Uncyclopedia talk:VFP

Nightpatrol

Thanks for heeding my suggestion to clear the worst nomination on regular patrol. --SimulacrumCaputosisTheGreat*moan* F@H MUN CM NS 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Format

How about the format in Uncyclopedia:Sandbox? --Repairman Jack 11:00, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Cool exactly what I was gropping around in the dark for. --Elvis 11:06, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Ummm, how exactly did Satan get the nod when HMRFRA had six and Satan had 2 Votes? They're by the same person, so it doesn't matter, but y'know?--slack 18:09, 24 May 2005 (EDT)

I'm unsure as to why my nipple picture bolloxed up the VFP. Any answers before I attemnpt to re-nominate it?

My suggestion, don't post it unless you can figure out the formatting. I'm just going to delete it otherwise. --PantsMacKenzie 19:47, 27 May 2005 (EDT)

Page crashes for IE users

Anyone having problems with Internet Explorer crashing on the VFP? I think I fixed the problem but I was wondering how many people were having that problem. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  20:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I used to, and every once in awhile when I'm at school it crashes.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here.--Rataube 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oy, the crashing. I can't VFP because of it. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 12:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So switch to Firefox already. It works flawlessly on Windows and Linux. All the kewl kids use it. ~ T. (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. IE is a weenie browser. Only sissies or n00bs use it anymore. If you want to be 1337, ya gotta use the Maozilla Firefox.Swordmaster 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

it now works ® 21:12Z,21 March 2006

Unsigned Votes

How literally do we mean unsigned votes will be thrown out? Because I would love to go through and delete them all. Unsigned votes fill me with the rage of a thousand angry admins. --Katie loves you! 15:52, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

They are ignored simple as that, note thats some of the unsigned votes could simply be taken as comments rather than votes.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:34, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You as a user must never remove votes unless they are obviously vandalism/spoofing. As Elvis said, they are just ignored at tabulation. --Splaka 21:51, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I vote For all unsigned vote 2 be smited

Your identity is revealed by the touching consideration you show for all those innocent electrons killed every day by people who needlessly and carelessly type 'to' instead of the far more economical '2.' --Spin 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All featured images have been tagged

Template:ImageFP with that--Insertwackynamehere CUN 03:17, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Rotation of images

I think we're rotating the images a little too quickly... pic nominations are slow and good pics are rare... unless we're going to rotate back to previously-featured images when we run out! --Machinecurse 02:24, 31 May 2005 (EDT)

I actual think that reverting to already highlighted images would be cool, in fact in an ideal world succesfully voted for images would be placed in a pool and a new image selected each time someone hits the main page in much the same way ad rotators work, of course this may not be possible/feasabile(sp?).--Elvis 20:08, 31 May 2005 (EDT)

Duplicate Images

There seems to be a large list of images, many of which on the Lonley Pages, that match with the images on the VFP however the addresses themselves seem to be unlinked to the featured images. Should these be placed on the VFP or other image related page ? 152.163.100.65 04:51, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think somebody (Algorithm maybe?) created those pages as an experiment. It looked like he was trying to set the images to cycle randomly every time the front page was loaded. I'd leave them for now...maybe someone will figure out how to do it. --Rcmurphy 04:55, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still working on that. I'll clean up when I'm done. --Algorithm 05:11, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Image Rotation Implemented

Images are currently weighted by the number of votes they have received. Don't like an image? Vote for the others! --Algorithm 21:04, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

So how do we decide what goes in the rotation, threshold of a number of votes and the "featured" gets a weight boost until another gets selcted?, Any ideas on the threshold and "boost"?--Elvis 11:54, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've been featuring images once they've reached 3 votes, but now that we've got rotation in place that may actually be too low. As for the boost, 50% of the total weight would probably work nicely. --Algorithm 18:53, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Featuring non-original pictures

All right, so currently two of the nominated pictures, Excommunicating Pope and Lee Harvey Oswald, have apparently been cribbed from other sites. Should we allow these to be highlighted? I vote nay. Basically everything else on the front page is original to Uncyclopedia and I think it should stay that way. --Rcmurphy 05:02, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Agreed I also thinkwe may have problems claiming "satire" for Copyright purposes (which is a shame) --Elvis 07:37, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

NAY, MOTHAFUCKA! --Savethemooses 02:31, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Awww, Hell nah I dont want some Hollywood lawyers throwing one-liners at me --Nytrospawn 01:26, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

i dont think so. I think its ok to use known images in your articles and stuff, but if the Featured Image rotation degenerates into "Who can find the funniest pic on the net first??!" it will cause Uncyclopedia to be less original, and more of just another EbaumsWorld or something. its better to encourage people to create new stuff instead of regurgitate stuff we've already seen a million times before and make Uncyclopedia a "funny internet picture repository" or whatever --Insertwackynamehere, CUN 20:41, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

WOW! you guys sure are ticklish about non-original pictures. I must say that I completely approve of that. Sunsneezer 02:17, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm sad to discover that eye beams was, in fact, not original. --Savethemooses 23:59, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yea definately don't feature anything that wasn't born on uncyclopedia.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added VFP templates to all the nominees

enjoy :P--Insertwackynamehere CUN 01:10, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Do bigger images have a chance?

me make a pretty picture ;)

Image:AgentTie.PNG

its big - can it still win shiny prize? Nerd42 01:22, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't mess up the front-page formatting (and it looks like this image wouldn't), it has a chance. If you want you can test it out on the Main Page (editable) to see what it would look like. --—rc (t) 03:48, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Kinda looks like this: --Paulgb Talk 17:34, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Image:AgentTie.PNG

Well that sucks ... I can't read the "Hey, Morpheus!" any more. :( can't the thumbnail be even a little bigger? see also Making up Matrix Quotes Nerd42 21:30, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

thumb|right

Hey, and another thing ... do you have to have made the image yourself in order to nominate it or just have to have been the uploader?? I uploaded FrodBorg.gif and have no idea where it might have come from really ... Nerd42 17:34, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Image:AgentTie.PNG Well, the thumbnail could be bigger but then we risk screwing up the main page. Heres what it looks like at 300px. About FrodBorg.gif, VFP images must be original to Uncyclopedia. It says so on the top of this page. --Paulgb Talk 18:20, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ah ... OK. ;) now i get it. I'll experiment with AgentTie.PNG and see if I can get a size I'm happy with that doesn't screwup the formatting and then prolly enter it in the contest thing! Nerd42 18:43, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand

Why do people continue voteing on previously featured images? --Nytrospawn 18:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No comprendo?

Why do people continue voteing on previously featured images? --Nytrospawn 18:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For I think the non-image is a brilliant attempt at nonexistent minimalism.--Sir Flammable KUN 19:19, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Against Not understanding doesn't help this website. But voting should be supported. Therefore, in the quest for equality, I change my vote to No. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:27, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Vote on wheels! Since the image rotation is weighted, votes can be added even after a picture is featured to increase the image's chances of being shown. I should probably go back and check the weights, actually... --—rc (t) 23:30, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For! --Splaka 23:41, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the No Comprendo? Template. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

For Like most voters, I don't know what i'm voting for. --Chronarion 00:16, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Something --Nerd42 21:57, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Random vote for. --Carlb 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up old nominations: Is there another way?

The recent cleanup got rid of some random nominations, some of which had to be brought back. Is there or should there be some sort of system for removing old nominations (like two-week deadlines or certain percentage of votes)? Just some suggestions. -70.176.93.225 05:21, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) -JBob 05:22, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Where's the whole "Uncyclopedia is not a democracy" speech? Basically, things are deleted on the whims of admins when we feel a vote has gone too long, something lacks support, or any other reason that we come up. VFP and VFH are sometimes used as dumping grounds by various users and therefore become outrageously unweildy over time. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:53, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Right. When rcmurphy gets rid of old images, he notes it in the Summary...something like (3 months only 3+ votes). If it's not getting votes, it needs to be removed from the voting. Strong RadX 20:16, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, can we make sure that the reason is actually listed? What I mean is that instead of removing a bunch of nominations at the same time, it might be better to remove nominations individually with the reason for removal listed. Even when removing a group of nominations, it would be better to make sure that all of them are being removed for the same reason. Am I making any sense here? -JBob 20:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

This was an exception. All of the removals were voted on and reasons given in IRC before they were removed. It was much too long and so we were cutting down all at once. And we don't need to justify everything we do. KATIE!! 20:47, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to. But as you are learning, young admin, you will be asked to. :) ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:57, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The ghost of Previously Featured Pictures past

do really need that http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:VFP#Previously_Featured_Pictures crap at the bottem. shouldnt just go straigh to the archive, its blocking up vote. then have a whole heap of thumbnail with the recent votes in the images. --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 23:31, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And thus, with that, people wouldn't be voting for alredy featured pics anymore... Acid Ammo 11:25, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

derotating

What do people think of the idea of removing images from the rotation based on a vote/timed expiration? The images would still maintain their once featured status but it would make images that stay in the rotation more likely to come up. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the plan with PFP, though I don't think we've decided on a vote threshold for removing images. --—rc (t) 00:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than remove them, just weight them less heavily. (I think we already do that) --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're doing both. --—rc (t) 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wtf?

For some reason, my browser always crashes either upon viewing this page, or when attempting to vote. Anyone else have this problem?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nintendorulez (talk • contribs)

Yes. (see Talk:Main_Page below)--Mrasdfghjkl 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That happens to me on Pee Review if I go directly to the Main section.--DiZ 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unable to access VFP

moved from Talk:Main Page

This happens when ever I go to the VFP page

Why? Why? Why?--Mrasdfghjkl 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Try putting this into User:Mrasdfghjkl/uncyclopedia.css:

 #headclear h1 { clear: none; }
 #headclear h2 { clear: none; }
 #headclear div.editsection { display:none; }

If that doesn't work, try another skin in your Special:Preferences like monobook. --Splaka 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your first seggestion worked for about a minute or so. Your second seggestion however is working swimmingly... so far. Thanks--Mrasdfghjkl 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Its doing it again. But I did manage to do what I wanted to do.

Odd. It probably isn't a css problem then. Try going to User:Mrasdfghjkl/vfptest. I've removed the headclear div. Does it still crash? If so, you can try editing it to see if you can find the problem (remove the page piecemeal until it stops crashing). This is a very odd bug, I haven't seen any other reports of this though. What IE are you using? Also, go back to uncyclopedia skin. --Splaka 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming IE means Internet Explorer, it is version 6--Mrasdfghjkl 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am getting the same thing...but it's only when I use the scroll button on the mouse. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I was getting this consistently until "White Square" and "ACME Anvil Testing" were removed earlier today. If I go back to the earlier versions that have those images in them, it crashes - this is IE6 on WinXP, by the way. (And I don't think it's the animated GIF in my /sig, because I didn't vote on those...) And yet I can go to the detail pages for those two images with no problem. Pretty weird! --Some user 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell me if either of these versions crash for you no headclear yes headclear --Splaka 07:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• ACK Uh, reverse that last comment I made a minute ago. If I open the "yes headclear" version, it crashes; if I re-launch and open the "no headclear" version, no crash. Sorry if you read the earlier comment, which I could have sworn was accurate at the time, but... it's getting awfully late. (The only thing I could think of is that "Joy of Killing" and "White Square" are .png files - the rest are .jpg's.) --Some user 08:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about this version: cropped headclear --Splaka 08:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The two versions above yes and no headclear are fine (sorta) the cropped headclear has that problem, but only if I scroll. Otherwise, if i let the page load completely it is fine but as I continue to scroll it has the same error. I'll save this and check one other thing. (It does close ALL windows that have the uncyclopedia domain in them, other IE windows are unaffected.) -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay... If I delete my cache I can load the page but if it will error out shortly thereafter (10-20 seconds or so) even if i don't scroll. On subsequent visits it errors right away. If I empty the IE cache and scroll right away it gives me the error right away. The "sorta" above is due to a weird latency. The page loads, then for a split second freezes and then is fine again. I too use XP PRO with IE if that helps. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  08:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Illogical. How about cropped noheadclear? --Splaka 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Illogical? What are you, Vulcan? :P One other thing I noticed...

Line: 82
Char: 19
Error: Expected'}'
Code:0
URL: http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Mrasdfghjkl/vfptest&oldid=521238 

the cropped noheadclear does the same deal as cropped headclear -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  09:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can get all versions to crash if I scroll right away but only after I have the cropped versions in my cache. The more I play with it the more random it seems. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  09:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WTH. Ok: white square and killing joy. Which? --Splaka 09:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

killing joy...I can't get it to crash at all on white square. Maybe find another large .png?

I am actually suspecting it isn't the png... does this crash for you? picfree killing --Splaka 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the pic. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  09:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok! Confirm that just the pic, maam crashes? --Splaka 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you don't want to hear this... it's fine. As is the http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Joyofkilling.png page and the links to the pic. VFP still crashes though. SIGH! -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  10:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rar, new heading, edit button is too high=

Ok! Try the yo mama version. Does it crash? --Splaka 10:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

YEP! try replacing the pic with [[Image:jok.jpg]] that I just uploaded. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  10:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC) ALSO: I can get it to load by clicking "open in a new window" (cache not emptied) but as soon as i move the mouse it shows the error. Otherwise I get the error right away.

Ok, do either of these crash? pic and title only, and jpgbaby. --Splaka 10:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic and title are fine... jpg=crashola -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I MAY HAVE FOUND IT...TAKE OUT THE THREE DOTS IN FRONT OF KEITEI'S VOTE. When I edit and show preview it's fine without the "..." otherwise it crashes. NM...take out her whole vote.

Ok, try slutwhore. Does it still crash? Her sig is all over vfp though. Doesn't make sense. And also be sure to tell me if sigfree (with kei's sig removed) crashes it too. --Splaka 10:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

both of those are fine...just move her vote down the page, that'll work too. I placed Irsa's sig in place of Keitei's and it crashed. Makes a whole lot of sense huh? I can't get the altered sig page to crash though. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hard Wick Fondles Buggies III  10:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just the header, sig, and picture: hot stripper. I am guessing if kei's sig is at the top and the pic and header are aligned with it, it crashes. Maybe. Can you try editing it yourself and seeing what the smallest combination of code is that will crash? Does it need all 3 elements? can you remove all the non templated parts of kei's vote and still crash? --Splaka 10:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

CRASH!!!!! Dicking with it right now. CRASH CRASH CRASH CRASH...still messing with it.

My best guess

I don't know what it is...but the latest version is working...not having a sig on the first line. I gotta go to bed!

Caption Modification

Since the majority of Featured Image captions are too small for the box they're given, I have implemented a system to allow people to modify the captions of Featured Images. An easily accessible list of all the captions can be found at Template:FI/captionlist. I welcome comments/criticisms on the layout template (Template:FIimage) that I set up to display things to the Main Page. Enjoy. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

..............

Why does someone keep deleting my votes?--Anon32 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• because you touch yourself at night O_o

I don't know... same thing happens to me everyonce in a while.... --LinkTGF 21:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Forum:Missing Edit Conflicts?--Rataube 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need another break from VFP

• IMO, everyone seems to have had a fun-ectomy... Maybe it's just me who thinks that but VFP seems a little tense lately and kind of biased towards things that are no longer funny... Again, probably just my opinion... --LinkTGF 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of shutting down VFP I am just going to not have a featured image if there's nothing worthwhile (as suggested by MoneySign). Normally there would be a new featured image tonight, but the images currently on VFP have been added only recently, so I'm going to give them an extra day or two to garner votes. Meanwhile all the images in the featured image template will have their normal unboosted weights. --—rc (t) 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • sounds good, it's just that IMO it's been kinda stale and redundant the past week and no one seems to be in a good mood... But that sounds like a good plan bro :) --LinkTGF 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're all going to die

I will kill the next man who nominates a stupid image of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, or any of the sort. --PiOfFive 23:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

/me google searches, opens photoshop. --Spin 00:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

/me helps spintherism -- LinkTheGameFreak ^{Bitch here} 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Pilates sounds friggin' awesome! Thanks for the idea...note to self: learn to use photoshop. Modusoperandi 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Opposition

Not that I'm talking about any article in particular, but is it just me, or do 90% of the people that vote here vote "Against"? Are your standards really this high, or do the vast majority of original images on Uncyclopedia suck bat shit this badly? --DiZ 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take one Ventí Guanoccino to go with those original images. And could ya make it extra crappy? Thanks. -- Imrealized IMme 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's for the Best, right? Not the Most-Averagest or the Politely Mediocre. Ergo, pics that aren't the best don't get For votes. Simple, really. You need thicker skin...artistes, harumph! Modusoperandi 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It takes extreme diligence and attention to detail, as well as a superb knowledge of expression through a visual medium. If you haven't mastered those yet, you obviously are going to get some against votes. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A good example of excellence in awesome wickeditude would be/ If you can't beat that I'll probably be against'd Modusoperandi 04:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff on VFP is just bad. There's no dire need to have a new featured image every few days, so on the whole I think it's a good thing people are being critical. That said, it's really lame for some people - you know who you are - to vote against simply to vote against. —rc (t) 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the people who vote against everything? We don't have any of those. ;p--<<>> 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect to get new talent to contribute to VFP with the increasingly mean spirited tone of the comments about the submissions? Where is the incentive for people to try out their ideas or even go to an effort if the comments are dismissive, unconstructive and worse yet just downright mean spirited? And we all cross the line at some point, some more than others. But the bottom line is that your not going to grow talent or find people putting forth the effort to try out ideas if the tone of the comments continues to be bitchy and dismissive. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 12:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If you're going to vote against an image or article, at least say why so the submitter knows how to improve or what to do different. Not saying that some people don't do that, but most are really bitchy and unconstructive with their criticisms. --DiZ 16:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a case of, "If you can't do, critique." Take everything that's said here with a grain of salt. This is the interweb, after all. Modusoperandi 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, here! Going back over some of the worst offenders shows that they really haven't contributed original material in the form of articles or art, but comments and voting on VFH, VFP and forum discussions and they're there, in full participation. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I'm not a worst offender. There would probably be stuff by me up here, except my stuff's all crap. I try to set the bar low. Still, I try to keep my critiques of other peoples work constructive vice destructive. I hope that the majority does the same (not make crappy pics, but vote politely). Modusoperandi 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You? Nah. But lets not talk names, lets just take this moment, make it our own and meet our personal desitinies. Maybe one day we will meet again, share a fleeting glance and silently communicate what life has taught us about ourselves and the world around us.Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A place for critique?.....try out here -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That was deep and I must say I am profoundly touched. Maybe one day mankind will be able to shed its skin of hatred and embrace what the world has to say; maybe one day we'll learn to listen to the trees...--DiZ 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I listen to trees

Um, yeh...I'm all for combining all of these wonderful ideas. I, myself, personally share fleeting glances with silent trees. But that's just me, you understand. I took some pics of it that I would've put on VFP, but they turned out too dark. Plus, I don't own a camera. Also, I think that my brain doctor may have swapped my medication for placebo again. Modusoperandi 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in the midst of this talk about fleeting trees and taking pictures of cameras or whatever (that I admit I began), have we lost sight of the true issue here? Isn't there some way of weeding out the bad pictures before they go on to VFP? Or is the issue constructive criticism? I don't even know anymore... --DiZ 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since anyone can nom pics there's no way to weed out the mediocre before they hit VFP. This means that they will get blasted when they get here. As long as the good pics don't get hit in the crossfire it's an acceptable price to pay for wiki democracy, "Wiki democracy must, from time to time, be moistened with the blood of bad noms." Or maybe, "I would fight and die for your right to nom something stupid." Modusoperandi 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after I wrote the above comment, I wandered into this place that Hindleyite has going on. It's a good place to review pics before VFP, but I don't think it has to go thru beforehand (which it should). -- DiZtheGreat  (Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to just jump the line and move my quote way over to the right margin because that's kinda the way I am. Carry on the dicussion. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Cell Phone

Err... Don't get it. ~ Ghelætalkcontribs 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking to Allah, he is. Or he hopes. (Prayer -> Cellular service -> Dropped call -> "Holy" war.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

going prostrate, facing "mecca,' and praying (more than once a day for devout muslims) is the way of performing Wikipedia:Salat or "Namaz." from wikipedia:

"Once the time for salat has begun and the call to prayer given, a Muslim performs salat by reciting various verses of the Qur'an coupled with supplications praising Allah whilst prostrating in various positions. A Muslim must perform these actions with sincere devotion (khushoo), otherwise the salat is considered invalid"

pic. from wikipedia:Muslims performing salat -- mowgli 13:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you observe a muslim perform "namaz" or "salat," you'll notice that he repeatedly bangs (well almost) his forehead on the floor (of the mosque or a prayer mat). ok i've tried explaing this joke way too much. the universe might crash. -- mowgli 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait? This was nominated? Why? And yes, it is a joke about dropped cell phone calls. At least it was before someone changed the caption. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, about Tomb of the Unknown Uncyclopedian...

At the time it was featured, Mohammed Cartoon(?) had a higher score. Wtf? --User:Nintendorulez 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Only if you have found a new way of [|counting?] -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The Mohammad cartoon did not have a higher score...the Noob Policy image, however, did. I miscounted because Electrified Mocha Chinchilla voted For twice and I didn't notice until after I had featured the Tomb image. So my bad on that one. —rc (t) 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me...

or have we got a lot of good pictures going right now? I blame a combination of Modus's high volume, isra's high quality, and Zombie's never say die attitude.--<<>> 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but I could point out at least one major flaw in each image currently on VFP (though the chickenbox is amusing in a weird way). Doesn't mean I'll vote against them all, but I don't think we're exactly having a bumper crop. None of them comes close to the polar bear and raspberries image, for example. That image never fails to make me laugh. —rc (t) 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both of you, even when your opinions conflict. I also take my share of the blame for this as the, what? eight or nine pics of mine that have passed through here since July were all a part of my master plan to take 1/3 of the credit for whatever it is that you are talking about. Also, Nin and Son get 1/4 or so of my credit to split between them, since they've been foolish enough to nom pics of mine. That's a lot of math, I know, but it all adds up to something, I'm sure...and ZB's can-do attitude inspires us all. Isra, on the other hand, is poisoning my coffee just a little each day because I mushed a thumbprint into Isra's sandwich in third grade. Just so you know.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'm noting that, while VFP died not long ago (or maybe it WAS long ago in wiki-terms... when the active user list changes on a monthly basis), it is now healthy and has some REALLY good stuff. RC is still clinging to the belief that it's not as good as it once was... or perhaps he isn't, I'm not sure. Anywho, you have my congratulations, Modus. Whether or not you deserve them RC and I can continue to debate. ;).--<<>> 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that even if I'm lukewarm about the images on it now, at least it's not the graveyard it has been recently. —rc (t) 04:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that we do this as a hobby. If all of the pics and pages that we made were technically perfect, we'd be doing it someplace else, and making a nickel a word or fifty bucks a pic while doing so. Of course, then it would be a job, and wouldn't be any fun at all. As much as I enjoyed wasting ten+ hours making and tweaking a pic of a kitten riding a pony, I'm glad that my car payment didn't hinge on its success. God damn! Did it really take that long? What was I thinking? Oh, yeah. That. Heh, heh.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I give all the credit to the one user who has made the greatest single contribution (even if it's just helping with community spirit) to this wiki; <insert name here>. That particular user never seems to get the credit that they so richly deserve, unlike the rest of us who get a smidge of undeserved credit simply by doing whatever is it that we do.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I despise <insert name here>... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Really personally, I despise it when people try to use {{USERNAME}} twice on the same page, thus ruining the effect...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The -3 Rule for Removal of VFPed Images

Where is this described? PS. I noticed I got a positive vote before the re-removal. Doesn't that make it -2, or am I not understanding the rules? --IMBJR 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to respond with a "lurk more" type response, but -3 is the long-established rule of thumb. (The rules do state that admins will remove failed nominations.) And as the re-removal itself was against the rules, all votes after that are null and void, but if you have any problem with that, then you should also consider Guest's and RCMurphy's implied votes against when they remove a nomination at -2 and say it is -3. --monika 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does actually mention this in How to get your image featured but nobody bothers reading my articles any more. (sobs) -- Hindleyite 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, man <hug> Just let it out <pat on back> They can't hurt you any more...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removal at -3 has been standard for a long time now...and since Guest's removal was valid, the restored nomination was not. You can always re-nom it, but if you do, make sure you get David Gerard on your side early. As far as implied votes go, I will always indicate an implied vote against in my edit summary when I remove a nomination, or I'll vote first, save and then remove. —rc (t) 16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pissed

I'm back at again, fuming over against votes and some of the comments made about pictures nomed for VFP. I just get torqued off when I see the number of people who vote against things simply because they don't take time to look at an image and its technique in deciding their votes. Whether you image is nominated by someone else or self nominated, at least the people who try their hand at images are doing something for visual arts on Uncyclopedia, as oppossed to those who spend a career on this site simply voting. So there, I have gotten that off my chest... Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm toying with the proposing a ban to "Against: I don't get it" votes. Speaking for myself if there is an article or image that I "don't get" due to lack of cultural/personal experience or whatever I either ask about it, do a spot of research, or just don't vote on it.

I can fully understand PPs anger, taking the excellent Jarhead image as an example, anyone can see the quality of the image, and the amount of work that must have gone into it. I believe that it would have taken the same length of time to type "Jarhead" into a Google search and view the results as it would to type "Against: I don't get it"... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I do understand the I don't get it voting convention (and have used it, with what I thought was good reason), and why it was approved at the 1846 Uncyclopedia Convention at Aurora New York. Still at the TransColumbian and Buffalo Uncyclopedia Symposium of 1901, President McKinley argued that a comment "to the effect that 'I do not get it' is better way communicating that the given image fails to resonate with with the community member than it is as a vote." And then we all know what happened to him next. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see there is a time when its use may be warranted, particularly when whatever is submitted is, well, totally obscure. But, and I can speak from experience here, I've had a number of articles featured that were a little outside of the area of common knowledge. When I wrote Voynich Manuscript I deliberately put in the link to the Wikipedia article of the same name, and a few people who voted for told me later that when they first read it they didn't get it, but once they'd read the "real" article they recognised the humour. So, in a way Uncyclopedia helped to edumacate them, which HAS to be good.

I still maintain that in the Jarhead example it would be quicker to search for information on the reference than to type the Against message.... :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yes, the I don't get it voters can be irritating. But, if the joke used in the image isn't accessible to the masses, I'm not sure it should be featured. On the Jarhead image, I totally get it, but I'm still deciding whether or not I think the joke itself is funny. =P The short version of this post would be: I don't know.R 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Making a personal judgement on whether you think something is funny or not seems a much more valid reason for voting for or against something. Likewise we all probably have different views on the levels that constitute a quality piece of work. It may be possible too that the images ARE accessible to the masses, but only the idiots are voting. :) Hopefully the Guild can help to make VFP as popular and respected as VFH. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

My feelings (which I hold back on too many occassions) outrage though, are those comments made people who'se only contributions to Uncyclopedia seem to be negative comments, often times based on the fact that they feel that their only contribution should be negative to the process, or those who are so dense that they aren't aware of the world around them because it takes too much effort to look up Plato, or Google Truman Capote. These people dumb down Uncyclopedia's content to the lowest level, and not in a good way. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who was Google Truman Capote? --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As leader of the ignoramus clan, I'd just like to say I haven't the slightest clue what any of you people are talking about. (In all seriousness, though, I personally think that consistently telling everyone how much their work sucks when they haven't actually attempted it themselves is a very more grievous sin than admitting that a joke goes over someone's head [since that joke may go well over others' heads, as well]. Remember that knowledge is the first key ingredient to enjoying a joke, and if it isn't there already, it must be provided. Dang, this is a long parenthetical. It's like, a Squiggle title... ;) )--<<>> 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

VFH voting template

The {{Vote}} template is to be used in all new nominations, as discussed here:

• Forum:Quick_question_about_VFP

I've added it to the hidden example text. -- herr doktor needsAcell  [scream!] 11:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Previously Featured Pictures

Someone needs to archive them pronto, they're taking up 80 percent of the space on the page -- 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 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be what's breaking the templates... -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's because the notlinksfrom DPL command has stopped working for some reason, at least for those images that were showing before. DPL is also doing an odd thing on the feature queue with the links to articles. It's been doing that since the update. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:03, 27 Feb 2008

It's a madhouse...a madhouse! Charleton Heston 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't the DPL parameter, but rather a corruption of the link table (again). After I null-edited Uncyclopedia:VFP/featured, everything seems to be back to normal. --Algorithm 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it. I hope. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VFP Overview?

Should we get a VFP overview, like the VFH one, but Health goes down less quickly since VFH is more popular et cetera et cetera? Robertodole 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can count the number of featured images in 2008 on one hand. We don't need an overview for VFP. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about an underview? That's like an overview, but naughty. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about underwear. Like an underview but made of pink satin. I've said too much. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yeah...um. You can keep those. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Planet pic?

Was featured or did it fail? It was taken off the main page but where was it moved to? Don Puttano cHeDDs 21:45,11June,2009

It was featured. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

HEEEELP!!!

Something weird happened... I CANT GET MY CAT PICTURE OFF! AND NO ONE CAN VOTE IT! WHAT`S HAPPENING?!! Cat the Colourful (Feed Me!!!)Leave me alone...

You seem to have figured it out. Although the picture isn't terribly funny, so don't expect too much. >.<

1234 ~ 07:51, 8 March 2011

Pardon me

When will the winner be announced??-- Sir Sinner ^{blah blah} 11:25, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Images are featured when they reach a score of +8. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:33, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Really?? This is gonna be a loooooooong process...-- Sir Sinner ^{blah blah} 17:17, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Bible Collector's Edition has had a +8 for 8 months now. Sir Roger

How long does it actually take for voting to end?

Does it seriously actually last for about 3 years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.8.138 (talk • contribs)

No but VFP has become inactive for quite awhile. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 11:47, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

This place has very low activity

To the admins, you should put this onto the front page. We need more images. Also, it seems like voting takes several years to complete due to VFP being very inactive. Additionally, why not make it that voting for images lasts for maybe 30 days, and if it didn't get any votes, then have admins vote? --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:12, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

This is one of Uncyclopedia's most neglected voting pages. Adding new images took me awhile to do as users don't normally create just images but articles. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:55, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

This is a sign of the times. Without a vote button in your face and the page up front, people don't vote nowadays. You do get to vote even if not signed in (counts as half a vote, I think) but I don't think visitors know that. And voting is harder than just hitting a button on Uncyclopedia. But without a lot of images to vote on, the page won't get visited very much after an initial viewing. If nobody thinks enough of a picture to put it up for voting, that says something. That's not the easiest thing to do, either. And image creation here, never common, is very uncommon nowadays. I don't see an immediate solution for this, except maybe to streamline the voting process. -- (talk) 22:33, October 13, 2018 (UTC)