Forum:We have become distracted.
It seems that lately we've been doing everything except actually participating in the process by which funny articles for the site are written.
VFH is in even worse shape than when we were talking about the "voter inactivity crisis." The reason isn't lack of voting - it's lack of articles. There are only ten articles up there now, and with one exception, the community is very lukewarm about them.
And Pee Review is in worse shape than at any point since I started coming here. There's like a two and a half month queue. I'm as much to blame for that as anyone else, but I'm almost scared to touch it or something. Like it'll fall on me.
And the Pee Review crisis only feeds the VFH crisis, since people can't self-nom without a review.
Meanwhile... is there some "new article boycott" that's been organized that I didn't hear about?? 
pillow talk 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Christmas is coming up. Winter + Uncyclopedia = Drama (although it doesn't generally kick in until December. I think the URL change made it start early. With luck, this means it will be over early as well). I would say something comforting like "You'll get used to it", but I'm too busy overreacting to some minor slight or vaguely defined indignity to point out such a thing. Oh, woe he who is me! Etc. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I don't get distracted so easily like some of you simpleto -- OH MY GOD LOOKIT THERE'S A DIGIMON WIKI!!! --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm tempted to post a {{sofixit}} and leave it at that, but... Leaving aside the bit about writing - which can be affected by inspiration, commitment, sufficient free time and so forth - one thing we can do something about is the Pee situation. Earlier in the year, PEEING was doing well, and a few people even posted on the dump to say so, and blow our own trumpet. Now, however, it's a bit quiet. A few people have disappeared from the site, and others have won the RotM award and done very few reviews since. From cranking out 10 - 15 reviews a day, as we were at one point, we're sometimes wheezing out 1 every other day, which is bad. There are potentially some gems in that queue just waiting for help, and there are some very good reviewers around not reviewing. This month, most of the reviews have been done by Sycamore (Mr Reliable), me, OEJ, Gerrycheevers and Nachlader, who's a n00b.
So how's about the "regular" reviewers (including you Hype, don't be nervous, they won't bite ;-) ) go and do a couple of reviews each? There's still enough of us active to over halve the queue, and hopefully have some kind of knock-on effect on VFH (or possibly not - they could all be crap, but we don't know until we have a go, do we?) I know how it works - usergroups start off working really well, then gradually fade as the allure and novelty wears off, and a few award templates only provide a certain amount of motivation for a handful of people. But it would be nice to see a few old hands prove me wrong, and go help a few articles out... --UU - natter 
14:18, Oct 28
I concur with Under User here, I think that for healthy Uncyclopedia a helathy system of peeing and help on new articles will ensure quality features which will in turn encourage more people to have a go (They'll like waht they see) - like a newsroom without the bastards, oh wait on that last point...--Sycamore (Talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If I may interject my opinion, I think that the problem, while exacerbated by the Pee Review stagnation and the VFH fail-ness, is at heart because of a lack of writing. But yes, Pee Review must be helped out. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:48, Oct 28
If I could just direct the attention of the pee-reviewing populace to this article... would anyone mind banging out a quick review of that page for TKF and I? Pleaseandthanks, - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon 
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:04, Oct 28