Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 21:13, May 25, 2013 by Mimo&maxus (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Great idea! --Paulgb Talk 23:23, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

edit new format, reforms

to purge away some of the old stuff and 2 make the pee review more useable i propose that all articles are removed after a month with their comments moved into the discussion of said article. Personally it think all commenting should go on in the said articles discussion page. maybe link could be created like that seen on the VFP --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 10:53, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Make it two months. I don't find it unmanageable at present - David Gerard 00:20, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
sounds good. done--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 02:13, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

edit Article needs help!

Hey,

I'm working on an article on the Ivy League, seeing it needed to be rewritten and what I saw up there was a pretty sad stab at humor (it missed, btw). So I cleaned out the old crap, put in some new stuff, some which I'm pretty proud of and some of it is stuff which I might've found amusing if I were drunk, And on crack, because I was at the time of writing it.

I've got mostly jokes on Brown and Harvard, but what this article needs is a longer history (a section on each school in the league preferably) and more jokes about Yale.

OK, that's about it - user:ninja88penguin

edit Who is responsible?

Is it permissible for me to request a Pee Review on articles I didn't create (see Caltech and In The Groove)?

Should the Pee Review front page be amended to specifically allow (or prohibit) this? Pentium5dot1 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Thanks for pointing it out - I've revised the PR main page text to clarify. —rc (t) 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it isn't clear enough; with several of the articles I later requested pee reviews on, there were mild accusations falsely directed at me for the poor quality of the articles. Apparently some users weren't aware that they should have checked the page histories to determine that I hadn't actually created the articles in question. Also, I am thinking about pee-reviewing In The Groove a second time. Is that allowed, and how do we write that into the policy? Pentium5dot1 09:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

edit how does it work

--Jamesryanjcrjcr 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

edit Some questions...

Where can we find articles that have seen review, for an example? Also, how do we make it clear who has done the review? So far, it seems like only one person could ever review an article, and that would be that forever. Am I getting something wrong? —Lenoxus 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see all the reviews (requests and finished) by going to "Current" on the nav bar at the top of the main page. If you would like to review something that someone else has already done, you can go here to find a table (if you want to do it that way). If you would like to leave a general comment - go ahead; writers like as many pointers as they can. —Braydie 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


edit I fucked it up

shit sorry guys, i fucked up the pee review page some how. I'm not so slick with the edits yet so please forgive me.--Benny Goodman 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I reverted my edit, sorry folks for that momentary folly.--Benny Goodman 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

edit From Pee Review

Humour: 10 I nearly wet myself, that was so funny! "Pee" review instead of "Peer" review, that's gold.
Concept: 10 Brilliant, this will undoubtedly improve Uncyclopedia in ways we cannot even begin to comprehend.
Prose and formatting: 10 Fantastic, I love the fancy table used for giving scores.
Images: 10 What's that guy on the crapper there, the Thinker? Excellent and slightly disgusting.
Miscellaneous: 10 Is this even a reviewable page?
Final Score: 50 VFH immediately.
Reviewer: The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
GoldenShower Rejoice, Pee Review! You have been entitled to the
Golden Shower Award
GoldenShower2
For donating high quality material to the Pee Review.

edit Glitch

It appears that if someone edits a pee review page at all, it suddenly gets listed as a new review request. Any way to fix that? Rogpyvbc 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

edit I'd Like To Turn Myself In

My two pages, Planet A and Chimera are in serious need of reveiwing... since I don't want to disturb the peice and fidelity of the main page I'll just do it on this 'ere talk page. Anyone who wants to reveiw these two lesbian sisters would be greatly appreciated.

Note: Chimera is by far the better of the two. Planet A should be huffed immediatly. Please.

None of your pages exizt...
GoldenShower Too bad, Pee Review! You have been robbed of your
GOLDEN SHOWER AWARD
GoldenShower2
Maybe Oscar Wilde stole it...?

edit Old Articles

I think we should start reviewing the old articles before the new ones. I've been doing some, but there's a lot of them.

--Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

edit Great Job Everyone!

Well I think we all should celebrate us being less than a month behind on the articles. /me passes around the cake. --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 01:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

edit no noobz plz, okay im a noob

i dont think non-admins should be allowed to review, mainly because they are not experienced enough. and it gives the articles creator false hope. I posted an article once, and one reviewer gave it all 9s and one 8, the other gave it 6's, just saying. or at least recognize the difference between admins and non-admins. maybe some ranking system or sumthing --Train Tracker 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I guess you've meant VETERANS, not ADMINS, or else you would make those lazy fellas really exulting with such additional HUGE task. Actually, we're having overtly optimistic reviews lately, but I guess this has nothing to do with the experience of the reviewer. It's just that newbies are more condescending to what vets know to be uncyc clichés. -- herr doktor needsApistol Rocket [scream!] 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate to comment on an older discussion, but perhaps there should be a limit based on edits, like "you must have over 150 edits and an actual account to write a review." Just a thought. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

edit What happened?

Suddenly we have only four articles needing review. Did everyone decide to go on a reviewing binge all at once? I looked at some of the recent reviews and, well, they tended to be extremely short with virtually no comments. So we may have reduced the wait list, but it seems at a sacrifice of the whole purpose of the review - to provide constructive feedback. Sir Roger 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking through the reviews and most of them have one sentence for each area... It isn't good. --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

edit Does one have to...

...be the creator an article to submit said article for review? --* 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

edit Decimals?

See Talk:Anime#From Pee Review.. Is this use of decimals generally allowed? Pentium5dot1 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Allowed, yes, but not recommended, for obvious reasons.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

edit External links?

Would be nice to add this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSeOBU3QApc

edit Take it seriously

NXWave has just reviewed almost 40 articles in a little over 2 hours, giving most of them scores like 1 out of 10 in each category with a few words as comments. We'd be better to not have a Pee Review than have this done. I would think these reviews should not make it to the talk pages of the articles, and that many of the authors will simply put theirs back on request for review again. Sir Roger 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flammable's Office, anyone? --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

edit Review request

My Puppy Huffing article has been on the list for three days, and now is'nt on the main pee review page. It's still near the top of the "Current" list, but I need it reviewed before it descends into oblivion. I'm trying to get it featured, which requires an article to be reviewed once or spend a full week in pee review. I'd much rather have it reviewed and get some advice and edit the article accordingly than have it spend an unproductive week gathering dust and being just as mediocre as before. So anyone with spare time, please, take pitty on this lost, fluffy article. It contains puppies! DarkBlue 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: An answer would help, guys. DarkBlue 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is in the same boat. You can nom for feature without feedback (the feedback you get on Pee Review isn't always worth waiting for), or wait for the review and try to get your article featured later. Sir Roger 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

edit Backlog

Clearly we have a problem - far more people want their stuff reviewed than are willing to put in a few minutes to review someone else's stuff. We always end up with a huge backlog, until someone decides to give 20 or 30 articles one-line reviews just to reduce the waitlist. I suggest we require anyone who wants a review to do a review first. Some people will do worthless reviews just to get it done with, but it would probably be better than the current situation. As someone who has reviewed almost 30 articles and has asked for about 4 of mine to be reviewed, I don't appreciate waiting or the quick backlog-reduction. Sir Roger 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this actually sounds like a great solution to the "my article never gets reviewed" problem. I'd have to start reviewing more though...--R. Daneel Olivaw (Gaia - Foundation) 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

edit Question about PEE review

The article I'm making at the moment is in construction but I've done quite a bit, so I was wondering if it is OK for me to put what I have done so far up for Pee review. --El legend 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, although you'd usually get a better review if you completed it first. --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 21:14, September 14, 2007

edit Evil one275

Evil one275 probably requires an administrator's attention - has has given several reviews that weren't constructive. While they were in good faith, as they said, they weren't helpful, and he should get a message on his talk page saying to cease further reviews until his judgement improves.--Sir Manforman CUN 01:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just peed my pants. --Rick Davies Supertramp 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

edit How I mine for resubmitting my article?

I tried replacing the pee review that Carmine got with just the template, but when I go to resubmit it doesn't let me. Did I royally fuck something up? Barcode711 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of replacing your old review, just submit it again with the title "Carmine (Resub)" (or whatever title you would prefer) and change the links in the page to simply direct to Carmine. Also, since it's a resubmission, you could give a brief explanation of why you're resubmitting it and/or what you fixed from the last review. It's not required, but it's convenient and can give a good point of reference for how far along the article is in development. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Per Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Guidelines#After_it.27s_Reviewed MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:07, May 22

edit Please edit "The Click Five"...

The Click Five needs more nonsense info, and it needs to be reviewed. I'm not good at formatting too. Thanks. :) --Stargirl.kyle 09:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

edit A big question...

Can games be reviewed, like, say, Zork, or Grueslayer? Maybe there could be a whole category of Pee Reviews based on games! I volunteer! --Trar (talk|contribs|grueslayer) Mchammer 19:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed two games, not to my satisfaction. It's hard, because you have to review it page by page, and usually games have 30 pages, most of which is garbage. Go ahead and review, Trar, but please READ THE GUIDELINES <--- READ READ READ   Le Cejak <20:52, 24 Jun 2008>
NO U! - [20:58 24 June] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
I concur. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I created Grueslayer, so I could review that. --Trar (talk|contribs|grueslayer) Mchammer 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hang on! What's everyone doing standing around here? Go review stuff dammit! MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:04, Jun 25

edit Removal of New Articles

The new articles section was removed by an inactive user. I assume this was vandalism or a mistake so I reverted it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Mnbvcxz 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who drinks cat piss? Well, I drink it all the time, and it's just what the doctor ordered. So maybe you ought to try it. --Ted Nugent 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Give this guy the Uncyclopedian of the Month award when his ban ends. He's funnier than all of you fuckers combined!!!!11 --Aljolson Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER Aljolson 02:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

edit Discontinue "quick" reviews?

Right now the three requests that have been in queue the longest are "quick" reviews. Do I really need to point out the irony in this? It seems that no one wants to do quickies, and I imagine that it's hard for PEEING dudes to decide if a quick review is in-depth or not, so why even keep it around? --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

These were my points back when they started. probably. ~Orian57~ Icons-flag-gb ~Talk~ Gay sign 04:16 30 May 2009
Orian's points (probably) plus the experience of time make a convincing case. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 04:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

i think ur all perves

I think you're really cute. Come back to mine for a quickie?    Orian57    Talk   Union pink 05:14 18 June 2009

edit New "Worst 100"

I've just created an article titled Worst 100 Oscar Wilde quotes, and so far it only has two quotes (both lousy), and is not on the list. Please help me out with this thing, I had trouble thinking up 2 quotes, let alone 100.--Psychokitten 00:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity and not to be mean or anything, did you consider not writing an article you only had 2% of an idea for? --monika 01:59, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
PS. You might consider writing more articles like Henry David Thoreau instead.

edit Requesting a Pee

Yes, requesting a pee. How exactly do you request a review for one of your articles? Call me a fucking idiot a bit slow, but the instructions were a bit confusing. Perhaps if you hit me on the head with a large mallet, it would help. Bountiful thanks, if you reply. --Mr.Soot Gremlin Soot Gremlin-Talk 22:49, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's how: Go down to the bottom of the main pee Review page, there will be a box to type things into. Type the name of your article and click "Create entry". That will take you to a page, it will be like you're editing the page, then click save page at the bottom of that, and you're good! Hope I helped. --Tophat headless 23:00, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oh... Sorry... Forgot... You're a a fucking idiot a bit slow. *Hits Mr. Soot Gremlin on the head with a large mallet* There. --Tophat headless 23:03, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, seriously. By the way, quite a good arm you have there! I think I'm at least three times smarter! --Mr.Soot Gremlin Soot Gremlin-Talk 23:08, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

edit Motto?

Here are some ideas:

  • Reviewing your peeTM since 42 AD
  • Reviewing pee since 42 AD

Unfortunately, none are really that funny, and that's all I can think of.

--HJ Mitchell 21:46, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I've always been more a fan of 'Be grateful or I'll stab you.' 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 00:24, 28 April 2011
*Takes knife away from Lyrithya* No! How many times have I told you, "no pointy objects!"? ~ Humbuck Talk 01:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
*stabs TheHumbucker with a large spoon* You prefer being stabbed with dull objects? Really? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:58, 28 April 2011

edit Two questions

I have two questions. If an article has a construction template, is it okay to add it to the Pee Review when you can't think of any more changes to make to it? My second question is if you add the {{PeeReview}} template to an article, is it automatically on the Pee Review page? Unmusician (talk) 01:46, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's okay if your article is still under construction. And I'm pretty sure you have to add your article to Pee Review by using the 'create entry' button at the bottom of the Pee Review page, not just adding the template.--Snippy 10:51, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

edit Second Pee Review ofsame article

Yeah. How do we get a second pee review of the same article? Can something like this happen? --Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 21:13, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects