From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Quick fixes
I made some quick fix edits step by step upon first look. You can check the edit history and perhaps follow along what I did each step. Basically, the use of Bold was used unconventionally. Uncyclopedia strives to be a parody of wikipedia, as such our articles try to look as if they may be there. Embolding section headers makes them look off I tried to follow your train of thought on Emboldened ones being bold and un emboldened ones being little. If you do not like that h3 is "bolder" than h2, take a look at what it does in the toc. Every regular user knows the issue of h2 and h3, fixing it to your satisfaction is not necessary, because some other well meaning editor, in good faith with fix it again. Just saying. -- evil MUN,CM,NS,3of7 14:04, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
The article has far too many redlinks. and for that matter, I and till just discussing formatting. I have yet to actually read the text. But if an article does not exist for a link you wish, there are a few solutions, all will sound deceptively simple
If there is not UnArticle by that exact name you may:
- Simply don't bracket the words
- find a similar article and use this [[Real article|your redlinked text]]
- Link to a "funny substitute" in the method above eg link to Whore for Madonna#
- write the article you wish (drastic)
- leave it a redlink and it will show up on requested articles (drastic and should be sparingly used.
edit Linking conventions
- Linking in headlines is usually unnecessary
- try to only link the first instance of the word you wish to link, assume the reader will read the entire article not just the once sentence with the instance of your word.
- If the first instance is in the opening paragraph, possibly link in the first main article instance.
- If the article is overly long and a link is in the top a few pages back, go ahead and link again toward the bottom. What we are trying to avoid is this, as it is difficult to read.
Hope this helps. I will come back and perhaps read the content later. But being familiar with the quick delete process, it was most likely deleted due to poor formatting, coupled with your "new" account. It is possible it was read and found very inappropriate, but that doesn't happen all that much. If so, submit this for a Pee(r) Review and get other editors input on some changes that may be made.
- Also, people are easily wooed by a good image. Put a couple more pictures in there with funny captions and you can fool a reader into thinking your article is much better than it actually is. --126.96.36.199 14:20, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks K Lips This text is a previous draft and the one4 that Lyrithya deleted is further formatted, edited and spell checked. I'll ask her is she can past the article in a userspace so I can either work on it or put a construction label on it - would this work?
- cheers--Scooters 13:56, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
thanks, and thanks for editing the article -I am getting the idea now...--Scooters 14:42, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
edit Continuation of comments
- Dropping by...the article seems full of unconnected random which isn't going to work in my view. Suggest you keep it centered around the biscuit/cookie joke. How many other revolutions/revolts have biscuits involved for example? Also check on the wikipedia entry as well...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:45, May 5, 2011 (UTC)