Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Kakun/The middle of Uncyclopedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit User:Kakun/The middle of Uncyclopedia

This requires someone who knows/loves/enjoys wanking to Monty Python. Thanks. User:Kakun/sig 17:58, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I dont enjoy wanking to anything except my own insane fantasies. But I will still do this. --ShabiDOO 18:36, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 10 Hi oldtimer Kakun. How are you? Fisher price introspective was one of the first articles I read at uncyclopedia. I laughed pretty hard. I have referenced it in a couple articles of mine but Ive never thought of expanding. This is a great idea. The only thing is...sorry, I dont get this article. This is perhaps a good thing as you will get a pee review from maybe the only person that doesn't get it which may give you some insight into the article from the perspective of someone new/stupid...or maybe not. Maybe I am dense and I don't get some really obvious joke, but having been familiar with the go eat shit fucker incident and the Fisher Price introspective article, I guess I should at least have some sort of clue. I dont though :(

First: for someone who has no idea what this article is really supposed to be about, it doesnt mean that I dont find it funny. Im left with the feeling that you are really playfully hiding something super hilarious (even though I dont know what it is, or perhaps that doesn't exist). The variety of forms in the article (template, link to "drama", foot note markers interrupting the text, and the foot notes spelling out a poem that is written badly) itself is funny, cause its all placed in a clever way and it looks nice and in no way cheesy or stupid. Second: In terms of humour I get, I particularly like the last sentence, about fuckers going to eat shit. Very well done. Also...having created a new looking template for vote for highlight (I assume you created that) is also pretty funny (I actually clicked on it to see if its in the voting cue...hahaha it isnt!!!). The categories are also pretty funny, I wouldnt know what more to suggest for the categories...or anything for that matter.

This all being said, I dont get the joke. Is there a joke to get? Is there some fish in this enigmatic puzzle Im supposed to see if I

  • dont know something older users did?
  • was clever enough to figure it out?
  • there is infact no fish anywhere?

Ehm...whats the connection with Montey Python, amongst all the stupid research Ive done to help me write this review, including having to go to wikipedia, I didnt really get anything. Is there a sketch about fish?

I tried to find it in the footnotes. I dont know if the spelling mistakes are on purpose or the omition of words is on purpose. Perhaps thats a clue?

Is the fish, the missing word in footnote 7?

I also see that fisher price is also in Aurora, which is where the uncyclopedia convention was (in the history of uncyclopedia category) is that a clue?

Anyways, maybe thats the whole thing, people are supposed to find it out and can if they are older users/intelligent, and find out how to comment on it. The only thing I can suggest in any case is to:

1. Always think about finding ways to add extra humour for people who arent super familiar with the go eat shit fuckers thing, and so everyone in general will at least laugh once. I see you are being funny and clever, but there is no reason why you cant add one or two things that while still dont clutter up the article will still add some more apparent humour. Just an idea. 2. If you think this is supposed to be obvious, its not for this guy. If you want to be obvious, try harder.

Finally, I dont know what the middle of uncyclopedia is supposed to mean. Is that a clue? Does it have a meaning that older users would know? I dont get it at all and it, in fact takes away from the humour for me cause its really confusing. If there is no special reason to use that title, consider changing the title to something more outright funny.

Concept: 10 Im giving you a 10 only cause, not matter what, Im left with the feeling that this whole thing is incredibly clever and well crafted and concise and genius, even though that might not be the intent, or not be the case.
Prose and formatting: 10 Assuming those spelling mistakes are intentional, I give you a 10 cause, again, I have the feeling that this is really clever shit, that either I dont get, am too stupid to get, or its so cleverly deceptive that I dont get what I am not supposed to get. so...why not give you a 10.
Images: 5 The potatohead picture was a good choice (was that from an old template?), in any case, the flowers, unless there is a connection to something I dont realise, why not choose a funny picture. Be a little more creative. Maybe something with a cleverly hidden fish in it. Escher-esque?
Miscellaneous: 0 Im giving you 0 extra points cause I was generous with the other ones and I just dont get this article.
Final Score: 35 I get the feeling this will be featured in any case, cause, either people from the past might get it, people who are clever might get it, or people will pretend to get it. In either case, Im sure ill see this being featured in no time. In any case, I hope this review was at all valuable and that you at least think about some of the things Ive said. Do write me on my talk page if theres anything you want to say, dont understand something or have any questions...Im always happy to give suggestions or to help.
Reviewer: --ShabiDOO 18:46, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, man. User:Kakun/sig 11:51, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Honestly, I really liked the article a lot. Good luck with it and let me know if you want any more anything from me. --ShabiDOO 16:13, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools