User talk:Frosty

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Redirected from User talk:Oblique)
Jump to: navigation, search

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


YO YO YO 1-4-8-3 TO THE 3 TO THE 6 TO THE 9 REPRESENTING THE ABQ WHAT UP BIATCH?
LEAVE AT THE TONE

edit Reminder

None of that stuff on VFD has aged 24 hours so deletion is premature.

Some guy replaced your Alcohol with an old version despite VFD and I whacked him. Spıke ¬ 22:47 16-Feb-14

Yep, was going to delete but saw the timestamps were only at 7 hours. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 23:12, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

edit Thanks

A MadMax award for your recent work Frosty for your sub categorising the UnNews pages. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:47, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I always wanted one! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 22:35, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

edit 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 19:50, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

edit Re: Moving to bottom?

Yup, PuppyOnTheRadio has redone the whole VFD archiving process, including the Archive button on the VFD ballots that creates a new section in the archive file (which can only be done at the bottom of the file), though it still requires a copypaste. See also Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/For Admins, linked to in the rules at the top of VFD. Spıke ¬ 23:25 18-Feb-14

Yeah I had read that stuff before, I was just used to pasting archived stuff on top and forgot that it is not on the bottom. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 23:28, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

edit All About My Glam Rock Education: Almodovar's Last Movie

Allow him the designated interval, but I think he won't be back to fix it. One of these guys — not this one, and I can't find it in my archive of that date — said that writing an Uncyclopedia article was one of several term-paper options in a Film Appreciation class at University of Southern California. Spıke ¬ 01:37 19-Feb-14

edit Ski

This vandal is an odd one — He has a long history of vandalizing articles, mostly undone just afterward by himself, including his first hit tonight. Spıke ¬ 03:38 25-Feb-14

Hmmm, the font and colors look like the GNAA logo, but this sort of vandalism is not really their style. idk. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 03:41, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

My study of Comparative Vandals is deficient. Separately, there is fresh meat on VFD if you feel like some awful reading. Spıke ¬ 03:44 25-Feb-14

edit The UnSignpost is back from holiday

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

I'm still loved! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 21:44, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, of course you are! So you did not melt? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:22, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

edit Sport in Australia

So, is "Frosty" a sports hero in Australia, or is Dinopet123 a sockpuppet created to put your name into this article? (In other words: I was patrolling Uncyclopedia but cannot decide whether this edit is an improvement.) Spıke ¬ 17:28 2-Apr-14

WP:Mark Winterbottom. Had to google it though - I know nothing about V8 supercars, except that they have cars with V8s in, I assume.                               Puppy's talk page02:25 am 03 Apr 2014

OK, I'll mark this edit Patrolled. Spıke ¬ 02:39 3-Apr-14

I know nothing about any sport except cricket, so yeah... ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 11:41, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

It's Day 4 of our own season, and baseball is disastrously trying a year-long experiment in review of refereeing (umpiring) decisions by officials (I mean lawyers) offsite. One unanticipated change is that some decisions are no longer made in real time but with the benefit of retrospect. For example, a momentary juggling of the ball while making the first of two outs (and transferring the ball to the throwing hand) used to be ruled a success (called an out) at that instant, but might now be ruled a failure based on knowledge that he would go on to drop the ball entirely. But no one thought the rules would be changed to let calls be made based on what would come to be known in the future. We have lost something important.... Spıke ¬ 23:42 3-Apr-14

edit Delete my account

Please delete my account and talk page. Or at least change my username to some gibberish so it doesn't come up when people google me Andy.Wenman

We generally don't delete the transcript of proceedings here, and ironically, the more you ask for it to be so, the more you appear in it. As you have no substantive contributions here, there is nothing to be embarrassed about, unlike the two others in this conversation. Spıke ¬ 23:42 3-Apr-14
Oh yeah and deleting your userpage doesnt actually delete your account. I don't even think account deletion can be done. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 09:06, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
Via Special:Contact you can message Wikia to request name change. I googled your name though - I'd be more embarrassed about the music.                               Puppy's talk page09:21 am 04 Apr 2014

edit Have you forgotten about the UnSignpost's anniversary?

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:30, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

edit User Irritable of contents

He does "seem cool" and indeed does accept recommendations on his talk page, but I had delayed giving him autopatrolled because a big chunk of his edits are to plant literate but cryptic stuff in the encyclopedia — riddles instead of jokes, as I put it once. Spıke ¬ 00:40 9-Jun-14

I'm usually fairly lenient on giving out the flag. I give it to people who edit regularly and who's edits aren't vandalism. I usually continue to check them for a while at least, not in case they need reverting but in case they need improving. Whatever the case, autopatrolled doesn't actually give a whole lot of power, just a little less scrutiny from administrators. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 01:41, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

He certainly satisfies those criteria, though I did not mind scrutinizing his edits. Spıke ¬ 01:45 9-Jun-14

edit Ruddy Hell...it'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)

edit Adminship

Thanks for the clarification on your user page. Without affecting your permissions on the website, maybe you want to remove yourself from UN:AA, which implies you are a resource for users. Maybe you don't, as you are still around and it is a plus in certain pissing contests for us to claim we have a lot of Admins. Up to you, cheers! Spıke ¬ 12:31 26-Jul-14

I'll probably leave myself there (for now) as I state on both my userpage and talk that I don't intend to do much more than cleanup when things need cleaning up urgently. If however people repeatedly ask for help anyway, I'll take myself off it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 12:50, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your regular anti-vandal patrols at the Spoon. I wasn't even on the admin list at the Fork but still got asked an admin question there so decided I shouldn't hold a position I wasn't active in. On a different issue, I see you have restored Chaoarren. I am baffled why he wants to be here since his own preferences regards Uncyclopedia sites are well known. I hope this isn't an example of this. Saying that, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now and let the unban stand. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:22, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
Well I have no idea why he wanted to be unblocked, I only know he said he was willing to edit constructively from now on. Feel free to reblock if he so much as breathes wrong again, from my understanding he has had more than enough chances on here already. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 22:35, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

edit Sharing

Thanks for the page you have created on both Unc sites. I think asking people which site they prefer may have this page ending in long lists (perhaps). May be just easier that when admins on either site see this happening, they just point the user(s) to the page instead which I think explains it clearly. (I will paste this over there too). --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:42, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the page. This should be helpful for inter-wiki collaboration. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 08:50, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
The list at the end is only meant for users that want their content published across the Wikis. People that only want it on one version (which I'm guessing is the majority of people?) shouldn't add their name. I can't see it getting too long (for now). ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 08:54, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

edit A good guess

--regarding Fancinostril, as the IP address is the same one under which he created the article. Spıke ¬ 00:18 1-Sep-14

edit Re: Ban Patrol

Hi, thanks for the link, from now on I'll use it.
PD:Sorry for the bad translation, I do not speak very well English. Matiia (talk) 18:49, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Forget it, replied on my talk. Matiia (talk) 18:55, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
Okey doke ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 07:49, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

edit Here's a very special UnSignpost

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:45, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

edit Grand Theft Auto V‎‎

Thank you for supporting me; at User talk:Kyleionove I discuss the substance of the addition, and you are welcome to weigh in. Spıke ¬ 22:21 24-Nov-14

We'll see if they choose to come back and/or edit war more. I prefer to give users at least a couple of chances with revert warring before having words with them. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:09, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

edit Gamergate Controversy

I saw you deleted the Gamergate article I submitted. Your site can joke about the caliphate, but a media circus about video game culture is a sacred cow? Honestly, I don't learn much from "alright buddy" as an explanation, so I take it you have a vested interest and figure the fiasco of an actual Wikipedia page doesn't deserve any ridicule. It seems like you can't talk about that controversy anywhere unless it's condemn the "misogynists". The whole internet has got it on blackout. ItsAllEvilToMe (talk) 05:47, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

  • I also came to ask about the Gamergate page. I saw it linked on 4chan and thought it was humourous. Not offensive or abusive or anything like that. Although maybe one-sided. Maybe you should've edited the page with some jokes for the other side instead of deleting it. Your only reason for deleting it was "Okay buddy", not violating any specific rules. Unfortunately, no one backed-up the old article to archivetoday, and I'm not sure how to view the deleted page here on Uncyclopedia.
  • Anyway, please reconsider adding your article again.74.108.131.28 06:41, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

This is a satire encyclopedia and so the usual title for an article is something real that someone might look up. That article — which I too thought about deleting or at least moving out of the encyclopedia — is a nonexistent controversy, bordering on the hated category of Wacky War. I don't care if someone posted a link to his pals on 4chan, but it is a page that no one will look up: It forces the reader to guess the pun before he can read the joke. It also (accurately) signals that the result will be a bunch of in-jokes rather than anything of interest to the general reader. The Caliphate (linked to ISIS and ISIL) is something of big current interest and the general reader might enjoy our take on it.

Now, "Its", please do not start your life here with reacting to a disagreement by telling an Admin why he is a poor decision-maker. Spıke ¬ 11:53 1-Dec-14

PS--I agree with OP that "alright buddy" is not much of an explanation for deleting someone's work. It could be restored to User:ItsAllEvilToMe/Gamergate Controversy for further work on the above problems. Spıke ¬ 12:12 1-Dec-14

PPS--Upon still further review, including at gamergate.wikia.com, my best guess is that you are a pack of web trolls who are interested in documenting your own trolling achievements at the maximum possible number of websites (sprinkling in a little jauntiness on websites that are about humor). So your article should instead have been deleted as vanity. Spıke ¬ 15:39 1-Dec-14

As per Wikipedia, this subject is very real and very notable. I can't blame you for not knowing about it, though, as it's yet another case of people screaming at the top of their lungs about nothing in particular. Furthermore, anyone who puts "misogynists" in quotes is probably up to no good: the root of it all is indeed misogyny, to judge by what the reliable sources are reporting, and the fact that these sources suddenly lack credibility in many people's minds is most easily explained by stating that the bias lies with the people evaluating the sources. In light of that, the article should definitely have been chucked; as you have said many times, the best way to cover such explosive subjects is to take no one's side. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talk contribs 20:49 1 Dec 2014

Indeed, evidently I figured out the basis of this page. But again, my best guess is not just that their submission is biased toward one side, but they arrived here in the first place to prosecute their claim, and certainly not to amuse our readers. Vanity. ("As you have said many times" presumably refers to CoW#Extremists.) Spıke ¬ 21:00 1-Dec-14

I have reversed the ban because though I can see there is a potential for some trolling here, none has actually taken place besides the above moan about the deletion of an article. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:26, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the page in the first place because it wasn't even in the slightest bit funny. It was a rant and a rant that was just more of the same regurgitated sentiments floating around social media. There was no original thought in the there, no satire, not even a smile. Llwy is correct to say this is definitely notable and I'm all for having a page on the topic but it needs to actually be funny. I really don't think Uncyclopedia needs to follow the Wikipedia route on this topic by having thousands and thousands of bytes worth of incoherent arguing from people with an agenda to prove. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 23:11, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was funny. If you didn't like it, you should discuss improving it not just toss it.74.108.131.28 03:25, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't get the notability requirement, since you have articles about O RLY, desu, Pedobear, and other internet phenomenons. As I noted on /pol/, I like Uncyclopedia better than ED cause I think it's funnier, and it makes fun of everything. If you have an article taking the piss out of Ron Paul, you should be able to make fun of feminism too. 74.108.131.28 03:26, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

So: The part of the article where you josh about the cute nicknames you gave yourselves is going to be funny? It is essentially self-amusement; it is vanity; jumping in to improve vanity evades the central problem. The stock argument that we cannot delete an article until we have deleted all worse articles is excuse-making. And obviously, Frosty did not delete it because there is some sort of taboo here against ridiculing feminism. Spıke ¬ 03:54 2-Dec-14

I don't remember anything about nicknames and I wrote the article. What are you even talking about? ItsAllEvilToMe (talk) 23:34, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those are bad articles, exactly the opposite. Uncyclopedia is a good site cause the humor is light-hearted and not mean, or not super serious all the time. 74.108.131.28 07:19, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

The impression I'm getting is that none of the admins involved here know much about the article's subject, which makes it somewhat disingenuous to say the article I wrote wouldn't qualify as satire or parody. What I wrote was a pretty clear parody of the tone of the original Wikipedia article, which is designed as much as possible to accuse one side of a political debate of misogyny when the reality is just that the whole movement is an emotionally charged, amorphous blob that's been perpetuated through censorship and games of telephone whispers. It involves a variety of pundits and activist personalities who could all deserve a bit of zinging. However, given the speed of the authoritarian response, only to be followed up with frustrating admissions of general cluelessness, I've pretty much lost my interest and energy for the idea. Next time, if you guys don't know what something is, freaking use the user's "talk" page to ask a question instead of using it to inform the user they're being outright banned for questioning authority on a comedy website. ItsAllEvilToMe (talk) 23:21, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Frosty, if you notice that the whole internet has approached this subject with thousands of bytes of pointless bickering about often times completely separate issues, which is the case with Gamergate, you miss the point that you could indeed make light of that by producing and article which exaggerates this behavior and includes everyone's stance regardless of how outlandish. Comedy is not a monolith. There is not a particular way comedy needs to be done, and you are a philistine. ItsAllEvilToMe (talk) 23:28, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Authoritarian. Philistine. I am pleased you have "pretty much lost my interest and energy for the idea." Given that you have not pretty much lost your interest in deconstructing a vanity article that is a parody of a vanity article that Wikipedia didn't want, it is time for you to troll elsewhere. Spıke ¬ 00:46 4-Dec-14
Please, excuse my overwhelming curiosity, but is it by any chance possible for me to read this article? In my userspace for instance. And It's All Evil, before registering here, you should have known that questioning authority might even get you... No, I am not supposed to talk about that, sorry. Oh, and just a question: why do you consider vanity an article that details a rather famous controversy? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 07:52, December 4, 2014 (UTC)
So without a reason for being deleted, can the article be republished? 96.250.1.133 01:34, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
You are free to create an account and write up an article on a user page but what Frosty said as regards quality remains. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:12, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects