Forum:An Upcoming Forest Fire Week

Forums: Index > Village Dump > An Upcoming Forest Fire Week

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6066 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

As it stands, it has been almost a year since our last Forest Fire Week. That was in November 2006. Currently, we have just had a Conservation Week, and I think that it would only be natural to follow a weak of mass saving with a week of burning everthing that cannot, willnot, or won't ever be saved. So, basically, just as soon as Jacques and THE finish up their Conservation Week (September 15th, I am told), we should mount a full scale Forest Fire Week. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

/me takes out stick on fire. The leprechaun told me to burn things! >:D - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You too? Wow, that little guy sure gets around.... /me goes off to siphon gas from my parents' car. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:53, Sep 11, 2007

Votes

Score: +9

• Natural For as per above. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• NO, NEVER. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:20, 11 Sep 2007

  Not to just Copy&paste the arguments from last time, but they still stand. If you desperately need something gotten rid of, VFD it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:27, 11 Sep 2007

• For per OEJ, only so many articles will be-rewritten (i.e. 100) and we have thousands of other crappy pages that just need to go down the toilet--Sir Manforman 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• For 4 edit conflicts--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• For - There is too much crap on Uncyclopedia. Also, FU SPANG. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 23:21, September 11, 2007
• STRONG FOR We need to burn some o' this shit down. -RAHB 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• For. Rewriting stuff for conservation week has brought home to me just how few of the "rewrite" tagged articles are saved even by an officially sanctioned effort. A little simple math: about 40% of the articles I hit on using random page come up bad. (That's completely subjective.) However, I conservatively estimate there are maybe 9000 articles in the database that are not good to the point of being really bad. (Except that the random page function isn't really random, I believe...so it could be more.) Conservation workers have rewritten perhaps 80 of the officially tagged articles. That's less than 1% of what needs to be done. Granted a FF week will probably only take out another 10%...but...*/is overwhelmed by feelings of futility/* ----OEJ 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  The random page function favours newer articles, I believe. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:43, 11 Sep 2007

  That means it favors newer, untried, more-likely-to-be-crap articles. I had not realized that. It's another discussion, I suppose. ----OEJ 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• For per OEJ. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:35, Sep 11, 2007
• Against. As always. --PantsMacKenzie 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against We were doing fine getting rid of the crap last time someone said this. We're still doing fine getting rid of the crap. When we stop doing fine getting rid of the crap (which may be never) let's have a Forest Fire week then. "We haven't had one for ages" is not a good reason. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• For --General Insineratehymn 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against as per Spang. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fore, because I have a mind of my own and don't suck up to the admins. :) - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• BIG FOR. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• For As far as I'm concerned, the articles that really blow chunks out of a monkey's butt are numerous enough to warrant an occasional mass burning. The VFD and QVFD processes both do a good enough job of filtering out the crap that appears in the Recent changes, but what about the stuff that gets backed up, having slipped through the fingers of the Recent change-watching spooks? You may brush and floss your teeth very day, but you still need to visit the dentist occasionally. In my obnoxiously humble opinion, it's better to just do away with something that has no chance of survival than to put a tag on it, requesting a rewrite. If the subject of the article has any hope at all, then someone can start it anew (which, I should think, they are more likely to do if the article shows up as a red link). --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• One small correction - VFD is not for recent changes stuff - it is usually for old stuff, as evidenced by the recent war over the term "2005cruft". -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Against as per Strange but Untrue. The good ideas that are crappily executed are sent to ICU, the crappy ideas that are crappily executed are sent to death row, and the cream of the crap is shipped straight to orbit. So long as the Ban Patrol is still active and admins continue to huff all VFD and QVFD articles, as well as any others that they run across while in a bad mood, crap articles will continue to be taken care of and the morons who write them are being infinibanned. If we set every user on uncyclopedia loose to try and eliminate every page that rubs them the wrong way, there will be far to many good ideas lost to the vast reaches of the internet. If the right artice reaches the right person, it could become one of the best articles on this website. That's the basis of conservation week. But going around destroying articles because the user who wrote it, despite wanting to make it a good, respectable article, is incapable of writing a comprehensible article to save their lives is not the right way to go. If the article has a good concept, then it should have a chance. If it doesn't, it goes to hell. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong for. I don't believe in huffing crap before it gets a chance to flourish, but anything old and unfunny needs destruction. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:44 Sep 12, 2007
• Against Per Spang/Strange but Untrue/PantsMacKenzie/CHAINSAW THAT IS ON FIRE --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 02:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Chill, Winston. That's a pop culture reference. I'm cool like that. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) For. OEJ swayed me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against Tastes do differ. Just because some of us think that a joke is old and stale does not make that true for all Pieface 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against - From my experience with the Random Page button, it doesn't appear to me that our situation is anywhere near as bad as OEJ is suggesting. Personally I think VFD is working well enough to get rid of the really crap pages, which there doesn't seem to be many of at the moment. Most possibly-VFD-worthy articles with some good ideas can be saved by a quick cleanup, removal of lists and general randomness. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 06:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fire---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• BURN IT ALL!!! - I've never seen a FFW in action before. Can't wait to participate. Famine will be pleased. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the immortal words of Keitei, EXTREME LESBIAN AGAINST because I am lazy and either way, you can't make me. :P —Hinoa talk.kun 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Per SBU. I think what we already have in place is doing a decent job, let's not end up getting trigger happy and risk throwing a comedy baby out with the crufty bathwater. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Too much decent stuff gets killed and too many half decent things get deleted instead of fixed. We already do a good job at deleting the cruft, lets not just kill for the sake of killing. I'd sooner have a regular Fix Up an Article Week.-- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Against. Uncyclopedia against deletionism, yeah! -- Hindleyite Converse 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against. The death cultists of Uncyclopedia must be stopped! ~ 08:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against. We just spent a week saving formerly firewood-quality articles, having a FFW now would be retarded and not just stupid... ...Also, Second Mordillo. Mr. Briggs Inc. 10:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Eh?
• For. See rant below. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• ForEst Ist nur ein Eisenbahnhinundherschiber, Und ve can't have zhat, now can ve ? --Vosnul 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• For With conditions. If we don't enact FFW, we DO need to give the uncyc a good pore-through to find Ye Olde Articles Thate Sucke. If not FFW, we need vigilance week.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against per above arguments, per previous arguments, and per previous previous arguments. I agree theres a lot of crap, but I think we can come up with a better idea of how to handle it. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• For. Been stockpiling matches and petrol for a while now - long overdue. RabbiTechno 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Dig Honestly people, the amount of crap on this site takes away from our legitimacy as the greatest wiki on the internet, second in comedic stature only to the great Wikipedia herself. --THINKER 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• For Get me an oxyacetylene torch, several lead pipes, and a crate of Guinness. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• F☭R,
• No possible way I want one Ugh. Smoke kills people, you know! Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!
• FOR GENOCIDE!!!! crappy articles need to be all BURNED!--Scott 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG FOR Look to all you above who are voicing their opinions against. I'll simply point you to This. This is where I keep all crap I find and that I want to place on VFD. The majority of that list was found by ten minutes of pressing the "Random page" button. It would take a couple of weeks at least to get all that on VFD, voted on and huffed/saved. If I can find that in ten minutes, just think what we could do with a week of getting rid of the stuff that doesn't belong here. Also I have an Idea for changing FFW slightly. We have three categories:
  

