. Tompkins already took care of that. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I figured, hey, if it was original, he'd have said that from the beginning. Very suspicious. --—rc (t) 04:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You will no doubt be rewarded for your work to keep the VFP honest! In the mean time...

Hooray--Mrasdfghjkl 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a little reminder....

God loves Rcmurphy.

Thanks, God...

...and right back atcha.

You have two cows

Was the page's split discussed somewhere? Because I highly disagree with it. Its lenght was one of its humour factors. Anyways, Can you just link me to the discussion? --Boy Toy bitch at me 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was formally discussed on Uncyc, but several people (on its talk page and on IRC [yeah, I know, the Cabal]) have expressed the opinion that it would be better split, and I haven't heard any complaints about it until now. If you want to start a discussion about it, by all means go ahead, but consider:

1. The all-inclusive page is murder to people with slower connections.

2. It's easier to find specific subjects with the separate pages than having to navigate one gigantic and unwieldy page, even with the TOC.

I agree that having one page listing everything is appealing in some ways, but in others it's very inconvenient. Perhaps there could also be a [[You have two cows/all]] page with all the subpages {{:page}}'d in? --—rc (t) 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, the long page was difficult to read and load if I think about it. But we could split it in a different way, perhaps? If we get three or four sections (Or in some cases, two or five) and turn them into a sole page and have a link to all other three or four sections pages at the bottom, including a link to the All-together page, wouldn't that be easier to navigate? If you disagree, I'll understand, because that's quite some work to do, but I do hope you agree. --Boy Toy bitch at me 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be all for consolidating some pages, but I think having four or five sections is rather ambitious since many of the pages are on completely different subjects. And also a few of the individual sections in themselves are very large. I'll try to look at it later today if I have time. I can see having Media, The Arts, Geography, Politics, People, Software, Culture/Religion, with a few categories left over. --—rc (t) 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorization is not always good, RC. Take Worst 100 Ways to Deliver Bad News, for example. Carlb categorized the entries and they lost some of their comedic value. You can see what went on the Talk Page. Building a simple page-by-page article is much easier to navigate IMO, even if the sections that ended up together have nothing to do with each other. Again, if you feel it's too much work, I'll just lay off of it. --Boy Toy bitch at me 18:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The YHTC entries are already categorized to some extent, though. Part of the humor of the Bad News article is that there are dozens of unique and completely different ways to deliver bad news, but I don't see that the same would be true for the Cows. To compare it to Bad News we'd have to arrange every single entry (not category) randomly, and I doubt anyone would want that. Putting categories together (or at least making sure it's easy to find each category) also makes it simpler for people to add entries without having to search through all the pages to find where it would fit. --—rc (t) 20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC'd --—rc (t) 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It spreads...

I made something for you. --KATIE!! 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheap Site

* (diff) (hist) . . Template:Featuredarticle; 00:18 . . Rcmurphy (Talk | block) (-> World War I (I miscounted the votes before))
* (diff) (hist) . . Template:Featuredarticle; 00:11 . . Rcmurphy (Talk | block) (-> OCD)

Seven minutes? I get featured article for 7 minutes?

Cutbacks I can deal with. I can even deal with the fact that he gets to kick my ass for WotM this month, but now this? From his own article?

The shame of it.

Screw you guys, I'm going home. :)

- T.

Sure, play the wounded dignity card. I saw how you did your little Nomination-AND-Vote trick to make it seem like OCD had 14 votes instead of 13. Don't even deny it.

By the way, since it's touched the featured article template, OCD is now retired from future VFH consideration. Sorry! --—rc (t) 05:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

HA! Too late! I've already chalked it up! Four features! Two in this month! Moohoohahhah! I'm invincible! ~ T. (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From The Slack

Hey Murph, just a note of appreciation fot your vote for WOTM, I assume the conditions were met? Anyway, you're counted as a for, so thank you!--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You have two cows (programming languages)

Howdy! Would it be OK if I cleaned up the You have two cows/18 page - e.g. alphabetized the languages, added the INTERCAL, Malbolge[[1]], etc.? You're Uncyclopedian of the Year, so I figured a newbie like me should ask before changing something you wrote.

Certainly! Have at it. I didn't actually write the page, I just organized it into subpages after it had expanded into a many-tentacled beast. --—rc (t) 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A question of holiness

I see you deleted the Holy category. Very well; currently it wasn't neccessary. However, I plan to extend the series (with some weird "mythology", among other things) of more-or-less related articles, so sooner or later it could become meaningful. There might also be some other articles that could be "adopted" into an "inner" series of holiness-related articles and then be worth putting in such a category, as have been done with two fluffiness-related articles. Would you mind me re-adding it once there are more articles related to the holiness in question? --The Divine Fluffalizer 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd better create your series and then check back with me (or another admin). Only a few article serieseses have gotten their own categories in the past. --—rc (t) 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A question of baleeting awesome articles

Why was the article on Botox reactions deleted? What the hell does "broken redirect" mean, and why is this a reason to delete a perfectly decent article?

The page I deleted wasn't an article, it was a broken redirect - meaning it was a redirect that redirected to a page that doesn't exist and thus served no purpose. It didn't exist because it was put on VFD and subsequently deleted with no opposition. --—rc (t) 05:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

10 million

Might make more sense thusly --Splaka 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia thanks its contributors for creating over 10,000,000 articles.
Our ten millionth article is Jordanhill railway station.

I was thinking along the same lines...must be projecting my psychosis again...

Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Message received. Banner changed accordingly. I was trying to think of a good link to put there, but...I couldn't. So I just left it linkless. --—rc (t) 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

♥

--Splaka 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Random request from a guy I don't know

Please, I request elimination of of me user by transfer Wiki in Spanish, where from this moment I will carry out my work. Thanks and they excuse the inconveniences.--Cafe-olee 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The writing competition

Todd's starting to get antsy and since you and I seem to be the only ones willing to contribute this time around, I thought that I'd move the matter to less public forum so that we can better get things rolling. As I see it, all that we need to do is decide whether submitters should use puppet accounts, who our panel of judges will be and what the submission guidelines are. Then we just need to announce the competition. Since the whole thing was your idea, I'll let you know what I think about these matters and then leave the decisions up to you.

I don't think that we should use puppet accounts because it'll mean a whole lot of hubub for not that much gain. I know that I don't have enough biases to cause my voting to be swayed towards people that I like and I don't expect that it will prove a significant factor across our entire judging panel. That and it'll just be a pain in the neck explaining how to do it, especially if we get a lot of entrants.

I think the judging panel should consist of ourselves, other admins and some well established non-admins, preferably with varied styles and views on humor. This would be a hand-picked panel of a moderate size, say 10-15. The specific method of voting can be determined after we start the nomination process. Nobody on the panel will be allowed to participate in the contest. The members of the panel will not be made public so as to prevent them from being pestered or catered towards.

People may submit a maximum of one entry for each category during the submission period (probably 1-2 weeks to give people time to write articles) and at the end of that period, we will protect all submitted articles and begin the decision process, eventually announcing winners, runner-ups and the like.

So, how's all that sound to you? --Sir gwax (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward not using socks either. I do think there are relevant biases, but it would be a pain to explain and I don't want to make things too complicated.

And if we don't use socks, I also see the value in handpicking judges. I'm not entirely decided, but if we go this route, what about me, you and Money (if he gets his category going) each choosing maybe four other people to help us judge? I think we can be trusted to choose reasonable people, and if we go out and pick people, it might stop them from trying to wheedle their way onto the voting bench.

The last paragraph sounds good. The only thing is that with the Top 10 stuff getting its day in the sun beginning this Friday, I'm not entirely sure I want it and the writing contest to overlap that much. It's not a big deal, and if nobody objects to it (I'm going to post the question at the Dump as well for more opinions) we can start it this weekend or early next week.

Initially I was thinking of giving the writers only a week, but I think two weeks might be more realistic, and no matter when we started it at least it would end after the Top 10 stuff has been rotated through.

If I have time tonight I'll start the Official Contest Beta Page. --—rc (t) 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need a name for the contest. I'm no good at naming things. --—rc (t) 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hereby recommend that we call it The Noble-Imperial Piece Prize for Literary Excellence. Noble because the winee gets a rank in the Order. But primarily because everyone would want to win one of those. And the potential for a flipping awsome graphic is outstanding, provided it was done discretely enough that not everybody noticed.

Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Splarka just suggested to me that the winner get some unique title (he suggested "Poet Laundrette" offhand), which I think would be cooler than a spot in the Order. --—rc (t) 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Poet Lowrate", which is more descriptive and more similar to "laureate". ~ T. (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That I like! I move to make Poet Lowrate the official designation for contest winners. --—rc (t) 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that, it's perfect. --Sir gwax (talk)

18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if we spell it Poet Löwraté or something to make it a little easier for the weak-minded to miss.

Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would be in favour of 2 weeks if we're allowed to enter more than one article (2? 5? 14?). I have about 6 unwritten ideas, 2-3 of which I could develop well in two weeks. One week is plenty of time for one really well-developed article. With one entry and two weeks, my approach would probably be to post nothing to recent articles, develop all my currents ideas, submit the best one at deadline, and then trickle out the backlog. I guess it's possible others might do the same, for fear of releasing their best idea into the wild prematurely, while the article they held onto doesn't pan out as hoped. It doesn't take two weeks to write anything for Uncyclopedia. Two weeks is for a university essay. Besides disrupting recent articles, I think 2 weeks will generate too many entries, and not from the users you'd want to read stuff by. So make it an ironman tournament. Ready, set, go. :) ~ T. (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but two weeks would give it more exposure and possibly more good entries. I'm hoping to lasso non-regulars into entering, and they might not discover the contest immediately. Sure, it could generate a lot of garbage, but then, so would a contest involving, say, just you and Tompkins. (I kid!) I'm not strongly attached to two weeks or anything though, I just want to look at it from all angles. And two weeks for a University essay? I see why American schools are looked down upon now... --—rc (t) 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the preliminary beta page for the contest. --—rc (t) 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks would be perfect. Some people have busy lives and only really have time during the weekends, for example. And if an author want to add lovely homemade pictures, two weeks would be great.

I'm also against the use of sockpuppets for this competition (outside it too, of course). I, for one, can form unbiased opinions, but I guess I can't assume everybody can. I was thinking along the lines of having contestants email their entry to a certain address and then have one person put them up without names. But no doubt that would be causing unrequested complexity.

Concerning the name of the competition... I'm liking The Noble-Imperial Piece Prize for Literary Excellence, though personally I'd like a bit more dynamic freedom in it (so different themed competitions can get their own character). Maybe adding "in the field of something"? I dunno.

As for the theme that I had in mind for my monetary support: I'm still not going to mention it here. PM on IRC seems more secure.

Finally: LOGO/IMAGE/PIXELATED REPRESENTATIVE!! WAAAAH!! We need one!! I want to (attempt to) do one!! But there has to be a name first, of coruse. (And adding a bit of dynamic to the logo couldn't do any harm either...) --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 11:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I was hoping you'd offer to make a logo for us! --—rc (t) 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For clarification - when I was talking about judges up above I meant having all the chosen people judge each category (as Gwax suggested), not have a few people judge each. I just realized that what I said may not have been clear. --—rc (t) 23:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A Contest by any other name...

The Noble-Imperial Piece Prize for Literary Excellence is missing that special je ne sais quois for me but if I can't come up with something better, I'll live. Personally, I think a play on Pulitzer would be funnier and more concise, though I do think that a better play on Nobel Peace Prize could be found (Ignoble War Prize maybe). --Sir gwax (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this to become the name of the prize but Pulitzer Prize can be reworked as Poo Lit Surprise with relative ease. --Sir gwax (talk)

15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can just see the logo possibilities for that... I'm not a big fan of TNIPPfLE either, but I haven't thought of anything better yet. By the way, you can add your Rewrite guidelines to the beta page when you've got them ready - I left those sections empty for you guys to fill in. (Money, you can add yours when the contest starts.) --—rc (t) 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm...I sorta-like the Popular-Literary Surprise (Poo Lit Surprise) in the Field of $WackyAssFieldName. However, "And the winner of the NIPPLE for Historical Treasties is....." also sounds good to me. I guess we could give out a Pee Buddy award, for those who help piss out articles here.... All sound good to me, but none sound really terriffic. Maybe our first contest should be....naming the contest.... Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as little as I like admitting to finding scat humor funny, Poo Lit Surprise is starting to grow on me. For one it sounds the same as Pulitzer Prize and for two, we can make pictures of flaming paper bags for the award. Le sigh. --Sir gwax (talk)

05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm lukewarm on it...I think something more falsely dignified might work better... --—rc (t) 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, because I worry that's growing on me more like a boil than something good. --Sir gwax (talk)

17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Like a fourth head? God those can be irritating....Anyway, while the PLS award still lacks pancakes (since I can't spell the fancy-french word) the imagery of two flaming paper bags makes it the best choice so far. While I briefly considered the Demonstrative Uncyclopedian's Creative Essayist Award, it too lacks something. I will try to consult some experts and see if they can do any better. I guess this means that all three of us are out of the running for the award, since our creative juices have dried up like poop on a stick.

Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary

* 17:36, 10 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Quentin Tarantino

Thanks for helping to make this site what it is: a publisher's clearinghouse of morons and lunatics, all labouring under the collective delusion that we're contributing meaningful prose that will tickle the fancy of an even bigger population of morons across the globe.

Well, I enjoy it, anyway. Thanks for being here. Your engraved, ceremonial admin cattle prod is backordered for another 5 weeks. Just keep an eye on your mailbox. Cheers. :) ~ T. (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Todd! Chron tells me that I only need to work for 24 more years before I can retire with a pension (20% of my current salary, woohoo!). --—rc (t) 19:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I didn't realize you started editing only two days before I did! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 19:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You danged rugrat! Get your elder some prunes and turn on Lawrence Welk. --—rc (t) 19:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

FreePlay

FYI: the "FreePlay" article is the combined work of a bunch of people in an IRC chatroom... not vanity...

Is it about a person? Even if it's written by more than one person and/or the writer(s) isn't the person the article is about, it can still be vanity. Check it against Uncyclopedia:Vanity Policies. --—rc (t) 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry... no not you.

Umm... I was just checking out VFH and it looks like there might be some Sockpuppets voting on Pasketmaul. There have only been 4 For votes, and three of them have come from users that have the "User:" still in there sig. That usually means there voting from anon IPs. Anyway, it looks like it'll die, and I;m not sure there is anyway to prove it. But, I thought I might as well let you know. t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 13:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that earlier...I'll look at it later if I have time (or somebody else can). --—rc (t) 20:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

*Cricket Chirps*

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. --—rc (t) 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

VFP

The Vomit For Puke page seems a little...uhmmmm (well you know) lately. I think I remember someone mentioning a rating system instead of a yes or no vote. Since you are the one with the calculator (you're counting the votes most of the time). I thought I'd see how you felt about guideline and rating system. I think it would help with biased votes.

This entry was submitted by or photoshopped by the latest VFP spammer
Should not have been entered...huff immediately. An NRV if you will.
An entry that is below average. Definitely needs extra work or thought (or possibly someone to redo it). Not funny at all.
An entry that could have been good, but is missing some obvious funny or could use a little touch up photoshop work.
It's average. Not great, not bad. "Eh, I wouldn't care if it's featured or if I never see it again."
This entry has good funny but the photoshopping sucks or the photoshopping is good but the funny sucks. It's better than average.
This entry is kinda funny and the photoshopping is great or the photoshopping is fine and the funny is great. Great idea and execution. It's much better than average.
This entry is great. The photoshopping and funny are above average and although I don't find it that funny I see how most people could.
This entry is almost perfect. Above average funny and photoshopping.
The Ultimate in Funny and Photoshopping. This entry is the best thing I have seen on this site in a while.

