Talk:Fire

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Pee Reivews AFTER the Rewrite

Humour: 10 The history was pretty clever, and made the ending just that extra bit more unexpected.
Concept: 6 On the one hand, both concepts are rather overdone. On the other, you combined and wrote them well enough to overcome that.
Prose and formatting: 10 Excellent font use in the latter part.
Images: 8 Got sort of clunky near the end, but went well enough with the article.
Miscellaneous: 8 Them footnotes weren't as great as all that, I'll admit.
Final Score: 42 Wery gud, sir, wery gud. Yeah, you should replace the current fire article. I didn't even bother to look at it before deciding, neither.
Reviewer: Ж Kalir, Wandering Hippie Salesman 05:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Humour: 6.7 Mostly some very good, if not hilarious, humour that sticks to the point well-the play on the old Greek myth that tied in with the old cave-men-inventing-fire idea was very clever. So was that pyromaniac/pyrophilic thing at the end. Unfortunatley, that bit in the second paragraph ("Say you're being chased by...") tended toward being a bit random...a bit of a 'rant', as it were, though that's just from my view...I do know that a lot of people like that sort of thing as effective. Anyway, the rest of that paragraph was good...though perhaps you could have fleshed out the 'witch burning' thing a little, perhaps integrated it into the history. Or maybe you could have done the whole article from a "pyromaniac" point of view, interspersed it with psycopathic or lustful comments. Still, it remains a good laugh as it is.
Concept: 7 A very solid concept-I'll have to repeat myself a little here, but the idea of adding the old Greek myth about fire was a very good one. Still, like I said, the constant might have been solidified by a consistent 'tone', like that of a pyromaniac-after all, it can be rather hard to keep a humourous article about fire, a rather uninteresting subject, very interesting for a long time. Still, you have done a pretty good job at that as it is.
Prose and formatting: 7 No reason to complain here...although in the "Universal Problem Solver" section there were one or two issues with spacing between setences and the occasional overuse of the exclamation mark. Still, nothing that really detracted from it. Good job here.
Images: 7 Some good choices, very appropriate and colourful, well-placed, would help maintain any reader's attention-although perhaps something to do with old Zeus and Prometheus might have spiced 'em up even more. Sorry to keep mentioning that, but I though it was a great touch.
Miscellaneous: 6.9 Averaged, as usual. I've no idea how else to do it, really.
Final Score: 34.6 Geez...looking back I did a lot of sevens. Anyway, not only am I still a noob at this, but I wrote this in a bit of a hurry, so if you don't want to read it at all I'll understand fine. If you do, however, then it's a good, worthwhile article, if not quite at side-splitting point. Hope this helped...I know it's not very in-depth, sorry about that.
Reviewer: BlueYonder 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


edit Revert war

Talk it over, otherwise I'll start delivering some pain around. ~Jewriken.GIF 11:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

edit okay then... ll talk it over...

necropaxx, why did you continuesly have to delete everything i put on the page? its not like it was hurting anyone. please just explain to me why everything i put on the page was wrong and deserved to deleted. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathclaw (talk • contribs)

Alright. Wrathclaw, I have no problem allowing you to add "Quality" edits to the page. But so far, all I've seen is you adding the same lame (yes, lame) quotes over and over again. (Not that I hate quotes, sometimes they can really add to the humor-- but not those quotes.) If you were to add a new section on fire, one that is not just two sentences long, I would be more than happy to keep them. But as it stands, I see vandalism. Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:38, Jul 27
so what you're saying is, thast since si find something funny but you do not, it does not deserve to be on the page? please dont respond t this by telling me to "do some work" or go read "HTBFANJS". The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathclaw (talk • contribs)
I rewrote the majority of this article and (I think) I am its chief custodian. If I see something that looks like vandalism, like your quotes, I will delete it. While you may have found them funny, I didn't. This is why I deleted them. I don't know of any way for us to compromise this. I feel that the quotes are a detriment to the page, you think they add to its humor. One of us will have to concede something. Hold on, I'll go ask Mordillo. Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:33, Jul 27
Asked him. He should be along. Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:54, Jul 27
so you think quotes are pointless and arent funny? thats like saying uncyclopedia isnt funny. quotes are a part of articles that need to be there. also, if i rewrite an article, that makes me chief custodian of the article (and you THINK you are!?!). and i woiuld be able to delete anything i didnt like? you may have rewrote it, but you have no more privileges over it than anyone else on uncyclopedia The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathclaw (talk • contribs)
No, but he does have the means to revert you time and time again. Just, you know, just sayin'... Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 06:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
just forget it. i dont really care anymore.since no one thinks freedom of speech matters, i will just forget about it. ok? you win necropaxx. happy? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathclaw (talk • contribs)

All right chaps. Here is my opinion. Wrathclaw, as I said before I think you're making too much of this whole story. It's a couple of lines, it's not as though you wrote a 200 lines article that was reverted. Also, attacking the other fellow (...who do you think you are etc.) is not a good practice, especially for a new user who still didn't get the hang for how this place works. Granted, this is a wiki - but still there are practices that discouraged here, such as Chuck Norris/Captain Obvious quotes. We used to have them on hundred pages and most of them were removed in the course of time. Also, this whole concept of "custodian" does exist here. It is not an owner- but rather looks over the article - as we have many shitty edits and blanking and vandalisms and....you get the point.

Necro - from your side I think you could have handled it better - this was obviously not a vandalism but rather adding a less than optimal content? I think after the first revert, a chat with Wrathclaw could have ended the issue without me getting involved.

For the sake of making everyone unhappy, I've restored one quote (the satan one) which I think is good. Can we conclude this story and move to better and bigger things? ~Jewriken.GIF 08:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i didnt want my last quote to sound all dramatic, i just wanted to end this whole stupid arguement. sorry about that. and im sorry to you to necropaxx, friends?

would it be ok if, instead of adding a few quotes, i wrote a small paragraph on fire? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathclaw (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think that would be great. But I would appreciate it if you would sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks Mordillo for resolving this and sorry to shove this on you. Necropaxx (T) {~} 23:30, Jul 29

edit thanks for the opinion

thanks necropaxx for telling me what you think of my first ever edit! ill try to make the next version a much better approach on the subject. thanks!Undead ninja 10:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

actually could you try to redo the subject? you know, so i can get a first hand look at a good paragraph.Undead ninja 10:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

edit Hurts the Eyes

This article really hurts the eyes and is quite unreadable because of that. It would be better if you changed the way the article looks.

--TheWikiMan026 Signature 14:43, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects