User talk:Rei

Deja Vu

Regarding the edits I made to Deja vu, I don't see your point. It's supposed to be a self-reference page, so to make it more like deja vu, the links should refer back to the page. See Recursion, as it is an example of this. Of course the content should be repeated, as thats what the article is about. All of the self-reference pages have similar themes. I wasn't slightly vandalizing, I was making the page a better example of deja vu. --Sir Cornbread 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deja Vu is *not* recursion. Deja Vu is the eerie, inaccurate feeling that you're experiencing something that you've experienced before. It is not an article on redundancy or recursion; to represent Deja Vu, it has to at least attempt to seem like it's not the same thing repeated over and over. There has to be randomness and a variety of content in order to make Deja Vu seem to cause the inaccurate, eerie feeling that you're experiencing a thing that you've experienced before. Your edits countered this. -- Rei 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Cornbread"

• I wasnt implying that deja vu and recursion are the same thing, I was just providing that as an example of a self-reference page. I know what deja vu is. In my opinion, my edits surely made it seem like the reader would be "experiencing the same thing". I guess more content could be added, but to make it seem like deja vu, content would need to be repeated. --Sir Cornbread 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Links are important for an article. Changing them all to "Deja Vu" effectively makes the article a dead end, which is a Bad Thing(tm). Secondly, that's a joke that's much more relevant for recursion; no need to repeat it on a much less applicable article. Lastly, your copy-pastes gave us too high of a repetition to content ratio. Thus, I RV'ed. Do you think that this is unfair criticism? -- 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deja Vu

Regarding the edits I made to Deja vu, I don't see your point. It's supposed to be a self-reference page, so to make it more like deja vu, the links should refer back to the page. See Recursion, as it is an example of this. Of course the content should be repeated, as thats what the article is about. All of the self-reference pages have similar themes. I wasn't slightly vandalizing, I was making the page a better example of deja vu. --Sir Cornbread 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Serenity

Whoo-hoo! Thanks for the edit on Serenity... I had some idea where I wanted to take that, but couldn't for the life of me think of appropriate actors. So, I just threw in some bullshit and hoped someone would grab the idea and run with it. --Mr. Roadkill 03:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks for getting the article going! Rei 05:22, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Thanks for the kind words and the Mouseketeer image. I’m figuring out what to do with the image. Most likely, it will be an example of a propaganda movie that was shown during the regime of Mickey Mouse the Great. There was a immense cult of personality during that time, and the movie was typical of the herofiication of Mouse during the 1960s. --KP CUN 01:13, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I think it was my fault. I have a lot of issues I am dealing with during this time of year. Anyway I found that the words you added to mine in the most recent edit are very funny. You've made me re-think the way I write humor now. Thanks. --Loke 02:22, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Darwin Pope

I like the Darwin Pope image.

Still, I don't think Uncyclopedia should be the place you deposit all your Worth 1000 rejects... --Poopy-doo-doo 04:32, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

1) Darwin-Pope was mislabeled (so were several others) - sorry (I did a big upload spree, so I was in a rush and used the same label on everything). It wasn't from Worth1000; I made it back during debates at EvCForum.net

2) The ones that actually were in Worth1000 were not "rejects" - in fact, they often were my best scoring entries. A couple of them were first place entries, such as the NBC cathedral, the daVinci childhood drawing, and the "dentist" image.

3) If you like the image, what's the problem? I own the copyrights on that image (both the picture of the pope and of Darwin were public domain, and I did the edit). So what if it's not brand-new? It's not like even 0.00001% of the people on the internet have ever seen it before - you'd be hard pressed to find it even if you were looking (in fact, it may no longer be linked to anywhere at all).

Rei 09:10, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Russ Abbot

Swing by some time if you like and add what you can to my story i think it is good but i would like to see whare you would take it. Maybe less hotdog/gay jokes as you put it. i am open to suggestion and help.

Illogicalbeats 22:40, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I would like to award you a ninjastar

I don't know where you want to put awards you receive so I'll let you do it yourself. I would like to award you this ninjastar: {{Ninjastar|Ninjashop.png|MSPaint Ninjastar|For [[:Image:Sharks.jpg|Sharks,jpg]] and many other high quality images.|[[User:Gwax|gwax]]}}

Thanks! Rei 18:36, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

--Sir gwax (talk) 23:57, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Long article

Thanks for expanding Long article! I would have never made it that long myself. - Guest 06:49, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you're welcome. Gotta love postmodernism  ;) -- Rei 15:15, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

VFP

Check VFP. Ive recently nominated one of yours.--Rataube 15:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rataube! -- Rei 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Er, why did you make this into a redirect to VCR Manual? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Have you not read VCR Manual? It is quite, related is, being, congratulations! -- Rei 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Regrettable. I now make read the article, improve the page as before. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arrrr!

Hey Rei, sorry about "piratizing" the Nader quote - I've been working on a pirate version of QuoteUnquote:Main Page and I've just had it on the brain lately! Anyway, hoist the mizzenmast. --Some user 01:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rei

Your pictures big fun! Articles! And laughing! (thanks)--Imrealized 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it!  :) -- Rei 17:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What you missed...

Well, we had a minor coup with people attempting, once again, to destroy all traces of the article George W. Bush. Basically, the argument went that it was roundly hated and reviled at VFH. While I explained the type of humor at the talk page, including defending your honor as a citizen of Uncyclopedia, a pretty convincing argument was made that, if the tone needn't change, at least the subtlety needed some altering, as many/most people seem incapable of getting it. Sadly, while you and I may find the article hilarious as it is now, we must make an effort to reach the masses, as joking over their heads is close to vandalism. Thus, the changes were approved to try, subtly, to imply that maybe Bush isn't the Messiah (if you're looking hard for it). I'm willing to take other suggestions to heart, as I really DO want this to be both an ORIGINAL piece of humor (which I know we have now) and one that many will find funny (which I know we DON'T have now). Suggestions are more than welcome, and would probably best be placed at Talk:George W. Bush. Thanks.--<<>> 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Leonardo.jpg

Hello. I wan't to use your image on Nonsensopedia in article about Vitruvian Man, but we're trying to store only images publicated on free licenses. Is that image is totally yours? If so, maybe you can add a appropriate license to it so then I could move it to Nonsensopedia? Thanks. Szoferka 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally mine (apart from borrowing the original from old 'Leo himself  :) ). Use it however you please -- just give credit where it's due if you can. -- Rei 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I used the NoRightsReserved and gaved attribution to Uncyclopedia and the original place. It's now on w:c:nonsensopedia:Grafika:Leonardo2.jpg. Szoferka 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to build up a taxonomy for Uncyc's fake creatures...

...come work at UnSpecies™! Or don't. Whatever. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like I can edit that page. -- Rei 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no edit button? -- Rei 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about at the top of the page? The button that says "vandalize"? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah.  ;) Well, this should be a start. -- Rei 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now, perhaps you should log in. We need more active, registered, non-vabnal users on UnMeta (if you hadn't noticed, UnSpecies is in the UnMeta domain space (excuse the sort-of pun)). ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

GWB

hey, NP, I didn't think they were that out of line with the tone - and I only rv'ed back as a joke (replicating the reall wikpedia fight experience). :) --Red Deathy 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cookie

User:Isra1337 has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic.

for taking good care of my article in my absense.---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Since you clearly still are paying attention to the article, if you feel it needs the edit warning, feel free to put it back.  :) -- Rei 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on Talk:George_W._Bush

But fuck me if Yank liberals are that bloody thick too there really is no hope for the world.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

XMas

Bradaphraser was throwing away last year's Christmas cards, and realised they had purposefully forgotten about you. This user is completely thoughtless, doesn't care about Multi-culturalism, and therefore DEMANDS you have yourself a Merry little Christmas... NOW! Failure to comply with result in disciplinary action up to and including excommunication from the Capitalist Church

May you focus on your successes and forget your failures here at the end of the year. Never forget how we all improve one another's lives. Season's Greetings. (I only have the one template, so pretend it says something about Hannukah ;) )--<<>> 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bush, Intelligent design

Thanks for finding a good middle ground for George W. Bush. "Honorable" is in particular the best word choice, because it's a real title... so yeah. And your work on Intelligent Design looks thorough.. keep rocking. —Lenoxus 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate it! -- Rei 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Back and forth with User:Weri long wang moved to Talk:Intelligent_Design, where it belonged in the first place.

Can we talk?

You need to come to consensus with Weri long wang on Intelligent Design. This revert war is tearing us apart. It's annoying. Don't make me call in Famine. I'll do it, too. I'm a loose cannon; that's why the Captain made me turn in my badge and gun.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love to come to concensus. Unfortunately, for this to work, we're going to need outside opinions, because Weri long wang believes that "Darwin is fat and smelly" makes for a good article, while I believes that mimicking arguments actually made by IDers makes for a good article. I don't think any amount of discussion between us two will change this. I asked for outside opinions on the talk page as soon as this revert war started, but nobody has weighed in. I wouldn't feel comfortable without at least three or so people giving their opinions. I'll abide by whatever they agree with, even if it weighs against me. -- Rei 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See my userpage for an adorable picture of me. See my talkpage for a bit more info and an excuse as to why I'm not taking sides. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See here for my end reply. I’ll not revert again now in case I get banned. A few last requests though just in case. Weri long wang 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can-do. -- Rei 07:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn’t draw your attention to this, in case you revert it, but I’ll tell you anyway. I’ve converted the “Hail Satan” “I love Hitler” comments to personal thoughts in side the Darwinists head (because I feel that the person saying those things out loud spoils the concept of a genuine debate on air). What I did was a few edits, not a revert.Weri long wang 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I won't interfere. -- Rei 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m glad we could reach an agreement before the revert war went too far. Weri long wang 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Poop - help request

Hi! Do you ever help out on articles? The weakest part of this article I started, Poop, is the images, and you seem to be really, really good at images. Pretty much all of the pics in there now I found on Special:Unusedimages.

Thanks in advance,

Smrt-guy 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would, and I appreciate you asking, but in this case, it's the subject matter. I'm very much opposed to all of the fecalphilic humor that shows up on Uncyclopedia, and while it's somewhat mild in your article (it's just the name of a band), I certainly don't want to encourage it by helping an article with that name end up on the front page. Also, I don't find most of the content in the article that funny.

If you have another project that you're working on that you think might have a shot in VFH, let me know, and if I like it, I'll gladly make images for you. -- Rei 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Congratulation! You are now happy owner of new proud fat kid with an Accordion from El Zoof!
	Much felicitous appreciations for happy double nice good voting for HowTo:Stop Playing the Accordion

--El Zoof 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Open Your Inventory

	FoxyBabe has awarded you with a Key Item!
	For voting on HowTo:Live in an RPG.
	"I found it inside a weird chest placed mysteriously in Lava Mountain. Still haven't figured out what it does, so keep it in your inventory, it may come in handy to eliminate a dancing mushroom."

DAME :: FoxyBabe :: TALK 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to UnNews

Kudos on UnNews:Flock of pigs terrorize Senate offices; Clinton still refuses to apologize for Iraq vote, and thanks for contributing. I particularly enjoyed this story, as well as the deadpan audio. Nice work! Below you'll find the standard UnNews welcome drivel. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On your knees, worthy one! The Right Reverend Major Sir Zim_ulator blesses you. Your blessings are increasing exponentially. In the name of Sophia, the Church of Uncyclopedia and the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic, kneel and receive the melding of Zim's holy axe and your wetware. Now go write me a good UnNews article. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 03:48, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Reverend Zim_ulator says: "There are coffee cup stains on this copy, damnit! Now that's good UnJournalism."

Welcome to UnNews, Rei, and thank you for contributing some crap, or otherwise attracting my attention. For a quick introduction about how you can write a decent or better UnNews article, please take a minute read our spiffy new Style Guide.

I am your humble servant (in your dreams), and if I may be of help to you, please leave me a note on my talk page.

Good things that can happen to you

---

You can win awards and prizes! You can become a better writer by subjecting your articles to the scrutiny of UnNews critique machine or UnCanninator shit article detection system. You can become a thorn in the side of Journalism as a whole. You can get promotions, ribbons, and free crockery! You can write stuff your mom would be ashamed to show her friends.

What happened to my article?

---

If you've submitted an article, and it's disappeared, I may have mercy-moved it to your user space. This means I've probably left a message on your talk page, likely in close proximity to this very message, explaining why.

Your article may have been tagged for ICU if it has significant problems meeting our criteria, or I may have deleted it because you did not register as a user.

Finally, maybe you just pissed me off. I mean, I know I'm a Roshi, and I'm supposed to be all "Zen" about everything, but I have bad days too, you know?

UnNews Audio

---

If you are interested in doing an UnNews audio, check this out.

UnNews UnFunnies

---

At present, I create UnCartoons for UnNews all by my onesies, for better or worse. Now, I will never claim that I am a good cartoonist. Fortunately, the internet provides us a way to do all sorts of things simply and easily. I found Stripgenerator.com, a great site to create cartoons with a minimum of talent.

This document is an ongoing effort by me to enhance the obfuscation coefficient of Uncyclopedia; productive changes, and criticism are welcome. Cheers! The Right and Left Reverend Major Sir Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 17:38, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Zim  :) -- Rei 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Why do you think you have the right to revert every edit that somebody puts in that makes fun of the absurdity of ID? Isn’t the whole point of Uncyclopedia to make fun of the things the articles are about? You’re really starting to monopolize this article now. Weri long wang 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No more than you are. And I, as well as others, find the type of edits that you've been promoting on ID to ruin the humor of the article. Lastly, I have just as much of a right to edit that article as you do. If anything, more, because I've been here twice as long as you. Certainly not less. -- Rei 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You’ve been here longer, ehh? Well, good for you. I’d say that since I made it featured I should have more right to edit it, but I don’t think that. Everybody has the same right to edit the article. What I want to know is what is so bad about the version of the article the day it was featured? What am I doing that is “promoting” one view over another? Adding one exclamation mark (which I’ve realized is futile) is not an attempt to “promote” the absolutely and completely true theory of intelligent design. I’m totally objective on the subject of the validity of this wonderful, novel and scientifically sound theory. I’m not going to put the sarcasm exclamation mark back, the highlighting of the word this gets the message across: ID is a real scientific theory because it doesn’t mention the name of the creator. I think it’s a necessity that we make fun of that. (Also, you’ve only been here 4 months more than me; Sep 2005 vs. Jan 2006) Weri long wang 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of an ego there, haven't we? "I made it featured". No, you were one editor among hundreds. The article today is still pretty much the same form as it was before your very first edit; go back, take a look. The absolute best one can say about it is that you didn't butcher it so badly that it didn't end up as not featured. What compliments have you gotten for your Intelligent Design work? No, really, I want to know. Who has said that they *liked* what you did to it? I've seen plenty of people who've stated that they *didn't* like your work, well back from before I joined the article. For example, "Reverting..... Ah weri, the idea of humor does rather escape you doesn't it?" Really, who *likes* the sort of stuff you're putting in? Nobody, that's who.

In fact, there's a pretty good piece of text back there that you pointlessly removed. I'm restoring it. No, it's not "unreadable nonsense", as you stated. It's hilarious, your typical pseudo-mathematical proof promulgated by IDers taken to an extreme level.

Adding exclamation points is not a way to promote anything. It's just poor writing. As I stated. As I provided links for. I'm not sure how you got the concept in your head that I accused you of trying to promote ID. Quite to the contrary, as I've stated many times, you've been wasting your time in the article trying to attack ID at the expense of the humor of the article. The funny thing about ID is *not* the arguments against it. It's the arguments for it. The arguments made by ID proponents. The ones *actually* made by them, not "Darwin is fat and smelly" type arguments. Until you can wrap your head around this, I will be there, ready to RV those sorts of changes from you.

At least you're right about one thing: I misremembered the year that I started here. Still, don't treat me like I'm some sort of Uncyclopedia newbie. -- Rei 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I’ve got an “ego”, I dread to think what you’ve got! (excuse the exclamation mark) Good job I didn’t butcher it, eh? Well here it is: [1] and it’s quite a bit different. It’s worth noting that one thing that is there (and always was until you came along) is the exclamation mark at the end of that’s what makes it scientific. Weri long wang 11:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I never once claimed that "I made it featured" or anything of the sort. That's your ego speaking. I made several pictures featured -- I did all of the work on them, so that's not ego. I also took credit for most of Zen, which became featured in a version that was mostly like how I initially created it (when I found it, it was an article about the sound of dentist drills). I have not done anything so stupid as to take credit for an article that was already in its (roughly) final form when I got to it like you did with ID, nor to take all of the credit even from an article like Zen. That's your ego speaking.

And yes, the version that you linked to *is* in roughly its present form. Before you ever got to it. The opening para is almost the same. The second is different, but based on the same theme. All of the current sections exist back then. A good portion of the content that is in them now was in them back then. So yes, I 100% agree with my earlier statement: the article is mostly like it was. You did most definitely *not* "make it featured", and need to deal with that fact. -- Rei 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we've had quite enough of this foolishness, then. Both of you, walk away from that page. Right now before someone is going to loses an eye. /me grabs stick for poking of eye, mentioned earlier in this header

Oh, shit. Well, just read the title, then. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Honesty

Perhaps I was too hasty in reverting back to my previous edit, but the vast majority of what I reverted was merciful quality control. People voted for a specific instance of this article, which is what I reverted it to. They did not vote for an unfunny list, an out-of-place joke, or a terrible quote, as those things were not there when it was voted upon. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd protect all featured articles, at least for the time they're on the front page. But I digress. Nevertheless, sorry if I seemed like a selfish asshole, but I am. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no problem at all  :) It's just that when someone RVs back twenty four edits, including the very edit that lists it as a featured article, perhaps they're being a bit hasty and should stop to review what they're rolling back.  ;) I have no problem with that list disappearing, by the way -- that was the least amusing part of the article. -- Rei 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

George Bush

Shove it up your arse! Weri long wang 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the Drama, you two!

Rei, while I agree that Weri's edit on GWB was out of place, there's no need to be rude about it. Adding drama is not going to help anyone. I shouldn't have to point out that neither of you are a Hardwick Fundlebuggy or a Procopius. Writers at their level are allowed to have big heads. Surprisingly, they don't. I met Hardwick once. Head like a thimble. True story. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of place? How many times has Dubya been compared to a chimp? I give up here. Weri long wang 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Own account

I’m a great sock puppet having been told about uncyclopedia 3 days ago! Well, I’ll start my own account on here then. I’ll make sure I get as much edits on here as I have on Wikipedia then you might let me edit this article, sir, just like you let everyone else on here edit it.

If you want to know the truth though, I know one of the people who edited earlier on today who told me you reverted his edits straight away! Why did you do this? Can I edit the “the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” if I have an account now? Newze rules 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, in short, even assuming that you're not just BSing and that you really *are* Weri Long Wang, you're someone that Weri told to come here to defend him. Tell him this: "Cute way to try to stack the deck. Want me to get my friends to back me up?"

What a loser. -- Rei 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that person is a very good friend of mine. He called me up earlier today to ask for my help. I met him when I was on vacation. Good one finding me out. We fell out after our gay love affair abroad, but we’re friends again now. (yes, I did notice your other reverts by the way) My friend was actually an ip address earlier, and so was I, so trace it if you want to find out where we both live. Newze rules 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, two random IPs join, randomly go to "Intelligent Design", and coincidentally try to repeat Weri long wang's edits. And that's almost all that they do on Uncyclopedia. A day after Weri disappears. When nobody else had been doing this before. Sure, I believe that one. Got any other yarns to spin me?

P.S.: Yes, I have heard of proxy servers. -- Rei 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don’t care what you say, I’m still going to start my own account here, but I’ll make sure I never touch you’re beloved ID again. Newze rules 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A day after I disappear (or, more precisely, looking at the contribution pages, 25 minutes before I disappear and then about 4 hours after I reappear) somebody reverts the Intelligent Design article and adds a load of stuff I’ve never seen before. Coincidence? Oh, I don’t think so! Modusoperandi has told me to leave that page alone, and that’s exactly what I’ve decided to do. Also, the edits that guy made were not the same as mine. There were certain reverts (like the part about Darwinists worshiping Hitler) that were removed and then there was this at the start:

Recent evidence actually suggests that life was created not by an Intelligent Designer, but by a committee of Intelligent Designers. This explains stupid things like duck billed platypuses and American Evangelicals. It also explains why all the creatures on earth seem to be fighting, injuring, killing and eating each other all the time.

There were also some reverts to somewhere around the time it became featured. I must admit I’m at odds to explain why anyone would be motivated to do that.

I know now that you’ve taken over the ID article, so I and Modusoperandi have started working on a different article to mirror it: Irreducible Complexity. I don’t know how much trouble is going to come about as a result of me telling you this. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Like he said though, we were the best of friends when we were on holiday together, and you can’t split us apart. Idiot. Weri long wang 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My rubbish Intelligent Design Edit

I was created by God, it's his fault. Matt lobster 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(singing) "Jesus loves the little lobsters..." ;) -- Rei 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You’ve had your edits reverted too? Are you sure you’re not Weri Long Wang as well as me? Newze rules 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that was a plausible mistake. Unlike yours. -- Rei 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you should keep track of your browser windows better. User Matt lobster ended up doing the fix for one of your posts. -- Rei 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(whatever that means) Weri long wang 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop flapping Rei, I’ll honestly avoid editing ID from now on! There’s many thousand more articles on here you know. Newze rules 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable? What am I supposed to say?! You’re really gonna listen to what I say aren’t you! I’ll just revert the whole thing and forget about it.

Sorry for this

I’m fed up with getting angry now. This happened with another user once and I find the best thing to do is stop getting angry and apologize, so here goes… I’m sorry if I’ve been putting the wrong things down, or whatever. I honestly try my best to try to be as funny and clever as I can when I contribute to Uncyclopedia. My sense of humour doesn’t fit to the standard style, and I often start a “second” version of a particular article (God  organized religion for example) to put the more dry Bremner Bird & Fortune style humour down.

I think I’m going to concentrate on some funny email correspondence from an anti-atheist and see if I can make some kind of article from that. Anyway, sorry if I’ve been getting angry or rude here; I’ll try to put this incident behind me now and forget about it. Friends now? Weri long wang 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. And no need to roll back your changes on ID; there's nothing wrong with linking IC  :) The only reason that I changed the way you linked ID to IC was because I didn't want the header to get too long. I think you working on IC is a great idea; that way we don't step on each other's toes. I won't touch IC. -- Rei 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I’m glad to hear we can get over this. I bought a copy of Photoshop CS2 from Amazon and I bought a book on how to use it from Leeds recently. I’ve uploaded a few first attempts. What do you think? Weri long wang 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, not bad at all! I like the one of Bush reading "The God Delusion"  ;) If you ever feel like getting competitive on photoedits, check out www.worth1000.com. I used to hang out there -- there are some *really* talented people over there. They even sometimes have corporate sponsored contests where you can win actual money and/or items for doing a good edit. -- Rei

Bit of a shame about the fingers on the book reading picture. I haven't quite figured out how to get around that. Weri long wang 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe I have! Weri long wang 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Thanks!

For voting for Is a 1982 Mitsubishi Colt better than a Bugatti Veyron?, you have been awarded one of Cs1987's many 1982 Mitsubishi Colts! Sorry I couldn't afford a better present. It might arrive in the mail soon, if you are lucky.

Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Potatochoppers Guild

Weri long wang invites you to join the Potatochoppers' Guild. Please read through our charter and decide whether or not you would like to join. If you would, please contact Weri long wang to find out more!

You’ve got 3 featured images and clearly know what you’re doing with the Potatochopping. Want to join the new guild? (I think I have the right to invite other members, I’m not sure! If not, contact RadicalX. Here are some of my new images) Weri long wang 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure.  :) -- Rei 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what rank you're at, I suggest you contact RadicalX to ask. Weri long wang 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have joined yet. You're not on the list.Weri long wang 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So just out of curiosity...

When you reverted my ziti-thing from the internet article for being unfunny did you mean it was unfunny literally in the sense of the word out in the real world, or did the word "sperms" distress you in some way, or was it something about sexual predators, or do you not like my username, or did I violate some unignorable policy, or am I on some secret list of n00b users slated to be whacked in the head a few times, or are you one of these stalker Wikiadmins who pick someone at random and hound them forever, or like this is your favorite article and no one should mess with it, or did it just happen to work out that way by accident somehow, or what would you say if you were to say anything? And I guess you didn't like the Mark Twain quote either? V3rt1g0 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You want a detailed critique on your edits? Sure.  :)

• There are already too many quotes. Quotes are rarely funny.
• There's nothing funny about the quote that you wrote. And it's long, too boot. Seriously, what in there did you think was funny? It's mostly just offtopic, such as having Mark Twain speaking about the State of the Union.
• Your ziti analogy is offtopic, and it's not funny. Heck, the best you were able to describe it over here was "ziti thing". In an article about the internet. It furthermore detracts from Ted Stevens' statement, which actually was funny, since he actually believed what he said.
• No, I have no problem with the mention of sperm: when they're on topic.
• There are already enough jokes about FBI agents/pron on the page.
• That content has no business being in an introduction.