One: The "I am absolutely positive that this is utter shit please delete" Category
Two : The "I think it's deleteable" category
Three: The "I'm not sure about this one guys, any suggestions?" Category

That should minimise the collateral damage to borderline saveable articles. And should keep the conservationalists happy -- (Bonner) (Talk) 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More discussion stuff

I have to disagree with those who say all the crap is getting adequately flushed. I started hunting down and eradicating useless Chuck Norris references, and of the first 11 articles turned up by the text search 10 were what I would consider utter crap -- randumb, riddled with bad grammar and clich&eacutes, and mostly incoherent. I suppose it comes with the territory, though. ----OEJ 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The simple truth is that VFD and QVFD can only do so much. There are articles laying around the site that just suck, and give us a bad name. The good ideas should be kept, or listed, or whatever, but pure shit needs to go. FFW OR BUST! -RAHB 06:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

VFD would be able to do more if more people voted on it. Who knows, maybe we could even increase the article limit to 20 or 25 if we had a dedicated team of about 30 users who vote on 25 or more VFDed articles a week. At the moment I'd say we only have about 10 VFD regulars, partly because some of our most regular voters have left, including Alksub and UNKNOWNFILE. I don't think anyone who doesn't vote on at least 15 articles per week on VFD should be voting for another FFW, because those people should consider themselves partly at fault for our rather slow crap cleaning rate. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 07:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

VFD isn't the only place with low votes. Recently, VFH'd pages have been getting FA'd with numbers like 15 votes, which is nothing considering a month or two ago it took around 20 to get featured, and often even more. Users just don't want to vote on stuff anymore, I guess. I, for one, have tons of respect for people that regularly vote on VFD. A good chunk of the pages there are long and bad, stuff that I'm never able to read. I'll try to help out, make it through two pages, and have to stop. And after all that, school is in again, so maybe some folks are busy with school and homework. I know I am. Even as I type this, there is a stack of books, binders, and notebooks behind me that I'm dreading picking up. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:57, Sep 12, 2007

It just occurred to me there's proof we don't need another FFW right under our noses: The Poopsmith's Lounge. After all, in some ways (and I'm sure people will argue this point) this is a bit like a permanent Forest Fire Week. You report articles that are crap, they get huffed (albeit rather slower). My point is that we're not anywhere near overflowing with rubbish in there. So my question is: if we're overflowing with rubbish in general, why has it not found its way into the Poopsmith's Lounge, hmm? --A perplexed (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was against the The Poopsmith's Lounge in the first place, and I most certainly don't believe it's a "permanent FFW". You can argue it all you want, but FFW is very beneficial. The only argument that has been brought against FFW is that we "don't need it". Well, you're probably right. But on the other hand, we don't need a Conservation Week, but we have it to encourage people to help rewrite articles and maintain quality. We don't need a Poo Lit Surprise, but it helps boost writing quality at Uncyclopedia. I don't know what some of you nay-sayers think FFW is about, but just so you know, it's about encouraging people to contribute to the VFD, QVFD, and help maintain quality here on Uncyclopedia. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And here was me thinking it was just about getting rid of accumulated crap like everyone above is saying... :-P -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, SbU, it's still probably about deleting crap as well. But, I'd guess that the long term effects on VFD and QVFD are as e|m|c prophesies. Of course, I really wouldn't know, I've only been here since April... P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:25, Sep 12, 2007

Well, not exactly, for us regular users, FFW is all about us normal-non admin users being able to BURN IT ALL!! Like some other admins. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, people who want to be able to delete stuff feel like they get a chance to do so. Great. That's exactly what we need.

And emc, no, it's not about that, because VFD and qVfD are hardly used during FFW. It's basically qvfd with the time limit removed. How about, you have your own personal FFW, where you just add everything you would have listed for deletion at FFW, at the Poopsmith's lounge instead. It's exactly the same, except that any article that is actually worth keeping is given a fair chance. Perhaps you don't like the fair chance bit?

And the argument against isn't so much we don't need it, as it's nothing VFD can't handle. It might take a bit longer, but there's hardly a time limit this stuff absolutely needs to be deleted by.

I have a feeling there's a lot that might be kept if VFD'd, that people don't want to be given a chance, because pretty much anything short listed at a FFW page will be huffed. It's a fun way of bypassing the system designed to protect such articles.

Also, how can you have a FFW if only one sysop wants to do it? That's not a FFW, it's zombiebaron running round deleting anything he wants to, which is never a good idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:39, 12 Sep 2007

The only time limit is inherent in the number of poorly-executed new articles being added. It the rate of VFD deletion is much less than the rate of poor article creation, then poor articles increase. Given VFD << BAD, BAD++. ----OEJ 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what QVFD is for!!! QVFD is a permanant forest fire week: you list articles for deletion, and an admin deletes them without a vote. That's exactly what forest fire week is! In theory, all new articles that would have been suitable for FFW huffing should have been qVFD'd or ICU'd already. And the number of bad articles slipping through both those systems can and will be picked up by VFD eventually. Really, it's not as bad as you're making out.

You're also not considering all the other articles that get created that aren't bad. An article doesn't have to get on the front page to be a good article, or just to make someone laugh. I fully believe that the vast majority of bad articles are caught by qVFD and ICU, and the number that slips though is more than compensated by the number of good articles that are being added. So the overall quality, while not trending towards an entire encyclopedia of feature-quality articles (impossible without starting a new wiki and selectively stealing from this one) is trending towards more good than bad. And the bad is easily picked up by VFD. If you really think there's more bad being created than good, lurk at new pages doing qVFD and ICU more. And there are tools to make doing this especially easy. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:01, 13 Sep 2007

QVFD only works as well as the input that we get in it. I'm fairly sure that most of the entries to QVFD are new articles, not old crap, as trolling RC is usually more convenient. As I understand it, the purpose of FFW is to shift focus on finding said old crap in addition to stemming the flow of new crap, all of which we would indiscriminately delete ANYWAY. It's kind of like why advertisers draw attention to their product even if everyone already knows it exists. It's to make a point of finding really shitty older articles and deleting them as necessary. As such, it does act like an enhanced QVFD, but really, how is that a bad thing?--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with FFW over qvfd is the standards are also much more stringent/relaxed, however you want to look at it. An article that may get ICU'd or just kept at normal times is a lot more likely to get huffed instantly during FFW. With VFD, they may well still get deleted, but there's a lot more chance that the one with redeeming qualities will be checked more than the 5 - 10 second skim an admin would do for FFW. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 09:59, 13 Sep 2007

See the thing is that, at some point, if we can't have FFW, I'd like in its stead to be some sort of Vigilance Week, because, to be honest, there's is a whole lot of crap. I don't know what you do on this wiki but be contrarian in the forums and put in 10 minutes of RC patrol at a time, but maybe you could spend some time in Newpages, RC, or look over shortpages, VFD, QVFD and actual CONTENT. (Like that last time where I asked you to patrol RC on IRC and Lego did it instead of your lazy ass). Additionally, given your evaluation of DPX's stuff below, I'm not even sure if you should be an admin.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What would vigilance week entail exactly (sorry if you already said, I couldnt find it.) I agree with you that there is a lot of crap, but I think FFW is a really messy and counterproductive way of dealing with it. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vigilance?

In response to Rangeley. It was mostly implied, but. If Spang says QVFD/VFD is as good a tool as it actually is in removing cruft, let's make use of the system, tax it even, and see if more user input will help us clean it up. I suggest that users, instead of finding articles to improve, find articles that are, in fact, delete-worthy.

If we're gonna make a system out of it:

• Encourage users to click Random Page and weed through the articles.
• Create a new page to post "vigilance" pages. Accompanying tags work as well
• Vigilance is reserved for articles with a high likelihood for inevitable deletion. Posting a page there will let users and admins know that "Hey, this article needs attention, but it's not the run-of-the-mill crappy one-liner that needs to be taken care of NOW". Any Vigilance articles that are not arbited or adopted are either deleted or VFD'd at the end of the week. (We can vote to consensus on this)
• ICU tags function as normal
• QVFD retains is use for the awful articles that need to go NOW.
• VFD articles are for gray area articles(which is how I use it: when I'm not sure if something should be deleted). The limit on articles to VFD is upped to faciliate voting during this time.

If not, then we simply ask users to cut back on writing a bit and help us weed out bad articles by voting them to VFD, QVFD, or tagging them. In this case:

• Drop the time limitation on adding QVFD articles and ICUs. Use them on old pages as if they were written this week. QVFD is still a death sentence, but at least we can see where we are in terms of things that need writing help with ICU.
• With ICU, current users can adopt them. Any ICUs older than 1 week not taken by the end of the week are either deleted or put on VFD (we'll figure it out)
• The limit on articles to VFD is still upped to faciliate voting during this time.

It's gonna be a week of hell of VFD and QVFD but admins should be helping by patrolling VFD, voting on articles, and helping current patroladmins with RC/Newpages.

How is this different from normal? Basically, I want people to step up QA monitoring. If what we have now works well, the rate we have it it's not really enough to keep going at said rate. Stuff still falls through the cracks, and becomes old stuff that we don't delete. Let's step it up a little and remove the statute of limitations and clean out stuff that does need cleaning. It's a compromise on FFW, I think. Vigilance articles aren't an automatic death sentence, like in FFW, but are instead handed over to admins to deal with at their discretion. General increased use of QVFD, VFD, and ICU should make the cleaners happy, while the keepers get the fair evaluation that they'd like. It's very crude, but that's how I'd liek to see it. If there's no FFW, I want to see a slightly different use of the system we have in place.

Yes, it's bureaucracy and red tape. We can even do without it and call for more vigilance for old articles that suck, adn expand VFD a bit to let people add whatr they think needs attention.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. I dont like seeing bad articles slip through the cracks, but I think that the lack of "oversight," so to speak, in Forest Fire Weeks makes a lot of good/alright content slip through the cracks and get deleted. This appears to be the sort of system change/week that will improve the ratio of humor to crap, while not lowering the total net humor that exists on this site (especially when coupled with Conservation week.) ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like this suggestion, why not a "spring cleaning week" (We could constantly claim it is spring, even if it isn't, for humor value) to help do some site-wide cleanup? We could start a page similar to the UN:CW page, and we could vote at the end of the month for the most helpful users, who would get some sort of award. I'd even make a userbox template, for the event, if you like. As always, I'm for anything that improves the Q:C ratio. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:26, Sep 14, 2007

Heres my idea on the subject. Why don't we have at least 2 people tag the article for deletion. Make three templates, 1 that says "this article has been nomed by user xfor FFW", one that says "user x and user y have decided to delete this article. Famine, Make it so." and a third that says that user y has decided that this article could be redemed, and due to the difference of oppinion, this article has been put up for vote to see if it dies or not." If both say delete it, it gets huffed. If one says delete and another says keep, throw it on VFD (or some other, temporary, deletion voting center where things move quicker due to less need for waiting) to see what the general majority of people think.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a whole lot less efficient, and more complicated, than a Vigilance week to me. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A Field Test

I thought it might be prudent to collect some data on the quality of random pages within the database. Each of these articles was found by clicking on Special:Random. I personally agree with OEJ's opinion on this issue, so my interpretation of the results may be skewed. Feel free to collect your own results.

Article	Quality	Age	Hope of recovery?
College Dorms	Not good. No pictures, has unfunny memes and lists, and lacks both coherence and humor. A classic example of n00b-created junk.	Created in Dec 2005, last edited in July 2007.	I highly doubt it. In all fairness, this sort of thing usually gets a {{rewrite}} tag, but seriously, is the chance of someone rewriting so great that it would be a crime to delete it? Not in my opinion.
Maesteg	Even worse. Towncruft, it starts with a gay joke and has an unfunny list to boot.	Created on Sept 4, tagged with ICU the next day. Unedited since then.	It's ICU expires today (Sept. 12), so rewriting it is a moot point.
Easy Bake Oven	Poor writing and chock-full-o'-political 'humor' (i.e. "Republicans/Democrats! LOL!").	Created in June '07, no edits since June 21.	Good topic, poor execution. Not worth keeping.
Animal Crackers	Uses the same 'brainwashing conspiracy' gag as the above article. Slightly better written... but not much.	Created Dec '06, last edited July 17, 2007.	I can understand why many people would want to give this one a chance, but it's had a chance since December of last year. It's not that good.
Fiber One	Poor. Formulaic '[insert title here] is the most [insert adjective(s) here]' article.	Created and edited on July 5 and 6, 2007. Untouched since then.	I wouldn't rewrite it. Would you? Would you be willing to rewrite it RIGHT NOW, and promise to make it wonderful by this time two weeks from now? Didn't think so.
Starship Troopers	Ugh. Couldn't find any actual jokes within the first two paragraphs. I honestly couldn't tell if this was meant to be funny.	Created Sept '05, last edited Nov '06.	I doubt any of the original article would be present in a rewrite, and genuine rewrites are rare indeed.
Chimay Blue	Okay, I've seen worse. Still, it's dry to the point of being boring, and no pictures.	Created in March '07, last edited Sept 10.	Moderate chance of recovery. The topic seems pretty bloody obscure, though.
Wormhole	Short, contains kitten-memes, has two equally boring articles sprouted off of it, and barely coherent.	Created Apr '05, last edited July '07.	Obviously this article has to exist, but shame on all of us if this is the best we can manage.
Red Riding Hood	Listcruft, and otherwise doubleplusungood.	Created Jan '07, last edited June '07.	The chance of fixing this article, in its current state, is so small that it may actually approach the negatives.
The Arthropod Kingdom	Icky. No pictures, pretty boring, with only a hint of interesting concept.	Created Jan '06, last edited Apr '07.	Eh. I'd say it's had its chance to evolve, so why not stomp it now?

Of the ten articles listed above, none has a history of more than 50 edits. If it were up to me, I'd probably smite half of them this instant. Thank goodness it's not up to me, but I think having a zillion articles of this quality warrants a few days of chain-huffing to cut off at least the bottom 50 percent. I would collect more data, but my system is pretty damn slow. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, to get it out of the way, I liked Animal Crackers, Fiber One, Chimay Blue, Wormhole and The Arthropod Kingdom. I don't know whether others would agree, but FFW of course would bypass that and delete all of them regardless. In fact it would more or less delete anything not liked by one person and with even a bad first sentence, unless Zombie gets a lot more careful for FFW than he is when cleaning out the list of articles with expand tags on (I'm sorry Zombie, but it does annoy me when you delete everything without really looking at it and whether it's been expanded or not).

Secondly, the analysis itself. To get meaningful results, you would of course need to list the first ten results from random, not just the first ten bad ones (which I think might be what you've done?) Otherwise, from a statistical point of view, you could have clicked a million times and found the only ten bad articles. I might try and do my own in a bit, wherein I won't be saying things like "It's okay, but it's had a bit of a chance so delete it". -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just list the ten worst articles I found, these are the ten articles I came up with in the order they appeared. If I had clicked on a zillion articles and found ten bad ones, they would have been much, much worse. That's why half of them are not too terribly bad, I understand that. But if you liked five of them, then where does that leave the remaining five? As I said, a FFW can serve to trim that bottom 50%, which is still a pretty significant number. Also, Maesteg is ready for the trash heap now, I think. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I could care less or not, does these deserve to be burnt

Ok, I think I may have created a few shitty articles, but take a look on the articles I created, which of those you believe would be nominated for the "forest fire" stuff:

• Glenn Beck
• DickNet
• Piplup
• Torchic
• Manaphy
• Jack Bauer rapes Dawn, arrested, and then got pardoned and have a free trip to Jamaica
• Vladimir Putin showing off his supreme hotness in Siberia
• Straitjacket
• Pod People
• dystopia
• Rise Against
• The Über Pokéemo Sociopath

Oh and my Manaphy article is the worst IMO, there isn't much to say, so i threw off references of Christianity.

Rise Against is one of my favorite punk rock bands, I'll be working on it more, problem is I can't find any good pictures, might as well create one.--Dark Paladin X 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me to delete your articles? I'd be happy to. Anytime. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only ones you can freely delete now are DickNet, the uber pokeemo sociopath and Manaphy, i can care less on these articles. The rest don't touch (especially rise against). Apparently, what's unique of the Rise Against article unlike others is that I didn't use any profane words.--Dark Paladin X 22:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing all of your pages on a forum about deleting pages either means that you've got giant balls, or you're from Bizarro World. In Bizarro World, incidentally, they have giant balls. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I say we fling these up on VFD and see how they do.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All at once? His articles could have a we-may-or-may-not-be-facing-imminent-death,-but-in-case-we-are,-we-might-as-well-make-the-most-of-our-time-left party! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How about not, You can get rid of my Manaphy, Dicknet, and the emo articles. The rest you should not touch, as I would change them once in a while.--Dark Paladin X 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones I checked (most of them) aren't deletion quality articles. They could probably do with a proofread and minor tidying, but there's definitely no problem here for which deletion is the answer. Of those I checked anyway. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:03, 14 Sep 2007

Another little tip - don't tell admins they mustn't do things. It makes our trigger fingers itch. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is one thing that admins mustn't do, it's wash my car. They should also try their hardest not to vacuum the interior. Don't forget to avoid vacuuming up the french fries under the passenger's seat. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is now a smoldering hole where your house use to stand. With the Union Jack perched on top of it. ~ 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! So I've got a flag now? Before, it was just a smoldering hole. Ah, smoldering hole, sweet smoldering hole. I hope that's not a euphemism. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

/me stands to attention and salutes the smoldering hole. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I really hope that's not a euphemism. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Be glad it's not meant as a metonymy, that could go wrong in every which way direction. -Vosnul 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So basically...

...after all this fighting it's pretty much the same result as last time, where a bunch of users say "burn" and nearly all the admins say "no". -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just like that time I was accused of being a witch. Still have joint pain from the thumbscrews. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

With the important differnence that you'll all just have to suck it up and deal with the positive score. Esspecially on Sunday. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Codeine's 2 pence worth (approximately 3.9 US cents at current exchange rates)

May I ask each of you who voted "against" to spend just half an hour or so each day going through Special:Newpages? You see, normally, I perform that particular task and I spend nearly every second of that half hour deleting utter, utter cruft. We're more popular than ever bigger than Jesus, which means that there's a tremendous volume of shit being contributed at the moment, and a lot of it is slipping through the net.

Now, you all know me, I don't give a fuck, so every day is a forest fire day for me; if I can see a joke or even an idea of one within 15 seconds of looking at a page, it gets to live. If not, it dies on the spot. Bottom line: The crap to quality ratio must be continuously monitored if we're to continue enjoying the reputation we've had for the past two and a half years. Otherwise we're just another shitty site full of spastic ramblings. I'm not prepared to tolerate that, and I don't believe any of you are, either.

Just to finish on a positive note, the fact that we enjoy such a good reputation for parody and satire has also led to a dramatic increase in the quality and quantity of genuinely excellent articles over the past year. So we can all feel proud of that; but let's be ruthless with the shit ones. We owe it to ourselves. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is lonely being a Newpages patroller (which I only do when I have access to a faster connection, as I am sadly stuck on dialup at the moment). However, my against vote remains, for the reasons I have already specified.

Also, now that we are talking about deletion again, could I mention that this piece of vanity shit has somehow managed to survive for three days? Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget FFW for now (there's no consensus), but I agree on Special:Newpages. Just spent all of five minutes there and found a massive amount of QVFDable and ICUable articles, some of which are almost over a week old and thus ineligible. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:49 Sep 14, 2007

I agree very muchly with Codeine. I haven't been to Newpages much lately, but especially over the summer I did a bit of maintenance around there-- ICUs, QVFDs, and the like. Yeah, it's a crapflood, and I seriously doubt that anybody can check all the pages, so some must be slipping through the cracks. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:25, Sep 14, 2007

I'm with Codeine.

I figured I'd mention that about two hours ago I checked newpages, and I think I found one page that I liked and fixed up a bit, while most of the rest I wound up QVFDing, ICUing, or ignoring due to WiP tags. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:54, Sep 15, 2007

I'm also with Codeine -RAHB 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear, Codeine! New Pages gets littered with bullshit, a staggering percentage of which you can generally point a random finger at and label "shit" before you look at it. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 09:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about changing ICU?

I was thinking that ICU should be changed to three or five days instead of seven. Because IP's and new users would see that they have only three days to improve on it, they'll be more motivated to improve it as soon as possible. However, if they abandon it, it won't linger around as long due to the reduced stay of execution. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:46, September 15, 2007

That's a good idea. But we still need to delete all the old crap though--Sir Manforman 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

At least this will help take care of the newer ones. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:51, September 15, 2007

That's a pointless idea. I don't see anything wrong with seven days. They get huffed all at once anyway, what difference does it make? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:52 Sep 15, 2007

I disagree. Three days would (in theory) work better. Consider: after seven days, considerably more crap has piled up for deletion in ICU. Ergo, there is more for the admin deleting to huff. Ergo, said admin is lazy and doesn't do it. Yet another advantage to this system is that it adds more of sense of urgency to the improvement process. This means that the author will either A) Improve it faster or B) Ignore it, signifying forgettance (a word, believe it) of said article. I could be wrong, but I'm not. No I'm not (NAME THAT REFERENCE!).-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, should we also put something in HTBFANJS or BGBU about starting things in userspace instead of mainspace? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:57, September 15, 2007

Well, I'm for that part. Just not the changing ICU part, as you can see just little bit below this. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. If new users read RTFM at all, they'll see that, understand the deletion policy, and it will help to phase out WIP tags and the like. Plus, it should help reduce cries of "why did you delete my page?" P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:14, Sep 15, 2007

• Strong Against. Seven days has worked since shortly after before my time, which is to say, a "seven day stay of execution" works better then anything else. Oh, did I mention that I hate change? Yah, that's probably important. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I honestly don't know if the change would make any difference at all. I personally don't even think the IPs see em at all, or just always ignore them. The ones that actually finish the page are the ones that just happen to have that spark of writing in em, IMO. I could also be wrong here, but like to think I'm not. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:14, Sep 15, 2007

That's exactly why we need an ICU tag that catches the attention of IPs. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 04:19, September 15, 2007

I know, I just don't think it's possible. I was an IP once, but never created any pages till I'd logged in, and even then I sorta ignored the NRV template one of my pages received. Remember, noobs and IPs have statistically smaller brains than actual users. Seriously, government scientists have proven it. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:36, Sep 15, 2007

We could just make the ICU template brighter, like with {{Construction}}, or we could make the borders on it thicker. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 04:39, September 15, 2007

I don't know if the template catches their eyes or not but what if they just don't care?--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's when we just delete. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:46, Sep 15, 2007

Random suggestion #4315: Why not start putting ICUs at the top of the articles instead of the bottom? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 05:12 Sep 15, 2007

Ahahaha! Make ICU larger and more noticeable and sound like work needs to be done more urgently! Hahaha! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:33, 15 Sep 2007

Conservation week is over

Its the 15th, and Jocke Pirat has just ended conservation week. At the moment, the vote is at +7 for FFW. Before I go and start random page taging, and possibly baned for some reason or another, are we doing this or not?--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the lead is relatively minute compared to the amount of voters, its pretty clear that there is not any sort of consensus here. I think we would all be better served by looking at alternatives, which address the concerns of the significant minority (namely, that good content is lost as well as bad in FFW's) while also helping to reduce the amount of bad stuff on this site, which is a concern probably everyone agrees on. Flammable suggested a "Vigilance Week," and I think this might be just that alternative. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vigilance week looks to be sound, I would vote for that. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:52, 15 Sep 2007

I dont see the big difference between Vigilance week and normal life. Basicly, all that changes is a list that says "these articles need help or are getting dealt with at admins descression" and a higher max for VFD. Either way, Admins have the final say in wether or not an artice gets huffed, and people have been saying that the VFD limit has needed to be raised for a while.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support Vigilance Week, and hopefully if people got used to the idea it may expand beyond the week. Maybe we should have an UnTerror Alert Level, to correspond to the amount of cruft on the site. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Sounds like a flan. -- Hindleyite Converse 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably vote for this to keep people happy, but as it stands the plans sound a bit vague - could we have a concrete list of what we're voting for, please? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Vigiliance Week Vote

See here for what Vigilance week is.

Score: +17

• For. A good idea which takes into consideration both the need to reduce bad content, and the concerns a great many people have about Forest Fire Weeks. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For. Its a compramise, but it'll fly with me. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For Death Wish II.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Strong For because reckless deleting for the sole purposes of "Every article needs to be THIS tall to survive" and "We haven't had one in a while" is a bad thing. This satisfies Quality Control without the reckless total jurisdiction of a hungry admin, and carries a better message as to how to improve the wiki. I like. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For--Sir Manforman 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For, acceptable compromise. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:31, 15 Sep 2007
• For Polkovnik_Alex
• Conditional For - I'll go for this if Forest Fire week doesn't pass -- (Bonner) (Talk) 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For Though what I don't get is how this is any different from good ol' usership. This is what people should do anyway! But whatever, it's good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ljlego (talk • contribs)
• FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR, and so on. For reasons stated above. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:03, Sep 15, 2007
• For. If I understand correctly this is a slowlier FFW. I'm fine with that.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• For - I really have no idea how much of an effect this is going to have, but if it does increase VFD voting levels I will be happy. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 10:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• For. We already have a form of this at the Illogicopedia, only with much much fewer articles to improve. It's called give the admins work week, and it happens 52 weeks a year. Anyway I do think this sort of thing is long overdue and that the people who have been doing this up until now ought to get some recognition. -- Hindleyite Converse 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• For Sounds better. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 14:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional For. The crappy articles with No Redeeming Value still need to get insta-huffed. As long as thats done, its all good. I started looking through and found at least 10 within minutes that would have been QVFD'd but managed to slip through.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. If, one week after vigilance tagging, no one here volunteers to adopt the article, we're going to huff everything with an ICU tag, indiscriminately. If an NRV does not, in fact have RV, then it will die at the end of V-week.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But then ICU tags that tell the author they have one week will be wrong. Perhaps a specific "this article has been marked for vigilance, if not improved by the 23rd of this month it will be deleted" tag. A specific date to contest it by would probably be best, and is much more informative as to the situation. Also, it could function kinda like {{prod}}, in that if anyone objects, they can take it to standard VFD. That should ensure loss of redeemable articles is kept to a bare minimum. Edit: Also, a specific tag will allow the main V-page to be automatically updated via DPL, and will make sorting articles listed by size or date etc easy, while providing sufficient notice to the article writer or people watching the page.

I take it as accepted that vigilance and not ffw is decided upon then? Now we need to set a date and set it all up. How about the last week of the month? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:46, 17 Sep 2007

Actually, you make a good point. We might need to make it a hard 7 days for each article when it gets ICU tagged. My week just turned into a fortnight.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dig can we just do this thing already? For cryin' out loud.. --THINKER 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• After careful procrastination consideration, I'm gonna say For. Actually, I'm gonna say Floor. Why? Because I can. --THE 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Another pointless For vote. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:46 Sep 17, 2007
• Against. C-c-c-combo breaker! --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional For only if we call it V-Dub and make the motto "Unpimp ze Weeki"--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  

  The simpler V week is way cooler. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:52, 18 Sep 2007

  Ohh, or, Vigilante week. It's quite appropriate I think. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:00, 18 Sep 2007

  Yes! Vigilante week, where we give every user that asks for it admindom for the week, and they all go out and be vigilantes! We could call it the "neighborhood watch", and beat up on vandals with sacks full of batteries! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:09, Sep 18

44 (First page on the list: Ma'a nonu). - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Excrement Area

I'm gradually deleting irrelevant Chuck Norris references. Searching on meme terms uncovers some monumentally bad writing. I'll put some examples below. Enjoy (or, more probably, wince). ----OEJ 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further note: add other examples if you want. These are specific refutations of the argument that QVFD and VFD are doing a peachy job and Uncyc is clean and well-written as ever it could be. Mind you, on my part I am pretty much resigned to the existence of large amounts of dreck on Uncyc. Nothing you can do will make an appreciable difference. ----OEJ 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

From Galaxy: "Galaxies are thought to be formed from moments when Chuck Norris yells at something, his spit impacting upon the ground to ferment. When he leaves, the spit explodes in several nuclear fireballs, consuming everyone in a 20 mile radius. The still-burning corpses are flung onto the ground thousands of miles away. Mexicans then urinate upon the corpses, causing them to disintegrate into galaxies."

From Bob Dole: "Bob Dole was born in the year 1723. Bob Dole was born by shooting a lazer while still in Bob Dole's mother's womb. Bob Dole blasted his way out and Bob Dole's life began. Bob Dole has an eternal erection that kills you the moment you lay eyes on it. It is confirmed that Bob Dole could infact slaughter Chuck Norris if Bob Dole wished but Bob Dole has more important things to worry about. Wait, that's not true! Chuck Norris is freaking invincible!"

From Robot Chicken: "The Robot Chicken was born May 12th and a half, 0001 to a Bolivian prostitute and Falco Lombardi. He wrote up a novel. It sold a few copies, and the Chicken had a normal life till the day he took up arms with a notorious band of droogs. Twas then he, the Chicken that is, and his four droogs, that is Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde, and lounged in the Merkaba Milkbar trying to make up their rassoodocks what to do with their lives. The Merkaba Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk double plus good velcrocet or synthemescahasapeemapetilon or Dr. Dre-to-the-n-crom, which is what they always drank."

Twas a stupid rewrite. Reverted. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From Roman: "The greatest individual of roman sociaty was Cher. Cher conquered the roman civilization by not shooting her botox. The level of her ugliness was so strong that it made the empire embark on the greatest migration in history otherwise cunningly disguised as the second Punic War. In fits of madness due to Cher's ugly complection they accidentally wiped out the entire population of Carthage by jumping up and down to try and bounce the images out of their heads that they caused immense group friction and the entire city caught ablaze and burned to the ground. In a fit of anger the Carthaginians discovered the French people and marked them down as human."

From Tennis (How to Play): "First of all you walk onto the shite artificial court.Then spit on the floor so you get amazing grip on your trainers. Then corress the ball in your hand like a gay man would with his gay partner.then throw the ball into the air and smash it in the opponents face, this will put him on the floor (hopefully crying) then he will then get carried off the court. Then you win." Corress?

To be fair, that's how I've always played tennis. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:53, 17 Sep 2007

Apropos of nothing, I can't make tennis after work. Sorry. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote Tennis. Sorry to ruin your banter. --THE 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda liked the bit that goes "throw the ball into the air and smash it in the opponent's face, this will put him on the floor (hopefully crying). [If they are no longer able to move, they will be carried off the court by the paramedics.] Then you win." The bracketed text is my own, but I think it has at least a bit of comedic value, what about you? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:02, Sep 17

Yeah, I'll throw it in somewhere. --THE 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)