Uncyclopedia talk:Imperial Colonization/4

Pukka job?

Pukka it is.

Anyway, OptyC suggested that I take my VFH-clogging opinions on Imperial Colonisation and shove it down the nearest talk page that the views might have some relevance to.

There will be the trademark wall of text, so get out your reading glasses and something to keep your eyes open with. If you don't want to read what my opinion is, then that's great. Have a nice day.

I only really mean the best intentions when I state what I believe is wrong about something and I'm fully aware that making my case all the more lengthy can attract anger from those who interpret the text as a big stop sign for all potential 'for' voters. In the likely event of that happening again, I'll move the bulk of the text to the talk page (where there is fear that it could be ignored, but needs must) instead. Nobody really likes having to take criticism - whether it makes sense or not - which is a shame, considering my career prospects. But whatever, I'll rain on anyone's parade if the hot dog stands have one sprinkle of salt too many.

Similar to telling bad/good news to a widow who's won the lottery, I'm going to put my comments in an order that it looks like it ends on a positive note (in this case, suggestions to improve IC).

So let's categorise the damn thing.

Criticisms

1. The Philosophy of IC: Part 1

So main critique first. Here's a quote from the introduction of IC's page:

"See, our philosophy is that if we spent some time improving the articles that casual readers are most likely to come in contact with or look up (such as Twilight, Barack Obama, or The Jonas Brothers), more readers would stick around, make accounts, and become writers themselves. This is really about revitalizing the wiki, something we feel is a very noble cause."

Sounds all very well and very sensible. Given a search engine, anyone would most likely hit up the biggest thing in the latest news, or in Uncyclopedia's case, a subject that would almost certainly have some satisfying degree of mirth. Having the popular articles easier to read would most certainly up the image of the site.

However, this can't be said for edits, which has as much a place for IPs than simply reading.

Given that the internet is a no-holds barred for those with... controversial views, it would mean that these users can jump to the article on Judaism and type up some Hitler-related goodness in seconds. Only now - they can't.

The thing is about the philosophy is, that it's forgetting about the bunch of IP users that visit the site everyday to splash some edits to the well known topics. Cut them from doing that, and there will be a cut in traffic. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a contradiction of IC's intent. Yes, the article does look slightly more sightly. Yes, it doesn't bow down to the humour levels of a twisted being. Yes, it's all a bit more original, with not a single picture of the H-man throughout.

But is it funny enough to be featured? No (the failed VFH nomination page, I can't find, for some odd reason). It is still considered offensive by the most sensitive of readers? Yes. Does it still fulfil Uncyclopedia's claim to be a "content-free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit"? No, while it no longer has the protected status, anyone trying to add even a smidgen of crass, unoriginal humour that anyone will still easily understand (ie. Nazis liked Jewish folks), it will most certainly be erased. If anyone adds something dumb to an article I liked before, I will edit it out, but the content that IP's will try to add to this article is something that is expected to be there. People won't expect having to hear about the 94th Chuck Norris joke in any old random article, and it still won't be funny, but for the majority of users on this site, they will be in for disappointment when they come across an article that avoids the most obvious joke, that will still satisfy them nonetheless.

Out of the IPs that go apeshit about the article on Judaism, I believe the "im relly really ofenderd!!!!" need to get a grip. But for the other half, the ones who believe that the renovation of the article is not as funny as it used to be, and that they should be able to edit it, I agree with them. On a vastly related note, what Socky did here should've gone ahead.

Lastly, this'll be one of the areas I have suggestions for.

2. The Philosophy of IC: Part 2

Nope, not finished yet.

The second part that I disagree with, is this:

"improving the articles that casual readers are most likely to come in contact with or look up"

Now I've already covered the argument that this'll result in less IPs wanting to contribute to the site, so I'll latch on something different: it isn't as big a deal as you might think, that the "most visited" articles need to be high quality. So what, the featured article on the front page isn't doing enough to highlight the articles that would be passed up by readers? The same goes for the UnNews section, the recently featured section, the "featured one year ago today" section and other parts of the main page that carry links to other less-frequented articles.

The biggest issue here I find is the actual usage of time:

"our philosophy is that if we spent some time improving the articles"

Why must it be spent on articles that have changing faces everyday? They're already getting treatment from IPs everyday, all of which most certainly have the interests of humour at heart. So far, every IC rewrite has found itself on VFH, giving me the impression that there is an extra, invisible line to the philosophy of IC - a sort of taboo:

"And also we're going to slap them all on VFH."

However, I can't argue with PEE reviews that instigate the nominations in first place. The results? Al Gore was featured, but one has been felled, another is currently on it's last legs, and the other current runner is, if I may say so myself, still hampered by ("in-depth") against votes. What needs to be learnt? Not all articles are featurable, whether in unoriginal comedic form or in a rather serious tone. I've stated, along with others, in some of the nominations that, while the rewrite was well done, it still wasn't front page-worthy. This would mean that the "taboo" is negated and that time is ultimately wasted. I hate to slow ambitions, but this is one case where being ambitious is rather amiss.