Need more detail, or is that good enough? Remember: randomness is not humor.** Check professional humor sites (for example, The Onion) if you doubt this.

** -- Unless the randomness is ontopic. For example, surrealism. -- Rei 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is funny? The Internet is not something one just dumps something on (i.e. it is not a big truck). Rather, it is a series of tubes. Oh I get it--ha ha ha. The joke is in the revert you made. That's what's funny. Ha ha ha. It should be noted that while downloding porn leads to jerking off with Hitler... Ha ha ha. The internet loves to travel. Ha ha ha. Oh right and randomness is not funny. Like the page is not full of it. (Full of it, get it? Heh.) And ha ha ha. But seriously (am I allowed to say that?) I think what I wrote is at least as slightly droll and amusing as anything on the page. I mean what part of this page do YOU find funny? The internet is NOT a dumptruck And what's this obssession with trucks? I mean trucks are mentioned twice, maybe three or four times (like the FBI), and there's even a picture of a truck (but no pictures of FBI yet). Maybe I should run for sysop and start deleting all this unfunny stuff. Ha ha ha. And just so I shouldn't seem like I'm disagreeing merely to disagree (which would be stupid and not funny, and I don't want to break any rules) I think you're right, quotes are rarely funny, and a prime example are the Oscar Wilde quotes infesting practically every page, which have yet to bang up even a "one" on my Hilarity-Meter, though I've probably read several dozen. So why aren't you reverting them? Internet was discovered in ancient French caves in 1978. Ha ha ha, stop you're killing me. And by the way I didn't put anything into the Quotes section down below, so Ted Stevens' witty nothings (an internet was sent by my staff? this is funny?) have nothing to do with me. And who the fuck is Ted Stevens? Because if he's with Congress he should be in the dumptruck and getting run off a cliff. V3rt1g0 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, bad content is not an excuse for adding more bad content. This is a fundamental principle one should edit by. It doesn't matter if the article was all the letter Q; if you added something that wasn't funny, I would still RV you. Either be constructive or don't edit.

If you don't know who Ted Stevens is, A) you've been living in a cave, and B) you have no right to revert references which are gotten by the majority of the article's readership. The references to trucks and tubes are all about Ted; read what he said. It's not like the article doesn't link to it or anything.

P.S. I *do* revert unfunny Wilde quote additoins. Don't make unfounded accusations because it makes you feel better. -- Rei 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz/Richard Belzer

The addition of "According to Alan Dershowitz" in the "No Jews were killed because they knew in advance..." paragraph of the "9/11" article is funny. You can maintain that Alan Dershowitz saying something like that doesn't make with the funny for you in the least, but I'd have a difficult time believing you. I'd say you have lost your objectivity in this instance.

Talking purely in terms of the article as a whole... The article does not cohere successfully, it has no center of gravity. Right now the only funny in that article is the "Someone set up us the bomb" Black Box Excerpt, and the pictures. A bit of playfulness can help in a situation like that, raise the funny quotient to an acceptable level. Some jokes within jokes. Not entirely off topic, resonant humor. A bit of Belzer and his Kennedy's coffin conspiracies fit the bill nicely.

Maybe you feel that for you, contextually, the jokes don't work. That would be a more accurate comment, as opposed to a quick and ill-considered 'unfunny'. I take my humor very seriously, yet I find that I must keep a constant vigil lest I find myself weilding the funny like a bludgeon. I trust that you understand where I am coming from.

I will not revert it back again, because there is no need to quibble over trifles. I only point out that in our swiftness to dismiss, genuine humor may be lost. None of us are infallible in our quest to make with the funny, except of course the admins. --Dadada 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can revert the Dershowitz part and I won't contest it; that part was moderately funny to me. The rest, however, was completely unfunny, and rather than pick and choose, I was lazy and took out the whole chunk. I mean, come on -- ", except by Richard Belzer, who was later found in Kennedy's Coffin."? Please. The number two hit on google for "Richard Belzer", "Kennedy", and "Coffin" is that very uncyclopedia page that you edited. :P. If you think this is something that many people will get, you're quite mistaken.

Talking purely in terms of the article as a whole -- Stop right there. I'll refer you to the previous post on my talk page:

First off, bad content is not an excuse for adding more bad content. This is a fundamental principle one should edit by. It doesn't matter if the article was all the letter Q; if you added something that wasn't funny, I would still RV you.

The same holds here. Lastly, if you think the article isn't great now, you should take a look at what it was like before I got to it. -- Rei 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at it now, I have to agree with you... The Dershowitz might work, but the Belzer is overkill, and ruins the Dershowitz and anything else around it.. Another simple case of too many attempts at humor diluting the funny. There's something to be said for extensive editing. One of the reasons why I like this place.

And you're right; in comparison to what it was, the article now is a joy to read. Maybe one of these days it can get the full critical treatment (more editing). If I'm ever inspired to do something about it, and if I ever finish the crap I'm already working on, I'll run any changes by you before I edit, see what you think. Couldn't hurt. Thanks for the response. --Dadada 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for working to make uncyclopedia a better place.  :) -- Rei 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are on the image Hall of Shame

• I am pleased to tell you that you have not been forgotten, and that you are now, due to the strange workings of the alphabet, the bottom-most name on the VFP Hall of Shame. Congratulations, and may ye slowly climb the list as though it were a large ladder of shame, and not just a simple list. -- The Zombiebaron 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, you may want to archive this page, as it is rather long. -- The Zombiebaron 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) And yes, I planned to archive at around 40k, so I'll probably do that pretty soon. -- Rei 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cookie storage

Gert5 has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic.

Cookie number one from my free cookie giveaway

Internet

Just because the grammar of an article upsets you does NOT give you the right to blank that section... sorry, I'm ranting, but can you just leave it alone eh? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't "upset" me; it looks like a third grader wrote it. I will not abide such trash. Either fix it or expect it to be RVed. -- Rei 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because I spend all day deleting crap and restoring vandalised articles, I don't have the time to check the edit history of every single one to tell whether the reason you're deleting it is down to your own opinion, or what... and as another point... nobody "owns" any articles on this site, so don't for one second try to convince yourself that just because you apparently "maintain" it that it belongs to you... if you're genuinely that controlling then I suggest you create a fork of it... although that's bound to go down like a sack of shit, naturally.

Personally, I'm of the mind that despite the somewhat shoddy grammar, the edits themselves are fine and not quotespam or complete bullshit, hence the rule still stands... -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat? Try "you'd score poorly in third grade if you wrote like this on an exam." It'd be hard to make much worse. And while nobody "owns" any page, you should know by now that if you start trying to force significant amounts of controversial content on an article that a person has spent a lot of time on, you should do so expecting to be starting a fight. If you doubt this, go restore some of the random stuff that shows up on George W. Bush and see how long it takes. -- Rei 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed: "Third grade" appears to be somewhat kind. Looks like little Mason Fraker of Maplewood Co-Op School (first grade) writes far better. -- Rei 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush revert

Why did you revert my edit here? I noticed there were two editors who added stuff that wasn't funny after I had edited the article, and I can see why you would revert they're edits, but I thought my edit was very funny? Guess not though. -- Captain Yankee Talk Contribs CLICK HERE!!! 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are about five or six other people who would have RVed that if I hadn't first. It's completely not in-theme with the tone of the article, which is "false praise". If you want an article that has a different theme, try out George Dubya Bush. -- Rei 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that it was "false praise" only. But anyway, thanks for pointing out that other article! -- Captain Yankee Talk Contribs CLICK HERE!!! 03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This page does not exist & Oli

He's created it, protected it, and then put something in the javascript to make it appear as if it doesn't exist (it's a red link still when you get to it). –—Hv (talk) 18/05 18:32

Quite right... so many deleted edits it's just silly. however, come the next version of MediaWiki, when Wikia *finally* update us, the page can be protected in its formally non-existent state, but for now, this is fine. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Hiroshima&diff=1543933&oldid=1541931

Well I thought it was funny :(

You reckon theres anything about that joke I can change to give it less chance of offending someone? Or is my soul already condemned? Lemur 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There were already too many quotes for a "pull my finger" joke. -- Rei 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quidditch

You're an idiot if you call what I added spam, the entire article is stupid and unrelated to Quidditch, and is not funny in the slightest. Uncyclopedia is for making fun of things and twisting the truth, not making up random things to be stupid.

What you posted was a rant against what you called "the stupid game that is Quidditch" and included things like "It is the most stupid game ever created, never mind the fact that it isn't real." That is a rant, plain and simple, and is not in the least funny. The present article, at the very least, parodies the fact that all that generally really matters in the game is catching the snitch, and the rest is just in there for show. Lastly, please read properly: I called that "vandalism", not "spam". -- Rei 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mate, what I posted actually has to do with the sport. There is very little there that has ANYTHING to do with it, Lemmings, a clown, frank the bunny, all are stupid and not funny in the slightest. What I wrote may have been a bit of a rant but it still parodies the game of Quidditch. Try reading the article How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and see if you can pick something up.

1) That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was an rant, and was destined to be reverted. This is not a place for rants. 2) Everyone has a different sense of humor. This article parodies the fact that Quiddich has a bunch of random rules and isn't a well-put-together game, hence the reason for all of the nutty rules in the article. The reference that you pointed out ("How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid") is designed to stop articles like "Quidditch is a drunken llama named Bob who conquered the world in 2311," not articles that actually parody the randomness of something that actually has a bunch of random rules. -- Rei 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Spoiler

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - Penfish

Thank ya kindly  ;) -- Rei 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very original and creative. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Iceland

I reverted your edits because you turned the article into a one liner with an info box and removed the fix tag. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:39, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Can you defend that a single thing that I removed wasn't just awful? -- Rei 21:40, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

But now there's no article. It's just one line. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:41, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

At least people aren't going to wade through a bunch of nonsense to discover that they just wasted their time reading drivel. And it's not just one line; I think the infobox is half-decent now, and that's a good dozen lines.

Would a stub tag be a nice compromise? -- Rei 21:44, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:49, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

The article is great, thanks for going the extra mile here and explaining the jokes on the talk page, it's always great to know the motivation behind the jokes when they're as good as they are here! I sure hope you stick around, you have a great style! But don't think for a minute I'd like to read another article from you, that'd be foolish. :P Mattsnow 20:50, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well dang, I didn't notice that one of Uncyclopedia's finest double threats is back and writing again. Welcome back! Iceland's turning out nicely, I say. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 09:07, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I was just too tempted for this article -- I'm moving to the country and just love it, so I thought it could use a good roast  :) -- Rei 17:16, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs a few lines about how Iceland was supposed to be called Niceland as part of Viking real estate scam to attract settlers? Like 'Greenland' and 'Vinland' (or Winoland). Someone dropped the initial 'N'. Also perhaps a word about the Sagas as it was in Iceland the best known ones were composed. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:27, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I can add this info but thought I would check with you first as you're an active contributor. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:34, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

As per your request, I went and added a section on the sagas.  :) -- Rei 10:02, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

The stuff you've added today is kind of trite, however. Icelanders are promiscuous? use Facebook? include graffiti artists? Where do they not? Also a caption presumably in Icelandic--some would call that an inside joke. Spıke ¬ 18:31 30-Jun-12

Please let me know when you've figured out that A) I wrote this article, and B) it was voted a featured article. Takk. And FYI, these are Iceland-exemplary elements. Here's something about relationships in Iceland for your perusal, for the graffiti scene this, and for Facebook, [this and this. Basically, just because you don't know much about Iceland and would rather have an article written about nonsense that is actually nothing like the country doesn't mean that the article should be based on it. There's enough nonsense unrelated to the topics at hand on Uncyclopedia already. -- Rei (talk) 22:43, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I endorse humor that is based on reality. However, conceding that you are In The Know and I am not, and perhaps even that you are a V.I.P., my comment stands: Some of the stuff you added comes across as trite. It is not that it doesn't relate to Iceland. It is that it relates to everywhere else too. If you don't feel you need to accept this feedback, I am not inclined to do anything about it. Spıke ¬ 14:59 13-Jul-12

I referenced that it does not "relate to everywhere else too" in my reply to you; these are things that are exemplary about Iceland. Iceland has an unusually "fast into bed" dating culture ("dating" basically doesn't exist here, at least as Americans know the concept - there's no seeing someone without sleeping with them; if you think someone is attractive and interesting, you sleep with them, then you slowly get to know them after that, over the course of sleeping with them some more). The local graffiti scene is abnormally prolific and is more of an art here (think Banksy), to the point that it's had a book published about it. Reykjavík is just covered in graffiti murals, quite a few of which were explicitly permitted or even in some cases explicitly paid for, and they're often very elaborate. And, as linked, Iceland is #1 in the world in Facebook usage, and even "drafted a new constitution on Facebook" (not exactly, although that's how it was reported).

To sum up, if you both know nothing about Iceland and you're not going to follow the links, then we're not having a conversation, and are instead beginning a new article for "Talking With A Brick Wall". Hence the conversation ends here. -- Rei (talk) 00:48, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Question: How rampant are STDs in Iceland? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:15, 15 July 2012

Not my field. but given how people talk, I suspect it's high. A quick google search seems to suggest that also; for example, [this] makes it sound like Iceland's chlamydia rates are the highest in Europe, higher than south America, and are equivalent to those found in Africa. Icelanders are [are among the least] likely to use condoms in western Europe, too, because of starting to have sex so young. I'm sure that also has something to do with us being #1 or #2 in birthrate in Europe (some rankings put Ireland higher). -- Rei (talk) 11:04, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Gettin' my shots and movin' to Iceland. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Jul 15 '12 11:20 (UTC)

Lol, Iceland is a pretty awesome country for a lot more reasons than "lots of cute people with low inhibitions"  ;) But yes, to quote Quentin Tarantino: "The non-Icelandic male perspective is, I’m in a room full of supermodels who are drunk out of their mind standing up on a table” and “But you know it’s funny because normally in America, the idea is to get the girls drunk enough to go home with you? In Iceland, you get the girls home before they get so drunk that they’re passing out in your bathroom, or vomiting all over you. That’s the trick." Now, as the author notes, one should point out that not everyone goes out to bars and clubs all the time; buuuut.... -- Rei (talk) 18:27, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

And now you tell me there are cute people? I was willing to go when I just thought everybody lacked sexual inhibitions! Seriously, can somebody front me the money to fly to a place where sex is free and the geography is ice and fucking fire? Place is metal, dude. So metal. \m/ ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Jul 16 '12 5:07 (UTC)

Did you notice the "educational childrens' music" link?  ;) The crazy thing is, I actually *have* seen little kids, even younger than that, in the front row of a heavy metal concert, and there was even a school that held a "Skálmöld's Day" for the little kids in honor of the death metal band in the linked video (whose music actually *is* somewhat educational!) - the kids came in their best metal gear and rocked to the music during class  ;) Oh, and concerning the ice and fire thing, little known fact: you know how in Iceland both cold and hot water pipes come to the house, instead of just cold water, and people take advantage of the cheap hot water by using it like crazy? Most people here, even those who grew up here, don't know that a quarter of the city's abundant hot water comes from wells that are right downtown. Fire under our feet!  :) -- Rei (talk) 10:09, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

FIRE UNDER OUR FEET! (guitar chop) FIRE UNDER OUR FEET! RARRRRRRH! FIRE UNDER OUR FEET! ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Jul 16 '12 10:12 (UTC)

Inanimate

Cool. I personally fail to find humor in the adjective is all. For me it's a matter of subtlety in this case. Paper is never not inanimate, so I feel like I'm being hammered by a joke rather than kissed by it. But OK. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 23:10, September 18, 2012 (UTC) Oh and maybe you missed the news that I got assigned the job of UnNews editor - that is the main source of the edit in question. I am taking personal responsibility for the UnNews quality level. You will find I am very flexible and maintain a very wide margin for differing approaches, though I won't tolerate low quality and I am very biased toward great satire. So, thanks for being one of us nutty UnJournalists, and don't stop writing funny stuff. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 23:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

RecentUnNews template

Your friendly UnNews editor here, reminded you that this rule on the RecentUnNews template is in effect:

Step 1) If it's your own article, don't

There is a standard way to list these articles that needs to be adhered to. As the UNNews editor, I'll take care of it. The Google translate article is really funny though. Great idea.

Thanks. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 16:49, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice that. Thanks  :) -- Rei (talk) 17:00, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Instigating a revert war my friend

It is extrememly bad form to re-do an undo by the writer of a story - you are instigating a revert war. If you insist on the edit, you need to discuss it. No matter who the writer is, me or anyone else, if he or she undoes your edit on his or her own story, you should never redo it. You need to discuss it with them. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 19:13, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Not starting a war - if you want to use a (proportionally) rare spelling of word, that's fine. But since you felt the need to "correct" me with an inaccurate correction, I wanted to clear up the record. The common word is "adviser". But again, if you want to use the rare spelling, go right head; I have no plans to edit it anymore.  :) -- Rei (talk) 00:23, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

And, FYI, the only reason I changed it in the first place was because my spellcheck flagged it. -- Rei (talk) 00:36, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

And lastly, concerning the change that was going along with the shift - "claiming to be" vs. "revealing himself to be" - perhaps you misunderstood and thought me a Romney fan. Just the opposite. But "revealing himself to be" is a more partisan way to write the article (aka, more likely to drive people off with different political views) when you can achieve the same level of humor with "claiming to be". To put the shoe on the other foot, remember Obama's "guns and religion" comment? Picture the difference between an article saying "The Obama campaign is struggling today to find ways for the candidate to achieve greater levels of elegance when revealing himself to be a Christian-hating gun-confiscating elitist." vs "The Obama campaign is struggling today to find ways for the candidate to achieve greater levels of elegance when claiming to be a Christian-hating gun-confiscating elitist.". See the difference in terms of partisanship? See the lack of a difference in terms of effect on the concept?

Just my two cents. -- Rei (talk) 00:43, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

For my two cents - satire is usually stronger the closer it is to "true". The case in point here to me is that Romney would never make that claim - that's a blatant absurdity, and not funny at all. It's far better satire in my view for my author character to make a truth claim and expose his own bias and run with it. As for advisor vs. adviser, you are pulling statistics out of your or the internet's ass with that, without a shred of real evidence. I read a few internet comparisons myself, and they variously said "adviser" is four times more common (again without any evidence cited) to them being virtually identical. Some evidence I did gather was that real life news organizations make it consistent, and there are far more than one tenth (your absurd "order of magnitude" claim) of papers that opt for "advisor". Still others believe that "adviser" has a general connotation, while "advisor" has an official capacity connotation. I buy this argument on the grounds that, as my research discovered, the vast majority of official titles in U.S. business and government are spelled "Advisor". FTW. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 02:18, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Look, even my spellcheck says you're wrong about adviser/advisor. The CCAE says it's 20 times more common in American English. The BNC says it's 6 times more common in British English. The Associated Press even prohibits the use of the spelling "advisor". Why are we even arguing about this? These are facts. You used the rare spelling. Period.

Heck, want to play the "Google News Poll" game *specifically* for the term "campaign adviser" vs. "campaign advisor"? The former gets 1720 hits and the latter 234, a ratio of 7.4 to 1.

Are you this disturbed by being corrected that you can't even take a spelling correction? Heck, why even bother going into the nuances of humor and how there's no point to driving off half your potential internet audience with a wording choice that provides no humor benefit, when you can't even accept a *spelling correction*? -- Rei (talk) 09:41, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

See that? Research is cool. The spelling of advisor/adviser is a silly argument and a distraction. It matters not at all. They are both acceptable, so let it go. The wording change was kind of an important principle. Driving off half my audience? Yeah, that's a start. I hope every writer can match or exceed that figure, whether from one position or another. Let me quote TKF here: "Comedy shouldn't be mainstream. We should alienate. We should confuse and piss off. As long as we entertain." "Claiming" was not funny at all, while "Revealing himself to be" provides some humor benefit. Humor is an inexact art form, and De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. But one thing is absolutely certain - UnNews is not somehow funnier when it appears nuetral. Period. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 14:22, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Unnews is funniest when it sounds like news. Sounding like a partisan hack does not sound like news. And "claiming to be" doesn't change the joke one iota. Lastly, I have no plans to touch the article again, so if you want to leave it at that, go right ahead. You're free to write things that don't sound like news and use rare spellings to your heart's content. I just recommend in the future you try not to be so protective or thin-skinned. -- Rei (talk) 15:02, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

As the Dude said, "That's just like, your opinion, man." Anyway the main issue here is being ignored. No matter who the author is - even if it's an unfunny stinking n00b - never redo when the author of a piece undoes a change you made. That's called a revert war. Handle it another way. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 15:44, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about Uncyclopedia, but the Wikipedia standard is three reverts is a problem. And again, never would I have imagined that I was dealing with a user for whom a spelling correction would be treated as a "revert war". -- Rei (talk) 02:14, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Again, the spelling thing is a non-issue. I think I typed "The spelling of advisor/adviser is a silly argument and a distraction". In fact I know I did, because I just copied and pasted it from above there. I know I only called the spelling thing out on my undo, but that'smy little subtle nature - and that's my bad. The real problem was the joke change. In general, the three revert thing you mention is correct, but that wasn't my statement. Since I first Uncyc'd here, the principle has been not to ever redo an undo from an article's author. Talk about it. Peace. Write funny stuff now. Let's stop bickering and write funny stuff now. I'll give you the last word if you need it. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 02:25, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you the last word if you need it. -- "Adrenocorticotropic".  ;) -- Rei (talk) 18:51, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Slender

I responded to your comments on the VFH page. I'm not asking for you to change your vote, you're entitled to hold it, but I would appreciate some feedback regarding what you think is wrong. In order to provide some clarity I have moved the article to "Slender (Video Game)" as opposed to simply "Slender". Are there any other issues? --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 20:02, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Even knowing what it is now... there's not much humor to it if you've never played the game (I can't always tell what's real and what's made up), and even "Slender (video game)" wouldn't tell me whether the whole thing is a real game or just something you made up.

It's not your fault - I mean, if I wrote an article about "Kastljós", would you expect to get it? Even after I explained that it's an Icelandic news talk show? It's a context problem. I'm just lacking the necessary background for it to be funny to me. Sorry! -- Rei (talk) 00:15, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

UnNews:Assange: Obama exploiting Arab Spring, and also, I have no sense of irony

You are above the fold. Great piece. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 16:25, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch.  :) - Rei (talk) 16:55, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Racism In Cats

That's fair enough, it's not like many of the articles on here. Apart from actual racism in a marginal way it's not meant to parody anything, more written to read like a serious article only with nonsense subject matter. I'd written it out before not intending to publish it anywhere, but was interested to see what it would look like on here so put it up with the pictures and captions. Perhaps Uncyclopedia isn't really the place for it, but other people seem to like it. Thanks for the feedback.

User:Eradeziel/Eradeziel (talk) 21:13, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

No problem - sorry I didn't enjoy it. But still, it was at least well-written.  :) -- Rei (talk) 23:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Cool, no worries. Cheers :)

User:Eradeziel/Eradeziel (talk) 23:32, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Thanks for the nom and your work on the article. I think you deserve a credit for that story! Add 1/2 a point to your total! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:46, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks  :) But you really deserve all the credit for it, my changes were pretty minor. And it deserved the nom.  :) -- Rei (talk) 01:16, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on one of your articles

Somebody fiddled your article, and I don't know what to do with it. Doesn't really add anything to it, seems out-of-place, and it's a change to an article that was already freakin' featured, but I don't know if I should just plow over them, so I'm going to be lazy and leave it up to you. :D  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 23 '12 12:16 (UTC)

Takk -- Rei (talk) 17:18, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Það var ekkert.  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Nov 24 '12 9:55 (UTC)

I peed

Spent a notable amount of time on your userpage checking out your edited images. You're amazing. And that's my biggest understatement of the year so far. Wish I were as good a potatochopper as you are. And wish you had used your sublime mastery in your article that I reviewed. First review ever. Hope you are well. -Tumb13weed (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And did I mention? Your edits are awesome!