This would of course put the same emphasis on funny and photoshopping...but that could be adjusted. Anything above a certian number (5-Average?) can be featured. What do you think? – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is simply that most new entries to VFP these days are awful. I don't know why that is, and I really don't think it's because standards have risen (just LOOK at some of the tripe that's been removed recently). I think at this point VFP does need some (at least temporary) modifications, and I'll make a post about that at the Dump if I have time later today. --—rc (t) 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dawg mentioned a delay as in VFH. Which would help some. Seriously though...the "tripe" makes me want to commit wikisuicide! Especially when people brag about thier photoshop skills and I have to guess that they are kidding...Hope you enjoyed your little ~~vacation~~ holiday...you leave and all hell breaks loose. :) – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We were talking about this on IRC last night and Isra had a couple idea's... The one I liked was limiting self-noms to 1 or 2 a week. And maybe 4 total. That would keep down spam and possibly help better images find their way through. All I know is that VFP is horrible, it's so horrible that I started nomming images. You realize that's like the first sign of the Unpocolypse, right?

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What? You're always voting for that crap. We could blame you for encouraging that behavior. – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Look what happens...

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit too and it occured to me that if we simply banned self-nominations outright, we'd be rid of almost all of the crap. As an analogy, can you imagine what it would be like if we allowed self-nominations for Noob of the Month, Uncyclopedian of the Month or Writer of the Month; there'd be 50 candidates each, come the first of the month. --Sir gwax (talk)

20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, banning self-noms would get rid of alot of the crap, but it might cut down on the good stuff too. On VFH I could understand getting rid of self-noms, but VFP almost depends on self-noms... just looks at the ~~archives~~ PFP.

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I know that some get through by being nommed by other people because a few that I've nommed got put through and I sure as heck didn't make them. I do think that if you outlawed self-noms and put a big notice asking that people nominate pictures they like, you'd get at least a few. --Sir gwax (talk)

21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ther would need to be a good deal of encouragement to nominate other people's pictures.... It can probably be done, but it wouldn't be easy. Also I checked and 4 out of the last 10 featured images were self-noms.

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

VFP dicussion

This is the best picture ever!

I am with GWAX on this. Ban self noms but do advertise a little more to encourage noms. Maybe get an "assist" if you nominate a good pic. "THIS PERSON NOMINATED A FP"" :) Anyway, do something quick before I start nominating myself. – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See Forum:VFP woes for further discussion. --—rc (t) 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this do you but the VFP pics are wandering around on the page and are not where they are supposed to be. I know...get firefox...etc...but I CAN'T it wont work when I have to use my browser for work...etc.

I have IE btw.

– Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, you'll have to talk to Isra about it, probably (it's his template). I don't know anything about coding. You might also want to upload an image so he can see what's wrong. --—rc (t) 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, sorry to bother you and whatnot; as far as I know we haven't spoken on here yet (have we?) and your commentary on Hide and Go Jesus just seemed a little arbitrary... I'm just wondering if this is some sort of hazing process or if I have done something to bother you (like writing this letter) or whatever. I just got a computer about a month ago, never have been on a wiki before and I like the idea, but I'm starting to get the impression that a few people on here don't want me around or something, which seems a little, I don't know, weird to me. Am I completely off base or...? --Imrealized 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My commentary on the page was just that I find it difficult to read with all the italic and bold text. The reason I said it was "non-Uncyclopedic" is because with all the emphases it doesn't read like a parody of an objective encyclopedia article (not that that's a requirement here). --—rc (t) 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting For N00B of the Month

You wrote:

It's pretty discourteous to vote against all candidates other than the one you support just to help that one win. Against votes should only be used when you have a genuine reason that the user shouldn't win the award - for example, some other users voted against a few of the other nominees because they hadn't contributed in a significant amount of time or they simply aren't around much. Those are legitimate causes to vote against someone. There's no indication that you're even aware of the other nominees' contributions. --—rc (t) 02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

I don't know about it being discourteous (compared to some people saying "Sucks" or "...subjected to another dramatized progression of wikipsychosis...") but I agree that it is unfair and I have retracted my "Against" votes. It would have been giving the person I supported a +2 advantage instead of a +1 per voting individual as is intended. Thank you for keeping me honest. I did check some of the other nominee's work, for the record. Yendor33 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As per your comments above, I was wondering if Sir Sikon has got the same request from you: Against for... uhm, reasons. Although I'm not a member of the cabal, it does have reasons. - Sir Sikon [Guest] KUN F@H NS FIC CM 18:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)... and he voted for another candidate. Just making sure everyone is treated fairly, ya know? --Imrealized 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I know the reasons for Sikon/Guest's vote. --—rc (t) 04:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Competition Time Commitment

One of the people that I'd like to have act as a judge is concerned that it might interfere with a prior commitment and is wondering when, exactly, he'll have to judge and about how much time it'll take up. I figure that we're starting on the 2nd, so we'll probably come to a close around the 16th and then probably try to have a decision by the 23rd, right? Beyond that, I don't know how we want to go about deciding so I can't really tell him how much time it'll take. --Sir gwax (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking two weeks for writing and then another for judging. I don't think judging will even take that long, but I figure we should have a set decision date so that any non-regulars who may participate know when to check back.

However, any of the judges can send their votes in early (after the 16th, of course) and be done with it. It'd be nice to have some IRC panel discussions or something, but organizing that for a large number of judges is unlikely, I think, though I'm sure we could get things going on a smaller scale. --—rc (t) 15:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and my evening schedule has just opened up a lot for the next few weeks so I can IRC more if needs be. --Sir gwax (talk)

16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

not in Template:FI ?

Have any images been removed from Feature rotation yet via PFP? While making a list of images to protect, I found two in the category but not in the {{FI}} template: Image:Staypuft.jpg and Image:Keeler1.jpg. --Splaka 09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Algo removed them with this edit. I think he's removing ones that get -3 votes or fewer on PFP. Do you think we should remove them from the category as well, or let them stay as once-mighty featured images? --—rc (t) 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly they could be templated with something like {{ImageFFP}} for formerly featured, with a category like Category:Former Featured Image. Or such. Cabal? --Splaka 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC'd --—rc (t) 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

No worries Murph, I lost handily anyway..--SLACK...ah ah...he'll save everyone of us! 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doug is tough competition. And a rising star. --—rc (t) 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.6

Check is out, man.

"New maintenance script to reassign edits from one user to another (I don't yet know if this will work on our shared user database)"

You could switch names! YOU COULD BE CLOWN! t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just what I always wanted and never thought possible! --

clown

01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now you can! For just 5 easy payments of ╘)ë4½29I~T1Θ5╤132╒21"54I~321£1◄4~î1ä1↕^{^{^*}} MediaWiki featuring the NEW! "Identity Altering" function can be yours!

^{^{^*}} Actual monetary value: Unknown.

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But what if I don't want to pay ╘)ë4½29I~T1Θ5╤132╒21"54I~321£1◄4~î1ä1↕, Ron? --—rc (t) 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn You RC

Damn you to hell. And I did not misspell testicles, I correctly spelled Testecles. And I'll hate you forever.--Spin 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, except I hated you even before now, so you'll be hated for a longer amount of time. I stick my tongue out at you. --—rc (t) 17:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I bite my thumb at you both. --KATIE!! 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I still hate you

But in an illustrated way: http://www.stripgenerator.com/viewEng.php?id=108291 --Spin 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No reason for hate yet

Yeah, I am indeed the Thraeryn of Visual KoL. Hi. --Thræ 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw, goddammit, this probably means you can't vote for me in the contest. Prior knowledge or something. Now reason for hate! --Thræ 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I was around near the beginning of the KoL wiki (as user:Poopsmithers), but I haven't edited there in months, so I consider whatever connection we may once have had sufficiently severed. Come to think of it, I should probably start playing KoL again... --Rcmurphy Sq.W (Talk) 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. --Thræ 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

With all the new content, I highly recommend it. I'm consistently finding new stuff to poke at. And Thræ - thanks for a damn useful wiki. ~Sir Famine, Vandal ♣er 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thank Jin for thinking of it, and everyone else for contributing. That's what makes a wiki great, as you well know. --Thræ 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)