Why not use the time rewriting articles that are deemed to have comedic potential in it? IPs are already hacking away at the "popular" articles and it'd take only one user to at least ensure it's neatly organised, then everyone can be happy and peace will exist in all Africa, amen.

3. Going full guns blazing with all hands on deck

For those who don't appreciate my love for a damned good saying, the title basically means: "using everyone who's willing to help IC for one single article".

Now here's a quote from one of the contributors of the article on Michael Jackson, found on the VFH nomination page:

"5. For. Per the two sentences I contributed.Saberwolf116 15:30, 29 March 2009"

Two sentences? That sounds to me like it's either (with full respect to Saberwolf116):

1. The user isn't well versed with Wacko Jacko antics and wasn't applying him/herself to a topic that they may have more of an understanding with
2. The user was simply pushed out of discussion, due to the large number of users wanting to have their say
3. The user was just reluctant to take part at all, and as an act of sympathy by other users, they added the two sentences, no matter how good they really were, to the article and then had a nice cup of tea with custard creams on a plate

In the most recent article, Great Britain, ten users took part. Two heads are better than one, and the more the merriest, but a corridor is best traversed when unpacked (that is, when it's not packed with people, you know... etc. Yeah, I'm on a long way until I can make my own proverbs). I don't think it's necessary to put all your eggs in one basket when a "colonisation" comes along.

Having more users means more ideas will be offered: but in experience, I always find that where there are more ideas, there is less development on them. In large groups the ideas are often simply kit-bashed and just sent through the post from there. In smaller, tightly-knit groups, say three users instead of ten, discussion is rudimentary and far more necessary to keep the work on the article going.

Again, I comment more on this later in the next section of this post - bear this in mind. Just the cricitisms first, tis all.

4. Fear of doing the you-know-what

No I'm not talking about that. And I only do that in public lavatories, for christ's sake.

Essentially, I'm talking about the the distasteful levels of humour that is often associated with certain subjects (In this case: Jew - Nazis liked Jewish folks [again] and Wacko Jacko - dirty eeugghhh disgusting child licking shit stabber!). Set with the onslaught of a thousand IPs, the article on Gay might consist of the same "george bush is satan's lover" line over and over. In most cases, this kind of humour is frowned upon the keenest of keen users here at Uncyclopedia. When I wrote dong, I had the choice of writing openly about penises, or somehow write subtly about the subject as the form of currency found in the hot pockets of the far east. Then the article was featured. Not to blow my own trumpet, but I hold the article as a triumph for serious writing over crude writing. Sensible dinner parties at the Windsor > food fights in a monkey cage somewhere in Liverpool.

Serious writing is also easier to read. It doesn't go into failed random humour, into horrible memes, or into the most nonsensical, over-elaborate descriptions of the subject - anything like that, writing the article seriously most certainly avoids the clichés.

Now bear with me here: perhaps if you've seen a lot of action films, you might be bored of the common mistake of the henchman, when he decides to hide behind an oil barrel for cover, and all the pistol-toting protagonist has to do is to just shoot the barrel. Explosion happens, sending the bad guy's head somewhere into orbit. That's just overdone nowadays, a cliché - a cheap plot hole to get more explosions on the screen. Done seriously, the henchman might decide that there is no cover, other than the barrels, and that they must simply exchange bullets with the protagonist from where he stands, resulting in a clean-cut, simple, 50-50, unpredictable shootout of which anything could happen. Most of the time, this leads to more exciting action films.

But then what is that missing? Explosions are awesome. Nobody with a brain would want an action film with no explosions in it. At least one ignition of a matchstick - that'll do me.

The point is - the reason the serious writing style in some of the colonisations, namely Jew, felt unexciting to me, was because it had no clichés. The article avoided Hitler related jokes because that was agreed to be the problem of the previous versions. The Hitler jokes weren't featurable. But then neither was the rewrite.

Don't be scared to kick up the overdone humour (more than) once in a while - it still works. It worked for the majority of editors for the article before colonisation.

Suggestions

So that's my criticism cat let out the bag - the four subjects fruit-picked above are the general consensus of my negative views about IC. Now, as promised here are the ideas that I have that I believe are worth discussing with IC heads.

1. Don't make the philosophy of IC exclusive to "popular" articles only

That is, don't give out the impression that IC will only target the most popular articles. Because as I've stated before, most of the popular articles are best left as breeding grounds for IPs and potential registered users. Rewrites are always neat. But in my opinion, the only rewrites that need doing is the easy organising of text and sections for the popular articles - no more. Jew and Michael Jackson had a very, very limited scope for humour, there was no need to put a large group of users on the scene to rewrite the whole thing, respectable the work is.

There are quite a few of articles with the template with the Mona Lisa/Mr. Bean image, along with the comment: "this article has a nice idea, but could do with some work". Why not introduce those articles as targets as well? At least these articles have recognised humour potential.

The cause to renovate popular articles is one I support wholeheartedly. However, I believe that they only deserve to be organised properly, not completely struck down and redone. At lot of good work has already been produced, you just need to clear the trees a bit to see the view. The bulk of complete renovation should be focussed on articles with humour potential, but has yet to actually be executed.

King?

2. Divide the IC users into groups

The British army of the good ol' bigoted times wasn't one whole division, it was full of hundreds and thousands of different squads of troops to keep the tea British.

The same ought to be applied here, if you ask me. This way, more colonisations could be produced and having more requests added to the list can be treated with more aplomb. Looking at the list, I can see a mixture of users with numerous FAs to their name, and users with (how do I say it?) developing writing skills (yeah that). This sounds like a bit of work, but I think that having small groups of three, maybe four, headed by experienced users, could work out. It eliminates the possibility that a user can do nothing but add two sentences to a whole article and tackles awkwardness in a large group, increasing cohesion.

I know how I sound like saying that. I tell people around to keep quiet when I want to concentrate and my relatives believe I'm German. Ich nicht spreche Deutsch.

Anyway, I believe this is a good way to settle the roll-call of IC. You don't need to apply all of the users. Just put them in groups. Then, find out which groups have the best understanding of a subject and align them with the article on the topic. Rewrites could come in like hot cakes sell.

3. Betray serious writing styles more

Not all articles will be featurable upon rewrite, I've said this already. So why act like it will? After all, previous users had fun with writing like a "sophisticated", drug-addict 20something year old who thinks he could make his own successful children's show. Don't be timid when rewriting the article and introduce a cliché every now and then.

After all, not everything's bent around the HTBFANJS guide. I myself likes frolicking a donkey battleship in a laundry seconds are best eaten for light bulb, just changing it. I also love tasteless humour. Anyone with a shallow sense of humour would find a Hitler joke unreasonable.

Conclusion

Now, I've probably missed out a few things, but I've typed enough unreadable text that I'm satisfied with. It's 1:25am now. Generally, I think IC could perform better if it's views were altered quite dearly.

If you read this, thank you and I hope my comments were of any help. I am willing to see what the response is to this. Now, I'm off for a cup of tea and plate of custard creams. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with dividing IC into smaller task forces is that not everyone contributes to every colonization. God knows I don't have the time to, once a week, sit down and write a third of an article good enough to replace an existing one. How do you anticipate who'll be able to help out with an article? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:24, Apr 17

The users (of which are willing to spend their next week or so working on a rewrite, which if the previous colonisations are of any guide, that's around six to ten users each time?) who can claim to have an understanding with the subject - that is, they are aware of the historical context, the current events, the personality traits, style of conversing (like how Sean Connery is associated with the 'sh' syllable), known interests of the topic at hand - put simply, it would mean that there would be a different group each time, rather than concrete line-ups of the same folks each time. A lot of people will claim that they have an idea for a subject which is currently burgeoning on IC's hitlist, but how many of them will divide to other subjects if additional articles are raised? If the users still pile on to one subject, and some of them end up merel adding two sentences to the article, there is wonder of what they could've done elsewhere, where there is more chance for them to shine. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 09:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely novel Nach. I agree with your concerns regarding the nomination choices. The articles that have been chosen to colonize so far have been in a poor state but there are far worse articles out there to colonize. Perhaps the nomination procedure should be more precise. --^Dame 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments, Sonje. I think the procedure should incorporate more articles that has humour scope in them, rather than how many edits it's receiving. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps the best way to improve uncyclopedia is to spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing others who are trying to improve uncyclopedia. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise known as PEE review, I believe. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, if you wanna help out, the best way to do so is to help out. IC can always use another quality editor. But you are entitled to your opinions either way of course, so let me touch on a few. You think we shouldn't focus on the "popular" articles per se, but I disagree. Making sure the most popular articles are in a presentable state can only help Uncyc as a whole. Yes, they're bound to get messed up by visiting IPs, but if we can at least give them an example of a "good" page instead of a random mess to start with, then there's hope that the IP edits won't be so....shit. If an IP sees a popular article that's well written and formatted properly, it might just persuade them to check out more articles or even *gasp* register. As far as IP edits, they've never been a priority here. Why should they start being so now? They're 99% shit and reverted as quickly as possible and I don't see that changing any time soon. Which brings me to my next sticking point, Jew vs. Great Britain. Jew has gotten a lot of criticism for being too "high concept" and difficult to edit. Personally, I couldn't care less. I like our colonization of Jew, I think it's original and funny. But I understand the concerns and I think they were pretty well addressed with Great Britain. Great Britain is a straightforward encyclopedic article filled with misinformation presented as fact. It's formatted well, resembles a Wiki article and is relatively easy for IPs to edit and add to. It's a prototypical Uncyclopedia article, the kind of thing this site was founded on. Yet now we're seeing criticism for it not being high concept enough. Damned if you do... (and for the record, the lack of "humour" was intentional and is the main reason why claims of people not "getting it" are coming about, but that's neither here nor there). It's a phenomenal success in that it perfectly achieved what we set out to do. Is it featurable? Who knows? That's a completely arbitrary thing to judge an article's success on. WE DON'T COLONIZE TO BE FEATURED. You may have that impression because all of our colonizations have ended up on VFH, but I can assure you that is not our goal. We simply want to make crap articles better. That's it. The VFH noms are more a case of running them up the flagpole to see who salutes, but none of us cry when they fail.

I do agree with you that seperating our forces could be helpful (I've suggested the same thing), but as Led pointed out not all colonizers participate in all colonizations. IC simply isn't big enough to do this. Hopefully some day in the future it will be, but we're still in our infancy and therefore gotta take baby steps for now. And that's it for now. I'm sure other points will come to me later, but right now my eyes are blurry from HUGE FUCKING WALL OF TEXT syndrome. Thanks for your comments and do consider joining IC. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:05, 17 Apr

Yes, I've said it's all a neat idea with a real sense of responsibility for the site, but some of the articles that are deemed as popular search key-terms are being edited numerous times each month. A lot of readers will know something about Obama and will want to edit the article on him. I agree that if the edit was crap, it ought to be taken out. However, if it is funny, but in a different vein to what has been 'declared' as the style of the article (case in point: Jew and Michael Jackson), it is rather rude to deny the user's right to add something that is nonetheless genuinely funny to the article.

When I was still acquaintanced to Uncyclopedia only as an IP, I only ever edited the well known topics such as nations, celebrities and world leaders. I'm sure many IPs are currently doing what I did then, ignoring the other articles on subjects that less immediate to my mind, such as Pointless Paradox or Bomb Shelter. Both fantastic articles which have less chance of being edited an IP than an article on the US president. Yes, it is nice to prepare the article on Barack Obama so it looks nice for the horde of IPs, but the full renovation will be weathered, perhaps heavily, by edits after several months anyway. What do I suggest is done about this? As I've said, just clean up the article slightly so it at least tite has the foundations of an article that is about the US prez - organise sections, correct typos, fix formatting, whatever. A full rewrite, however respectable it is, will see change (a fitting word for Obama) within time. And "officiating" that the article has to avoid certain types of humour ("hitler jokes on my jew page? gtfooooo") is a contradiction of what Uncyclopedia is.

As for features, I'm being honest, that's what it seems to me. Each of the colonisations having had their turn on VFH so far does look like they're trying to be featured. However, as I said, I can't argue against the PEE reviews that suggest they be featured in the first place. Articles will be articles. Features will be features. Finally, for the Great Britain article, I didn't mention that article in the above comments as an example that shares traits that saw Jew and Michael Jackson receive criticism. My beef with the GB article is a different matter. the GB article was an improvement on the problems garnered by Jew, simply because of the way it was approached. But I voted against anyway. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think Micheal Jackson should be pretty easy for IPs to edit. There's nothing there that's real difficult to understand or prohibits even "cliche" jokes. All a potential editor has to do is put forth a very tiny amount of effort to make their edits fit with the style of the article. If they can't be bothered to make that effort, then the chances are their edit isn't gonna be worth a shit anyway. The bottom line is this: we can't be concerned with possible future edits by IPs when we're rewriting an article. That's counterproductive. A colonized article is just like any other article on any other wiki, open to editing by everybody. And just like any other article, if the edits are shit they'll get reverted, simple as. We can only focus on making our rewrite as good as we can. I think we all know full well that our colonized articles are likely to be hacked to shit within a few months. After all, that's how they got to the state where colonization was required in the first place. At least we can revert them back to a suitable state in a few months easily by going back to the colonized version. That is certainly no reason not to put in any effort on "popular" articles. I think Al Gore (certainly a "popular" article by any standard) proves my point pretty well. The history is plain to see. Would you prefer we had left it largely as it was and just "organized sections, corrected typos and fixed formatting"? That's not the purpose of IC, nor should it be. If we're not gonna put in more effort than the IPs who turned the article to shit in the first place, then I for one would just as soon not bother. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:34, 17 Apr

You see, that's the thing. Not every IP wants to conform with the designated style to an article. They may want to add humour in a different way. To brand that as "not worth a shit" is not something I could possibly ever agree with. Numerous IPs believed that the previous version of Jew was much better and I agreed. It wasn't original, but at least it wasn't boring. And yet it still looked perfectly acceptable for anyone to edit it, but could the angered users edit the article on Jew? Nope, the page was even protected for a while. Are you sure there isn't a way for IC to contribute to the site without blocking other users rights to edit an article and insert what they want? Yet you say they're there to be edited by everybody.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this'll be the first time I've mentioned the article on Al Gore (aside from bringing up it's featured status). It was a great article, I even voted for it on VFH and I agree it was better than it was before, even as I did like the previous versions. So I'm not quite sure what your point is by bring this article up. You phrase what I said, "organised sections, corrected typos and fixed formatting", as if I wanted it to happen to every article that IC touched. I said only the most edited articles should receive such treatment (such as world leaders). It's still putting more effort than the users did before, let's not forget. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If an IP can't conform to an article's established style, colonized or not, then they shouldn't be editing that article. That's where 99% of the Chuck Norris and LOLPENIS!!!11!!! edits come from. Of course they can, and will anyway, but that doesn't make their contributions worth a shit. I refuse to pander to the lowest common denominator just to make Uncyclopedia all-inclusive (cue ED drama). We take pride, and rightly so, in that we're better than that. And I mentioned Al Gore to show my point, not argue yours. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:23, 17 Apr

Established style? Says who? So, we can't edit it the way we'd like to anymore? 99% of the Chuck Norris et al. edits? Can you prove this? If it's a metaphor, can you prove it anyway? Do IPs in no way have any chance of registering then, if they edit like that? We are better than ED, correct. But do they slam down demands that if you don't write in a certain way, you must go away? And finally, as I said, I don't see your point about Al Gore, because I liked the article. It seemed like you mentioned it for a reason, if it's in a discussion. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree with OptyC on article unity. Sudden changes of voice, perspective, or concept make an article seem eclectic, poorly thought-out, and difficult to read. Anyone with another idea of how things should be can easily just make another article, and if their idea had any merit their page won't be huffed. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:39, Apr 17

Agree with everything. Going with that idea, why can't Jew be moved to a different, more appropriate sounding title like Socky did? The users who preferred the previous version will only link their idea under 'jew', after all. Why not give the serious-written colonisation a serious title as suggested by Socky? This is an example of someone who wants a different idea from someone else that still on the same subject. On the article unity comment, that's pretty much what I aim for, so I don't understand the point in mentioning it. If someone else wants to settle on something different from what I aim for, that's cool. Just like how there is an opposite opinion to my own right here. The thing is though, there is no need to completely redress the whole thing. Among the eclectic, poorly thought out organisation, there is a genuine idea that nonetheless appropriates the scope of comedy. All that needs to be done, as I said earlier, is for the clutter to be cleared to see the view. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(FU EDIT CONFLICT!) What Led sed. And the point with Al Gore is that we approached that colonization the same way we've approached them all. How is Al Gore any different than Micheal Jackson? Al Gore has it's own unique style that any IP would have to adhere to when editing, just the same as Micheal Jackson, Jew and (to a lesser extent) Great Britain. So what's the difference? Difficulty level? Honestly, I don't see it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:58, 17 Apr

Ah, I see now. Anyway, when I read Jew and Michael Jackson I didn't get the same vibe as I did when I read Al Gore. They have remarkably similar styles, given the serious context, but for me only Al Gore felt exciting to actually read. The other two articles tried to drag my eyes on for too long until I found something funny. Furthmore, Al Gore had more humour potential with a single driving point of his existence to question upon. But reading the other two articles, I didn't find that driving point. Moreover, the controversial topics associated with Jew and MJ were not touched enough (literally in MJ's case), they weren't stretched enough. The users who wanted Jew reverted are evidence that Jew missed out too much humour potential. Great Britain had a different style which I thought was much more braver and appropriate, but the actual content wasn't enough for me. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But see, that's the point. These mythical IPs who wanna add quality content and not just penis jokes are free to do so. We've laid a solid foundation for them to add to, all we expect in return is the smallest amount of respect for the preexisting content. I'm sure you feel the same way about the articles you've written. Can you honestly tell me that if some IP made an edit to Dong that didn't fit it's subtle tongue in cheek style, but was otherwise in good faith you'd just let it go? Can I add some LOLPENIS jokes to it? I've got some good ones. And for the record, I wouldn't have had any trouble with moving Jew to a more appropriate title and redirecting Jew there until somebody created a better Jew article. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:14, 17 Apr

I'm happy you allow, what you call "mythical", IPs and related users to add only qaulity content to these foundations. Obviously everyone won't have their sections removed because they just don't flutter our hearts like the colonisation foundation does, despite having respect for the current content. If someone wanted to add less-than-subtle penis jokes to dong, then I could care less. I've already put down what I thought was good. If someone wants to remove the less-than-subtle comments, then cool. If you agree with Socky's idea, then I'd very much like to see this issue raised once more rather than having some admin deciding it's all but closed. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 22:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic by bringing up the bagel thing, but I'm sure you've noticed that User:Cowguru2000 (the self admitted author of the infamous bagel section) has gone on to support our Jew article and understands why his contribution was moved. He's even helped defend Jew from pissed off IPs. As far as moving Jew and redirecting, I'm not gonna make waves as it really doesn't bother me one way or the other. But if you feel strongly about it, I suggest you bring it up with our resident colonizer/admin. I'm sure you'll get little resistance from us. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:38, 17 Apr

That's an understandable response from someone who thought he wasn't doing anything 'wrong' prior to having his edit removed and then being told that the colonisation article was meant to remain 'pure'. I don't see any links to his comments though. I'm bringing up the subject of moving the article to a different headline and restoring the previous version of Jew now, sure enough. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

tl; dr

I got well into your criticisms, skimmed over the suggestions, and read some of the discussion and skipped over the exchange between Chris and Nach. But I figure you guys have been waiting for me to make an appearance, and to be honest I had no idea this was going on until just now. English project has been hell, you know.

Nach, your criticism is welcome and encouraged. You've made what seem to be some good suggestions. I have come to realize that IC is, in fact, not perfect. Yes, sometimes we need to give IPs what they want and not just what we (or in some cases, I) want. Maybe we shouldn't flood VFH with our rewrites, no matter what kind of review they get. Maybe we do need to focus on articles that have comedic value rather than articles that get a lot of traffic.

Or, maybe we should just do some work.

When I got into IC, I wanted to avoid focusing too much on it. I didn't want IC to be about IC. I wanted it to be about fixing articles, making the site more presentable, and improving our image. And yet, the opposite seems to be happening. I am very pleased with the way articles have been coming out (with the exception of Jew, I think everyone knows my feelings on that one) and I think we do some good work. But IC has also stirred up way more drama than I would like.

Nach, I'm not really sure what your problem is. You seem to be devoting most of your time to IC, not in rewriting articles but in breaking down IC and offering very ambiguous solutions to problems we already know about. I cannot help but think that your time would be better spent, say, writing articles. IC is not about IC. IC is about doing work. And by focusing all of your energy on criticizing IC, you have become all about IC and are therefore not doing work.

Instead of being helpful, constructive, and productive, you have launched what appears to be a crusade against IC. This is a crusade that is quickly becoming a personal vendetta, carried on by nothing but momentum and a fear of admitting that you are not doing work. I have no doubt that this started with a real desire to improve IC and improve the site. But you have let this degenerate into your own battle, and you are now simply fighting for the sake of being an instigator. You exhibit qualities that I have seen before on this site, by certain other users that will be neither named nor referenced through some clever link. But you, like these other users, are not here to write. You are here for something else.

I'm still not really sure what your problem is. But I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to make IC all about IC and either write something yourself or just let us write. You could have expressed your opinions without stirring up drama, you could have made your concerns known without a wall of text, (something you criticized yourself about our articles) and you could have been constructive rather than obtrusive. I want you to shut up and work. Your opinions are noted, and we may take your advice and we may not. But this ends now. I refuse to let IC be consumed with you and your vendetta.

We are not here to defend ourselves, we are here to work. Shut up and work. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I love you. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:55, 17 Apr

Nicely structured response. I agree with what you say IC is about and I've said before it's an imperative sector of the site to improve burgeoning areas that require input from editors who have the heart and mind to focus on what they are doing.

That said, I have to disagree with the latter part of your message - what seems to be your interpretations of my actions here. I don't have a problem at all against IC, nor do I wish to lead a religious uprising against it (or lead anything at all. I work alone, brother). I want to help out, IC is the biggest and almost certainly the most important part of Uncyclopedia right now. You can't tell another user to "shut up and work" in a sense that implies there is only one way to help at all (not to mention that's it's quite rude to tell someone to "shut up". It also feels like to me that users try to avoid discussion by reducing my comments as drama. I'm not the one telling people to shut up, or trying to speak for others and saying that nobody cares what your opinion is (referring to Opty's first response to my comment).

Criticism, as the VFH page will say, is to be constructive and on the other side, it is to be taken openly. I intended that impression from the start, and I also wanted to expect some civil response. As PEE review will say, criticism will help other users see what may be wrong with the article's they have created. I never want to give the impression to people that I am spreading hate when I criticise, I only want to fulfil the job I've undertaken several times on PEE and help out in my own way. Help isn't always coming simply through more and more editors. I realise I'm just one person saying that there are some holes in a whole group of superb editors, which is comparable to a mouse prodding a bunch of lions, but I'm not scared to merely show my opinion and offer help on how IC goes about. I don't hate anyone, I don't have any grudges against anyone in the world, let alone a website on the internet, and I think the idea of me trying to have personal vendetta is somewhat humorous. Perhaps I could write about it.

Lastly, SysRq, you are doing a great job here. You thoroughly deserved the UotM award (the same month I voted for Socky, but then whatever, I've retracted my vote for him this month) as result of the resurgence you instigated for IC and the message it sends. I am I fully aware you have had enough flak from the Jew article. I wanted to chip in my 'way' that I usually help out, you've seen me do a review on PEE every now and then. To show that I had the audacity to outrageously suggest ideas to improve IC, I also wanted to show why I thought there had been problems. If a whole list of cricitisms isn't what you want to see anymore, then I understand.

Now that I've said that, can you understand that I am attempting to help out? Could we talk about the suggestions, whether positive or negative you think of them, instead? If you don't want to, then that's obviously cool - I've had the opportunity to say my piece and if anyone wanted to discuss it, then I would be happy to talk. Either way, I'm happy. I just expect that nobody lets a comment get to them. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinions regarding IC. You are certainly allowed your fifteen minutes on your soapbox, telling us how you would run IC if you were in charge. But when your fifteen minutes is up, we expect you to sit down and let us resume what you feel is "the biggest and most important part of Uncyclopedia". I hope you understand what I mean when I say that IC is not about IC. I'm not trying to make a perfect system. I would love a system in which I did not have to always be here, and it seems like we're already making some progress. I've seen some great things happen in my absence. I hope that they continue, and I also hope that my schedule will allow me to return once again to active duty.

Back to my point. What I'm trying to say is that you can criticize us and give us suggestions and we will appreciate you for it. But what you've done instead is create this atmosphere around IC that is one of drama and long winded discussions. I apologize for telling you to "shut up" in as few words as I could, but I only do so because, to be frank, you will not shut up. You just keep talking well after your point was made, and yes, some people here have been enablers of that. But most of the blame falls on you. I do not appreciate what you have done to IC, and how you have made IC all about making a perfect system. It's about writing articles, not about a perfect system.

I don't want to reprimand you solely for upsetting us high and mighty experienced writers. I hope you realize what I'm saying here, and don't take this merely as a big STFU. I'm not trying to stifle your opinion, I'm not trying to silence any criticism, I'm just trying to get it through your head that sometimes you just need to sit down.

Change will come slowly. IC is far from perfect. We probably never will have a perfect system, at least not as long as I'm at the helm. Because as head of IC, my goal is not to further this usergroup. My goal is to do what the system cannot. It's very easy for someone outside of IC, who has never taken part in a Colonization, who did not revive IC and put the entire system together, who did not write all the documents and various subpages about IC, to talk about how much better the system could be. It's another thing to be the guy that will have to get it all done.

But change will come slowly. And I'm fine with making changes. They're just not going to happen right now, and they're not going to happen as long as users are busy writing novels on this talk page. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force anything on you, I was just saying what I thought may help. I can see that the word-count will have given the impression that I'm a fascist who wants to be UotM because I think I can order people about with a keyboard, and I apologise to you because of that. I realise I need to clear up the presentation of my essay, since it seems to have come off as demanding. I apologise again if the essay sounded demeaning.

Presentation aside, I wanted to talk about the suggestions I had and I'm naturally eager to respond to the comments I receive. I understand that my novel (over-description is a problem of mine, unfortunately) may have formed an evil image to the users here, I did have a lot that I wanted to bring up since I like talking about whatever someone thinks could potentially act as progress, no matter how long or small the talk is. So you understand why I didn't think I'd be misinterpreted.

So would you like to talk to me about what I thought might be good for IC? If you say you don't want to for any reason, just say so, I am happy whatever happens, but if someone isn't happy then I won't be either. I only wanted to talk without someone deciding it's definitely drama of some sort, it is quite unfortunate when someone thinks of such a reason to negate someone's opinion. I wasn't trying to start hatred, I've absolutely no idea why would that help anything.

I sounded 100% negative, to most of the people here, by trying to be serious, so I need to shed this image by uplifting my karma. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What I would like for you to do is to stop obstructing IC with your excessive comments and stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of martyr whose opinion is being silenced. I'm not telling you your opinion doesn't matter. Quite the contrary, I value your opinion and I'm thrilled that you're willing to give us your outside opinion. But you don't get to just keep complaining about IC when you don't see the change you want right away. And you certainly don't get to tell people that I've been here working to silence you and keep your opinions quiet. I'm not negating your opinion just because I'm not going to make all of these changes right away. I'm just being realistic about it. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I would be obstructing anything by keeping it to the talk page, but I understand, I'm losing interest in coming here. However, I'm not complaining about you making any changes right away (not to mention trying to martyr, or dramatise, myself). As I said earlier, I was only interested in hearing what you thought of the ideas, that's all. I'm not expecting you to say "Right. We'll do this now", I can see that IC has more relevant things to do than change instantly. I was just making a proposal and wanted to talk about them, without caring whether they were good or bad, and if they were somewhat okay, what point of time something of the like could be tried out. I'm not demanding that my ideas happen, I've said this before again and again.

However I get the hint that you're simply not interested in discussing what I wanted to talk about from the start and I'd rather not have to waste my time here any more so I'm not going to comment any further. Coming here didn't seem to satisfy anything, blame that I put on myself despite the faith I have in my opinion. Good luck with the Barack Obama article. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on all of this

Nachlader, I don't mind you criticising IC. Not at all. You're making a lot of good suggestions (and also a few bad ones). Although, as SysRq brought up in the above post, it is starting to look like a personal vendetta. However, I will gladly believe that you never intended it to end up like that.

About popular articles: I do support IC colonizing 'popular' articles. However, we should take account of how a lot of anonymous visitors to our site will react to our rewrite. And that is where we went wrong with Jew.

About Jew: We came up with a brilliant concept. However, we deleted a whole article which matched the expectations of most visitors and replaced it with something a lot of people just couldn't associate with. The colonization article we ended up with would have worked great, had we colonized "Jewish History" and not "Jew". I support moving the article, but Mordillo has made me realize that before we start doing anything like that, we should have a decent article to put in "Jew".

About how I think IC would work better: Instead of just throwing away what is in the article when we start colonizing it, we should first ask ourselves "Is there anything we can use in the current article?" and "Is it useful to preserve the present concept of the article?" Then we may discuss what concept we are going to use (if it is not the original). Also, it may be purposeful to divide our concept so we can more easily come to an agreement. With the latter I mean letting people vote separately on things like "Are we gonna portray the subject in a positive/negative way?", "Are we going to subtly imply things or just state them?" and "Are we gonna use 'serious humour' or 'silly humour'?" Stuff like that. Then we can tie these different issues together in one coherent concept and write based on that concept.

That's about it for now. Keep up the good work people! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything personal against anyone, unless it's an object (hate with other human beings is the stupidest thing anyone can do, it doesn't lead to anything). I guess it's slightly tragic that people like interpreting my serious comments as hate of some kind. Meanwhile, I agree with what you're saying here. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 19:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The way that people interpret the things that you say is directly related to how your ideas are presented. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's where I fail Mahm00shA 11:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the impression they weren't infringing on anything. I wasn't trying to force anyone. I force people to try my cooking though. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 12:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also have an opinion

We should rewrite in Jew an article written from the perspective of a devout fundie Christian, with lots of references to how sad it is that jews picked the wrong religion and are going to hell, coupled with just a bit of racism. Also, you guys should be less longwinded. It's not that hard. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:35, Apr 19

When should we fix Jew? —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Put it up on the nom page, and if the voters vote it to the top slot, fix it then, just like any other article. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:10, Apr 20

Here are my 2 cents: Move Jew to another title, and restore the pre-colonization Jew article, I think saberwolf keeps it in his userspace. Then you can rewrite it or whatever Mahm00shA 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The pre colonization article is one of the worst pieces of crap that ever had the honor to exist in this place. While the current should be under a different title, going back into the pre colonization version would be a very bad idea. ~ 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I keep pre-colonization articles is because I want to preserve how good/bad they were and how they were improved compared to the present version (you can check out all 5 on my page). My suggestion for Jew is pretty much similair to Socky's:move the entire damn thing to Jewish History, and let us work on making Jew from a different angle. Seing as how my dad is a far-right conservative Christian, I could really be active in TLB's proposal style. Saberwolf116 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if you could get him to write what he thinks is a serious essay about the jewish religion and put it up here we could probably turn it into a full article. Or maybe a short interview section would work. Or maybe none of the above. I dunno. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:20, Apr 21

too bad, Jewish History already exists and it aint crap, so we will have to think of another title to move the current Jew to.. Also, when I said restore the pre-colonization Jew, I meant it as an interim solution till we finish a decent article to replace it, and btw, I'd prefer a fundie Muslim POV, as it has moar potential for hilarity as well as being moar IP friendly. IMO Mahm00shA 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just had an idea:if we're writing it from the perspective of a fundie Christian, perhaps we can take excerpts from Conservapedia? They sound like a parody to everyone but themselves... Saberwolf116 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOT! I don't give a shit if we move Jew, but there's no way in hell I'll support recreating the old piece of shit that was Jew. Redirect Jew to wherever we move it to until a better Jew article is written. Till then, leave it empty. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:25, 21 Apr