User talk:Isra1337/archive9

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For being a Lehrer fr33k

User:Tooltroll/SBA . . . not only have you heard of one of the more obscure tunes, you can quote bits from the intro! Bravo!User:Tooltroll/sig 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lehrer was one of the greatest geek songwriters and performers of all time. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, obscure? I can't tell you how many times I've been at a social gathering and the entire group has erupted into that song. Okay, well, I can. Once. But still.... ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Everything's relative. I honestly can't tell you how many times my pee group has burst into "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park," or "New Math" (of all things!) But out of the bunch of us, I'm the only one (I think) who would have recognized that snippet of the intro you quoted. I'm currently trying to talk the other guys in my band into doing a version of "The Masochism Tango." That'll be fun. . . User:Tooltroll/sig 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I am Firestar and I co-created the game called Featherwind and started its Uncyclopedia page. Maybe it was a mistake to say that Wikipedia rejected the article, I did not fully realize that EVERY article here needs to have a counterpart on Wikipedia to be accepted. The humor of my article is that Featherwind is not actually a "video game" or even an mmorpg, but as I describe on the page, it is an mrpg played in the Imaginations of myself and people that I know. Featherwind is basically an all-enveloping parody of Runescape, Maplestory, World of Warcraft, and any other online roleplaying game you may encounter; the nonsense words and the basic ceremony of the whole affair is all a great parody of any RPG you can name. To explain the images, we are all just very inspired people about the game, and would like to visualize it a bit. As you can see, if you read my paragraph about the Staff of Trigonometry, it is funny and not just stupid. ~Firestar, the level 251 Vampyric Gnome Cloud-Sage.

Here you go

Ketchup1 Nominated Potatochopper of the Month
This user has been nominated for Potatochopper of the Month—you can vote for them or nominate your favourite users at Potatochopper of the month.
SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


If I do kick this article into touch and start a new one about international liberalism and that gets vandalized what will happen then? Will it get protected as well? It seems as though everybody has been against me in this argument. I’m asking now because I plan to put a lot of effort into it and I don’t want to see it ending up like this in two weeks time and all my time and effort being wasted because dumb Texan wants to bring abortion into it. Thanks. By the way my real name is George. You can call me George if you want. Weri long wang 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you write an article about international liberalism that is coherent and funny, irrelavent additions will be treated as vandalism. This would seem to include America-specific jokes of the kind you seem to dislike. I can't promise much more until there is an actual article in question. Also remember that while we can ban individual vandals, we will be reticent to try to enforce a particular "take" on reality if many users find an article to be off. In general, my advice is that if the reader can't tell which side of the ailse you come from, your work is likely to be a lot safer. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I thinks it's because "the right", or at least "the christian right", is against it. That means the left must, therefore, be for it. It's a gross oversimplification, but if you have to oversimplify, gross is the way to go. Abortion, sadly, is a tough subject to make funny. Also, this isn't my talkpage. I just noticed that.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It is, of course, incorrect to say that liberals support abortion, but being pro-choice does tend to be an article of faith for American liberals and elected democrats, so the cheap joke that liberals like abortion inevitably gets made.---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Being liberal doesn’t automatically mean you support abortion. Since the neoconservatives began to placate to the Christian Right to gain a larger voting base abortion has been one of the main issues of the Republican Party. It only appears that all liberals support abortion because they are generally seen as disagreeing with the Christian Right, which does seem to be almost indistinguishable from the mainstream Right these days (at least for people viewing the United States from abroad, like me). If you think how many people in the United States call themselves liberal it seems borderline impossible that every single one of them supports abortion and likewise it seems impossible that everyone who labels themselves as conservative opposes it. I am hoping to create an article in which the “cheap joke” can indeed be avoided.Weri long wang 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You’ve told me several times now that I don’t appear to know much about (real) American politics, but you clearly do. I was wondering if you would like to add to the American liberals section of my start to the new liberal article? Thanks.Weri long wang 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In the past I've tried to stay away from political articles because they are difficult. Trying to write a section in someone else's article is even more difficult. Perhaps when the article is longer and you've established a tone, I'll give it a try, but if I do it now it's just going to clash with the rest of your article. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The administrator that protected the liberals article, Famine, says he doesn’t care about the article. In fact he cared so little that he took it upon himself to protect it! He says that some other administrator has to unprotect it instead. He cares so little he’ll most likely protect it again when the I.P. addresses come back to revert the article, but that aside can I ask that it be unprotected now?

The I.P. address from Texas that kept reverting the article seems to have lost interest in the article now; he’s not telling me that I support gay marriage any more at least. I’ve been told that it can only be changed after some “bitching” on the discussion page has taken place. Nobody is talking about it on the discussion page so I can no longer “bitch” about changes anymore. It was only me and the I.P. address “bitching” anyway. How do you choose a winner there?

It is worth noting that it was only one I.P. address ( that was continually reverting the article. It is also worth noting that the only other articles he’s added to are gay, communism, San Francisco and AIDS. Politically motivated perhaps? He wanted to revert the liberals article on the grounds that the current one is too “politically correct”. What that means I’m not that sure, but like I said, he seems to have lost interest so hopefully there will be no one-I.P. revert wars if its unprotected now. Weri long wang 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is now semiprotected. Hopefully this time something will come out of the article. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words only registered users, not I.P. addresses can edit? Thanks for your help. Weri long wang 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Can also ask that you semi-protect the American liberals article, since that’s been reverted twice by I.P. addresses and changed back by registered users. They’ve changed it to the old version of the now semi-protected liberals article for God’s sake! Unbelievable! I’m not telling you what to do here, so don’t think that, I’m merely making a suggestion to prevent another needless revert law and the destruction of another funny and clever article by these morons. Thanks.Weri long wang 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Two reverts in 3 or 4 days does not an edit war make. And to be honest, the reason you are not seeing admins jumping to defend these pages is that it isn't just super clear that one version is so much funnier than the others that it is worth our time. There is no revert rule on uncyclopedia, so if the IP keeps reverting, I suggest that you just revert it back as long as it hasn't gotten ridiculous. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That is probably the best thing to do. I’m just worried about the admin Famine who protected the liberals article after three I.P. reverts. I was worried that this might happen again. I’ll just revert whenever this happens. (I just pray Famine isn’t looking!). Weri long wang 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So glad you're back

Newcookie User:Bradaphraser has awarded you a cookie!

You know, I remember thinking, "That Isra guy is pretty cool" before, and I remember being sad when you weren't around for a while, but now that you're back contrbuting on a regular basis, I'm reminded of just how awesome you really were are. So, welcome back. Now, on to the reason for this message: can I borrow $1,000,000? I promise you'll probably see some of it again, maybe.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

$1,000,000, eh? Will you take an out of state third party check written by Ed McMan? Also, it seems to say "you may have...." something on it. --05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And I was just re-reading The artist formerly known as God. That has got to be one of the funniest and smartest articles on Uncyc. You need to write some more. —rc (t) 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that was a DAMNED good post at the bottom of true aspie.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it to The Great Aspie War of Ought Six and made it a permanent feature at the top of my userpage (technically, coming before and seperate from my userpage). I wish everybody had as profound a respect for the power and importance of our civil rights as you do, the world would be a much better place for it. --Hrodulf 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Best. Post. Ever. No, really. Best. Post. Ever. That will now be my motto for life. Thank you. Jboyler 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Walt Whitman

You added a quote, but put "(+quote. delete if wished)" in the edit comment. Well hear me now and hear me good (or well, I'm not picky): If that's your "A" game, then feel free to add to any of the oddities I've writ, anytime. There. Now you've been told. But if you do be warned; I may hug you. You beautful bastard, you.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it helps that I remember nothing about "leaves o' grass" except the name. Indeed, one of my goals was to avoid /mis/quoting any of his works, but Lincoln/mansex/Whitman is genuine quality oddity.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy (Belated) Unbirthday!

Uncake Happy Unbirthday!
You have now officially been an uncyclopedia member for one full year.
Must suck to be you!

Apparently they have internet service out here, which was a bit surprising... Anyway, someone forgot to leave one of these here on your actual unbirthday, almost a week ago I guess. Oh well, people are always forgetting my birthday, too! I try not to take it too personal-like, but then again, I've always been a terrible procrastinator. Many happy returns,  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankye much. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy unbirthday :) Spang talk 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


I put all those images of those chicks on the Vandalism/example page Unistyle 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools