Forum:Has Forrest Fire Week Helped?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Has Forrest Fire Week Helped?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6563 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I do not personally see any real and utter benefits. However I am lazy and cynical. And blind. A little deaf in the one ear.

I have a limp.

however I am a singular genius and relating this forum topic to my poll where I asked Uncyclopedia to rate Uncyclopedia and Uncyclopedia rated Uncyclopedia at a rather limp wristed 6, I feel it is only necessary that the question be asked.

What do I want from you?

Money above anything else. If this is not forthcoming, then please answer the main question which is the crucking fux of this pucking fiece.

Put your hands and tell me if all the bloodshed was for a greater good. Or was it mere blood lust. Consider the climate of sheepish six and answer. 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Score: 1

NO! That's my opinion. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?

Not sure how you would define "helped" but I think it can't help but improve the site if a lot of the rubbish is removed. Remember for the most part a lot of deleted content is made up of those crappy oneliners, and vanity pages, and the fewer we have of those the better. Other more "complete" articles have been saved, and some improved, even if only in the formatting. For the most part the answer has to be yes! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I don't know how you can realistically say it hasn't helped. You would have to be of the opinion that more of what was deleted was good than bad, and I think that's demonstrably false. On the aggregate, the quality of Uncyc improved. There were probably a number of somewhat unfair deletions, and that sucks, but you can't let that stand in the way of progress. To me, Uncyc "feels" a lot cleaner. That's good. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 23:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I estimate that I smoked about 1300 articles and pictures this week, mostly in the first few days, and that most of them were awful. Under current deletion policy they would have been NRV'd or huffed outright. That said, there is the chance that some of my deletions could be considered unfair. No deletion is permanent however, and I've been happy to provide stuff back to original authors or other caretakers interested in further developing their ideas. That's what this week is for -- determining which neglected articles still have promise and removing the ones that don't. Should someone show up in 6 months angry that their stub was removed, I'll gladly restore it back for them to work on, but I'm betting that the lion's share of what I removed will not be missed by anyone. ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions are permanent. Sorry, just felt the need to point that out. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:43, 24 Nov 2006

Yes, for those not already aware of that. Most of my image deletions were vanity submissions from people under the misapprehension that anyone cares. I'm sure they have additional copies. :) ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, if my calculations are correct we've deleted around 3800 pages in the past week. Subtracting the current net loss of about 1400 articles, that means that 2400 new articles have been written since the beginning of FFW. That's a pretty staggering number. —rc (t) 00:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Assuming ffw started at 05:38, 16 November 2006, as of 00:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) there have been 332 new articles [1]. Less staggering. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:43, 24 Nov 2006

I meant total new articles, including ones that were deleted over the course of the week. That doesn't list deleted ones, right? —rc (t) 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles from 20:38 PST, 15 November 2006 (when I unprotected the FFW page) to present. —rc (t) 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But this all assumes that the various article counting thingies work properly. I'm not sure they do. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is less staggering if you calculate how much crap gets huffed on a regular basis (and the average lifetime of a new Uncyc article). - User:Guest/sig 09:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that of the 3800 articles deleted, around 2100 of them were new articles?---Rev. Isra (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Uncyclopedia has so much more funny content now that prominent writers/admins wasted a week deleting stuff without it being properly reviewed. I love having to undelete an article 3 minutes after I made it and was in the process of writing. It makes me proud to think how many articles were deleted like mine. This was certainly a successful FFW, lets do this 24/7 because its so great. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Forrest" Fire Week?

That's the worst non-pun I've heard all week.

Gump sat alone on a bench in the park

"My name is Forrest," he'd casually remark

Waitin' for the bus with his hands in his pockets

He just kept sayin' life is like a box of chocolates

He's Gump, He's Gump

What's in his head?

He's Gump, He's Gump, He's Gump

Is he in-bred?

Gump was a big celebrity

He told JFK that he really had to pee

He never feels too dumb because

His mom always told him stupid is as stupid does

He's Gump, He's Gump

He's kinda square

He's Gump, He's Gump, He's Gump

What's with that hair?

Run... run... run, run, now Forrest

Run... run... run like the wind now

Run... run... run, run, now Forrest

Run... stop!

His buddy Bubba was a shrimp-lovin' man

His friend with no legs he called Lieutenant Dan

His girlfriend Jenny was kind of a slut

He went to the White House, showed LBJ his butt

He's Gump, He's Gump

He's not too bright

He's Gump, He's Gump, He's Gump

But he's alright

Is this Gump out of his head?

I think so

Is this Gump really brain dead?

I think so

Did this Gump make lots of bread?

I think so

And that's all I have to say about that

--User:Nintendorulez 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also!

What about the blue links that're left on the FFW page? Don't tell me we move them all to VFD... -L

Heaven forbid we put some oversight and review into deletions. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest we protect the FFW page, then sort out whatever is left. - User:Guest/sig 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Smokey the Bong says

Read Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing. Only you can prevent forest fires. --Hrodulf 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read The Most Whored Article in the History of the Universe. :P • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:47, 25 Nov 2006

I don't really consider it an article since it isn't supposed to be funny, and if it helps to reduce the cruft problem, whoring it is worth it. --Hrodulf 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you are a bad person, read | How to be a good person because only you can prevent crime. 12:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I hardly think linking to a page on how to create sub-pages is the equivalent of trying to convert people to Christianity. I mean, you can say it is, obviously, but I just don't see it. By the way, read Oddbod's userpage. See where he typed the following code?:

• the best a man can get (was started but then huffed because I left it unattended for too long, reason -- I'm a lazy pie eating cretin But thanks to This guy I found out you can create a subpage where things can be thought over and left unnatended without huffing! Praise him!)
  
  

That's because of U:HTGSE. You can criticize my methods and make fun of me if you want, but in reality, it's getting results. The only reason I mentioned it in some VD forums on forest fire week and huffing in general was because I think it genuinely added something to the conversation, obviously if people use subpages, there will be less cruft to huff and more material may be written, that was the whole purpose of the how to piece to begin with. You can complain I'm whoring it, but what am I supposed to do, pretend it doesn't exist to make you guys happy? It's actually useful, as I demonstrated above, and whatever minor annoyance is generated by my mentioning it in passing a few times because the topic of stub huffing came up during FFW is worth it, in my opinion. It's not like I created a new forum topic called "Hey, check out U:HTGSE." Now that would be stupid. --Hrodulf 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was only kidding, lighten up! And I never said it was a bad thing to have more links to it ;) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:29, 26 Nov 2006

Ha ha ha, it is a good joke. It's hard for me to tell online when people are kidding or not, I guess I'm kind of on edge about this particular subject because there's already been an argument or two about it so yes, I need to lighten up. Thanks for the laugh.

Anyway, thanks to Nin, the most whored article in the history of the universe is clearly Euroipods. --Hrodulf 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I want you to acknowledge the sense that exists in my comment and I will acknowledge the fact that that article is usefull, which I do. If you can tell me what I was actually implying by my comment then I will tell you why I think your link is usefull. 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Because in your opinion the howto article represents a biased opinion as to how uncyclopedia works, perhaps because it assumes good faith. Maybe believing in a huge amount of users who are talented and have good faith is as much as an unrealistic belief as any religion's tenets. However, I think if there's just one person who was helped it was still useful. Whether it will make a noticable improvement is likely negligable, but it can help in tiny ways, like frequently asked questions about how to do things can be dealt with there so people are just referred there instead of having to have custom written answers to their questions. That saves time and certainly saving time is a good thing. --Hrodulf 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then if you honestly misread my comment I apologise. I was pointing out the fact that your article will not be a cure all. It can supplement, sure. But crimes of bad taste will continue without proper protocol and procedure, the proliferation of pontification on points pertaining to your page might possibly paralise a pensive discussion on what can be done. Happy party time! 10:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed it was a cure all. A cure all would be a drug that made stupidity painful. Sadly, it hasn't been invented yet. Perhaps when it's available, your doctor will recommend a prescription for it. --Hrodulf 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)