Forum:Let us settle an edit war before it starts

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Let us settle an edit war before it starts
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3811 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Okay, I'm very pissed but I'll try to be fair. The following article was in VFD:


It had several revisions and was clearly vandalized. By the way, I didn't found any of these revisions worthy of being preserved and so voted for its deletion. Later on, I had an idea and rewritten the article with the aid of Braydie, as bellow:


Then the VFD votes turned counterways with people voting for preserving the above version. You may see it there:


Now a jealous author of one of the previous versions just reverted it as the first link I posted here. Now, my friends, I gently ask you all: what shall we do? -- herr doktor needsAraygun Rocket [scream!] 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1) RV the page, put (see talkpage) in edit comments
2) On the talkpage explain your logic (point out that the user that rv'd the page before hasn't touched the page in five months)
3) If they RV again, but don't pay you the respect to reply on the talkpage...take it to their talkpage
4) If they still ignore you, take it to an admin
5) If the admin is unable to find concensus, have the UN impose sanctions
6) When that fails, mobilize your military, put the economy on a war-based footing, invade and occupy the user and eat everything in his fridge.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
7) ???
8? Profit. Spang talk 05:39, 26 Dec 2006

I read both versions and I don't seem to understand why an edit war would start. The latter version ( the userpage one) I found far more funnier because it was closer to the truth. The one that is on the actual article I think belongs somewhere else, maybe a userpage. Although what MO said is the best possible action. --KWild 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As a bystander, I have a vague understanding that the author of the first, "unfunny" version got jealous and reverted. Like always, in this case there is no real reason for an edit war, but it is/would theoretically be Drama's fault. As a sidenote, I admire NeedABrain and Braydie for taking the time to rewrite a VFD article. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a disambiguation page? Pointing to Onomatopoeia (greek god) and Onomatopoeia (language) or whatever. Spang talk 05:39, 26 Dec 2006

Actually it would be Onomatopoeia (nymph). Or we could get someone to post it on ED. Yes, that is right, I actually read the article. KWild 11:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Disambig sounds like a good idea, though the nymph version would still probably end up back on VFD. But at least the guy wouldn't be able to argue about it then. -- Paw_print.jpg 11:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearty greetings from the author of Onomatopoeia/Mythology. Those who are interested how it was with my jealousy can experience it through my eyes on my talkpage. In short, I took pity in an orphan page marked as crappy, started rewriting it, dragged my ass with it, got vandalized before I finished, then the vandalized version further evolved and finally ended up in VFD. My revert is my RUDE WARTHOG (TM) way of showing VFDoers that there was some well-intended version in the history. Apparently, I overappreciated my writing skills this time. I intended to have one less crappy page on Uncyc, not one more. From hereabove, I feel that the bolshinstvo of the people find my writing crappy. Well, I'm not that good in English and democracy is democracy. I guess I'm the right person to go and to put my newly created crappy orphan on VFD myself. Kokot.kokotisko 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools