User talk:ChiefjusticeDS

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 18:47, July 30, 2014 by Anton199 (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on January 12th 2012.
The result of the discussion was Delete.

Archive #1, Archive #2, Archive #3, Archive #4, Archive #5, Archive #6, Archive #7, Archive #8, Archive #9, Archive #10, Archive #11, Archive #12


Seriously, you flounce off dramatically, ban Moardildoes and don't even ban me for a second? FUCK YOU MAN, you used to be cool. And it's coming up to MINCE PIE SEASON. Asshole. I'm going to bug 'Dillo on Facebook to abuse his 'crat powers and temporarily re-op me just so I can ban the fuck out of you. Or eat a ham and cheese toastie. One or the other.

In other news: bye Chief. --UU - natter UU Manhole 20:17, Oct 13

Congratulations! You are still on our list!

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:01, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Constantly changing and not evolving newspaper - the UnSignpost

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:20, October 31, 2013 (UTC)



could you please kindly remove the pages on Islam and its related pages like Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him Jesus, peace be upon him Allah and so on. these are really offensive and hurtful, and as rational human beings we should respect others beliefs. uncyclopedia has some funny stuff but it mocks a lot of religions and beliefs, id really like to have this removed and im sure many feel the same, thank you The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssj-noodles1994 (talk • contribs)

On this topic, I feel I can respond in place of the Chief. Islam and the related pages are not going anywhere. Thank you for noticing that Uncyclopedia "mocks a lot of religions and beliefs." As this was your first edit anywhere, it gives the impression that you are not here to help us write humorous content but to claim that stuff is "offensive and hurtful." To that claim, sir, please go pound sand. Spıke Ѧ 16:00 6-Nov-13
Hi, Ssj! You yourself can help us notice these hurtful words, if you feel that they are not funny but just offending. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:45, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Anton, Ssj's request was not that we look for offensive text but that we cease to have articles on religion and founders of religion; that is, that we stop being Uncyclopedia. This request does not deserve that we look for a way to go halfway. Spıke Ѧ 19:49 6-Nov-13
I cannot object. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:00, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
If you can write funny stuff about Islam without being offensive as was done with Jews then if it is funny enough with a vote from the community it could replace what is there. But doing this without consensus is a definite no no. This site's purpose is to be funny not to be politically correct. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 20:51, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even realise there was an apple based slam product.                               Puppy's talk page10:55 06 Nov 2013

Thank you for your responses anyway. I hope one day we will be able to cut out behavior like this. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 09:39, November 7, 2013

Who said 'late'?

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:19, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

The last UnSignpost of the year

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 21:07, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

And welcome back, even if for only a moment. Do drop by more often. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 22:04, January 9, 2014 (UTC)


You still want to contribute here, please, you can help to choose Forum:Top Ten Articles of 2013! But I am not forcing you in any way, in case you can't or don't want to. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:27, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

The first UnSignpost of the year

That time I was nearly caught reading the UnSignpost, so now I am delivering it to you! Have a nice time reading it! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:49, February 18, 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the Pee Review on the 1990s article. Feel free to make any edits/improvements if you wish. Also, about the list of shows: do you think I should delete any shows that don't have articles here? I was thinking about it, but I know many of these shows are often name-dropped and form a crucial part of "90s" culture, even if they don't have articles. And what do you think of the "Music" section? I wrote that section as a parody of "90s kids" who think they were the last generation to listen to REAL music like the Beatles (not that sissy Justin Gayber crap).--EpicWinner (talk) 20:40, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to make a few changes to the article. The thing about the lists is that they aren't amusing on their own, lists can be funny but they have to have something that merits that, we want to avoid just listing TV shows that are name dropped. Perhaps we could select a couple and talk about them at a bit more length. The article doesn't have to cover everything connected to the 90's or we'll be there all day, it only has to be funny, we could do that by mentioning lots of TV shows or none. I'll make a couple of changes to that section to show you what I'm getting at, then you can have a read and see what you think. --ChiefjusticeWii 20:49, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
Which shows do you think warrant a mention?--EpicWinner (talk) 21:02, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
I've made a change to the television section to illustrate what I mean. It could be expanded to discuss other shows but I was struggling to do so without repeating myself. I only mention a couple of shows but that could easily be remedied. I've focussed the text on speaking about 90's television in general using a single show as example. I'm sure we could put in some others if you really want to. I think you need to be more general about things and speak more about the style of television broadcasting than individual shows. What are your thoughts? --ChiefjusticeWii 21:32, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
Nice job. What about some info about the 90s shows on Nick, CN, and Disney Channel? Those channels are usually brought up when people talk about the 90s, and how good they used to be. I have to admit, since I'm technically not a "90s kid" (despite watching re-runs of 90s shows) it's a bit hard to write about the decade in general.--EpicWinner (talk) 21:58, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
I'd be very cautious about just listing shows, less is more in this regard. If you're just listing shows and have very little to say about them then it's better to leave them out entirely rather than include them just for the sake of including them. It's not necessary to know everything about the 90's to write about them. If you're struggling have a look at the wikipedia page for ideas and then adapt those to fit your article. You're making some good improvements, but I still think some of the filler material should be removed. --ChiefjusticeWii 17:58, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
How's the article look now? Feel free to make edits/improvements.--EpicWinner (talk) 23:14, March 21, 2014 (UTC)


I know you... You are the one that sucks, right? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 20:44, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes blow as well. --ChiefjusticeWii 20:45, March 20, 2014 (UTC)


Since Funnybony today has asserted his desire to be the only Uncyclopedian permitted to censor posts on his talk page, I will provide background here. He submitted to UnNews, then to VFH, UnNews:Abby Martin ‘non-notable’ Wikipedia ban boosts notability, and made it clear on VFH that the main purpose of this news was to provide ammunition ("independent" proof of notability) to push a debate at Wikipedia. On that basis — that it pimped Uncyclopedia — I moved it off UnNews and into his userspace. Later, I VFH'd the Satanic Verses article to welcome a newbie, and Funnybony decided that its title could not be named on his talk page or linked to in an article. That is all. Spıke Ѧ 21:58 20-Mar-14

I have left a note on your talkpage about the issues. Hopefully that will be the end of it. --ChiefjusticeWii 22:04, March 20, 2014 (UTC)


Great to see you back! Is there a specific issue with the 'new' review template or is it just that you prefer the old one? If you don't like something, it could be fixed. How are you anyway? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:13, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what this is about or an edit the Chief made — Give us a link? Chief, during your absence, we debated and endorsed an optional, less rigorous format for reviewing articles. Spıke Ѧ 12:26 21-Mar-14
[1] Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:30, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
I just prefer the old one, I've done hundreds of reviews using it and I'm far too old a dog to learn new tricks at this stage. --ChiefjusticeWii 13:10, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:12, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
Also: Paint thinner, as I recall. Spıke Ѧ 13:49 21-Mar-14

I'm mildly enthused to see you back

So lets all have a bowl of Regular K ;) ;) ;) --ShabiDOO 02:48, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly average. --ChiefjusticeWii 06:21, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
Meh. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Teh Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:18, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Rollbacks with custom change summary

I saw that you were undoing users' edits rather than reverting them and so I thought that maybe you don't know about the tool that allows you to revert while leaving a change summary. It is described at UN:HAX#Custom_change_summary. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 08:00, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

You young people and your newfangled ideas and tools. I remember when rollback was an anonymous exercise in confidence destruction. I don't really think the tool would be that much faster, but thanks for letting me know about it. --ChiefjusticeWii 09:11, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
It does all the patrolling and reverting job at the same time, so I think it will be, but it's up to you! Also have you heard about RotM being revived? Not many people did and there is a need in voters. Could you please help? Thank you! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:40, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
The tool is no faster — but rollback is faster than undo, and the tool lets you roll back with a message, which might produce more positive results. Spıke Ѧ 11:52 24-Mar-14

Great to see your footsteps...

...and thanks for walking them to the faces in the cloud voting page. Appreciated. I missed your and UU's eating contest at Christmas, did you participate in private? Aleister 11:14 24-3-14

There was nothing formal, but then there's nothing formal about eating mince pies without using your hands. I feel certain I must have won at heart disease this year. --ChiefjusticeWii 13:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


In lieu of a Pee Review: I proofread your first draft, which was completely different and ought to live on, for example, as Police orientation. The current draft is more encyclopedia-ish. Nothing requires rework; it would benefit from a little more proofreading. (Set off time/place clauses with a comma and be sure to use full stop at the end of a complete thought.) But a large subset of this article is a type of humor that the rest isn't. In the US, newspaper columns that summarize police reports are called the Police blotter and this could be a home for that stuff. Nothing better, to pad our page count, than to set out to write an article and wind up writing three! I disagree with your comment at Pee Review that the existing page was "a bit schizophrenic"; it was simply ranty. (The fact that it wasn't entirely ranty might be schizophrenic, but surely it was ranty Anons who will continue to be drawn to an article entitled Police.) I think you should use VFD and point to your replacement instead of just replacing the entire article. Spıke Ѧ 12:52 25-Mar-14

Thanks for the comments, I tend to get a bit carried away when I'm writing and my thoughts of proofreading are dropped off a cliff to be smashed to bits on the jagged rocks below. I am ever the hypocrite as I recommend careful proofreading in my reviews all the time. Perhaps I will resurrect the original first draft at some point, the problem is that I set out with specific ideas for the article in mind and after getting half-way through the first attempt I felt that I wasn't able to make the points I wanted and keep the same style. Your comment "a large subset of this article is a type of humor that the rest isn't" - is that a criticism or is it merely an observation? I'm happy to change things if I've not been consistent, I was quite eager to include a lot of jokes from the first draft so may have let my consistency lapse in places.
I replaced the original article as I felt that mine was a lot better and didn't anticipate any argument with that point, VFD seemed an unnecessary delay to putting a better article in mainspace. I can't really decide on this myself, it being my own work, if you feel that the site is best served by putting the old version on VFD and asking if it should be replaced with mine then I will do that instead. --ChiefjusticeWii 13:29, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the "inconsistency," as any article's History section is necessarily different from the sections dealing with the subject in the modern day; only meant to suggest that you might have two articles for the price of one. And I too feel that your article (or articles) is better than the "ranty" original, and that there would be no dispute about it, but VFD with its notification and one-day wait should be the standard when discarding an entire page of a past writer's work. 14:11 PS--And I don't think the original author of this one cares. For future reference only. Spıke Ѧ 14:48 25-Mar-14

Fuck the Police

And in other news... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

Phwoooar! --ChiefjusticeWii 13:30, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

My, you have been busy

Heya Chief. How have you been? I think it is high time for me to become active again. Anything that needs doing around here, and where I might be able to lend a hand? I need to get back into this wiki thing... --BlueSpiritGuy (talk) 22:26, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Greetings stout fellow! Hope you are well. There's a few pee reviews that need doing that have been on the queue for almost a year, if you fancy those. Otherwise we're short of VFH voters and people to clean-up articles. If those don't take your fancy I'll be casting around for a new article to do soon and would be happy to collaborate on one, but it's really up to you to help out as you'd like. It's excellent to see you editing again. --ChiefjusticeWii 06:19, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Awesome stuff, I will see if I can at least do one or two Pee-reviews. Just gotta figure out how it all works again. Hopefully I will be back in swing soon! Looking forward to seeing your next article, though. --BlueSpiritGuy (talk) 10:26, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
You could give me an opinion on my rewrite of Police? I just replaced the mainspace version with it. I've been looking for thoughts as to how good/bad/average it is. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:40, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed it over at the PEE-review, yes. Would you like a whole Pee-review, and if so, where can I post it? On the article talk page, or somewhere else. Man, it has been a long time. --BlueSpiritGuy (talk) 10:45, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
If you're up for doing the pee review I would be eternally grateful. No need to post it anywhere, click on the "do full review" link, fill in the sections and hit save. I'm watching the page so I'll be able to find it when you're done. Any comments or suggestions you could offer are appreciated. --ChiefjusticeWii 11:02, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Right. I will do it in my Sandbox first, just to make sure I don't break anything and upset all the admins right away. I will try to have it done by the end of the (UK) day, so that it is not rushed. --BlueSpiritGuy (talk) 11:08, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Take your time. Thanks. --ChiefjusticeWii 11:12, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
A delayed congratz on the Police's feature. That article was really a job well done. --BlueSpiritGuy (talk) 08:36, April 8, 2014 (UTC)


Cherry Fudge Ripple

A low-fat photo.

Thanks for the pic. I had wanted to open with that logo, but had not thought along the lines of that excellent caption. Spıke Ѧ 12:04 26-Mar-14


Thanks, if you hadn't done the ban thing I wouldn't have caught my mistake. I thought that Romartus had added to the hos total, so took one off, and then I realized that his add-on was from a couple of weeks ago. Saved by the toll! Aleister 14:27 26-3-14

You're welcome. I'll ban you any time and any place. --ChiefjusticeWii 07:18, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Democratic Oligarchy

Thanks a mucho Chief! Great review. Sorry about the article I wrote it back in the noob days mainly as a hasty re-write to replace the crap original version. One of those articles where I had one idea, wrote it down and then had no idea how to ellaborate on it. Also if you really are back in business (and you do seem to be) then maybe you might consider popping round for a cup of tea at my place. Father Ted's on the box and I can show you my collection of British politics articles and the template I made connecting them on my mantlepiece - there's still some red link gaps that need filling! Cheerio! Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:19, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

PS - Check out revamped version of UnSignpost and re-started VFP! Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 21:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

QVFD poopsmith

I am a poopsmith over at VFD, and SPIKE suggested I become the poopsmith if QVFD too. I thought it was a good idea. And he pointed me here to ask you if I could do the maintenance thing. Compassrose-transparent Bro. Nicholas 20:06, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, it's fairly self explanatory. Enjoy! --ChiefjusticeWii 07:20, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Not if you do it before he can get to it! Spıke Ѧ 10:51 27-Mar-14

The UnSignpost is back from holiday

We have not forgotten about you (yet)! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:57, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Two Fucking Hundred!

Holy cockwombles Chiefy, that's some serious reviewin' there. I salute and applaud you, and raise my mug o' reviewin'-strength tea in your direction. Shame we never made an award that would be befitting of such a glorious achievement, but them's the breaks son. You done good! --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:58, Mar 29

UU, it means most coming from you. We did make an award, it's this one: the Outstanding Outhouse. I took the liberty of awarding it to myself and shaking my own hand on an achievement that has overwhelmed both of me. Hope you are well. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:10, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
Smug gits, the both of you...                               Puppy's talk page02:52 pm 29 Mar 2014

Thanks for the second pee review

I did need some inspiration on some of those stagnant articles. By the way could you have a look at this? Thanks. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:10, March 30, 2014 (UTC)


Yesterday, Anon changed the File page to claim that this illustration is copyrighted. That doesn't prove it's so, but if it is, we cannot use it here. He should have gone to Wikia, who would have pulled it, and there is no easy way for us to ask him to document his claim. It's used in 2 places on the site. Spıke Ѧ 13:22 31-Mar-14

If he goes through the proper channels to prove it is a copyrighted piece of work then we will remove it. Otherwise it can and should remain, I'll comment to that effect on the IP's talk page. --ChiefjusticeWii 16:43, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

That did the trick, if he sees it. Spıke Ѧ 12:55 2-Apr-14

You Are Gay on VFD

As the overwhelming opinion (though not 5-vote consensus) is that this article is crap, and your opposing vote is mostly to retain it for rework, why don't you just take it? or more legally, work on it in place as in the case of a "VFD Save"? Also ask dissenting voter Anton199 what he found so funny about the original one. Spıke Ѧ 12:53 2-Apr-14

  • "You, <insert name here>, were born several years ago and now you are gay."
  • "And that also goes for the dyke right there that just said “I’m not a boy." You’re gay too."
And a lot of the FAQs. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:30, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Although I don't like the 'dyke' at the beginning. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:04, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
I'm rewriting Death at the moment, so won't get round to this one for a while. Just shift it to my userspace and I'll work on it there. --ChiefjusticeWii 20:51, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

No, remains in mainspace for the month based on deadlock at VFD. Work on it at your leisure. Spıke Ѧ 22:43 3-Apr-14

As an aside - the only place I've ever found the use of the word "dyke" useful is when using it for the lesbian/water dam pun. And I think I've only used it on Number Bases locally. You also have the "lemon" fruit/lesbian/faulty thing pun that could work, and has more flexibility, and is less offensive. Which I find odd, because the reason why the term came into use was as it suggested that lovers of Sappho were in some way faulty. If you want to go for someone trying to be offensive, then "carpet muncher" is the way to go, much the same as "pillow biter" or "fudge packer". And due to a Freudian slip from several years ago, I've always wanted to do a lover of Sappho/lover of Satchmo joke, especially if it's followed by a wp:scat music/excrement joke. I still can't listen to "It's a wonderful world" without giggling like a 13 year old.                               Puppy's talk page12:37 am 10 Apr 2014

Could you please

Put this on your userpage?

Pee reviewer of the month award Nominated Reviewer of the Month
This user has been nominated for Reviewer of the Month—you can vote for them or nominate any helpful reviewers at Reviewer of the Month.

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:44, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed there haven't been any reviews in April and the rules are clear on the point... But you were planning to review something this week, no? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:47, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

IPod Car

Thank you very much, once again! You managed to summarise the things that couldn't be summarised and I feel I know what I should do, which could be a good sign!

I would certainly be proud of that page if I had written it, but even though I made it look like advertising and added a bit of content, the ideas and the jokes were not mine. But this doesn't change the fact that I would love to see it featured. Thanks for making your own version, I will be very willing to steal it! It is very helpful, and even though I thought the article needed some suspense before the reader could understand that the iPod Car is "simply a car that is linked into an iPod", I'll still find ways to make it better, according to what you said. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:54, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --ChiefjusticeWii 14:56, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

Death on VFD

I am reluctant to blow away a non-horrible article, Chronarion or no Chronarion, based on an Uncyclopedian's assertion that he would like to do it differently. Your article is fine, is more encyclopedic, and ought to be our main article on Death. But can you find a way for the old one to live on somewhere? Perhaps at Mr. Death or some name reflecting its casting as a living [sic] character? Spıke Ѧ 23:16 4-Apr-14

The article itself isn't great, had I thought it was when I read it I would not have rewritten it entirely. I have no issue preserving it in some way be that through moving the article to another title or a subpage linked from the article itself. --ChiefjusticeWii 05:52, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Formerly on the VFD ballot

  1. Can you please keep the first three paragraphs and the picture (intro). Those were the ones written by Chronium (or whatever his name is) the day after he founded the site, so are historically interesting, like the first stuff written by Shakespeare if he'd put up a blog (hmmmmm, an article idea!). All the rest is better replaced by yours. On my userpage here I used to have the first picture uploaded and used on uncy, and asked people to guess what it was. Puppy finally got it, and won no prize! Thanks. Aleister whoops, almost signed my real name, I type these things out every time and haven't done that yet 14:26 4-4-14
Meaning no disrespect to Chronarion the beginning doesn't really fit with the rewrite. If Chron's immortal words (and image) must be preserved surely they can be preserved on a subpage that I can link to in the see also section in the interest of posterity. Fair deal? --ChiefjusticeWii 14:54, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
How about including the section at the bottom, with some appropriate bridge from your ending to that one? It's not about Chronarion (I never could remember the name), but about uncyclopedia history. If that bridge idea totally doesn't work a subpage would be fine, with a nice write-up on the See also about the "history of death on uncyclopedia" or some name. Aleister 16:35 4-4-14
How did this end up here, I thought we stopped that practice. This was in the comment section on VFD where we are allowed to have discussions and talks, no matter how long, because they affect the votes of other people. Comments are comments about the VFD nom, and ought to stay where they were put, imnho. Aleister 11:47 6-4-14
It ended up here because I moved it. The Chief is rewriting this, and both of us have advice on the disposition of the original, which belongs on his (or the article's) talk page, not inside a ballot. As last time: See Uncyclopedia:What VFD is not, Sec. 2, Not a talk page. Spıke Ѧ 12:12 6-Apr-14

Ballot closed

You have a mandate to replace the page; please add your own {{Oldvfd}}s explaining what happened if the original people should return. Spıke Ѧ 11:41 12-Apr-14

Cheers mate. I'm without a proper computer until tomorrow evening. I will make the necessary changes then. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:52, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

What happens if you do them on an improper computer? Spıke Ѧ 10:56 13-Apr-14

That's like asking what would happen if you didn't wear a tie and top hat while editing: anarchy, fire and brimstone falling from the sky, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! --ChiefjusticeWii 14:05, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
A bowtie? And you say that you know when your computer arrives, as though you control time - a Lord of Time perhaps? Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:22, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

90s pt. 2

Chiefjustice, could you perhaps help add some content/make improvements to the 1990s article? I would really like to see it become a FA.--EpicWinner (talk) 05:44, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

I have very limited internet access until the 13th of April. I don't mind helping, but it won't be until then. --ChiefjusticeWii 05:53, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
How about now?--EpicWinner (talk) 17:05, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
It's on my list of things to look at. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:35, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

North African Campaign

Thanks to your wonderful pee review I have re-written and expanded this article. Please take a look if you wish to! Thanks. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 15:13, April 9, 2014 (UTC)


Puppy asks me on my talk page to close down VFS as it is far short of its +5 for the current month. Would you do this the right way? Spıke Ѧ 22:30 14-Apr-14

MediaWiki:Sitenotice id

Your new Sitenotice doesn't go out unless the "id" is incremented, as I just did. That (and the cookie) is how we get it to appear once only. Spıke Ѧ 11:51 16-Apr-14

Whoops! --ChiefjusticeWii 11:54, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

No thumbnail? C'mon! Spıke Ѧ 14:18 16-Apr-14

There aren't any thumbnails of Zebra's being punched! I looked! I'm probably on some sort of government watchlist now! --ChiefjusticeWii 14:56, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

90s (again)

Do you have Internet access now? If so, are you able to help me with the 1990s article? Sorry if I'm a little annoying; I would just really like to see it reach FA status.--EpicWinner (talk) 20:52, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I will have a look at it over the next few days. --ChiefjusticeWii 05:23, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
I dabbled a bit at "The Simpsons" to change the "dominant trend" of the decade from civility to really crappy cartoon artwork (culminating, by the way, with Sponge Bob). One thing that struck me in the vicinity of this is that you seem to be trying to serve two masters: not just writing funny stuff but recording your serious reminisces of the decade, especially in the list of TV shows. Unless mention of a given show feeds a joke, it ought not to be included. Spıke Ѧ 01:31 19-Apr-14


Thank you! You cannot (or maybe you can, but that would spoil my sentence) imagine what an effect (a positive one) it made on me to see the three award templates on my userpage after one day of absence! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:11, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Keep up the good work. --ChiefjusticeWii 06:18, April 20, 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for all your comments (once again)! I should probably stop asking Pee Reviews for a while and start making actual changes.

It was helpful to know what you thought of the article, the first main draft was a lot shorter and so I was not sure if that amount of content was enough to draw the reader in and then draw him out. I will certainly add more, especially after all your suggestions!

What concerns images, the Stalin ones are not the same, which I now realise, is not something obvious. On one of them he is walking with a man, named Yezhov, on the other one he is walking without him (because he was executed) - this an actual example of how the government modified the truth, which I hope is relevant to the theme of my article.

Do you think making the images bigger and putting them one right after another will make a difference?

I see what you mean by "untidy" at the end and I will certainly ask Puppy, because I used most of the code he put into Microsoft Knowledge Base and adapted it for Minitrue. Again, thank you, and I am surprised at how the quality of your reviews can be so high despite their great amount! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:56, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

I did notice my mistake and edited the review to reflect it, unfortunately I didn't notice until five hours after I'd posted the review. Making the images bigger, doing as you suggest, or perhaps referring to them briefly in the text might be helpful. --ChiefjusticeWii 17:06, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
OK. I see you chose the same theme for your new article! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:31, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
Yes! I had that many ideas from reading yours I had to go and try myself. Any comments at this early stage? --ChiefjusticeWii 17:33, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
I see the article has already passed its early stage! I!'ve written a reviewLITE, so it is easier to separate from the rest of the comments.
Reviewer details

A little bit about the reviewer



How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?




How good is an idea behind the article?



Prose and Formatting

How good does it look and how well does it read?




How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?




The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.




An overall summation of the article.


Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:08, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
You know, sometimes you start reading a book and immediately after there is something in the style that catches your attention and says that it is something you should read, because you will like it. Just like with good shoes. Well, this was my case: after the first image and "Citizen, rejoice!" I knew that this was going to be a great article, maybe only for me, but maybe for many people. Yet, having read the entire one, I can't help but feel that something is missing. I am definitely disappointed: I voted for it on VFH, but are you sure your work there is complete? I don't know exactly what that something is, and it's hard to give any specific suggestions, however I'll try.
  • I especially like the bits, where you were accompanying every reader's movement, even every thought:
Cquote1 I love Big Brother


I love Big Brother


Down with Big Brother


Down with Big Brother


You even feel as if a hammer is rhythmically striking the nail!

  • On the contrary, long paragraphs about Goldstein seemed hard to read, just because they were long paragraphs of a very empathic writing. Try reading each sentence one by one and seeing if it carries any particular value to your article. If not, maybe remove them. I felt that some things were repeated too many times. Your article certainly goes in the line what Orwell said in 1984, and the government was extremely repetitive in its proposals, so that the citizens would know what was expected from them by heart, and still I don't think this is essential in this article.
  • Even if any sentence has that value, it is destroyed because there are so many phrases going right after another, and in addition to this highlighted. The result is that they read almost like stream of consciousness, even though you have punctuation and separate thoughts. When you're taking part in five minutes of hatred (or how is it called?) your thoughts put together will certainly look like that, but you are writing as if you were the government, and the government needs to persuade. You can knock out the reader with long series of weaker blows, but this will still be less effective than sending strong blows one by one. So give every sentence a place it deserves!
  • Concerning other aspects, I don't have much else to say. If you would like any more ideas, you could try mentioning Goldstein more, but on relevant and yet absurd occasions. For instance, I liked the nail-that-looks-like-Goldstein part, but the reference to that individual could be even more logical. Such as:
Cquote1 Place the nail against the wall you'd like to have the telescreen upon the most. Observe it closely, as you will soon have to deal with it.

Wait, don't you think it looks exactly like the traitor Goldstein?

Beat it, beat it with your hammer as hard as you can! Don't let the enemy escape you and harm the party!

My writing style is certainly different with yours, so maybe this won't suit at all, but I was trying to give an idea.
This was a Pee Review by Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:08, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Voilà! I hope this helps you! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:09, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot more than I was anticipating. I'll have another look at the bits you mention, which seem to be the bits that try to ape the two minutes hate parts from the novel. The government in Oceania devotes very little time to persuasion and more time to reinforcing and policing the attitudes and thoughts of the people who live there. That being said, I will see if I can put in a few more Goldstein references and will have a go at editing the two minutes hate bit. It saddens me that you were disappointed by the article, so I'll do what I can to change that. Thanks very much. --ChiefjusticeWii 05:41, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
No, I was not disappointed by it! There are some bits that could be improved upon, but even if you consider this as a final version, it is something very good. My thoughts about the two minutes hate are that you are imitating the citizens more than the government, because those who proclaimed Goldstein a traitor probably did not feel that way about him. It needed to be extremely clever to achieve that sort of dominance. Also, you say that "the government in Oceania devotes very little time to persuasion" and yet at the end, O'Brien's dialogue with Smith is pure rhetorics. At the end of the book, I myself was almost convinced by what he said. I think the level of the obedience of the citizens is achieved thanks to such persuasion. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:46, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
At risk of turning this into a very literary discussion, I disagree that what O'Brien does to Winston is persuasion. He is educating Winston, curing him of his insanity by making him love Big Brother. His manner of doing it is to show Winston the truth about the party, demonstrate its superiority and wholly destroy the rebellious feelings Winston harbours towards the it. Power is sought for power's sake there is no need to persuade the populace to believe it because they have either been educated to believe it or believe it out of fear. The party itself does very little to convert minds to its cause, they control the past, present and future, there is no need to persuade anybody they are right because nobody remembers a time when all records did not say that they were. That is my impression of it anyway. I take your point about the article and will have a look at it soon. --ChiefjusticeWii 19:18, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I just think that needed both. But I agree with everything else. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:38, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Good hear from you again. I'm not around much and occasionally start an article and then give up due to lack of time etc. But since you asked, I think the last thing I troubled myself to finish, illustrate and polish a bit was The_Doctor_is_IN --Sog1970 (talk) 15:28, April 24, 2014 (UTC)


Hi Chief,

I was about to do a pee on that article but I see that it's on VFH. I'd still be happy to do it...just let me know if you still would like me to. --ShabiDOO 18:10, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

VFH is not a barrier to improvement. It'd be excellent to see how I can improve it. --ChiefjusticeWii 18:31, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Done. By the're a great guy and everything and I don't want to lose you know being able to hang out with you and everything but I think I'd like to be just friends. Okay? --ShabiDOO 17:36, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
You give with one hand and take with the other... Thanks I guess. --ChiefjusticeWii 17:54, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Also... A ballcock is a valve in the cistern of your toilet. They exist all over the world! I think you need to spend a bit more time with your head in the toilet cistern and a little less time out in the fresh air. Romartus is a man of the world, I bet he knows what it is. --ChiefjusticeWii 17:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I know that as a float valve. I would imagine a lot of non-brits will have no idea what a ball-cock is. Though hey...maybe that's a good thing. In response to what you said on my talk page...yeah I'd happily look over it once you're done again. Take your time and let me know. --ShabiDOO 19:02, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
A float valve? Nonsense on stilts! --ChiefjusticeWii 19:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

90s pt. 4

Sorry to annoy you, but you said you would help edit the 1990s article "over the next few days." How long will that be?--EpicWinner (talk) 21:38, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Today is the day! I have been getting round to it, alas I do not strictly regulate my leisure time. --ChiefjusticeWii 05:45, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

The Toes of Justice Avoided

Thanks for the info Chief, I sort of assumed as much and uploaded with a different name a few minutes later. So out of interest will your signature ever feature a reference to the dreaded 32X? GUN   SIR  MAC  BOSWELL  Knightssword   [†]  17:01, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

It does now! --ChiefjusticeWii 17:13, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

What a mess

VFD Poopsmith Nick123 apologized for an Internet outage, and then wandered away again. I have been doing some of it; if you are going to do some too, then we have changed the procedure slightly, as Puppy's automation project and Archive button creates new sections at the end of the Archive file. Spıke Ѧ 02:52 27-Apr-14

Have you forgotten about the UnSignpost's anniversary?

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:29, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

An honest to goodness joke ban!

Goddamn. I think I should award you something that only becomes more appropriate with each passing day. You may already have one - if so, sit this next to it and fool it into thinking you had a mirror put in. --UU - natter UU Manhole 20:27, Jun 12

Ruddy's Harry and the UnSignpost!

Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:39, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Hello hello

Hi Chief! How are you? And where is your Papers Please article, which we all want to see ready and in the mainspace? I'm still waiting. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:10, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about it. I made a start and, as with most of my article ideas, read it back the next day and screamed in impotent frustration and rage at how terrible it was. I will have another look now and see what I think... --ChiefjusticeWii 20:40, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
I understand you too well! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:43, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I love the new additions! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:47, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools