No guarantee of in-depth. Fairly esoteric concept here. ~ 16:01, Apr 5, 2010
Ah damn. I'm going to bed and doing it tomorrow. If anyone wants to review this, they can. ~ 16:17, Apr 5, 2010
If an article has been in the queue for quite a while, I would usually take it as a sign that nobody understands the article, and is waiting for somebody else to review it. This here looks like a message that you might see when you get banned from some bbs. The reason that I didn't find this "article" funny is because this looks like it could possibly be something that you really will see, especially here on Uncyc, if the admins choose to change their ban message format. For instance, our edit pages, huff messages, maintenance tags etc. have little snide comments here and there. (For example I believe the huff message was something like "A group of humour nazis have decided that this page isn't funny and huffed it.", or something along those lines.) When you keep your humour level similar to something that's slightly funny in the first place, as satire, it just doesn't work. It is in my opinion that satire thrives on exaggeration and understatement, especially when it's satire about things that are not that ridiculous in itself. I think maybe your main joke might come from linking things onto other pages that are not exactly like those things, like linking glossary to porn, or something. It would be much better if you didn't rely on them and used actual humour in your text. Your bulleted points, for instance, look like something that could really be used to guide a noob, along with the rest of your article. Also your article is short, so the joke, whatever it is, is not developed enough. There is also a problem of the in-joke, as this is not a normal article about some general subject, and very hard to understand for people not that familiar with the internet (Like me).
Your fundamental problem might lie in your concept. Firstly, I'm still not quite sure what is this "AnonTalk BBS" thing. I actually have a long-standing, self-serving philosophy that if I don't understand an article, it's not my fault, it's the writer's. I also try to apply this principle to the articles that I write, although my success in getting people to understand them is still debated. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. First, understand that Uncyclopedia is for satire, and so when you start writing an article, you usually choose a subject to satirise. I say this because I don't think your article really satirises anything, or if it did, it isn't obvious. I also believe that AnonTalk BBS is not that good for an article title, anyway. Mainly because it's abbreviated extensively. I believe bbs stands for bulletin board system (????), and of course anon is also an abbreviation. I think this abbreviation of the title to internet jargon instantly alienates people who are not familiar with it. I'm really not sure what the concept that you're trying to convey is, so I don't think I can make any specific suggestions here. Well, ok, maybe I have one. Maybe it will be funnier if you developed this thing more before the "banned" happens. Maybe if you have some examples of the noob doing something stupid before the section of "shitlisted". Or maybe you can have the noob doing something not so stupid, but getting banned anyway, thereby satirising the oligarchy of power-hungry admins controlling the site. However, all this is extremely in-jokey. I don't normally like in-jokes, but to change this article into a non-in-jokey one would require a change in the fundamental concept plus a drastic rewrite. Have you read HTBFANJS? It is a very good help when you're stuck, and can't think of jokes, concepts. Also, have a look at our featured articles, to get a hang of the sort of concepts that people normally like around here. Formulating the concept is the first step, after that, the structure. After that, the jokes. Well, at least, that's how I do it. The concept is still the most important, and I implore you to have a think about this before you start any article.
Prose and formatting:
Well, I didn't think you have any mistakes, except for: (ok, for some reason the text behind the pipe symbol refuses to appear, there are only 2 random lines anyway, just click on the edit button if you want to waste time.
No images. This makes me sad. But, it doesn't look like the sort of article that looks right with images. The whole concept itself is just so weird. I don't really think I can suggest anything here. Maybe some fancy formatting if you're that way inclined???
This is another one of those instances where I rush to review an article that I completely didn't understand, just because it's at the bottom of the pee queue. I always end up feeling bad afterwards, so to make myself feel less bad, I'll say this: you can get a second opinion just by resubmitting your article, and letting someone else review it. I'll be completely ok with that.
If you need help or anything, find me on my talk page.