Uncyclopedia talk:Uncyclopedian of the Month

July '07 or, Gosh, Ceridwyn sure can go on

• Comment Am I allowed to decline the nomination? Much as I'd like to win, I really don't feel I belong here running against Insinerate and Sbu, they do so much work for the site, all I did was have a good idea, I don't even do a quarter of the work at the Proofreading Service. If we are giving out awards its ppl like Mitch, Uncyclopedian and HGG who deserve them, not me. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 07:26, 01 July 2007

• Well, a few months back, Flyingfeline declined a nom if I remember, but people voted anyways. –—Hv (talk) 1/07 19:35
• Modesty will get you nowhere. Nowhere! Do you want that? Besides, UotM comes with a ticket good for half-off a breastfast at Denny's. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Breastfast? That could either be very good, or very bad. Why didn't anyone tell me about this two months ago! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:33, 01 Jul 2007

• No its not modesty, and as tempting as the half-off breastfest sounds (btw Spang, Reception tells me they still have your ticket waiting for you...see Tracey on the front-desk ;D ) I'm merely pointing out that I don't deserve the honour. Observe: my edits, Strange's, Insinerate's and Ogopogo's.

I haven't even been very active in the last few weeks. Even SPANG thinks Sbu deserves it more than me, and I quote *ahem* "Oh and I would have nominated you this month for UotM, but you havn't been around much this month :P" ~ Spang.

I rest my case. Now if you'd all be so good as to remove these votes and give them to those who really deserve it I'll be happy :D ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:24, 02 July 2007

Why don't you just <s> it yourself? –—Hv (talk) 2/07 20:28

I considered it but I felt that would be a bit rude to strikeout other peoples comments. Also I wanted to state my case for the other candidates and explain myself. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:31, 02 July 2007

Fine, I'll do it, since you asked. –—Hv (talk) 2/07 20:34

No I did not ask you to strike through every vote. I asked each person who DID vote for me (you did not) to rethink their vote. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:37, 02 July 2007

Oh, sorry. Thought you were declining the nom. –—Hv (talk) 2/07 20:39

I rethought my vote. I didn't change it. Just thought about it. Thought it should be pink, actually. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine I give up :P ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:50, 02 July 2007

Hey, just sit back and enjoy the praise - it doesn't happen very often! And you deserve it as much as any of us dear - I'd be voting for you right now but I can't bring myself to break a seven-all tie so I'll wait until one of us goes ahead. /me makes fierce and growly competitive face. :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh thats the hard bit, I still haven't worked out how to take compliments gracefully :P And you feel free to go ahead and vote for yourself please :P lol@growly face, so cute XD ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:16, 03 July 2007

:( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~   talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 07:02, 04 July 2007

September '06

Review the votes for (well I should say against) Modusoperandi on the UGotM Award Page. Uh, dont know if you know protocol, but you NEVER vote against on award pages, you just vote for who you like best. Plus, you shouldn't ask someone, that is not an adminstrator, to remove anything from an award page as per Hinoa.-- 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not such protocol.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

...and whether there is or is not a rule on such things, I'm perfectly okay with people voting against me on UGoTM <ahem>, I don't care whether you or Cornbread fight to the death about it.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I hope someone informs User:Sir Cornbread to stop giving out false information to try to get more votes. Hey, that's just how it looks. 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I sense jealousy, that I'm up for this, and poor Tom can't even "win" UGOTM. Hey bud, just FYI, nobody cares about this. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. I'm putting you two in a locked room together until you settle your differences. Just you two, a box of wine, and a Barry White mix tape. It'll be like thunderdome, but creepy.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not jealous. I just don't like it when people make a big deal out of something that is nothing & all I did was try to correct the issue. I know that no one cares. I don't care. I'm sticking with the facts presented to me by administrators. Cornbread told a user that he could not vote against on an award page. I pointed to the fact that he did it himself on the GotM. He asked said user to remove his against vote when only administrators can remove things from award pages. Jeaslousy? Just the facts, ma'am. Don't get so worked up. This isn't about Cornbread, it's about the facts. Let's give the nOObs the facts when it comes to protocol. 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP! You're one half of the duo that's <James Dean moment> "Tearing this site apart!". Just back off. Both of you. This is how the Hatfield and McCoy feud got started.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one closing statement by the defense: You CAN remove your own vote... And I didnt vote against you on the GOTM page. I just said I agree with Modusoperandi. Granted, I voted against him, but that was a joke. Respected users (You're my boy MO!) shouldnt be GOTMs. So I dunno where you're getting you're so-called "facts" from... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 06:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hinoa banned me for 1 day for removing votes from an award page. You can strike through but are not suppose to remove anything. The facts are still there regardless if you say that your against vote was a joke. My nomination for Modusoperandi was a joke but it wasn't taken as such because some people couldn't see the ironicness of it. Mousoperandi does great work here. I have got my facts from 5 administrators and have had numerous support from other users. But this is not their problem and I won't be so petty as to have them enter this debate. If they wish to comment then I'm all for it. But like I said, this is not their problem. 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

March

Isn't the female form of Knight "Lady"? I thought Dame was more recent... I could be wrong... just a thought snice the dame kind of looked funny... Yuletide 05:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) It's the second day of the month and we're already up to +7? I think that we need some rules about how monthly awards work; something like only nominations in the first 15 days, then voting. In theory, the Uncyclopedian of the Month should have done noteworthy things in that month right? No offense to the current candidates, who are all great Uncyclopedians but I just don't think enough of the month has passed to determine anything statistically significant about their quality this month. --Sir gwax (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I was nominated on the 5th of a month and at +7 by the 7th, that's not statistically significant either. I should have complained last month, don't pay attention to me and my selective attention. --Sir gwax (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In theory, IMHO, monthly nominations should work thusly: Nominations for month N should be for contributions in month N-1 and award should be given in month N+1. So, if you did a lot of good things in February, you should get nominated the first few days of March and be given the award in April. In practice this doesn't usually work out. --Splaka 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am largely being pedantic, partly because I'm a pedantic person and partly because it's fun. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since all of the people discussing it here have won it already, lets form a mini-cabal and have this award permanently retired. ^_^ --Splaka 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• For the UotM alumni mini-cabal. :) ~ T. (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against: UotM highlights a very different thing than the other monthly awards and there are people out there doing some very good things that aren't n00bs or writers. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Splark and I are kidding. Notice the strategic use of smiley faces. :) The award willnot be retired. We need that carrot for the end of the stick to ensure that the number of saps to willing to weed through thousands of edits remains inexhaustable. :) ~ T. (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe in kidding; there is no room for comedy in such a serious matter. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Like all the awards here, it's part merit and part popularity contest. I'd rather see this award changed to reduce the maximum number of winners per month to one. Let the best one win. ~ T. (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but...can we institute that next month? :) --—rc (t) 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely. :) All in favour, say Arrrrrr! ~ T. (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yarrrrr: let's make it a one winner award, feature it on the front page and take it seriously (it's a good deal better than UGotM. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. And you should start featuring it this month, meaning you should allow gwax to add it to the AwardWinners template again.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This I have to disagree with. As far as I know, UotM has never been a front page award because it's about internal excellence—drudging through heaps of pages to fix crap, organize, and generally make the place better. It's not something that Joe and Jolene average wants to read about, especially given the amount of clutter on the front page already. You do get knighted for it, and get your name nice 'n high on the Order of Uncyclopedia. That's enough, isn't it? :) ~ T. (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say while your at it why not add UGotM to the front page aswell? But that wouldn't make sense would it?--Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ups, I arrived late, I'm sure I gave my oppinion against the reduction of winners somewhere in the forum. Nevermind, we can still vote for more than one candidate can't we?--Rataube 12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

April

Didn't Keitei win too?--Rataube 08:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one. --Splaka 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait. It got changed to single-winner? I thought that proposal went down in flames in the dump. I would have argued to keep it multi-winner if I thought it was actually changing. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you both had the same number I think a joint "win" would be in order..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I don't remember any mention of the change in the Dump, but I may just be forgetting and only remembering the comments on this page and IRC. (Watch it be in some thread I participated in extensively, too...) Isra actually had the advantage by a vote. —rc (t) 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the slight difference and the lack of knowldege of the voters, including those like me and Isra who thought the proposal went down, I think she should get the title too.--Rataube 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Isra did win it outright, albeit slightly. The one winner rule was added in March, and in the months of March and April there has been but one winner. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. In March both Mhaille (19 votes) and Tomps (15 votes) were awarded. See Uncyclopedia:Past Winners 2--Rataube 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Todd suggested changing it a few days into March, so April was the first affected month. —rc (t) 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a multi-winner option, but only those who go over a certain threshold......say 10 + votes? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• If we're re-voting, I'm for keeping it at one per month. ~ T. (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Same. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'd have to Agree... again.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1 winner yes. Except in cases where there is exactly the same number of votes. (eg: 15 to 15, not 15 to 14.5) --Splaka 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Multi winner above 15. But if you prefer one winner it should start from May, otherwise it would be retroactive and unfair.--Rataube 11:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree...in March we had four people in favor previously on this page and no opposition, and no opposition on IRC as well as far as I remember. And I'm still not convinced that there was a vote for this somewhere else. That's not retroactive. —rc (t) 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Isra and I were talking of this forum topic. But after re-reading it, I notice that we didn´t really get into the number of votes issue, so I guess you are right...--Rataube 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am against a single winner. However maybe a theshold should be in place, so we know who won. For instance in a 15-15-14 situation, the 14 vote reciver would not get it, however in a 16-15-15-5 situation, we would have to award three winners. Hence we need really specific rules, maybe even counting when a person was nominated. Finally, about April, I think keitei deserves the win aswell, because (no disrespect to isra who deserves his award aswell) the people who voted for her are all admins/prominent Uncyclopedians (even Todd dropped a now funny User:Bear comment..."hibernation"...I get it now...). Where as the poeple who voted for isra seem to be less regonizable (unless they are all about to step out as disguised admins or something). This unregognizableness cuminated near the end of the month, and came to a head with a single IP vote. Upon looking at this IP's contributions it strikes me as odd that this IP would vote for someone, after only making two edits (10 days before voting) to Holocaust Tycoon, and only adding the words "or DDR Equivalent" and changing a "7300" to a "7600". Now I'm not one to throw around unfounded accusations of suckpuppetry, or even getting friends to vote for oneself (something I was guilty of in February 2006 on this very page), but this is last IP vote is kinda fishy. Maybe a full review is nessacary by an admin, although I am sure isra would never stoop to that level. In closing, let me say that the concept of UotM needs to be reviewed for it to carry on. Is it an internal award, feuling the egos of our best and brightest? Is it a more public award like WotM and NotM, where knowlage of Uncyclopedia's underbelly is not a requirement to vote and be nominated? Or is it just that, a repository of the above mentioned underbelly, where unknowlagable users have no place, where the IP who has only made 2 edits has no right to vote? The way I see it is closest to the last, and maybe there should be a certain number of edits, or a certain amount of clout/power/notability in Uncyclopedia required to vote, maybe with the votes of those more powerful/notable counting for more? However that raises the tricky question of measureing power/notability. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from RabbiTechno

He can't get to the site at the moment so he's asked me to post a big THANK YOU to everyone who voted for him for Uncyclopedian of the Month. I think he's quite excited about being able to put KUN after his name, possibly because it's the most prestigious post-nominal title he's ever likely to receive :) Juan Kerr 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Two years and I only just found this. You bastard. :-) Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 11:56, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ljlego vs. Leddy

I hate you all! I have to choose between my kids again!?!?!? Have you got no heart?! ~ 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pick the other guy? -- 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 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pick Heerenveen. Nobody saw that.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WHORAGING!

Reasons why nominating me next month is a good idea:

• I really fixed some uncategorized pages. Hundreds, even.
• Nobody you care about is worthy of this prize
• Me winning will not affect you. Ever. --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 14:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what I get from this is that you want to ensure that you never win this award. How about now you go to VFS's talkpage and recommend that people make you an admin? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I laughed at his little anecdote. I'm going to nominate him for Writer of the Month. -- 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 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You "laughed at his little anecdote"? How, if I may be so curious, did you happen to see him naked at all? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, hypothetically speaking...

Let's say that there were some user that had recently won this award that continues to be the one name that always jumps out at me every time I check Recent Changes. Let's say that there were some user who deserves to be honored for another month even though said user had already won this award. Let's say that said user has demonstrated tremendous work ethic, a spirit of helpfulness, and a true passion for this site. Would a secret admirer of said user be wrong in nominating said user for said award one more time? sirsysrq @ 22:52 Dec 1

No rule against it -- 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 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. Just wanted to make sure there was at least one user that didn't hate the idea. Thanks. sirsysrq @ 23:11 Dec 1

Changing the number of votes is OK?

I justed voted for a UotM but the vote number was the same so I raised it by one. I'm a n00b here, so did I do right or screw up? Miley Spears 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. -- slippery Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you just did better than most users who've been around for years. Seriously. Great job! -- 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 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I should tell you I'm a n00b here, but I'm not new to doing wikis. ;) Miley Spears 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He means me. Fuck you TKF! -- slippery Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking bribes

User:PuppyOnTheRadio

Waiting for an hour or so...

...`to add this back]                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 23:22, 28/02/2010

Comment to all voters

I've noticed lately that some of the voters/nominators state that candidates should get this award "because they have many featured articles". I just want to remind everyone that we have other prizes to compliment that. This one is for people who made Uncyclopedia better by cleaning up shop, helping people and allow Uncyclopedia to wobble around without falling over. ~ 08:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I realize this, and even that WOTM is actually a more "prestigious" award. But when I'm nomming someone, especially for UotM or NotM, I like to give an idea of general contributions. But I'll try to remember in future noms for UotM to de-emphasize the writing part. I understand that this award is primarily for doing the kind of unglamorous, background dirty work that really, really needs to get done but isn't covered by another award. Thanks for the reminder. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

You managed to somehow make it much worse than I intended. I did not say that this award is less glamorous or intended for the poor suckers who deserve "an award" because we pity them - I simply pointed out that the amount of featured article one has should not be a factor of this specific award. ~ 20:55, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make it sound worse at all. As one of those UotMs, I don't consider myself a poor sucker who's pitied (even though maybe I am). I meant that writing featured articles gets you in the spotlight, whereas reverting edits and helping noobs doesn't. There wouldn't be any movies if not for the people who focus spotlights or check for locations or repair torn costumes at the last minute, but you don't usually see them interviewed at the Academy Awards ceremony. This award is for people like that; that's what I meant. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 21:03, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ah... do you mean this is Best Director to WotM's Best actor and FA's Best movie, and NotM's Best new talent... I wonder how long I can keep up this analogy?                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 21:08, 1/03/2010

I don't know if this would be like Best Director. Best Director goes to the person who's in charge of directing the actors, kind of like oh, I don't know, being the head of some project or other that rewrites articles.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  21:16, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Guildy vote comments

• Comment. "In the past a maximum of three UotM awards have been given out in a single month; however, currently only one user each month may win the award."--is there a reason we couldn't have two in one month? We've got some really deserving users here. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:27, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think by doing this method it encourages the runners-up to carry on what they're doing. I know I stopped reviewing at PEE after I got the RotM award at the second attempt anyway... --nldr 21:07, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I see what you mean. Looking at the list of -->Past Winners<--, I see there's not a single person there who was still active a month after they won. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 23:41, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • Which list?? --ChiefjusticePS2 23:42, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
        • Now made clear. Who are you, anyway? Some inactive user like me? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 23:48, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
          • I have only ever heard of one list, this new one sounds suspicious to me. Also yes, just another inactive rarely editing user. --ChiefjusticePS2 23:50, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, n has a point - RotMs do have a tendency to drop the energy they put into that after they've won. You two are the exception, yet I know I review a lot less now then I did before I won the award. (Although now Ive finished Game:Alone in the dark I have a little more free time). And what has any of this got to do with Guildy's nom?                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 00:16, 3/03/2010
              • I think we are all agreed that Guildy is a jolly spiffing bloke. --ChiefjusticePS2 00:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
                • If that's the case then you should all vote for me. Seriously, Puppy's kicking my ass down there. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:08, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
                  • no, no, no, no, no, no, no and finally no, guildy. i'm going to use this drunk stint to add my response t o this here rotm discussion. look at my average pee score: 24.1 BUT i did still contirbute 36 out of 36 in depth reviews. that low score shows that i know damn well what a shit article is and that's not mine (LOL low blow). thus i defend my abdication from pee. i was too damn good. --nldr 02:21, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
              • With all due respect to Puppy, RotM is a little different than UotM--Pee Reviews means doing the same thing over and over, and people can get easily burned out on it. I'm not doing nearly as many as I was a month or so ago (although in my case, I'm not at all burned out on doing reviews, I've just been busy commandeering IC). But UotM is for a great deal of different things at Uncyclopedia, and an active user can easily switch from one thing to another. If someone's burned out on that, they're probably burned out on Uncyclopedia period. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 22:53, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
              • Also thanks to Mordillo for moving this discussion here so it doesn't clog up Guildy's nom. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 23:05, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm slightly interested in journalism as a career and I was attracted to RotM that way. RotM is far different to WotM. When Dan Brown released The Da Vinci Code, it was scorned by some critics over the poor writing skill by the author (eg. "He learnt the ropes (a Navy term) in the trenches (an Army term)" = mixed metaphor). There were a lot of online articles, from newspaper website to lowly forums, that made fun of Brown's mistakes in the book (and in a few other of his works). However, I noticed that a vast majority of responses to these articles said "who cares? the plot is good. you're just a jealous journalist". A victory of the public over literary criticism. In a similar vein, I felt like I was simply resorting to nitpicking in my reviews and I stopped PEEing. Also I felt I was repeating what I was saying anyway. --nldr 23:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
                  • Did you just use one of the worst pieces of pulp writing to justify something relating to quality writing? I haven't read the entire book as I got sick of the horrible style when I was about three chapters in - and I read it before I got deluged by the hype. But back to the RotM v UotM discussion from before - Spike's entry into this is due to his repeated actions in going into VFD and salvaging stuff. Guildy and I are related both to DU, which is continually rewriting stuff. And RotM is a vital part of the system (for want of a better term) here, and as such I know personally that I have sucked more than blown with that for a while, so I - personally - have to get back into it as soon as I have a free moment. (Much like UU however, I find that I put a lot into PEE each time. What distresses me is that author's then ignore what you have said to them, or even worse, argue with you. And my standing on that is If I've just done you a favour by giving an impartial review, then your response should start and end with Thank you.)                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 01:16, 4/03/2010
                    • No, my point in using that book as an example was that RotM tends to bring the worst out of people. At least journalists have editors preventing them from going all sweary mary, y'know. --nldr 01:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
                    • I once did a Pee Review, and the writer ignored everything I wrote and within minutes put it up exactly as it was for VFH. Obviously, the writer only asked for a review to justify a self-nom. It failed. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 08:32, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
                      • Well, in my position as journalist for USP, I'd just like to say FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON WITH A VACUUM CLEANER STUCK PERMANENTLY ON "BLOW" with the greatest possible respect.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 01:27, 4/03/2010
                        • ;( --nldr 01:32, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
                      • Winning RotM tends to bring out the worst in people? Obviously, our experiences are different. If I made a list of those whom I personally found to be the most helpful, nicest people on this site, over half of them would be listed as RotM. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:17, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
                        • • Could not resist commenting, Dan Brown and his works sucks ass. And this RotM should know, that quality prose aside, his plot was as predictable as hell. It's formula is, from what I've seen, Robert Langdon was called to investigate a mystery. He meets a beautiful woman who is related to the victim, and they experience sexual tensions while solving factually inaccurate clues. They also get to meet the really annoying local police force. In the end, the twist is that someone who have been assisting them is found to be the mastermind behind it all. This is, in a nutshell, the outline of the two books I've "skimmed over" - the DVC and Angels and Demons. His works are only readable to people who have never read anything else in their lives except things like Twilight, which might explain his popularity. I could go on and on, but I've already proven myself to be the kind of reviewer that nachlader talked about. ~ 14:10, Mar 4, 2010

Back to my original comment: is there a reason we couldn't have more than one UotM like they did in the past? WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 04:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the population of the site in the past so minimal, they just took it in turns? --nldr 16:08, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Joe9320 voting comments

To explain a little, I nommed Joe mainly because he kicked off the idea of us joining wikipedia's SOPA protest, which yada yada yada ended up in Lyrithya and others doing a very quick and extraordinary job of coming up with the best template I saw that day. Given that Joe made me do a 180 on the protest idea, and encouraged me to study it, I came back and carried the ball for awhile...then others joined in and headed it up...and everything worked out great. It was a day we joined many others on the internet to stick it to the man (or, as we did, tried to have the man stick it to us). Everyone else involved has won UotM before, so I thought Joe was a good choice and, given his length of time here and the interesting things he's done and tried, I thought he was a good nom. Although I never expected this uproar, where it seems Rule Two is hovering like a bird just out of everyone's reach. Some people think Joe deserves it, some don't. Again, I base much of my vote and nom on the SOPA protest, knowing the part Joe had in inspiring me, and then the part I had in moving it along, until Lyrithya and a couple of others gave it huge wings. That was an important day in Uncyclopedia's history, that's all I'm saying, and Joe was a very big part of it. Aleister 22:44 5-3-'12