Talk:New World Order
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit State of the Discussion Page
I'll cut to the chase: yes, I blanked the discussion page. Why, you may ask? Because, after I completely rewrote the New World Order article, it ceased to be Rdhill316's creation and really became my creation. (That, and the discussion page just looked awful.) Rdhill316 is part of the shameful history of this page; let us pretend it never happened. This is a new beginning.
Admittedly, my unilateral complete rewrite isn't very funny. In fact, it is downright mediocre. But if it's crap, at least it's coherent crap, written by (mostly) one person using a consistent narrative, as opposed to a dozen different people, each following their own narrative.
--Most sincere Acolyte of Humor, Radioactive afikomen 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
edit From Pee
Hear me, oh, ye mighty Editors of Uncyclopedia! I call upon your awesome powers for the review of this article. Knoweth that despite my unilateral renovation, it still begs for the Gods of Humor to bestow their gifts upon it. ----Most devoted Acolyte of Humor, Radioactive afikomen 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I can see from the page history that you've made some great improvements to this page. However, I still think it could use some work. We have a bit about the problems of the organisation, but it could use a little more about the actual function of the NWO. How about a cost/benefit analysis of some of their conspiracies? And then there's the list of NWO subgroups. Long lists are a bit of a no-no. How about taking these organisations and making them into a flowchart? Speaking of which, get some pictures. One of the reasons I'm not using the review table is that you have no pictures, and lose ten points off the bat.
|Humour:||7||It could be funnier if the list of NWO subgroups was slightly shorter. Most people don't like list (but I do) and they would say that the list took away from it.|
|Concept:||6||See Cap'n Ben's reason.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||See Cap'n Ben's reason again.|
|Images:||10||Not applicable(when a category isn't applicable, it gets a ten in said category)|
|Miscellaneous:||4||Because a 4 helps equalize that free 10|
|Final Score:||33||See Cap'n Ben's second paragraph.|
|Reviewer:||--Dexter111344 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)|
- I created a sub-page to hold the membership list, until I can find an open source ORG chart maker to create an ORG chart of the membership that will be in a file format compatible with a WIKI. Unless someone else can do it faster and better, go ahead. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
edit First Picture
It would be funnier if the coptic cross in the first picture were upside down, because then it would agree with the caption and really actually be symbolizing a satanic pact. I dont know how many people would get the joke, But i think it would be funny :) Sorry im not logged in. Too much work to create a profile just to say this -Porojukaha