Uncyclopedia talk:People for the Evaluation of Excrement and Influencing Nominations for Greatness

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Backlog

Seems we have more article being posted than reviewed, I can manage to do 2 reviews a day at most what with work, but we have a real back log on here. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seen a backlog! When me and Cajek started reviewing, there was only old OEJ doing anything on Pee, and the queue was about 5 - 10 pages long! The queue is currently shorter than it has been in a little while, and I thought it wasn't looking too bad at present! That said, all it would take is a couple of other members to do a review or two each to cut it right down to size. Anyone? (I'm trying to find time to do a couple myself, but things are so hectic right now!) --UU - natter UU Manhole 13:36, Mar 18
Well there are the ones that are in needs reviewing, but they're all re-writes and I've reviewed the originals, its just 4 or 5 articles (I might be mis-counting) are added everyday and less are reviewed. I'll do a couple more tonight. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what this needs!

Plunging-toilet We need your PEE!

Good day loyal PEEING member.The management was wondering if you had
noticed the state of the toilet recently. We appear to have developed something of
a blockage
, and wondered if you might have a plunger handy.

Possibly you are one of the rare PEEING members who does actually do regular reviews,
in which case please flush this message immediately, otherwise...

It's time you reviewed something you lazy bum!

Everyone knows templates fix everything. UU: If ever times get so harsh as to require this to be sent out, give MrN9001 a poke in the trousers and he can spam it to all PEEING members... (I wonder if UU has managed to post this on my talk page before I have saved this message...) MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 14:50, Mar 18

I'm doing reviews when I can! I think the most recent one might qualify me for a PEEING membership, Daddy. Next goal: Steel Kidneys... ^_^ -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 14:58, 18 Mar
Next you'll be after UU's throne :p --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
How can you be sure I'm not a middleaged male or an FBI agent myself? :D -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 18:15, 19 Mar
Can I poke 9001 without his trousers? ~Orian57~ Icons-flag-gb ~Talk~ Gay sign 17:37 18 March 2009
No. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 17:38, Mar 18
Hmm... Uncle UU's throne? No thanks. I've got my own little pack of loyal followers already. I'll let him keep his. :) -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 02:00, 19 Mar
I vow not to repeat my initial responses to that. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 11:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What was it? :D -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 15:40, 19 Mar
You really don't want to know. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I doubt you'd survive the initiation rites anyways... ;) -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 17:11, 19 Mar

Wouldn't be anything I hadn't seen/done before ;-) --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna question what you thought I meant... You do know you worry me o.O -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - 17:45, 19 Mar
Well you should know better than to talk to strange men. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

edit Ahoy from Imperial Colonization!

It's Saturday, and you know what that means. Sir SysRq (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

edit Stupid Question but...

... wouldn't you be better off renamed People Evaluating Excrement and Influencing Nominal Greatness. Yeah! Respect! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&diff=prev&oldid=839364

No. Longer has smartness sounds and the acronym is the same anyway.    Orian57    Talk   Union pink 23:52 4 July 2009
Hmmm... he's wrong but how do I explain to him that shorter adds more punch and accentuates the joke while slightly amending the definition of the second part of the acronym as "Greatness" has a far different weight then "Nominal Greatness" without offending him needlessly. I can't? Bugger it, I'll forget about the whole bloody idea then. Some people... mutter mutter mutter.. still haven't Nommed me for NotM... mutter mutter Yeah! Respect! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&diff=prev&oldid=839364
/Me punches POTR./ Hey how do you liek that for punchy!? /me kicks POTR in the face/ And I'm not wrong I'm Writer of the Month and as such am infalible, like the pope but only for a month and when I don't call rape, rape it's called perversion of justice.    Orian57    Talk   Union pink 01:03 5 July 2009
ow potr sir
The name is "Influencing Nominations for Greatness" because the Pee Reviews influence whether or not an article becomes of high enough quality to be featured. See here. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear Lord it hurts... I understand that, but that definition doesn't get lost in the change, but the nuance gets added. Strictly speaking they mean... ow... exactly the same thing... I'm sorry, I'll try not to have any ideas going forward... potr
I appreciate the idea Puppy, and semantically, on balance I agree with you. But I don't think it's worth the effort of changing it. How's that? (Incidentally, don't forget the "/" in your closing HTML tags, thanks!) --UU - natter UU Manhole 15:25, Jul 7
I personally prefer "Nominations" anyway because it has more of a connection to VFH, wheras "Nominal" would insinuate simply that the article is being improved for the sake of being improved. People use Pee Review to prepare for VFH, as they are looking for a feature. Plus, and I looked this up to verify, in this context nominal would mean "small or insignificant", certainly not what we're looking for in terms of article greatness. The other definitions make even less sense, so I say leave me alone and get off my lawn! Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I just read it and thought it a clunky acronym to be honest and thought I'd throw an idea into the mix, but I get the feeling that there is a significant school of thought against the potential change. I would probably say the may reason that I wouldn't change it myself would have been the fact that this has become an established tradition and while I don't hold any tradition sacred myself, I can understand the advantage of tradition. Maybe if we're looking at a re-brand down the track this can be considered again. And Boomer, I see your point. Just thought you might be interested to know that nominativus is the Latin derivation for both words, and it effectively means "to name." Just a little Etymology to brighten your day. Yeah! Respect! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&diff=prev&oldid=839364 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) <small>And I have to create a macro button to add my signature and to add small for myself - things to do list <small> oops.

edit I'm scared...

...given the response to the last suggestion I made on here. Having said that though I've got an issue with the PEE reviews we have been doing for Audio stuff, and as it will most likely become a more regular feature on here, I guess also for the video stuff. At the moment the PEE review system is designed for written articles only, which covers the vast majority of what is done on here. Having said that we are expanding into more of a multimedia entity, so as such shouldn't we be looking at a different review system for Audio and Video stuff (and I guess also for images, but that's beside the point.)

Now I've been playing with this review format for PEE reviews for UnTunes, but to be honest I'm not happy with it (and not just because of the bugs in it.) I'd like to see something a little more focused on these areas. What does everyone else think? Yeah! Respect! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&diff=prev&oldid=839364t 06:18, 30/07/2009

Well, the Prose and Image sections should be removed, but I think a retooled Pee Review template could work just fine. Question is, what should be added? Sound quality is an excellent addition, but it feels like there should be one more section there. Perhaps musical value (under a better name) that grades the overall rhythm and tune? Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 06:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

edit Hey, new guys

e|m|c just recently pointed me back in the direction of this, and I thought you young bucks might like to see where PEEING came from. Educate thyselves! I got all nostalgic while reading it. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just been asked to review again, however if you must all know, I was promoted and am now busy 24/7. Tell you guys what, I'll try and remember to review some this weekend, will make the effort though promise. --The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, history. Makes me wistful. Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 00:10, Jan 6 2010
Loved reading it. Reading that and the history of IC gives me more of a feel for this crazy place. Also more Pee History. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:49, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

edit Necro for attending

I meet the requirements, and having no one in that rank irks me. So how about it? :D Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 01:43, Jan 6 2010

I'll be honest - I'm not hugely enamoured of that rank these days. There was kind of a point at the start, when there was a bunch of people who all deserved RotM, but the award had just been created and not everyone could win it at once, thus earning SK status. So being able to make people Attendings helped ease that situation a little. But now, most months there's only one obvious candidate for RotM, and making them Attending for a couple of weeks until they inevitably ascend to SK seems a little pointless to me. So I'm kind of treating it as a rank in retirement, there if we get a clutch of good new reviewers at the same time, but I haven't seen the need yet. I am, however, open to persuasion, as ever - any compelling arguments to the contrary will be duly considered! --UU - natter UU Manhole 14:05, Jan 6
Well, it has been empty for quite a while. Honestly, I don't even think we need it at all anymore. I wouldn't mind if we just let it die. Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 14:56, Jan 6 2010
Personally, I'd rather keep the award in the hope we will have such a month. And for now, I wouldn't mind Necropaxx being named to it. In fact, I'd like that. But I know it's UU's decision. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:41, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I don't really care. We could do nothing at all and I'd be fine with it. Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 07:32, Jan 8 2010

edit Big news folks

OK, I got something to say:

I don't know if it was ever written there should only be one Captain Catheter, but if it was, fuck it, I'm changing it! Chief has been doing all the work and being awesome at it for so long now that I feel him not being Cap'n Cath sucks. So now he is. As well as me. Huzzah! No voting, it's just happened.

Thanks for listening. And Chief: thanks for doing an essentially thankless task! --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:25, Feb 2

Hurrah!!! Wait hang on! We demand a pointless vote dammit! OK. No we don't. No one is listening to me again anyway... What's that you say? When was the last time you did a review MrN? Well, um... /me skulks around a bit trying to pretend he did not interrupt... Anyway... What was I saying? AWESOME Chief! No really. Seriously useful stuff being done there. Keeping that list up to date (and other associated tasks) is very important and it really helps hold the Pee Review system together which in-turn has a huge positive impact on everything else going on around the Wiki. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 17:26, Feb 2
Ahh, wanton abuse of power. UU, you are truly every bit the successor I hoped you would be. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
JESUS CHRIST IT'S BOOMER, GET IN THE CAR! --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:21, Feb 3
Why not Chief Catheter? But as the second most active Pee Reviewer for the past four months (behind Chiefster), I have to object this unilateral decision. We should vote. Therefore, I've provided the handy voting mechanism below. Enjoy. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
WoW. I just saw the above comment from Why. I REALLY FUCKING hope you are joking Why. Tell me you are joking. Please? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:08, Feb 11

edit Vote on ChiefjusticeDS

Should ChiefjusticeDS be made co-Captain Catheter with Under User?

The poll was created at 06:52 on February 4, 2010, and so far 12 people voted.

edit New Pee Project

Hey guys, I had this crazy idea I'm working on about how to stop the endless poor quality reviews. Its crazy enough to work. But I'm not revealing anything yet, so keep all your comments and/or opinions to yourself until I'm done with it. If you know anything about it, do NOT say shit about it until I am done with it. By the way, congrats on your promotion, ChiefJustice, you seriously earned it. That is all.--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 06:44, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Given your scattergun reliability when it comes to reviews, I'll take that under advisement. If it involves anything that's likely to put people off doing a few reviews and getting the hang of it, though, then I'm implacably opposed to it. --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:54, Feb 4

edit That darn Attending issue again

So, according to UU a few sections ago, "if we get a clutch of good new reviewers at the same time" it would be possible to have certain users become Attendings. That said... this looks like the month! There are 4 promising reviewers up on RotM right now (one of them will win), so let's give Attending to the losers as a consolation prize/incentive to keep reviewing. What say you? Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 00:54, Feb 11 2010

My feeling towards this is that yes, we have a few promising reviewers working right now, however they are all still relatively new to PEE and Uncyclopedia generally, bar Sequence who turned up and did some good work in autumn last year. However, as is often stated the reason that people do these reviews should not be for the award, reviewing is primarily intended to help users improve their work and thus make Uncyclopedia a better place all round, we just use the award to recognise that commitment. Assuming things run their course with the vote we will be left with a a few people who were disappointed, however if they simply stop reviewing because we didn't hand them the award, then perhaps they don't deserve it after all. If these new reviewers, who are a very promising bunch, are prepared to keep working on their reviews, they will get the award in time, it would be better that it was given to someone who has worked hard over a long period of time than someone who produced lots in one month and then never came back again.
The practical upshot of all that babble is essentially that I feel the reviewers in question lack the experience to be considered for Attending and that if they are really serious about helping out with reviews they will keep going and thus each receive the award and thus the Steel Kidney rank, since, after all, the ranks and the award shouldn't be the driving force behind anyone's desire to contribute to PEEING. Right, long rant over, now I'm going to bed. --ChiefjusticeDS 01:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Attending is not an award per say. It's a vote of confidence that the user in question knows how to update the list, and has the required interpersonal skill to contact someone and tell them that their reviews stink without being a dick in the process. UU and Chief make the decision of who gets Attending and when. It's not up to the rest of us to decide that anyway. This is not a democracy it's a Chief UU ocracy! Crazy eh? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:18, Feb 11
Oh, all right then... :( Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 02:18, Feb 11 2010
Could we clarify that Attending is optional in the description? Yes, I know it says that the final decision rests in the hands of etc., but most people (i.e. me) are going to figure that's just a technicality. And we like to talk about how people shouldn't be working for awards, etc. But the fact is awards are recognition by your peers, and if they didn't motivate people then they wouldn't be given to real world admirals and generals.
As some people are probably tired of hearing me say, if I hadn't been nominated for NotM I probably wouldn't be active here. I just planned to do an edit or two, then I when I saw I was nommed before I'd done hardly anything thought, "Oh crap, I'd better do something productive fast!"
Also if it's listed as optional, or taken off altogether, it's not likely to bother anyone who doesn't get it. Otherwise seeing that you qualify for it and then not getting it might feel something like a slap in the face (while it was explained to me later, at first that's kind of how it felt to me). WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 06:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Um... Really? Na. You are joking with that comment? Right Why??? Yea... That was a joke. No way you are being serious on this... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 10:16, Feb 11
It is just a symbolic rank that does not gain you any advantages besides being shouted at a bit more when you do reviews badly. The post of attending is going to remain as it is for the moment as it is filling the role of just being there, quite nicely; the functions that the role entails are currently being carried out by Necropaxx and yourself, Why, anyway. The new reviewers that we have would be best served working hard, then recognition will come, if I feel that someone is consistently working hard but repeatedly being denied the RotM award, for whatever reason, then I would consider promoting, but for now I strongly suspect that the next few months on RotM will just focus on the reviewers who haven't won the award yet, so it isn't really necessary to start handing out promotions.
People should work hard and be patient there is no reason to be offended by not being given the rank as it is obvious how people achieve ranks on PEE, doing reviews, do lots and do them properly you will be promoted in the fullness of time. --ChiefjusticeDS 12:54, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no doubt that people shouldn't be offended if they don't get a virtual award on a website. I only meant that people might like it if they got it; I didn't mean to say that our reviewers are so petty as to quit from that. Sorry if I confused you. Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 16:25, Feb 11 2010
My point is if it's not going to be given out, why have it say it will be given out? I'm going to add a brief note saying it's not currently being given out, or some such. Obviously if UU or Chiefster don't like it, they can revert it. But I've seen too many conflicts on this site that could have been easily avoided with a simple preventative, and I am Uncyclopedia's self-appointed know-it-all who thinks he can fix everything. I'm the guy who checks the fire extinguisher to make sure it's charged and advises women friends on what type of pad they should use to prevent leaks. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:19, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
And occasionally, you need to back up slightly from doing that - I've been involved with PEEING since 2007, and I haven't seen so many conflicts over this non-issue that it seemed to need any action. Just sayin'. --UU - natter UU Manhole 22:52, Feb 11
To the main page I just added "The rank of Attending Urologist is currently not being awarded." WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:29, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Good for you. And I changed it. The rank remains there in case we need it, and could, in theory, be awarded at any time. It's just not likely right now. So let's not word things in quite such a permanent sounding fashion, hmm? --UU - natter UU Manhole 22:52, Feb 11

edit Random stupid question

Is the a large part of this page green on purpose? Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 21:27, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's green? What do you mean? It looks normal to me. Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 23:13, Feb 12 2010
It looks purple to me.... --ChiefjusticeDS 23:31, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
The colour of the page has changed from time to time. I think it's got something to do with what UU was drinking the night before... That's why it's normally piss green you see. ;) MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 23:33, Feb 12

edit Got Bored Really Bored

Thus is the life of a VMI cadet, constant boredom. Soooooo, for your viewing pleasure, I made rank templates for the fresh stains, attending urologists and the steel kidneys. Again really bored... So what do you guys think? official rank templates? or should I just destroy them? Yeah, I'm such a nerd lol--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 00:59 EST 13 Feb, 2010

Fresh Stain
Fresh Stain Rank

Attending Urologist
Attending Urologist Rank

Steel Kidney
Steel Kidney Rank

Are those little steel kidneys? Awesome! I wonder what UU and Chiefster will say to this... =D Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 07:16, Feb 13 2010
They are stone-cold awesome. Fact. I say feel free to put 'em on the main PEEING page in the appropriate place, and call 'em official. Awesome work, thanks! If you find yourself similarly bored again, I have a suggestion: we have the awards for 25, 50 and 75 in-depth reviews. We could do with one for 100 (someone else will deserve it one day) and even 200 (Chief will probably get there soon enough). I have no ideas, however. Any inspiration in this direction would be most appreciated. Something roughly in keeping with the Diamond Dumper and the rest would be handy, but don't consider yourself constrained by that if you have a great idea! --UU - natter UU Manhole 08:53, Feb 13
Hang on. I think we need a vote first! :P ... Maybe the Oscar Wilde Water Closet for 100 and perhaps the Sophia Scatologist for 200? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 09:02, Feb 13
Maybe... The Under user Ultimate Urinal ??? ... or the Cajek Crapper perhaps? :D MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 10:05, Feb 13
Good to see you putting so much thought into this. --ChiefjusticeDS 10:06, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
I aim to please. Except when someone puts the seat down for no good reason. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 10:09, Feb 13
Nah, it's gotta be the Chief Crapper(Abbreviated because the ChiefJusticeDS Crapper sounds less cool)- if UU gets an award in his name, Chief should too.Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 10:12, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

good stuff guys! yeah, I'll definitely work on that at some point, maybe even today (I haven nothing to do for the next 10 hours or so). I'll run the award names by you guys when i come up with something --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 07:27 EST 13 Feb, 2010

edit New award title options

ok, so far I've come up with:

  • Lofty Latrine
  • Outstanding Outhouse *
  • Power Potty
  • Chrome Crapper *

the starred two are the ones I'm leaning towards, outhouse being worth 200 to crapper's 100 --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 08:14 EST 13 Feb, 2010

Dude, awesome. Even though Potatochopper of the month is for photoshopping, you still deserve some kind of award or something(Note:This is not a suggestion to do anything, I'm just saying.)Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 20:46, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm leaning towards those two as well. Great job, Skinfan! Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 02:26, Feb 14 2010

I just realized, we don't have a rank template for our two Captain Catheters! Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 09:46, Feb 14 2010

edit wow

So, the pee review queue is empty. What do you guys want to do now? lol --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 12:45 EST 24 Feb, 2010

Empty? We can't have that... --Matfen 18:12, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
This either means that our Pee crew is really awesome, the writers have stopped writing, or both. Whichever it is, I bet there's a way for me to make some money off it. Necropaxx (T) {~} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} UTC
I know, every time I've come to review something this month there's never been anything available. Still, well done to Chief and mini-Chief. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 19:47, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
A massive thanks to Skinfan for doing some brilliant work this month, the state of the queue is, in no small part, down to him. Well done everyone who has been Peeing this month, keep it up. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 20:26, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

edit Um Guys?

So the Pee pool is still as empty as a really empty pond which has had all the water pumped out and then someone went around a hair drier making sure all the last of the drops were completely dried up. OK, there is one articles waiting to be reviewed, but someone has already "booked that". Um, I thought we stopped that anyway. But... How about one of you captains make a post in the VD advertising that we actually have extra capacity in the peeing pond right now? Just a thought... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 11:38, Mar 4

Just a thought--is there some aspect of Unc that really needs help? Maybe the notice could direct would-be Peers there. I remember back in the day (about five months ago) when the Pee Review backlog went back for weeks. Now we have a problem that it's too caught up? We should have more problems like that. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:37, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
And it's empty again after mine and Chief's most recent reviews. Are we pushing our bodes too hard? Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 15:36, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
As your adopted father, I demand to know whom you're pushing your body hard against! Fathers have the right to watch. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:54, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
And I'm also into necrophilia. I like watching vampires do it. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:45, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

edit Brain Blast

Holt shit, it's so obvious, why the fuck didn't I think of it before? OK so hear me out guys: A problem that I encountered a while back was when one of my articles was on pee review and some guy kept on vandalizing my page while it was in the queue. Why? got mad at me when I shouted at the n00b on his talk page (the only time I've ever been mean to someone on this site believe it or not) and he even said to me that there was no way he could have known it was up for pee review. After doing some work on VFD and VFH I got to thinking, "Why the hell don't we have a 'This article is currently being pee'd on' template for the top (or bottom) of the page being reviewed???"

So I submit to PEEING, should we have a VFD or VFH style template to add to pages in the pee queue so that people don't edit articles currently up for review? Let's put it to a vote. If there's sufficient support, I'd be happy to mash up a template for us. -- Skinfan13 12:52 EST 4 April, 2010

edit In favor of a new VFD/VFH style template

Score: 3
  • Symbol for vote Strong For. Per above -- Skinfan13 12:52 EST 4 April, 2010
  • Why not? --nldr 16:59, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Weird, synchronistic, great-minds-think-alike For. I was in the discussion above as Skinfan13 mentioned. I also started a very recent discussion where I got upset because an article was put up for VFH that was waiting for a Pee Review (a discussion where the consensus seemed to be that I was right, but overreacting). I had the idea, "Say, what if we had a template that said an article was up for Pee Review, and to ask people not to make major edits or nom it for VFH/VFD until the review was done and the author had time to work on it?" I came here, and was blown away to see the discussion had already begun. This is seriously weird. Also this is also seriously for. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

edit Against having a template

Score: 0
  • none yet
  • nope, not yet

You mean {{PeeReview}}? ~Jewriken.GIF 19:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was never aware of it and I've been here since the war ended. --nldr 19:58, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
The armistice did mention that we're not allowed to use this template until 2050 at least. However, since they haven't been seen for a long time, I think we're safe. ~Jewriken.GIF 20:02, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Er, yeah, {{PeeReview}} seems to be just what Skinfan was talking about. I've seen it before, but never used it. Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 21:48, Apr 4 2010
Yeah! That's what I'm talking about, I think we need to advertise using it more. Perhaps put it somewhere where people will know that it exists? I'm still making one for my own personal use :P -- Skinfan13 19:44 EST 4 April, 2010
OK, so I didn't have the idea first. I've been here since September 2009, am also a Steel Kidney, etc., and didn't know about this. Yeah, we need to make sure people know about it, like maybe put it on the Pee Review page so people see it when they sign up for a Pee Review? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
I just went there to add it myself, and saw it's admin protected. Could a helpful admin add it there in a way that really stands out? I say "really stands out" because some of us who go there a lot don't pay attention because we've already read what's there and might miss any change unless it's obvious. In other words, please make it so obvious even an absent-minded dimwit like me will notice it. Thanks! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

edit Limits

Noticed the queue's a bit out of hand again, so thought I'd discuss it rather than actually review something. What would you guys think about putting a limit on how many articles an individual can have put up for pee review at a time. I noticed that a considerable amount of noms are from the same people (not cyberbullying Aleister or Funnybony, I'm looking at this from a longterm perspective). I think it could be better if we had a cap of perhaps two submissions at most, as it would keep the queue down, encouraging people to review more, and pay attention to those single articles that bogged down in a sea of mass-nominations. If a reviewer is more communal minded, and is seeking to decrease the queue, they won't be rushing as much, producing better quality review. Also, when I got a review back, I used to nominate the next article I wanted reviewed, and while waiting, work on the changes for the former review. Now, with this spamming system, I'm unmotivated by how many articles of mine I should fix up, and it's been months before I've bothered to do anything with them (I realize this isn't representative of everyone's writing approach, even if I am a fascist who believes everyone should look, sound, and act like me).

VFD has a limit of twenty, but it would be harsh to stop people from asking for help just because they are outside the limit at the time through no fault of their own. Sorry if my wording and explanations are a bit muddled, as I am sub-intelligent, and probably shouldn't be allowed to access the internets. --Matfen 21:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is why I've been reviewing a lot of their pages, so everyone can have theirs looked at.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 09:11, May 25 2010 UTC
HELPME, I have more pages to look at. Why are you wasting time posting here? Anywho, on mine, the Frighten Small Children one was more of a joke request, I really didn't want it reviewed and said so. Tantra is both mine and Funnybony's, and my newest one Funnybony has reviewed already. So I have none up there now (please remove Frighten SmallChildren), and will put one up as quick as I can. Any second now. . .Al des chains 21:19 25 5 mmx
I doubt very much that a limit is really necessary. Keeping the queue down is really the remit of the reviewers rather than the writers, and the last thing I want to do is to discourage people from writing. People should simply be aware that if they do submit large numbers of articles to pee review then they should anticipate a wait for them to be reviewed. Writers ideally should not simply submit articles to the queue as it says on the main pee review page, the system works best when people suck as well as blow, if you are simply submitting to the queue you should be aware that there is more chance of someone getting to yours if you review someone else's. Reviewers can do work to help too, ideally reviewers should work through reviews on a time urgency basis and anyone who is in Peeing should be making the effort to review at least one piece of work per month. Beyond that I feel there isn't that much of a backlog, the amount of reviewing does ebb and flow and if we do start imposing limits on the number of articles on the queue we are making authors wait because of our own slackness, which is more of a problem than an excess of articles being written. So, to anyone in peeing who is reading this and has not done a review this month... It's time you reviewed something you lazy bugger! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 21:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
You've only done one this month, Chief. We're going to have to take the children away if you keep this up.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 09:29, May 25 2010 UTC
Well I am still on an official pee hiatus, which has been extended by a number of things, I hope to return to more active duty shortly. But I have still been picking up one every month, so yeah, fuck you and the horse you rode in on! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 21:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'll still be limiting any visits from my imaginary sister. --Matfen 21:38, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 22:19, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Who am I kidding? She can't be controlled. --Matfen 22:38, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Out of hand? Pfft! /me digs out stock response in this situation: The queue gets a bit longer on occasion. But that's not a big deal - it tends to get shorter again after a while too. When it's as long as it was when me and Cajek started reviewing (at least ten screens deep, at a rought estimate) then we might need to think about more drastic measures, but I don't see anything to worry about at the moment. I reckon it'll even itself out again soon enough. --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:02, May 26
Christ. It's UU, get in the car!! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 19:08, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
I see your point UU, even if your stock response did seem to be ripped off Gordon Brown about the Economy. --Matfen 19:22, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Political satire on the Pee pages, Matfen, you rogue. Also.... IT WAS UU I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM IN FOREVER!!! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 19:26, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Deja vu?--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 07:37, May 26 2010 UTC
What a staggering coincidence, it's almost as though we meant to do it. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 19:42, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we try doing something about the length of the pee queue? It's getting totally out of hand. --Black Flamingo 19:44, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
We should also look at promoting someone to Attending Urologist, as the rank is like, just sitting there. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 19:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
I have a great idea for fixing this place up, although it involves discouraging new users from doing reviews and prevents writers from submitting articles. Also it would mean changing all the PEE templates. Apart from that it's sound. --Black Flamingo 19:50, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
As for changing the templates, they were changed not too long ago--or at least new ones were added. I had some suggestions for changes, but somebody said no. >:-( The information on one of them really needs to be fixed, though--with the new levels one of the old ones is now inaccurate. If I can't do the fun stuff, I could at least fix that. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Attending Urologist. I fully qualified, but somebody wouldn't let me be one. I miss that somebody telling me stuff like that. Also I miss getting spanked when I'm on the toilet. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

edit Chrome Crapper

I think it's fine that we very recently added something for beyond 75+ reviews. But do we really need both Chrome Crapper and Outstanding Outhouse? For one thing, the progression goes from gold to platinum to diamonds to...chrome? Also we only have two people who've reached 100 and none who've reached 200 reviews. And what if somebody does eventually pass 200; are we going to keep making piss levels forever?

What if we just dumped Chrome Crapper and made Outstanding Outhouse for 100+ reviews? There would be a tongue-in-cheek progression (at 100+ you move from being awarded a urinal or toilet to having your own building). I really think Golden Urinal, Platinum Pisser, Diamond Dumper, and Outstanding Outhouse are enough. What think? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think that you make a reasonable point on the subject; 200 does seem quite a lofty goal for many, so perhaps some consideration may be in order. I would rather base getting rid of it on a consensus though. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 21:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I like the 200 thing. Anything to encourage people to keep reviewing. Some people like to do good reviews only for awards once they get bored of reviewing. As they're giving good reviews full of advice, it doesn't matter. And if you say 200 is too high, Mn'z did about 35 reviews in one month (Searched through the archives while bored), and if somebody continued that pace for many months, they deserve to keep getting recognition in my eyes.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 09:25, June 02 2010 UTC
The point is that nobody has yet, if awards are the reason you are reviewing then you shouldn't be doing it. As for the number of reviews in a month the times you are indicating happen rarely, and nobody has ever gotten close to 200. I think Why? makes a fair point by saying cut it back to 100, as if more people could get there then it would be thrilling. Also, if you browse the category for Diamond Dumper winners there aren't many of us there. Awards are clearly not motivating many people that much, I would personally reward someone doing excellent work like that, but it has yet to happen with anyone; I don't think keeping the award in order to reward someone who might do something amazing in the future is really necessary. I liked the old system, and if we cut it back to 4 awards with the top one being at 100, then we keep a wonderful 25 review gap between reviews which is a nice attainable looking goal for everyone, including the ones who are just reviewing for a fancy template. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 21:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I guess so.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 09:39, June 02 2010 UTC

Although I agree that the move from Diamond to Chrome is a bit out of sync, I believe the progression requirements are fine. (Not that I've managed to achieve any of them). --Matfen 22:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

edit general comments

let me explain the logic that went into the awards: -Chrome crapper was an attempt to go along with the consonance theme with the previous three awards and keeping it a type of shiny metal. I really didn't think people would be so upset with the chrome bit, but would be more upset if the new award didn't have the consonance as that's where the 'humor' comes from imo. -the 200 benchmark was in preparation for Under User and Chief when they eventually pass 200, seeing as they never got awarded for 25 review increments past 75, I thought giving them 100, and then 200 eventually was the better idea. As modest as chief is, he's going to get 200 at some point, and UU too conceivably. I'd say that's a particularly impressive accomplishment. I also don't understand the argument that having a 200 benchmark will discourage people from reviewing, or that it is somehow harmful (which is what y'all are implying). as such, Symbol against vote Against. changing -- Sir SF13 (Talk) Upsilonsigmasigmacrest GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 00:56 Budapest 3 Jun, 2010

To clarify, the name of "chrome crapper" isn't that big of a deal to me. I just don't think we need five levels with the top one 200+ reviews. And I appreciate the work you did. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 00:03, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

edit Don't slip on the puddle

Greetings, committee of large bladders. I just wrote my first Pee Review and thought I'd have a look around here. I noticed the Chrome Crapper and Diamond Dumper and the very first thought I had was why does chrome follow diamond? I see here that this subject was discussed by you all already (a while ago too), but as a neutral speaker who is not a part of your fine (and a little wet) organization, perhaps I could nevertheless give my own opinions on the awards... Even materials they are made from aside, the Diamond Dumper looks like a higher quality toilet, the Crapper looks like one you'd find in a basic public restroom. "Dumping" also sounds more eh... you know, then mere everyday "Crapping". I think you should swap the awards and change the chrome to corundum (which is what sapphires and rubies are made from for the ignorant). In other words; for 75 you win the Corundum Crapper, and at 100 you win the Diamond Dumper.


A sapphire bowl of crap.

Anyway, it's just my opinions, I'm not a member and probably won't want to be (I hate being obligated to do things). You can ignore me if you so wish and I will ignore you ignoring me and we can pretend to not know each other as we pass on the street (unless we never do, in which case it won't matter). ◄► Tephra ◄► 03:13, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I actually suggested one of the awards be eliminated (toilet, eliminate? ha ha!), but I like yours better than what's there. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:00, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

edit The queue is really short again

Well done guys, we must have been reviewing a lot more recently. Or more likely, no one is writing anything. Anyway my point is I'm retiring. See you all in hell. --Black Flamingo 19:30, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Will you bring the watermelon, or should I? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy Major Pleb Dame Lyrithya AthyriaIsarraHaydrahlienne - 'Destroyer of the Wiki' - MUN OUN CUN KUN DUN GUN *shifty eyes* (zombiebaron) • (dr. skullthumper) • (roman dog bird) • (nachlader) • (frosty) • (more zombiebaron) • (talk) • (stalk) • (block) • (log) • (list) • WotMUotMRotMPotMUGotM x4 • SotMFFSNOMMotMBFF x2 • GSA x2 • PSFiyCMDTop3 x3 • Top10VFH x15 • VFP x3.5 • HoSTAWHMCPEEINGPRSPCURCΥΣΣICZB -- 19:31, 7 January, 2011 (UTC)
I'll bring water and you bring melon. We'll mix it later. --Black Flamingo 19:48, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy Major Pleb Dame Lyrithya AthyriaIsarraHaydrahlienne - 'Destroyer of the Wiki' - MUN OUN CUN KUN DUN GUN *shifty eyes* (zombiebaron) • (dr. skullthumper) • (roman dog bird) • (nachlader) • (frosty) • (more zombiebaron) • (talk) • (stalk) • (block) • (log) • (list) • WotMUotMRotMPotMUGotM x4 • SotMFFSNOMMotMBFF x2 • GSA x2 • PSFiyCMDTop3 x3 • Top10VFH x15 • VFP x3.5 • HoSTAWHMCPEEINGPRSPCURCΥΣΣICZB -- 20:32, 7 January, 2011 (UTC)

edit How do you make a request?

I am new. Show me step by step. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Holden Caulfeild (talk • contribs)

Responded on the fellow's talkpage. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 03:38, 15 February 2011

edit An explanation

I just spammed a couple of people's talk pages with a template, for which you all have my most sincere apologies. The reason is because something must be done, not about the length of the queue, but about the wait times several reviews are having. There are a couple on the queue at the moment from the end of June, which you will recall was two months ago. I'm not asking for an empty queue, but it would be tremendously helpful if we could all try to put in one review over the next week or so. I will be doing my utmost to do this too. If people could try and start from the bottom of the queue and work upwards that would be splendid.

If I'm the only person still watching this page then that's awesome, I've finally achieved something. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 18:29, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools