From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Hey there
Hey, I'm going to have to ask you to stop reverting to an older version of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. It isn't improving the article or making it any funnier. You haven't done anything worthy of a ban, but at this point I'd recommend that you quit before it comes to something like that. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a fine line between being satirical and being stubborn and unfunny. Also, there is a not-very-fine line between putting a chicken in Mars and constantly reverting the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article to a not very funny version. If you continue you will most likely be banned. ---- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 07:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern over the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. If I were you, I would be double sided and open minded and not just concentrate over the reverting issue. Anyway, it is not I who first reverted. I am doing this in good faith and just doing a political satire not a useless junk and full of non-sense. Please don't judge me as a vandal and I am just creating a better "spoof" to Gloria. Thanks! --184.108.40.206 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
edit "Better Spoof"?
- There is nothing better with the reversion you are creating, it's even more nonsensical to read especially to people who are unaware about events happening in the Philippines. Stop reverting or you will be summarily banned. --MidwayHaven 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Over 90% of your article is spoof! Wow... I laugh so much! --220.127.116.11 08:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are rules to being an Uncyclopedian, and one of them is to not destroy the work of one who has been registered under Uncyclopedia. Your work is akin to blanking, and thus you have been reported. Squiggles has already warned you about your behavior. --MidwayHaven 08:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Better provide a better solution to our problem, I suggest. I'm sorry if I hurt you through the improvements that I made to an article of Uncyclopedia. But trust me I don't know you nor your username in this wiki. I don't personalize with you one way or another so don't call me a vandal, that is. Editing in good faith what I'm doing, it is. Listen to other ideas, you should. --(not Yoda) but 18.104.22.168 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- These are not "improvements." You're removing various links and a template recently created by Filipino encyclopedians to make navigation of this page easier. Your ideas are not funny at all, nor am I personalizing your additions. That's why I have been cordial to you lately. But since you're too stubborn I have decided on a better solution: DELETION. --MidwayHaven 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
edit Just to be clear on the issue
Midwayhaven, users don't have "rights" over IPs who act in good faith, mostly (unless its voting issues and others). In this case I'd hardly call our IP a vandal, but rather an over enthusiastic editor. I much rather you two solve this between you before you take it up to ban patrol. However, since you placed it in VFD I've locked it until the vote would be decided. Just so you two understand, if it does get deleted, I won't allow it to be recreated for a while to prevent further drama.09:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sir Mordillo, the article was created by a user called Kapuso, and I believe he is the same IP that is doing the revert war. The original article was tagged for rewrite if I'm not mistaken, and MidwayHaven was the one who rewrote the article to what it is today (I dont know MidwayHaven personally). Personally I liked the article, and it has positive reviews in the Filipino web/blog community.
- I have read your message in my userpage, we're not taking this personally. We just want to preserve the funniest version of the article. I'm also a victim of these vandals and I voluntarily VFD'd the article about the Philippines. This is what MidwayHaven is doing and I believe it is the only solution to keep these vandals away. I agree with you, that CVP-ing the article for a while (an indefinite CVP is way much better) will prevent these incidents and "dramas". It's a shame, it's a good article. --Gilgal1(Talk to me bitch!!!) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
edit Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
I don't know who you are and where in Hell did you come from but it seems that it is me who is at risk of what "mess" you are doing in the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. I don't know if I would be happy because you are eager to fight for your improvements in the article or be angry because I am at risk if what have you done. So what, after you did this you will be quiet and loafing around... or just try to defend me and clear my name for the mess you have done. I just want to suggest that if you are man enough to defend your actions better respond to these issues you are confronting. Better if you don't hide through your IP and GET A USERNAME! --Kapuso 09:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spare us will you, we know the IP, Dsweetheart08 and you are one and the same! The Janice Lozada article that keeps being recreated that somehow Dsweetheart08 found the Gloria Article in your userspace; the "yodaspeak" of the IP vandal and somehow you also edited the Yoda article recently; and the sudden activity of all of you - all at the same time. Weird coincidence huh? The Gloria article is yours! Stop whoring your MacTonight article in ours. And stop the sockpuppets. --Gilgal1(Talk to me bitch!!!) 08:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.