User talk:One-eyed Jack/Archive1
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
It's an inspiration, and spot on funny. I speak as someone living in an ex-communist utopia, so I know what I am on about. I've been reading through some of your back catalogue and it's all good stuff. All the words carefully selected and in the right places and everything. Impressive. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 03:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah don't worry about what the other authors think. The way I see it, the article was on its last leg. The work you did was terrific, and as far as I'm concerned quite possibly saved it from damnation. That's why there's VFD to begin with. It's not just about guillotining things on site, but saving the stuff that does have potential. It's pretty much your article now, anyhow. --His Royal Majesty, Simulacrum Caputosis the Great17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Some table code I thought you might like
Yikes, Jack, it takes 30 minutes just to bring up an edit page today. Also, you should archive this stuff...
I was checking "Recent Changes" just now and saw what you'd been working on, I liked it, and I had an idea for something that might help slightly. This is some table code I was going to use in another article - needs some prettying up, but the obvious advantage is that it would be a lot more editable, so that the next time the Republicans discover yet another new way to make extra cash, you wouldn't have to create a whole new chart (assuming you were thinking about doing that).
|Desired Action||Donation Required|
|Elimination of consumer bankruptcy protections||
|War with foreign country||
Anyway, nice work! A little too factual, though, maybe!
--Some user 17:40, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Some user. Yes, I should archive my usertalk. And I purely do like your table, and will use it eventually. The whole thing needs comedifying, and it goes slowly. ----OEJ 20:00, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Not to pimp my own horn too much, but I did the major rewrite on Vote this page for deletion. It was just random mad spouting - I'm actually an admin here who has been responsible for deleting vast swathes of crap, often pushing in front of other admins to do so. Far from being a crybaby who doesn't appreciate the need for culling the weak to save the herd, I delete and ban with excessive enthusiasm, and am occasionally told to chill out a little because of my "go kill 'em" attitude.
Vote this page for deletion was indeed written as a protest against deleting pages, but only because the page was all about being voted for deletion. It has no bearing on my personal views, and as such, makes absolutely no sense. Those who know me here would nod in agreement and affirm that the logic of the situation only makes sense in the context of Uncyclopedia.
Anyway, I'll probably modify your little addendum at the end, because, er, I AM a Tribal Chief, and thus it doesn't make a ton of sense in that context. Do I get my Troll of the Week award now? --Famine 00:47, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Er, also, as I'm here, I might as well do "official" admin stuff. The tradition is to sign comments, but not sign articles. It's in poor taste to do it the other way around, and the rest of the Tribal Chiefs will get testy and yell. The logic is that everyone contributes to and owns the articles, but you own your comments. Thanks, --Famine 00:51, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Famine.
You write "The tradition is to sign comments, but not sign articles" and I figured that out. I signed the bit on the end of "Vote this page" page because it was a personal comment on what was essentially a meta- and not a dysinformational article. I wanted to give the original author a clear target if he wanted to yell.
I don't know everybody here yet. I'm still uncertain who has their tongue in their cheek and who doesn't. Besides, I suppose it doesn't matter -- the idea is to respond as if it's all serious? Perhaps I should create WikiJoe, a sockpuppet who's function is to be a perennially outraged Wiki user who can't quite get it right. Nah. Probably not.
Thanks again, see ya on the trading floor.
- Around here, it's safe to assume that everyone is dead serious, and Truly Believes, deep in their hearts, that what they are writing is the Word of God. People write very little fiction here - most is deep philosophical and religious prose, seeking shelter here from a hostile world.
- This is a place for those who, in past lives, were civil-rights marchers, women's suffrage protesters, religious minorities in hostile lands and saints who were burned at the stake. This a place where the visionaries and social protesters of today and tomorrow can speak out, without fear of prosecution. This is what the Founding Fathers of the US meant by "free speech". God is today a glorious day. Today, tomorrow - all days are glorious here, beneath the protective canopy of Uncyclopedia.
- So fear not - as you walk these sacred halls, know that you are surrounded by the words of gods, and wrapped in the cloak of sacred ideas, carefully collected by the wise men and prophets. Everything you read is a real truth to someone, at some time. So breathe deeply, and let the words of gods flow into your soul, and find for yourself the real truth in the words upon these walls. Godspeed, my son. Godspeed. --Famine 13:49, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Just out of interest, where abouts do you come from OEJ? - seeker
Sorry not to reply properly to Francs2000 before, as a N00b I was unsure how this usertalk thing was supposed to be used.
Nice concept, guys. I'm enjoying the hell out of the Uncyclopedia.
I'm the NOOb who ranted about Bertolt Brecht. Thanks so much for adding the picture! It's perfect. Wasn't the background part of the set of Mann ist Mann unless He's Transgendered, in Which Case I'm Not So Sure? I blinked, and there the lovely illustration (so legitimizing for an Uncyclopedia article entry) was.
Re: Ant and/or Dec
I know this may seem minor to you but could you swop their heads round and zoom in on them slightly so that they are recognisable in thumb form. Cheers
--Elvis 04:08, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'll try, Elvis. I have an embarrassing problem with my DSL connection (embarrassing because I am too stupid and lazy to figure out how to fix it) -- if I try to upload anything very large then the modem glitches and scrambles the upload. The David Icke animated GIF is one example. But I'll try zooming in a bit and cropping. If I can't get it uploaded I'll try doing it from my hogsty of employment, come Tuesday or so. ~~OEJ
- Cheers --Elvis 21:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hooray for Limitations of Superpowers as Applied to God! It rocks! --126.96.36.199 13:34, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both. And very large thanks to those who added links and corrected splellings in both articles. ~~OEJ
Thanks for your additions to the page I started. Brilliant stuff! Jlam4911 00:28, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you're welcome. It was a nice start, and truly I did not think it was going to be followed up (many many entries remain at one line or two indefinitely). No offense, I hope. Please do continue the story!
- I'm contributing a bit, but you are doing a great job w/ it yourself. Feel free to do whatever you want to the page. I love your writing Jlam4911 08:49, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Lovely work you've done. Great picture of the Sergeant.
Re: Neutron star
OMFW!!! Best stuff I've seen here in quite some time :-) --DWIII 05:00, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- O thanks. (OMGBBQ, a compliment!) Not finished yet, but thank you very much. --OEJ
Your last two edits have been sort of wonky. They've inserted random bits into other people's posts:
- I reverted the second one...might be the page size. --Splaka 04:37, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Shoot. I am sorry. My modem has a glitch and sometimes does not upload properly. Usually it's not a problem, but as the file to be uploaded gets longer its more likely that the damned thing will insert a bit of random gibberish somewhere in it. I apologize. I will have to stay off the 'Left Lean' topic as it appears the thread has gotten long enough to bring out the ghost in the machine.
I feel bad about this, RC and Splaka, but I can't go into the history and undo the damage because when I try to upload a corrected version of the long discussion the fucking modem will probably scramble another part of it. I can only apologize and hope that someone else fixed my mess.--OEJ--
- No problem, I think your edits are correct now. Is it because the Dump is so long, or that one discussion? I just archived some stuff, so the Dump isn't as lengthy. I could also insert a section break so that the ongoing part of the discussion is shorter. --—rc (t) 04:58, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It is mostly dependent on file size. I was uploading only the Left Lean section, so it's the length of that section that's the problem. Don't worry about, I have nothing else to say on the Left Lean thing. I can always go in from work if I have something that's making me wet my pants. Thanks, guys. ~~---
- I plead either hardware malfunction or natural stupidity. I suspect my own stupidity was the problem -- I probably clicked over too fast, or reloaded and resubmitted, or some damned stupid thing. Certainly I have no problem with Mhaille's comment. Hold on a tick and I'll fix it, assuming I don't ball it up even worser. I'll have to send an abject apology to Mhaille.----OEJ 18:43, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Your St. Ignucius picture is absolutely brilliant. I love it. And thanks for the compliment on the article. It's still very much a work in progress, but it helps to know that I might be on the right track with it. :) -- T. (talk) 23:38, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Why did you alter my jolie vs aniston page. Wasnt it good Koro 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply: No, it wasn't good. Sorry to break it to you.
1: It presented actual, real facts about Jolie and Aniston. That's traditionally a no-no: Uncyclopedia as you know is for parody, not facts. That's why I changed the actresses' height and weight statistics, for instance.
2: Your article evaluated Jolie and Aniston just as a real-world teenaged boy would do it, ie, without satire or parody, comedy or irony. Again, as I understand it that runs counter to Uncyclopedia's purpose.
It could be that you meant to parody an adolescent male slobbering over unattainable film stars. If that's the case, the work needs to be much broader -- more exaggerated -- because when one seeks to write an Internet parody of a very common Internet archetype one should make it very clear to the reader that one is mocking the adolescent male and not actually being one.
Your version came across (in my opinion) as a straight piece of fan-boy praise for Jolie. Again, that kind of thing belongs on a forum like "Tits and Ass Talk", not on Uncyclopedia. In other words, it was not at all clear to me that you intended a parody.
So I changed it. I'm impulsive that way. Discuss the change with the admins if you think it should be eradicated, stomped, burned at the stake, and rolled back to your version. ----OEJ 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what all of that means, let alone what to do with it. I would suggest directing any technical questions like that to Splaka or Algorithm. You could also try Nintendorulez, as he seems to be in charge of the Departure of Fun thing. 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I do my best =] 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your post on the Pee Review about the U.S.S. Jimi Hendrix, the humor in regards to the indestructible part is that if a ship can withstand Roseanne, that it is definitely indestructible. --emc! ╬ 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Pee review: Hummingbird
Thanks for being the first to review my article (Hummingbird) in almost three days; I was starting to think it might get stale. Also wish to thank u for the advice itself. I'll put it to good use. Now I also invite you to be the first person to join in my inner circle. Join now and receive a free 6-month suscription to Vogue. Decline, and you shall see a very sad me.--DiZ 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel strangely validated, in the human sense. --User:Jayrod/sig 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It’s that God again
The purpose of the article was really to show the effects religion has upon the world. Maybe basing the article precisely on God was too specific to allow for this. I’ve created a new article with a new opening paragraph here: Organised religion. The article will obviously need to be adjusted slightly, but I don’t think that will take much effort. Wonna join in? Weri long wang 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)