User talk:A.W.S.Ohm

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome!

Hello, A.W.S.Ohm, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there and there is a window over here if you don't fancy walking down the stairs. Anyway, here are a few good links for people like you:


These are the links you're looking for...

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (Button sig) above the edit box.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but most people enjoy writing something while they are here and ever so occasionally we write something worth reading. Check out Pee Review if writing work seems a bit too much of an effort,

If you need help, ask one of us, or ask on my talk page. You can also look into the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program.

Just remember the rules, especially the first 3.

Again, Welcome!   --ChiefjusticeWii 13:11, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

edit Your article

As per your request on my talk page your article is now here. There is no need to tag it with the construction tag while it is there. If you have any questions that are not answered by the links given above then feel free to ask me on my talk page. --ChiefjusticeWii 13:11, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what you get for building in mainspace. This article has big conceptual problems:

  • Capital letters and swears in the title break the canon: We are supposed to look like encyclopedia articles. (You can change the name with the move button at the top of the screen.)
  • You shouldn't sign and date stuff in articles. Talk pages, yes.
  • Having a word on Line 1 of the article that takes up more than one line further harms the impression that this is an encyclopedia article. The first thing the intro has to do is tell me what the article is going to be about and make me want to continue--not give me a line that's sooooo funny I don't even need to understand why.
  • Every time you use the phrase "It was decided," it means there was something you could have made funny but decided to punt.
  • And at the end of Section 2, you tell us you can't explain how good the movie was. EPIC FAIL.

You don't have anything real to make fun of--only an idea that is a FUCKING WIN. Except it isn't--yet. You are going about it backwards. Keep at it, and good luck! Spıke Ѧ 15:01 9-Jan-11

Thanks, for the advice. I shall use it wisely... maybe. anway:

  • I understand you'r concern for the canon, but in my opinion canons are like rules. Every now and then someond needs to break them, even if its just to remind everyone that they shouldn't be broken.
  • Ok, yeah. Kinda new to this so thanks.
  • The thing about long words on line 1 does make sense, and I had thought of it previously but decided under the rule of "like encyclopedia articles" -SPIKE, that there is no other place for it to go. As far as I can see the only other solution to this would be to say it is a film of all genres but that would give less impact than reading through a list of all genres. "not give me a line that's sooooo funny I don't even need to understand why." -SPIKE Don't follow you at all.
  • Ok. That's probably true
  • That will be corrected

--A.W.S.Ohm 15:58, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You are right that all our rules are "ignorable policies" that no one will bring up if your product is really clever. I guess my real problem with FUCKING WIN is that it looks like it's telling me what I will think of your article, whereas the article itself should sell me. Breaking rules for it's own sake doesn't convince me--breaking them because you thereby turned in a masterpiece is different. Back to work! Spıke Ѧ 16:05 9-Jan-11
Personal tools