Editing Talk:Ever and More

:::::This isn't the best place to discuss anyone's doubts in the STUFF process, but there were no supporting votes or arguments presented for that fact at all. The precedent in STUFF is that an item is "swiftly and unanimously declined" in that scenario. Surely ''someone'' would have supported it in that time frame if any numbers which could have outvoted at least 18 people were going to. I also want to point out that the STUFF notice was appropriately placed in the Fun Facts section. Anyone who wanted to review the STUFFed fact had that opportunity in that time frame - a high-activity time frame, as it happens. Again, out of all the registered users who could have, none supported it. Anyway, I think the fact was given a fair hearing and could never have achieved acceptance based on the way it went.

:::::This isn't the best place to discuss anyone's doubts in the STUFF process, but there were no supporting votes or arguments presented for that fact at all. The precedent in STUFF is that an item is "swiftly and unanimously declined" in that scenario. Surely ''someone'' would have supported it in that time frame if any numbers which could have outvoted at least 18 people were going to. I also want to point out that the STUFF notice was appropriately placed in the Fun Facts section. Anyone who wanted to review the STUFFed fact had that opportunity in that time frame - a high-activity time frame, as it happens. Again, out of all the registered users who could have, none supported it. Anyway, I think the fact was given a fair hearing and could never have achieved acceptance based on the way it went.

:::::Additionally, there's no purpose in holding a vote open if the outcome is clear. This is not like a presidential election or anything, where our future and security ride in the balance, and stopping voting early because there's a clear outcome is a violation of voters' rights. This is a STUFF vote for the purpose of determining consensus. Once consensus is reached, there's no reason to continue the exercise. Not that others' votes are unwanted, but because they are unneeded. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Additionally, there's no purpose in holding a vote open if the outcome is clear. This is not like a presidential election or anything, where our future and security ride in the balance, and stopping voting early because there's a clear outcome is a violation of voters' rights. This is a STUFF vote for the purpose of determining consensus. Once consensus is reached, there's no reason to continue the exercise. Not that others' votes are unwanted, but because they are unneeded. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that the STUFF process should have longer voting windows; I had no idea that this process even existed, and by the time I found out, it was too late.  In addition, I can't wait until someone hears from the Brothers Chaps that it was, in fact, a reference to Bubb Rubb.[[User:Maristredfox|Maristredfox]] 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that the STUFF process should have longer voting windows; I had no idea that this process even existed, and by the time I found out, it was too late.  In addition, I can't wait until someone hears from the Brothers Chaps that it was, in fact, a reference to Bubb Rubb.[[User:Maristredfox|Maristredfox]] 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::I fail to see how anyone could think that this is NOT a reference to the whistling muffler guy.  There was no point to Bubs's story except to bring out the tube, that was the culmination of his story, and there was no reference after it.  Either they went on his story diversion simply so they could say "the word 'Bubs' rhymes with 'rub' and for no apparent reason his name is on the label...."  Or...since this is TBC, they made a diversion for an inside joke\cultural reference\past references.  That's what they do.  This is a reference.--[[User:71.203.169.248|71.203.169.248]] 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::I fail to see how anyone could think that this is NOT a reference to the whistling muffler guy.  There was no point to Bubs's story except to bring out the tube, that was the culmination of his story, and there was no reference after it.  Either they went on his story diversion simply so they could say "the word 'Bubs' rhymes with 'rub' and for no apparent reason his name is on the label...."  Or...since this is TBC, they made a diversion for an inside joke\cultural reference\past references.  That's what they do.  This is a reference.--[[User:71.203.169.248|71.203.169.248]] 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Okay, it's <i>possibly</i> a reference. "Possible" references are not notable because they'd be innumerable -- limited only by our collective imagination. Hey, there was a dartboard in the "Cheers" bar, so the dartboard must be a Cheers reference! The fact is, none of us are mind readers (I think), and the BUBRUB joke still works even if you never heard of Bubb Rubb, so it's a superfluous reference at best. I doubt TBC will ever tell; they're too busy laughing at us. --{{User:Bigscarymike/sig}} 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Okay, it's <i>possibly</i> a reference. "Possible" references are not notable because they'd be innumerable -- limited only by our collective imagination. Hey, there was a dartboard in the "Cheers" bar, so the dartboard must be a Cheers reference! The fact is, none of us are mind readers (I think), and the BUBRUB joke still works even if you never heard of Bubb Rubb, so it's a superfluous reference at best. I doubt TBC will ever tell; they're too busy laughing at us. --{{User:Bigscarymike/sig}} 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Re the comment "I can't wait until someone hears from the Brothers Chaps that it was, in fact, a reference to Bubb Rubb" - this has indeed happened in the past, where a STUFFed fact's status was overturned by incontrovertible evidence. Of course, the STUFF process is not perfect. But, no amount of voting by us can accurately divine what TBC's intentions were. We do the best we can, and that's about all we can do. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Re the comment "I can't wait until someone hears from the Brothers Chaps that it was, in fact, a reference to Bubb Rubb" - this has indeed happened in the past, where a STUFFed fact's status was overturned by incontrovertible evidence. Of course, the STUFF process is not perfect. But, no amount of voting by us can accurately divine what TBC's intentions were. We do the best we can, and that's about all we can do. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think that's perfectly reasonable. My main issue was really the idea of the HR wiki community, and making sure that things are done fairly. It's certainly true that lives do not hang in the balance of this decision. However, what ''is'' at stake is new members' perceptions of this community. This Fun Fact was my first contribution, and I had no idea what the "official" process was. The initial response to the fact seemed, to me, downright hostile. People pounced on it, held a vote for a few hours while I was offline, and declared it "swiftly and unanimously declined". It felt as though I'd just vandalized the site, which I hadn't since I honestly believe that the fact is valid. It also felt as though if I weren't one of the main and most active editors, nothing I do will matter. I realize now that's not the case, and for the most part, the membership here seems very reasonable and friendly. I do appreciate that the vote was re-opened. I knew it would be declined anyway, but the real issue was being able to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. By the same token, this is a community, and if the community declines the reference after hearing all arguments for and against it, then that's fair, pending any divine intervention from TBC. I realize how insignificant this one issue is. It does, however, have an effect upon those involved, and we should be aware of how our actions might snowball into trends that will turn people away. That said, I think this situation, all told, was handled reasonably. I, for one, will put it to bed and move on to more important and interesting things in my life :) [[User:Huitzilopochtli|Huitzilopochtli]] 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think that's perfectly reasonable. My main issue was really the idea of the HR wiki community, and making sure that things are done fairly. It's certainly true that lives do not hang in the balance of this decision. However, what ''is'' at stake is new members' perceptions of this community. This Fun Fact was my first contribution, and I had no idea what the "official" process was. The initial response to the fact seemed, to me, downright hostile. People pounced on it, held a vote for a few hours while I was offline, and declared it "swiftly and unanimously declined". It felt as though I'd just vandalized the site, which I hadn't since I honestly believe that the fact is valid. It also felt as though if I weren't one of the main and most active editors, nothing I do will matter. I realize now that's not the case, and for the most part, the membership here seems very reasonable and friendly. I do appreciate that the vote was re-opened. I knew it would be declined anyway, but the real issue was being able to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. By the same token, this is a community, and if the community declines the reference after hearing all arguments for and against it, then that's fair, pending any divine intervention from TBC. I realize how insignificant this one issue is. It does, however, have an effect upon those involved, and we should be aware of how our actions might snowball into trends that will turn people away. That said, I think this situation, all told, was handled reasonably. I, for one, will put it to bed and move on to more important and interesting things in my life :) [[User:Huitzilopochtli|Huitzilopochtli]] 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Did you read my post? I said it's perfectly fine to disagree with the decision. Nobody is judging you by your opinion on re-opening the STUFF, and I hope you don't judge or deride user who have a different opinion from you. There is a clear and important difference between someone's opinion and his person or character. If you keep that in mind, then future discussions will hopefully be more pleasant. And now I'll go and do something more fun.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Did you read my post? I said it's perfectly fine to disagree with the decision. Nobody is judging you by your opinion on re-opening the STUFF, and I hope you don't judge or deride user who have a different opinion from you. There is a clear and important difference between someone's opinion and his person or character. If you keep that in mind, then future discussions will hopefully be more pleasant. And now I'll go and do something more fun.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Reminder: this is a wiki about dumb animal characters. If not everything runs exactly as it should, it doesn't really need to. Let's all have a nice cup of tea and sit down. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Reminder: this is a wiki about dumb animal characters. If not everything runs exactly as it should, it doesn't really need to. Let's all have a nice cup of tea and sit down. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL IDIOTS!!  That's the most obvious reference ever!  There's a new Internet phenomenon about "Bubb Rubb", and while it's going on, Homestar makes a reference to "Bub Rub"... are you people retarded?  --Anonymous Contributor

YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL IDIOTS!!  That's the most obvious reference ever!  There's a new Internet phenomenon about "Bubb Rubb", and while it's going on, Homestar makes a reference to "Bub Rub"... are you people retarded?  --Anonymous Contributor

I just checked this page again after many months. Dude!!! Look at the commentary transcript for this cartoon. When BUBRUB comes up, TBC shout "BUBRUB!!", and then says, "He makes it go OOOOOH!", similar to the Bubb Rubb quote, "The whistles go WOOOO!" If this were an ordinary reference to ointments and rubs as suggested earlier, they would not have singled it out as they did. And can anyone give a better explanation for what the "WOOO!" is in reference to if not that? The fact that they say it right after enthusiastically shouting "BUBRUB!" implies that it is certainly an outside reference to *something*. I was willing to give up this fight before, but now that TBC have outright referenced it, I have to pick it up again. [[User:Huitzilopochtli|Huitzilopochtli]] 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked this page again after many months. Dude!!! Look at the commentary transcript for this cartoon. When BUBRUB comes up, TBC shout "BUBRUB!!", and then says, "He makes it go OOOOOH!", similar to the Bubb Rubb quote, "The whistles go WOOOO!" If this were an ordinary reference to ointments and rubs as suggested earlier, they would not have singled it out as they did. And can anyone give a better explanation for what the "WOOO!" is in reference to if not that? The fact that they say it right after enthusiastically shouting "BUBRUB!" implies that it is certainly an outside reference to *something*. I was willing to give up this fight before, but now that TBC have outright referenced it, I have to pick it up again. [[User:Huitzilopochtli|Huitzilopochtli]] 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)