Forum:VFD is in bad need of improvement
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Last night I wrote Jesus Died So You Could Get Fucked In The Ass. Today I find it's already been deleted. That would be fine if it fit the criteria for quick deletion, but it definitely does not. I understand that pages that you guys deem bad don't need to linger around after a consensus has formed, but to call the first four votes made a consensus is dumb dumb DUMB. I never even got a chance to defend, improve, ask to have it moved to userspace for serious improvement, or even
vote on it. So basically, VFD is just "whichever four people are online at the exact moment an article gets nominated for VFD get to decide on its fate, and to hell with everyone else's opinion"? VFD, in its current form, is shit.
Also, can I have the deleted text from my article sent to me? I really do want to improve it to whatever standards you guys have, not that I have any clue how far below them it may have been because the VFD entry explaining what I may have done wrong isn't even on VFD, and it's only like 12 hours after the article was fuckign written. 188.8.131.52 19:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Um, how am I to send it to you if you are anonymous? --Carlb 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go: User:184.108.40.206/Jesus_Died_So_You_Could_Get_Fucked_In_The_Ass --Algorithm 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- On a related note: I think the hope is that we try to leave VDF entries up for a day or two. Part of the point of removing the load from VFD was so this could be possible without making the page unmanageable. I don't know if it actually has become manageable, but.... -- 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Welcome to Uncyclopedia, where you can be Writer of the Month and still have a few articles deleted, or VFD'd. Seriously. Welcome. It's reality. Now, I know you probably throught what you wrote was pure genius, but after a 2nd read through, it's my impression that you either didn't read our How To guide, or didn't think to take it seriously. Along with your inspired title, do you know how many times the phrase "fucked up the ass" appears in your story? I quit counting at 20, and didn't count your references to "reacharounds" at all. If it's really your aim to improve to Uncyclopedia standards, I suggest you start a new project from scratch, because I can guarantee that if this one is left standing you'll be embarassed by it in a few months. The voters did you a favour, whether you can accept it or not. And this would be a good time to go back and read the How To guide. ~ T. (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "The movie tells the same story told in Jesus Died So You Get Get Fucked In The Ass, because of this, many moviegoers felt ripped off that there wasn't a new story..." Yup, that's exactly what's wrong with this page; it just keeps telling the same story using the same clichés long after it has worn them out. Best to start over. --Carlb 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all just to be clear my aim for writing this page wasn't because you nazis deleted what is obviouslt the greatest page of the millenium or anything, but that you deleted the page as quick as "josh is the gayest" or "I can't afford a meal to my children" gets deleted despite not being criteria for speedy deletion. Articles that are ugly or dead ends or whatever get 30 days to clean up their act. Articles with No Redeeming Value get 7 days. My article got a few hours. I can't get it back up to par when I spent its entire life span not or slightly awake. Why shouldn't I get the same opportunity as at least NRVs to redeem my article? Besides, Isn't NRV specifically suited for newer articles like mine?
That said. Since some people are critical of my article I'd like to defend it for a minute. The point of JDSYCGFITA wasn't simply to say "Jesus has gay sex with children, then Jesus has gay sex with Romans, then Wacko Jacko has gay sex with children" twenty times, I agree that by itself wouldn't be funny at all. The whole point of the article was to be a long, intentionally repetitive and intentionally profane setup to an "anti-humor" joke. The purpose of writing like five paragraphs about a series of supposed children's books that have homosexuality, pedophilia, and so on, was to end it with the punch line of "Some critics think JDSYCGFITA isn't appropriate for minors". There are a lot pf parallels between what I wrote and the Aristocrats joke, which is a very popular and high rated joke despite being offensive and repetitice. "You'd like this joke if you like the Aristocrats" was the reaction I was looking for, but since that doesn't seem to be what I got I do intend to change it so it's closer to the Aristocrats than to mere shock value. I have no intention of giving up on this joke just because a bunch of prudes will never like it no matter what, if pages on teachers and web forums can be kept even if only a small percentage of users will think it's funny or even care, then so should anti-humor jokes.
Thanks for listening/not permabanning me, 220.127.116.11 07:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didnt read or voted on the article, but he does have a point about the speedy deletion. If Gwax was still active in VFD, he might have NRV'd it and threatened to ban the one who nominated instead of NRVing it against the deletion policy. I agree that we have to keep VFD manageable, but since he is taking the effort to request it, I think his article could be restored and NRVed. Unless of course you consider he didn't request it in a propper civil way, which is also true.--Rataube 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
While I've been slacking for the last few days, Bradaphraser has been being trigger-happy over at the ye-old VFD. Not that I'm really complaining - I just shoot for 2-3 days of listing before the death of articles, unless there is a massive quantity of votes against it. And in fact, if I assume that Brad switched his keep to a delete, since he did delete it, this particular article was 5-0 in favor of deletion. Because it sucked. It really, really sucked. As people have pointed out above, it was the same old tired shit as we've seen a hundred times here. While it was moderately well written, I'd likely have just deleted the article on sight, no NRV and no VFD.
Frankly, I'm pretty pleased with how well VFD has been working. Shit gets voted on. Most of the time it gets deleted. Some of the time it doesn't. And the shite/gold ratio on this site has been steadily improving the last few months. (largely thanks to the NRV folks) While I agree somewhat that articles are occasionally VFD'd for a very short amount of time, I could really care less. Most of those things I'd have deleted on sight anyway.14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Unlike with other routes of deletion, VFD is by far the most unbiased and democratic. Expecially since its reform earlier in the spring, the decisions have been quite clear-cut. If something gets deleted and it was on VFD, there's a damn good reason for it. I'm sorry for anyone who was offended because the pile of rubbish they put together couldn't survive. The community has spoken. ~21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it was a taste issue, I think people didn't find it funny. Think of this like the Apollo Theatre. When we don't like what people do, we send the clown out to get them off the stage. Like I've had it said to me many times, don't take it personally, this is a curated and edited site and stuff disappears all the time.
That being said, I recommend you take a look at [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/HowTo:Get_Started_on_Editing_Uncyclopedia] before trying to create another article. You may find it helps your writing, along with the Beginner's Guide, of course.
(By the way, I did giggle a few times at what you wrote that got deleted, but I have the worst sense of humor on all of uncyclopedia, so that's probably not a good thing . . . )
--Hrodulf 21:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Another vote for immediate deletion in this case anyway. If it's obvious that the author is actually trying then it should stay on VFD a couple days. but this kind of crap is what we already have too much of - it isn't funny at all. it's just stupid - and not in a humorous way but in a stupid way. -- 15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to chime in here since I'm mentioned by name. I wrote a nice, long explanation about this subject a couple days back. Well, it got lost. And I'd worked on it for like, a half-hour. It was really frustrating. When you think about it, guys, most articles are worked on for a lot longer than that, even the "crappy" ones, and ESPECIALLY the long ones (which this one was). That's why I vote keep more often than not at VFD. Sure, gwax would probably have handled it differently, but he's not here right now. If something is obviously on its way out, I figure it's worth getting rid of right away anyway. The best advice I can give to the person who wrote this article (and obviously spent SOME time on it, notably) is to get a username. That way, it's easier to restore the article and place it in your userspace for improvement. The fact that people kept putting stuff in VFD that didn't go there was part of the reason gwax took his vacation. It's true that we can be brutal, but it's very important that we keep everything clean. I've stopped fixing up VFD for a couple of days (I was trying to get it so nothing was on there, and that just encouraged people to post there faster). I'm sorry your work was deleted, but that is a tertiary goal here: to get rid of the lower-quality articles to improve the overall quality of the site. Don't know if this means too much, but there it is.-- 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Since everyone seems to be talking about what gwax would probably do (WWGD bracelets anyone?), I think that I'll let you know exactly what I would have done. I would have glanced at the article, made a mental note of the fact that the article was long and I don't care enough to read it in full but that its title and beginning suggested very dubious quality. At that point I would have periodically noted how many delete votes existed and if it reached net 6+ deletes within 24 hours, I would have huffed it, otherwise, I'd focus on deleting shorter crap articles for a while. I'm sure that it would have gotten more than enough delete votes to justify deletion but deletion within 4 hours of VFD is way too little time to be acceptable as it doesn't give the author proper chance to notice that it's been VFDed and try to respond. -- 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)