User talk:Cajek/Archive15

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Tis all gud[edit]

I like what you have done there... Could you have another look at the section on Tone? I think that's getting a bit close to telling people how to write an article, rather than how to review it, and I'm not sure that's quite right. Maybe it needs re-wording, but I don't want to piss on your chips too much... Have a look? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 18:00, Dec 12

Dude man like. I removed #Satire: "What the F?? You thought satire WAS parody?" Well, it's not. Satire is more about parody of a tone or cultural concept. A parody is about a specific thing whereas satire is more society based, so even though many times it applies to only the writer's culture or country, it will still be funny for a whole huge group of people.

After I gave up trying to make it work... If the reviewer don't know what satire is, they aint going to stand a chance! Put it back if y'all think it a going to help, but it needs re-wording and I have no idea how to do it without linking to the wiki page... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 18:40, Dec 12

Rough Pubs[edit]

Heyup Cajek ol' buddy ol' pal, and what's the state of your front lawn this good day?

Well, can't stand here jawin' all day, could you take a quick look at Rough Pubs and add a line or two to my review about how it translates across in your strange-side-of-the-road-driving country? Ta a whole bunch. Tatty byes! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG I love your pee review template. I'm jealous. Uh, okay I'll get to it. DAYUM good template   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 12 / 22:16)
Glad you like it. As ideas I nicked from you go, it's quite a good one! And thanks for the perspective. Mind you, when I read your Classy article, know what I hear? I hear all the guys I met in California, Oregon and Washington laughing hard at my stiff-assed Brit accent, and then swearing blind that they had no kind of accent at all. Nuh huh, no way, no how. Dude. And when I think of American bars, I think of one oik in a bar in LA looking for his supervisor to ask her if he could accept my passport as proof I was old enough to order a Southern Comfort. It was good enough to get me into your damn country, man... Oh, and Snooker is like Pool, but wayyyy more complicated, much more defensive and tactical, and as much of a chore to sit through as the worst baseball game you ever saw. We love it, apparently! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Check it out[edit]

Forum:I_would_like_to_request_that_Mr_winkler_is_Gay_be_removed. It's a good one. ;) MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 21:45, Dec 12

Finally!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 12 / 22:16)
This is all a joke right? Did you look at the forum? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 22:18, Dec 12
Apparently the guy who wrote the original Mr Winkler is in IRC now! MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 23:09, Dec 12

I'm making another topic on your talk page[edit]

Please allow 3-6 days delivery for maniacal laughter. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, not another topic! My talk archives are getting ridiculous. BASTARD! GO REVIEW SOMETHING!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 00:01)

Here's another topic[edit]

Have you thought about putting you pee table on the PEEING page? Maybe the top 6 or something? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:40, Dec 13

Go ahead, that would be awesome. It would look weird if I did it. I'll make it top 5 or 6 soon. Writing another stupid article.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 01:41)
I did not know if you had a reason to not! Make it top 6? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:45, Dec 13
This sentence is false. Water.mp3
What do you mean finnius? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:49, Dec 13
Hey Finn!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 01:50)
The above statement is frue.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 01:50)

Template? I'm not sure how to! MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 02:00, Dec 13

Ahh! Got ya. You used the no include thingy... Cool. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 02:02, Dec 13
what i meant was a joke...if that sentence was indeed true..then it couldnt be false...and vis-versa ..silly finn Water.mp3

I'm not on your talk page yet?![edit]

This needed to be corrected.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • elk cloner) 04:37 Dec 13, 2007

Yeah, I know, right? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:38, Dec 13
GTFO. Who asked you?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • elk cloner) 04:39 Dec 13, 2007




So? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OKAY I HADS SLEEPING TIMES   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 17:56)

♫ "P E E I N G, you got all your pee on me; you peeing!, hey, hey, you peeing! (seriously, stop urinating on me and my friend, it's disturbing... stop it, or I'll call the police!)" ♫[edit]

/me casually points at Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Hong Xiuquan, my latest pee review. Hope yew like it! =P ~Fag x FS

Good job, Fagatron! score updated. 3 more to go, man, keep it up!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 13:37)

Co-op on new page?[edit]

I have recently started a new article on Why?:Stick Things in the Electrical Outlet. I have a bunch of great ideas to go with the article, but so far, most of my articles have been either too short and pointless (see Anti aircraft gun), funny but not extendable (see Pancake and HowTo:Write an article for Encyclopedia Dramatica), or just too gosh darn big (see Marching band). A little help please, lest my bad luck and formal writing style kill all my articles? --Unknown_user | Talk | Contribs | LULZ | AAN | MUN 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Unknown, wasn't I the one that reviewed Marching Band? It wasn't bad! I'll take a look at your article and see if I have anything to add... I might, I might not, but thank you for asking!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 17:29)
Yeah, that article is plagued by members of the cult...In the meantime, when I said I just started i mean i literally just started it, so it won't be ready for your viewing pleasure until I can get a basic layout set out. But if you want to put stuff in now go ahead. --Unknown_user | Talk | Contribs | LULZ | AAN | MUN 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I just put some basic ideas down. People like articles that have a step by step motion to them (excluding lists). Go ahead and revert if you don't like it. Your writing style is good: it's fine to be formal! this IS a party, after all!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 17:51)

You know, I never asked for this. I just wanted to review shit[edit]

Then you review it. I really didn't see anythin' wrong with it & I didn't insult him. Premier Tom Mayfair

I said it was insultingly short. And no, I'm not going to review it, YOU were the one who chose to review it. If you're not going to read the article, then don't bother reviewing it.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 21:19)
I'm going to have to second Cajek, and say that the review was short and wasn't a thorough review--Æ 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If I really saw somethin' wrong with it, it'd be more detailed. Duh. Didn't really see a problem with it. I gave my suggestions. I'm not writin' the bloody article for him. Premier Tom Mayfair
You should take a look at the Pee Reviews here and see how detailed those pees are. I should also point out that some of those pees had high scores but nonetheless were very detailed. --Æ 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (see below)
On a bir of research, I realised that Ggarfield asked for the review, so I think we should leave the review be unless Ggarfield is not pleased with the review--Æ 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to second Comrade Tom here. Let's not forget that pee review isn't a private property, it's a joint project, and thus - everyone operate in their own manner. Not all reviews have to be as long and elaborated as you tend to Cajek, as much as I personally like those. I think his review was quite enough - he gave him a good grade, gave some suggestions, more than enough. No need to do a PHD on a review. Some reviews are insulting, this wasn't one. And Cajek, I'd keep that template for the really bad cases. Possibly, Garfield should have used it if he felt he didn't get a good service. ~ 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, AE, Tom has been here forever, I don't think you need to send him over to do his homework. Man got his own style. ~ 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yah, I know (he's an admin). Until I did the research, it seemed like the review was poor, but than when I realised that Ggarfield asked for the review, my thoughts changed--Æ 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Short & sweet. No need to ramble. Premier Tom Mayfair
Whoops! I got banned. Uh anyway, I'm sorry that you felt insulted, Tom. I am. I wish, however, that your review was, like, longer. Also, I didn't know that it was a request. Those have special rules attached to them. Again, sorry Tom.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 21:39)
as for AE, come over here /me grabs AE by the ear don't barge in like that to defend me. I like people defending me, but it just makes me look like a jerk! Thanks, AE!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 21:40)
/me wanders past trying to make cajek look more like a jerk... They don't like them poison pees stuffed down their trousers do they! he he :) ... Tis a weapon to be used only by the most experienced of Attending Urologists for sure... If anyone cares... I have to agree that cajek was right to give it in this case. That was a poor pee review, It was not useful. It did not explain where the scores came from, and only gave one very basic suggestion without explaining why. This particular pee review is exactly the kind of thing which cajek and I are trying to discourage. It was not helpful. Cajek and I are of the opinion that it's unlikely that you can write a useful pee review where there is only one line per category. No one is trying to tell anyone what to do or what not to do. The point is however that if you get a pee review like the one Tom did it really is of little assistance, and so it might actually have been better had it not been done. If your not going to help why bother?
There are guidelines for the use of the poison pee. Currently we are only recommending it to be used by the people who are currently the most active in pee review, and have been given a rank to represent this by their peers in PEEING. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 21:46, Dec 13
Dammit, I agree with everything he said.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 21:48)
Sorry, I'll have to strongly disagree here. We are not going to have yet another rank system, most certainly not in pee review. While I appreciate very much what you're doing there, it is still not private property or a watcha call it, a NOFU order, and I don't want you two going around ranking reviewers. That's what the RotM is for. If you feel that a review was very poor, either give some suggestions nicely to the reviewer or write a new one you feel better with. Come to think about it, that poison pee template isn't a good idea, might evolve to dramas, which we don't like. ~ 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess. However, I still don't think I abused it... it's one of the more tame templates out there. Tom thought I was insulting him, which I wasn't! HONEST TO GOD! Also... what about NOFU?   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 21:55)
He is a gentle soul. The fact that you wrote "insultingly short" was, to me. a bit exgarated. Take a look at a pee review some did for me on KoShare, THAT's an insulting pee. Like I said, Tom's was short - but most certainly not insulting. Everyone is entitled to have their own style here, and I'm afraid that no one has the right to say "you don't get to review". ~ 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you listen to me: NO WAY did I ever say that, Mordillo. That template implies no such thing. I never said that he directly insulted anyone. I didn't know that the review was a request.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:01)
Quote: " give this review a 38/40. Oh no wait, 1/50. It is insultingly short. You'd better redo this/add onto it." ~ 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes? You want me to... defend what I said? Look, I've been doing in depth reviews for a month now. I can tell when a review is so short that the reviewer is basically saying "I didn't care enough to really read this." It's not an insult, it's what most people do on pee review. Do you have a specific question regarding what I said?   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:06)
Let's all keep calm ladies and gentlemen. Dam cajek I told you this would happen! /me slaps cajek in the poison pee. We are both just trying to improve pee review. That's all. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 22:08, Dec 13
Mordillo, could you just quietly delete the template?   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:09)
Yeah, that seems like the best option. In the future, just tell the reviewers on their talk pages if there's a problem. And be ridiculously polite. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:12, Dec 13
Yeah, just delete it.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:13)
Got my vote. We don't want this happening again! It's too much typing! We can just ask them on their talk pages with VERY polite language... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 22:16, Dec 13
nobody's gonna do that, I hate posting random-ass shit on people's talk page. No sarcasm here.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:20)

Well, this certainly wasn't pleasant. I don't think that template, if you decide to keep it below, should be used after just one review. If you think a review was inadequate, just do another review. Or, better yet, give it to me so I can be freaking MOTIVATED! Damn, now I'm relying on you to get me working. I suck. Anyway, like Mordillo said, Pee Reviews aren't sacred. If you can clearly see that somebody didn't put effort into a a review, just make another one below it. First, however, make sure that, like what happened here, the review wasn't a personal request. That generally means that the author either wants a review from that specific person or doesn't want anybody else reviewing it. As long as that's not the case, go nuts, but use the template only on those that only seem to give bad reviews. Heaven forbid we get Drama. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Don't get mad, we're all friends here. Except Olipro. He's a wanker.

Jew.gif This user is hereby nominated an HONORARY JEW, and is entitled for all honors and persecutions as such.

~ 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thank you! I'm sorry that this has gotten out of hand. I don't know what I was thinking.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 13 / 22:06)
We don't care about the Template. It's not important, it's just a method of trying to get people to read the pee review guidelines really. If you think the template is too confrontational Mordillo we will happily change it to something less aggressive. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 22:11, Dec 13
We don't need to delete it, just modify it some to make sure it conveys the proper message. ~ 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I just placed it on QVFD... You think we can keep it Mordillo? Can you suggest how it should be changed if we were to keep it? I think cajek is a little upset that Tom banned him. If only for 15 mins, that does not appear to be appropriate to me. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 23:20, Dec 13

Who-ah - Where is me?[edit]

Why did people huff my stuff? Why is everyone so evil. Why did user:Ggarfield get a NoTM and not me? Am I more lazy? I mean, sure he wrote a lot more and better stuff, but I wrote 3-4 articles that I thought were pretty fair, and only 1 survives. I know I'd have lost, but a nomination would have been nice. Are you an admin? You sound important from what I've read. I know I can see who is a sysop somewhere, but I'm too lazy. Anyway, what good things can I do around here to help out more. I've looked at PeeReview before, but that doesn't interest me too much....--MaddMax 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lookin' for a sysop? Try Special:Listusers/Sysop. Wondering why your pages were deleted? Click the big blue "Huffed" link on the page that is no longer there, and it'll show who deleted it, and perhaps an explanation. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:00, Dec 14
MaddMax, Check out QVFD. Also Check out VFD, Do good reverts to fix vandalism, write funny articles, and add funny bits to other articles. Oh, and learn to whore yourself without pissing people off. That's something which cajek can help you with. He's a master. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:07, Dec 14
I deleted your article because the internet has enough "words" already. I prefer pron. I'm talking pretty serious pron, please, none of that "male on female", "male on male" or "female on female" stuff. I want REALLY disturbing pron. Your article only had ONE picture of necrophilia, AND IT WAS BLURRY!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 14 / 01:16)
Hea Cajek! I thought I lost you there for a second! Welcome back me hugs :) MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:20, Dec 14
Led, look at his name. I think he knows how to find admins. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, maybe he just liked 'Thunderdome'. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:34, Dec 14
MaddMax is a troll I believe. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 01:43, Dec 14

MadMax deleted one of my articles once. I found the admin list once before, and then lost the link or something. Why you callin' me troll, bitch? I wreck your face (jK). I'm not bad looking :P --MaddMax 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should forget the what i did and abandon your unfavorable (or poorly named account-my original was The Flying Flapjack) (politically correct:Sockpuppet) and start a new life. After you do that, you can be reborn (after accepting Sophia as your personal savior). --My rank in UNSOC Sir Unknown User (Talk : Cont : VFH : PEE : CUN) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Must be our sigs. Important sounding.--My rank in UNSOC Sir Unknown User (Talk : Cont : VFH : PEE : CUN) 05:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

♫ "P E E I N G, you got all your pee on me; you peeing!, hey, hey, you peeing! (seriously, stop urinating on me and my friend, it's disturbing... stop it, or I'll call the police!)" ♫ TWO[edit]

Lalalalala. =P I hope it's okay, and the fact that it's so low doesn't stop the fact that I wracked my soul to try and find something positive in it ~Fag x FS

/me wanders past getting cajeks carpet all muddy with his dirty shoes... Total score 8.8!!! Dam fag! You tight arsed bugger! That's the lowest score I have ever seen on a seriously done pee review! MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 13:57, Dec 14
I know, and it totally brought down my average given score, but it was such a poor article that it deserved it, unfortunately =[ ~Fag x FS
1 more good review and your in. Yeah, that was a low score!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 14 / 17:40)
I knoow, and I'm agonising over it now. Was I harsh? It was a rubbish, rubbish article =/ ~Fag x FS
You can score as low as you want, Fag, as long as you explain it. Your review was a very good length. I'm pleased with your work!   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 14 / 19:23)
Scoring 0 though for concept? That's probably not right I would say. I would not give lower than say 2 unless it were only a few lines long, but that's just my view... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 20:01, Dec 14
Oh yeah, good point. I wouldn't give lower than a 2 unless the article is UN:VAIN or total gibberish.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 14 / 20:02)
In my opinion, the article is doomed to the huffer, so I did my noble duty and tagged it with ICU.--My rank in UNSOC Sir Unknown User (Talk : Cont : VFH : PEE : CUN) 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How's about this?[edit]

Hey, I don't mean to be a dick but...
I noticed that you had done a Pee Review of The Color Problem. Thank you. I was wondering if you could let me know why you had given your scores, and also wondered if you had any suggestions for how the article might be improved.

Would you please consider giving another review?


User:MrN9000/BoxyThings/ChilledOutDribble What do "people" think? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 21:36, Dec 14

notice used 2x ..bleck Water.mp3

¿Esta Bien?[edit]