Forum:8-ish reflections needed for Worst 100 Reflections on 2006

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > 8-ish reflections needed for Worst 100 Reflections on 2006
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3886 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

C'mon fellers, there's only about 50 hours left! --L 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, we really need to work on this "L".--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 05:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
***yourusername have entered #UNCYCLOPEDIA***
</Squiggle> yourusername!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the biggest LOL I've ever had on this website. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I got some:
  1. USERNAME is gay lololol
  2. You is gay lololol
  3. The lack of a vote on its removal, and the majority desiring for USERNAME to be brought back.
  4. Banning of the Holy BENSON
  5. Rioting of HIS followers.
  6. Pointless name change of BHOP, which only antagonized followers
I'll think of more later... --User:Nintendorulez 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what are we doing here? --HPSigHP talk KUN Icons-flag-pi 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

D'you think powershot should really be mentioned 4 times over the course of the list, given that the first time it is mentioned is to say that it has been voted down as the next in-joke? --Sir Jam 12:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why we might do it is because no one has respect for it, and it is the butt of our humor. --General Insineratehymn 15:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We already have the {{USERNAME}} reference. How about the new VFH system when even popular articles with +8 are taken down because they "Can't compete?" Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that there'll be a forum topic about it eventually. I haven't made one, simply because I haven't made up my mind yet.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I definately think the direction we should go in now is removing the vanity from the list as much as possible ("Heh Bradaphraser", anyone?) and move more toward things that happened. The faster-paced VFH is a good suggestion in that regard.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd add it, but I'm still on the fence as to whether is goodest, or worstest. A new feature on the mainpage (potentially) every day is neat, but VFH (potentially) is now a place where only the hare wins the race (something about this bugs me).--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly understand your concerns, but I believe the system is working. Our best articles (or at least the ones with the most wide-spread appeal) ARE getting on the front page (and that's ultimately what VFH is designed to do). I've stopped posting how long articles are up because it has become irrelevant. It's all about how it compares with the other articles. Sure, a lot more authors are being disappointed becausee their articles are being taken off VFH much quicker, but that's part of the natural consequence of 4-6 articles being nommed a day (we're still only featuring one, so that means we'll either have a ton just building up, or a lot taken off). I'm willing to listen to suggestions of how it could be improved, certainly, and have tweaked the method I use to take articles down several times (recently moving it more toward taking down newer articles because of a complaint I was taking down articles with too high of a score). The problem (if there is one) lies in that there is just so much volume at VFH right now.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the vanity is good, but I think we should also try to put it in some kind of order... because right now it's pretty sad. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use some of the ones from last year? We had plenty to spare... about 112 worst things actually... --officer designate Club symbol Lugiatm Club symbol MUN NS CM ZM WH 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is a good point, I think we've got them all anyway but it could of been "The fact that we had to use some of last year's refections" or "Only 99 things happened in 2006 that was notable."Braydie at 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We got 100

Good work, everyone.--Procopius 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools