Uncyclopedia talk:QuickVFD
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QuickVFD page. | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on July 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Damn fine idea. --Uvula Donor 14:18, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)
[edit] Seems to be slowing down
Whats happened:
- More Admins, less need to go through VFD?
- Less crud?
- Less Scrutiny?
--Elvis 14:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ferard
I'm sad you deleted the Ferard page. Yes it was short but it could have been expanded on things to do. I thought it was funny. :(
[edit] Fun things to do with your pets
Is there a log? Why was List of fun things you can do with your pets deleted? Not funny or offensive?Just want to know.Thanks--Jondel 01:57, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see that the page ever existed. Are you sure that's the title? --Rcmurphy 02:33, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see from your user page that it's List of fun things to do with your pet. Short pages like that aren't usually encouraged. If you'd like to recreate it as a longer article, or change the page to Undictionary:Pet or something like that (Undictionary pages are typically stubby), feel free to do so. --Rcmurphy 02:39, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks .I'll create a scrapbook version then publish when it is long enough. --Jondel 03:57, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded it . Hope it grows.Pls see List of fun things to do with your pet.--Jondel 03:30, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Etiquette of the QVFD
I'm assuming it's bad form for an Admin to add something to QVFD and then nuke it themselves? I've been following that policy, so as to allow another Admin a poke at the turds I find. --IMBJR 11:49, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- The point of quickvfd (originally) was for non-sysops to point out pages that are short and should be deleted for obvious reasons. As a personal rule-of-thumb, I usually move pages with more than two paragraphs, or pages with an edit history from more than two people. If I come across a page so blatantly crappy myself, I just delete it. Be linent though, if you are unsure you could always use normal VFD. --Paulgb Talk 13:54, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)
And I don't think I've ever added something to QVFD. I have whacked a lot of stuff listed here tho. I guess I just make the judgement call myself. If it's short (two paragraphs or so) and it sucks, I whack it without question if one of the following applies:
1 logged in user edited it, and not much links there.
or
1-3 anon users have edited it, and not much links there.
If neither of those two situations apply, and it sucks, I generally VFD it. --Famine 19:51, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tag for QVFD on page, but no entry
If someone has put a VFD tag on a page, but there is no entry in VFD or QVFD for discussion/voting, can I remove the tag? The article in question is Ralph Nader, which I do not think is a bad article. -- Rei 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it is an anonymous user or a semi-new registered user, then yes, you can remove the VFD tag (say, after an hour), with such a summary as "VFD tag added with no entry on the VFD". NRV tags may be removed if they were added improperly (without timestamp, or with sig, or by anonymous users who obviously are doing it just to be annoying). There should be no QVFD tag though. --Splaka 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The specific tag (I just went and checked) was NRV. The user who added it has only been around since Feb. 23rd. I removed the tag, with a note for them to re-add it and add a voting entry if they felt it was removed in error, as well as to discuss the issue. I hope that I've dealt with this properly. -- Rei 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- NRV tags do not have voting pages associated with them and are not supposed to be removed from pages except for in the ways described on VFD. NRV is meant to be a free-standing method of marking a page for possible deletion. In the future if you come across a page that's NRV tagged, leave it along unless you feel the article needs saving, in which case, see VFD for what to do. If you ever come across a VFD tagged page that's not on VFD, post it on VFD with a vote or a note that you're just posting a previously tagged page; if it shouldn't be tagged, it will probably survive voting. --Sir gwax (talk)
» 
Major KUN UotM FH++ F@H CM GD NS Bur. +S 
17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I reverted your change. --Sir gwax (talk) » Major KUN UotM FH++ F@H CM GD NS Bur. +S 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine; I thought I was following Splak's advice; I guess I was wrong. I'm a bit confused then as to what I do to appeal this listing, since it's an NRV entry, not a VFD entry, and NRV entries don't get a voting listing. Do I start an entry on VFD even though this is an NRV tag? -- Rei 19:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you are desperate/lazy, you can replace the NRV tag with a VFD tag, and put it on VFD with a keep opening vote. Or you can just expand/format/improve the article and remove NRV. --Splaka 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine; I thought I was following Splak's advice; I guess I was wrong. I'm a bit confused then as to what I do to appeal this listing, since it's an NRV entry, not a VFD entry, and NRV entries don't get a voting listing. Do I start an entry on VFD even though this is an NRV tag? -- Rei 19:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I reverted your change. --Sir gwax (talk)
- NRV tags do not have voting pages associated with them and are not supposed to be removed from pages except for in the ways described on VFD. NRV is meant to be a free-standing method of marking a page for possible deletion. In the future if you come across a page that's NRV tagged, leave it along unless you feel the article needs saving, in which case, see VFD for what to do. If you ever come across a VFD tagged page that's not on VFD, post it on VFD with a vote or a note that you're just posting a previously tagged page; if it shouldn't be tagged, it will probably survive voting. --Sir gwax (talk)
- The specific tag (I just went and checked) was NRV. The user who added it has only been around since Feb. 23rd. I removed the tag, with a note for them to re-add it and add a voting entry if they felt it was removed in error, as well as to discuss the issue. I hope that I've dealt with this properly. -- Rei 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done - it's now on VFD so that it can come to a vote. Thanks! -- Rei 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nrv
Ive taken away the nrv/dead end/ugly tags off some articles that i tried to improve. (at least) one of them is/was? my own. is this a misdeed?--D. G. Neree 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If the article is significantly improved by your edit, we won't kill you. If not, then I hope you have a will written. ;D —Hinoa KUN (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- cheers--D. G. Neree 01:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old versions of Images
I wonder why the old versions of images i dumped in QVFD on 8th Sep haven't been addressed while the ones dumped after it are being acted upon? is there a problem deleting old versions of imgs? -- mowgli 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contesting a QVFD
IMO we need a Template:Hangon to allow people to contest QVFDs. See Wikipedia:Template:Hangon for more information. Pentium5dot1 04:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, I am trying to contest the deletion of that page whose title looks like "SHIT" but is made of unwieldy block characters. I feel that the article would have a fair chance to improve if it were NRV'd to attract attention, but it needs to be moved to a different title that isn't so hard to deal with. The block characters within the page can stay (making use of Template:Title for the title). Pentium5dot1 04:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was NRV'd, but deleted shortly after. Ok, I'll restore it back with the NRV on, and good luck to you making a good article, articles on all the odd characters you can get tend to be very difficult to make good. If you need more than a week to work on it, just move it to userspace or something. Or if you think it needs a different title, though it shouldn't need a different title if it's well linked from other similar articles. • Spang • UotF | talk • 14:58, 11 Nov 2006
- It is not well linked, specifically because its title is so hard to type. I feel that a move is necessary, and as stated on the author's talk page I will also put the article to a Pee Review once I have moved it. Pentium5dot1 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was NRV'd, but deleted shortly after. Ok, I'll restore it back with the NRV on, and good luck to you making a good article, articles on all the odd characters you can get tend to be very difficult to make good. If you need more than a week to work on it, just move it to userspace or something. Or if you think it needs a different title, though it shouldn't need a different title if it's well linked from other similar articles. • Spang • UotF | talk • 14:58, 11 Nov 2006
- Oops! Sorry I didn't realize there was a {{NoQVFD}} template. Pentium5dot1 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] All three articles I wrote were listed at QVFD!
Hello. I started contributing to Uncyclopedia three days ago.
I wrote three articles - Wah lau!, Money No Enough and The person who wrote this article. All three were listed on QVFD, and of these three, only Wah lau! has not yet been deleted.
I understand why you wish to delete the person who wrote this article. It was short, and quite crappy. The inspiration for creating this article came from a red link in the quote of Wah lau! I intended to expand the article at a later date, but it was deleted before I could do so. Note that the person who wrote this article, if of good quality, would be useful for quotes (which I understand are widely used at the start of Uncyclopedia articles).
However, I wish to contest the deletion of Money No Enough, and the proposed deletion of Wah lau!
Money No Enough, as its Wikipedia article, which I wrote and added a link to in the Uncyclopedia article, states, is Singapore's all-time highest-grossing film. It was written by Jack Neo, who went on to write and produce other successful Singaporean films, such as I Not Stupid and Homerun. The film is about three Singaporeans facing a shortage of money (hence the title "Money No Enough"). I thought the article would be easier to write - and funnier - if it focused on the problem of "Money No Enough" (shortage of money) instead of the movie (after all, Mozilla Firefox is a magical girl).
Wah lau! is not a company at all. Would any real company try to increase the number of "complain kings" and the use of Singlish? "Wah lau!" is actually a common Singlish phrase, which is used in complaints - for example: "Wah lau! I have so much homework to do!" The government is trying to discourage the use of Singlish, so they launched the Speak Good English Movement, which failed. Again, to make the article funnier, I wrote that Wah lau! was a company. I hope that clears things up, and explains the humour in the article.
I asked three friends (all Singaporeans, of course) to read the Money No Enough and Wah lau! articles, and they all agreed that the articles were funny.
After writing Wah lau! and Money No Enough, I intended to write more articles on Singaporean topics, to add more Singaporean humour to Uncyclopedia. This setback forces me to reconsider that.
If deleting the articles was a mistake, please undelete them. Otherwise, please post on my talk page, further explanation on why the articles should remain deleted. I would appreciate any feedback that helps me to improve the articles.
--Whitekings 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, all done (unless he disagrees)-- 
I WAS HERE -Kjhf! (feeling chatty?) <image removed> 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NRV?
The instructions still mention NRV, but not ICU. Can someone edit this? I could, but I don't want to get into trouble for editing an important page. 
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just have. Thanks for noticing.
I WAS HERE-Kjhf! (feeling chatty?) <image removed> 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is the Undictionary method…
being deprecated? It seems that such redirects work fine on most PCs (although not on my Mac with Safari, as it happens.) — Lenoxus 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- As other Uncyclopedians seem to suggest, it is Undictionary itself that is being deprecated. Any suggestions on how to revive it? Pentium5dot1 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You all hate me
I put several articles on none were deleted but one when I forgot to log off for my brother. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS NEOCON 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I forgot again freaking perfect. --The Great Yellow Crayon Get PWNED Yellow 130 is teh pwnz 01:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can the author request the deletion of any of their articles?
A question ^^^ --Moneke 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, though if it's been standing for a while, you might want to take it to VFD instead. —Hinoa talk.kun 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- So does the author have the right to delete that work if they don't want it to be on the site anymore? Cos they wrote it do they still have power over it? --Moneke 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SOMEONE PLEASE BAN THIS GUY NOW
User:Jimbo suck whales's penises - He's posting shit about me!
[edit] Exactly why?
Why was my article List of PUs deleted?
- Probably because it sucked. I see the word "List" in the title and the first thing I think of is "Delete." That's probably why. I would say read up on HTBFANJS and give it another go, preferably without resorting to lists. sir
sysrq @ 20:31 Apr 17
[edit] Request to take down Adam Carolla page
Smuggler has requested that I take down the Adam Carolla page, and I will comply to those wishes. It was an inconsiderate attempt at humor, and I have been receiving lots of messages concerning this from Smuggler. I wasn't really happy about the Adam Carolla page the last few days anyway, and I believe that Smuggler is right that my attempts were "slanderous and unprofessional" in those words. Please take down the page.
I will also think twice about writing about celebrities -- I will not be doing so anymore apart from the two I had just written. My writing had tended to sound like a rant or a pissing match, and I don't tolerate that about myself. Again, please take down the Adam Carolla page for me. Thank you. --teflongone001 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Teflongone001
- I don't see anything wrong with it. It's fact based, not mean and not stupid. The only bad thing that I can see about it is that it's about Adam Carolla (take that, Adam Carolla!). One person didn't like it? So what? If everything that offended/annoyed/aroused one person was deleted, there would be nothing here at all. Then we'd be in a void. A void! Sir Modusoperandi 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I laughed. I cried. Then I read the Adam Carolla article. But that's a tale for another day. I too can't see anything wrong with what you'd written. Keep it and delete the whingebag I say. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- I laughed. I cried. Then I read the Adam Carolla article. But that's a tale for another day. I too can't see anything wrong with what you'd written. Keep it and delete the whingebag I say. -- Sir Mhaille
