From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
These discussions are follow-on from Pee Reviews I did during 2009 and 2010.
edit [Invitation to review articles]
Hey. Quick suggestion. As you said you've been knocking around for a couple of months and not making waves, but have decided now to start talking in a fairly substantial way. All is good, but I was wondering if you were going to focus more on writing, reviewing or the community at large here? Tje reason I ask is that I like what you've written so far (although admittedly I've only really read clip-on tie - it's a little short but good for what it is, and I can't see a huge amount of material - hah - for it unless you go well into the realms of ridiculous. And the work on White Folks, of course). I appreciate what you've done re the clichés and other areas where I've noticed your input. But one thing that seems to get neglected somewhat at the moment is the PEE review. Chief, Why, and a few others have been picking up most of these, with myself and a few others picking off a few as well, but given you have a tendency to strive for perfection, it makes sense to have your input. Pup t 03:54, 16/10/2009
- It's bedtime in the Eastern US, and you want me to grade papers! Well, I've taken two of the five and replied in prose. (Numerical grades are awful; they take a 0--This article sucks--and a 10--Stellar!--and average them out to a 5--You're on the right track, sort of.) Maybe do more tomorrow.
- I submitted Clip-on tie and Pie to PLS because they are small and self-contained. Clip-on tie alone has a single theme throughout, sort of a disdainful manservant. New Hampshire is a more accomplished rewrite, but it's long, in part funny only to locals, and will never be a finished work. User:SPIKE contains a complete list of my stuff. 04:54, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- A brief comment on your PEEing. Your comments are all valid and writers will be glad to receive them, but in future could you please click the "Review Now" link and fill the table with your comments? As it is at the moment you are just leaving your comments and the page just sits in the queue because it [does not look] as though you are reviewing the article. Your comments are all good, I would just encourage you to fill the table, and quickly check the guidelines if you are unsure. You are sometimes a bit harsh towards writers, most don't really care but some will get very upset and annoyed, try to be encouraging and avoid degrading the work. Otherwise, sterling job sir, you are OK in my book and welcome to marry my sister any day. --ChiefjusticeDS 08:31, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
edit An editorial
And that is how it started. Puppy invited me to review some articles--perhaps as repayment for getting mouthy (opening two Forums and casting some votes). I did four reviews that night, three generally favorable, then a final negative one on an article I found to be essentially a long inside joke. Its author, Funnybony, protested (below) that I was not sufficiently insider to appreciate his humor, which I conceded, though I got the impression that to get my buy-in for his article, he was trying to convince me of the worthiness of his hobby. But the conversation was amicable.
On User talk:ChiefjusticeDS, several VIPs stressed again the need to complete the Review form (whether or not the numbers were real, and agreeing that referencing my prose review would be acceptable). Evidently, Funnybony, who must have read my prose review, saw the finished table as a BAD REPORT CARD and flipped out, though we talked cordially before--and since. He asked for and will get a new review with a new reviewer; good.
Funnybony called for the process to change so that only suitable reviewers are enlisted. Though third parties didn't want me criticized on the first day on the job, he has a valid point: I set out to review his article without proper background. On the other hand, he got valid input, which he appreciated for a while: that readers not in-the-know won't get far into his article. When you write an article only for insiders, this feedback from an outsider is legitimate.
Separately, communication here is horribly inefficient. I should get paid, not because I'm any good but because I've put in a full day at the office:
- Communicating by collaborative editing of a multimedia document is slower and more intricate than e-mail or phone--you spend much more time pursuing perfection and prettiness.
- Conversation is distributed across many different user pages that you must watch for changes. You get a lot of false alarms, which it takes a long time to scan for and locate.
- On the results of the review, and in two Forums, different users entered the process late, changing the consensus, and a couple times jumped in with edits. ... post-edited
Now see Talk:ITSCON.
edit More talk with Funnybony
I've now read and changed Islam--apparently having not generated enough controversy in the last week. There is something hilarious about Islam, the hypocrisy of the "religion of peace" line, and I have now said it in a new section by that title, as well as lightly editing the next two sections. The talk page is a religious battleground. And the article veers from satire into explicit hatred, and also in the other direction into mindless free-association lists.
Can't do anything about that and I don't want to own it.
I did also visit My Lie a couple days ago. And there is a problem with it. What is not a problem is that your framework of humor is different from mine. You have found a parallel universe with a planet very much like Earth except that things are screwy. My framework is: Okay, you want to read about Pie? Your helpful Editor will write you an article. Except, wait! he's demented! He has either mistaken the subject matter for something similar (or totally incompatible) or started out in reality but veered off the path.
The only consequence of this different framework is that you rename things and I don't. But no matter, as you have redirects in case the reader does it the opposite way.
The problem with My Lie is that the framework shifts. Did a massacre happen, which those responsible and their superiors sought to spin, evade, and deny in characteristic ways? Or was it an enormous, tragic misunderstanding? I think your article goes back and forth. 22:21 21-Oct-09
- Last night Chief just did a Pee, it's current so maybe you could checkout his suggestions, and today it's very revamped, including removing the ugly black top and putting a "Battles" Infobox. Removing the "uncomfortable-to-read" human factors, more basket pic, etc. It's all about soldiers v/s baskets, no gore apparent. Pretty much did everything that Chief said. And he's seen it since. Still needs some touch up. BUUUUT, if you have a better angle on the massacre lets rewrite it completely. Here's something you know as much about as me. Please take a re-look and let me know if its getting better or worse. After all, it's a horrible subject. But VERY spoof worthy. Now I'm off to catch some zzzzssss. Thanks again, etc.--Funnybony 22:48, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
It's much cleaned up, a little clean-up to go. But my problem still remains. Was this a massacre, or a giant misunderstanding? You can have it either way--but not both ways; you will lose the reader. Your articles are not vanity, but all that I know about seem to be autobiographical--It is enormously difficult writing funny articles when, to some extent, you are also expressing or working out personal feelings. For example, your abuse at the hands of ISKCON surely created a score to settle that may have made it harder to make the article as funny as it could be.
I'm going to rewrite the intro. It simply doesn't help that you declare you are going to name our Asian conflicts differently from everyone else; and Naziism was 30 years earlier, so without clarification (now "Nazi-style"), this is just an unfunny number. I add a final sentence that risks taking the article in a different direction, but a direction with potential humor.
Left for you: the subject of Section 1 is identical to the subject of the article, and Section 1 contains the court-martial that repeats information in Section 6. Sections need to be put in better order: (There's really no history), events, reaction, prosecution, aftermath. The Kissinger quote highlights the article's indecision about whether this is a massacre or a misunderstanding.00:09 22-Oct-09
- Hi Spike, you have done a really good job with My Lie, making is more consistent. It's a slaughter of baskets. Your changes made me crack up. Section 1 I just changed the first line by removing the name so it wouldn't sound like a repeat - rather an extension. Your "international uproars as a new battle strategy"---had me pounding the table (trying to create an international uproar).
Wow, Spike, you have put some serious elbow grease into My Lie. Excellent. The only two things that people might object to is a slightly too long ALSO SEE list, and also my name "funnybony". It seems that people don't even look at my nominations? I think the only way I'll ever get a Feature is if I use a "Pseudonym of my Pseudonym" at this point. Which is pretty darn unbiased on Uncyclopedia's part?. I have written, with help, 22 articles seen on my user page, but from the start some Uncyclopedia people thought I had some conspiracy to trick Uncyclopedia, when the truth is I know very little about coding, and I'm too old to read "Manual Labour". Under the circumstances what do you suggest? Thanks as always.--Funnybony 03:33, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Hold the paranoia! No one is biased against a handle, because it's only a handle. If "pseudonym of my pseudonym" means you are using second-level indirection to avoid the rule against nominating your own stuff--a practice that Wikipedia calls the venial sin of sock-puppetry--it's transparent to the admins. You can't skulk around on this site (nor permanently delete anything--everything lives on under the History tab).
edit [After a conversation on VFD of one of his articles]
I don't remember having any falling out with you. You helped a TON on my article, I learned a lot from your perspective, I made all changes you suggested, and for what it's worth you improved the article 100%. And I thanked you repeatedly, and still do. The only thing was that another writer disliked it. And there it sort of stopped. Subsequently I have made further improvements in line with your advice, but there was noting else to do, because the subject was a bit too esoteric for young readers who are not aware of that Cult (subject). In any case, I'm unaware of any hard feelings, so please do think so. I really am thankful to you, and all critics. Because it can only improve If I pay attention. So I feel only thanks!!! Have a happy and safe Holiday.--Funnybony 10:23, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
edit My review of User:YouKnowWhatTheMusicMeans/MGMT
Thanks for the review. Believe it or not, MGMT's "lyrics" weren't random typing. That's actually part of it's real genetic code.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 19:08, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow I do believe it. I regret every minute you spent proofreading the code; you will never get those minutes back....
19:12, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't have to proofread. I pasted it off of Wolfram Alpha.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 19:14, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- So it took you less time than, say, the time it just took me to do a custom timestamp in my signature. At any rate, put spaces every n genes, or something, so it wraps on everyone's display no matter how wide. 19:18 16-Oct-09
- I didn't have to proofread. I pasted it off of Wolfram Alpha.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 19:14, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Later, from Why?'s talk page--
OH MY GOD. You mean there's a band called MGMT? In that case, increase your Humor score to 10--this is a hilarious juxtaposition of incompatibles, not just a whimsical attempt to treat a molecule as a rock band. Sheesh, another Pee Review I did Thursday night without having proper background! Signed, your (first) reviewer10:45 18-Oct-09
edit My review of Third-wave feminism
Thanks for the Pee Review of Third-wave feminism. I incorporated most of your suggestions - they were helpful. Appreciate it! Oh, and incidentally, yes, "Third-wave feminism" is an established term - Wikipedia has an article on the topic that, like mine, devotes probably far too much space to the riot grrrl movement. Cheers! 17:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
- It's looking good. Again, I only wish it went on a bit longer and covered more "movements." As a similar type of article, you may want to sample my new rendition of Baha'i. 00:12 14-Nov-09
edit My review of Hyphenation
Additional dialogue was inserted on the "report card"
Sorry about that...it's been so long since I've had an edit conflict that I've forgotten the trick I used to use to resolve them...no worries, though...I merged your changes back in. Bob the Wikipedian 22:54, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
- All is well now. Suggestion: As one of the functions is to break up a run of text, the "rulebook"--the run of text that most needs to be broken up--should have more or different illustrations than one that is itself entirely text! 23:10 14-Nov-09
edit My review of Hard disk drive
I'd just like to clarify two things:first, I'm not a Latino, but I am a french speaker from Québec and I think I'm pretty good in english (at least I don't make basic mistakes such as confusing its and it's which many native english speakers do).
Also, I should have noted in the request that this was just a draft and that I was going to modify and keep writing it. Of course I'll delete everything bad (because anyways, if I asked for a review, it's because I didn't find it that good myself.) and rewrite it.
So thanks, it will help me write something much better. Lewis82 14:26, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome! and keep me informed. French is comparable to Spanish when it comes to making certain mistakes with English. Another pattern of mistake is that English says, "Joe and his daughter" because Joe is male. The Romance languages would say "Joe and her daughter" because the daughter is female. 20:46 29-Nov-09
There it is... I added a couple sections and three images, so it at least looks interesting (and I hope it is).
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your comments again... Nothing better than this to get better! Lewis82 01:42, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
- That, finally, qualifies as a real article! Main illustration: You and I know, not only that it is a hard disk, but that it is a grotesquely obsolete one. But does the average reader know? Intro: I wonder whether the "living animal" that is in the hard disk is an elephant, as they never forget. Section 2: Unchanged. Somehow, it seems as though this section says everything twice. Section 3: You list symptoms of a virus infection; you might also compare the symptoms of a computer when uninfected! Do you mean "stroke" (blockage of blood to the vein) or "heart attack" (heart stoppage)? Again, you and I know the illustration is a virus, but does the average reader need it spelled out? Section 4: Strike-through doesn't get rendered in the Table of Contents; I don't know why not. Windows users have an alternative to "sudo", just open the command line and type "format C:" (which, these days, is intercepted). Striking through "erases the disk" gives away the joke. To be more subtle, I would, after the advice on unwanted files, throw in a footnote warning about effects on wanted files! Perhaps also, "Do not attempt these maneuvers at home."
- I've made comments on grammar and style into the article itself. 02:32 30-Nov-09
- Twice now! and I don't know how our comments didn't collide! One more thing: Defragment--sledgehammer--you never make the connection! 02:43 30-Nov-09
- PS--Savvy tip--The admins seem to prefer that you do all your editing in a single session (If you need to see how it will look, click on Preview). If you Save every tiny change, it exaggerates your productivity and makes the change log harder to search. 02:52 30-Nov-09
edit My review of Ozzy Osbourne
There's a vandal running rampant, and only you and I are on, and I don't know how tio block him, can you do it? Thanks. Aleister in ChainsNow, MMX
- I'm not an admin, though on rare occasions I report people to Ban Patrol (and get told about half the time that it's not that serious, yet). Spit it out, man! do you mean our buddy Steventhemario? If so, Mordillo has personal experience with the futility of being nice to him. 11:50 10-Jan-10
This was an IP tearing through the site and blanking pages, saw his work on recent changes as it was occurring. I've seen your helping hand (bitten off,if I read some of the recent work you did correctly) and I have a worthy candidate in need of a look at the Ozzy Osbourne page. She has it up for pee but no takers, but just a quick review of the page is interesting. She's been, it seems, a solitary editor (I know her from a very good pee review she gave me), hardworking on that one article, and probably not a biter. Thanks again. Aleister in Chains December 7, 1941
- Ah, so this bit about a vandal was just bait to reel me in?! I'll read it, but won't promise to review it, as I have logged a couple of Epic Fails reviewing articles on subjects on which I'm relatively ignorant. But I did used to own one Black Sabbath album. 13:42 10-Jan-10
Nah, the vandal was real, and the user wrote me after that was written to ask for comments on her article. Thought of you because I read the talk page on an article with someone you were assisting. And jeez, you wrote up a review already. She'll love it. Aleister in ChainsNow, MMX
- You realize it doesn't help your credentials when we're discussing an intruder that you can't spell your own name....you've fixed it now 15:45 10-Jan-10 post-edited
- Discussions with the author
First, let me say to both you and Aleister in Chains, a big Vhug of thanks!
“ I think this article is too long. ”
I realize the page is long, it became an issue with not wanting to cut out details added by a particular person. I tried to fix spelling errors and retain most of their stuff so they didn't feel left out. That is such a tough one, and it's been a bit frustrating honestly.
“The humor is generally excellent. I would avoid only two things: gratuitous vulgarity (even though it's all in character) (so the second initial quote is a waste; Ozzy's potty mouth is illustrated by the third quote), and jokes that boil down to how funny it is when I'm stoned. Everyone thinks it's funny when they're stoned. (Warned you that I may be out of my element.)”
Ah yes, the quotes. The second and third quotes were some of the recent additions. Trying not to disclude other fans who want to participate, I left those there, but you're right. I wouldn't have used so many with the "fuck" in it. Will work on that.
“ Don't know anything about Osbourne's life before the music career, but if you made this up of whole cloth for completeness (and maybe even if you didn't), Sections 1 and 2 are candidates for trimming.”
Will do. Some of that was new addition stuff which I tried to include in fairness. It was leaner originally. I'll take a look at trimming there.
“Also the listy sections. The Discography (a staple among articles on bands that appear in Votes For Deletion) could go, as the joke names of the albums are jokes you've already told in the prose. There's no reason "The Sharona experience" needs to be in list format rather than written as prose; and I'm not fond of the lists that follow it, fan quotes and of course the "little-known facts." You really don't want to spend your life repairing this one section from the attacks from drugged-out AnonIPs that it will surely get.”
k - will remove the Discography, originally put it there because there was not as much detail on his career. It's parallel to the real "wiki's" for musicians, but it doesn't have to be lol. I'm open!
And hey, cool for helping me out. I will definitely do some chop-chop with this in the next week or so!
Ok, I did some large scale work on slimming down topics to key ones, and trimming stuff in some areas. I still need to work on it some, but it's got many of the heavy hitters done I think. Take a peek if you dare, or not (nannie nanner). Hopefully between now and when I can finish implementing the stuff you mentioned the page won't be hosed again by the nit-picker that's been lurking lately making pictures 230px instead of 200 and so on. Sigh!
“The user you mentioned who is slightly tweaking the widths of photos is not malicious nor even destructive. He's trying to help, unfortunately not considering that different users have different screen sizes--as perhaps you aren't either. It's a problem that MediaWiki gives us no way to specify that an illustration should occupy a percentage of the width of the display, and instead we must code a number of pixels. So don't be too hard on this guy.”
Whoa! BIG oversimplification stated on my page. The changes were not just picture sizes. While I was modifying the page last night someone slipped two new quotes in. The problem is that entire sections are added, removed, modified, pictures are changed, and there is no collaboration. The editor has written incomplete sentences, repeated things stated in other sections, changed timelines, and so forth.
- Collaboration is a risk as well as a benefit. Again, the most you can do is ask an Admin to restrict edits of a given page to people who have an Uncyclopedia user name. Inept editing (done without considering whether the same joke is told elsewhere in the article) is a fact of life. It's sometimes resolved amicably. (See the bottom of Talk:Global warming.) Editing Under the Influence is also known to exist. Perhaps more so with Ozzy fans. 17:19 11-Jan-10
edit My review of Dominican Republic
Hello Spike, you did a review on my article a while back, and I took some of your constructive criticism into consideration. I was wondering if you were willing to give me a second opinion? (Overall the article is the same, I just got rid of some of the crude humor. Basically what you should read is the introduction and the last section I added). Thanks ^_^
- It's getting there. I've now edited Section 7. 02:01 22-Oct-10