User talk:Aaaaaaaaaaasf

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 21:25, November 1, 2007 by Claudius Prime (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

--Aaaaaaaaaaasf 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)==Welcome!==

Hello, Aaaaaaaaaaasf, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for nooblets:

If you read anything at all, make it the above two links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (Button sig) above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply put {{adoptme}} on your Userpage to join. Again, welcome!  --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 00:28, October 14, 2007

edit Thanks

Thank you for reviewing my article. I know that it is just a bunch of bashing on Hollister. This is only my first article that I have ever done on any wiki site so I'm just getting the hang of it. D-rizzle 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

edit Recycling & Nazism

Hey there. I haven't been a regular contributor in a while, but I still like what articles I did write. Does everything on here have to have Hitler, Oprah, Jesus or Nazis in it for it to be funny? I don't think so. The article is Recycling, and I agree it didn't flow very well, but it has nothing to do with Nazism. Bottom line- we can't argue about "what is funny" but I will do a rewrite minus the Nazi stuff, and then we can put your version and mine to a vote.--Spqr Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As the author of Hannah Montana AND The Diary of Anne Frank my input into this debate may be somewhat mute, however finding that happy medium between the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument (either pro or against) and Godwin's Law within an article can be a difficult trick to pull off. Having looked at both versions, and this is just my opinion, the non-Nazi version has more funny per square inch, however the Nazi version is a fuller article with an improved layout. I'm sure you boys can work this out between you, but my tastes in humour would, surprisingly, prefer a reduction in the amount of Nazi content, and a return of some of the older version, which I think was a little bit clevererer.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
I agree with a vote. The Nazi part of the article, I believe, IS the most expendable of the article, and was put in to make the article basically, fuller. As far as claudius's article was concerned, i thought the sections had some good idea, but were very hard to follow, and the section 'the basics' was almost incomprehensable, and not very funny. On the other hand, 'a caveat' had good idea and I tried to incorperate that into the new article. Once again, the NAZI stuff is mostly fluff (though i thought the images were all right). Basically, the newer article revolves around the idea of a lumber industry involvement, which compounded off of a joke from myself and a friend of mine who shares this account. If skimming down on the nazis is what you feel will make it better, by all means, shorten it up. But keep the lumber industry stuff because I feel that might have some good ideas. The older version wasn't exactly a complete article. Get back to me on that. Love, Aaaaaaaaaaasf 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Naturally, of course, lets wait for some voters opinions on the versions.

Hello again. I'm rewriting a Recycling to compromise our two points of view. Give me a couple of days please and see what you think. I will keep in touch, and I think we can make this article kick ass!--Spqr Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

edit More work to be done.

Hey there again, same day as my last post on your talk page, please forgive me for that. I'm making progress on some kind of compromise on Recycling, take a look and see what you can add, that I can again strip down and change *lol* I'm not a jerk, no really I'm not. I like your ideas, I'm just trying to mix your humor and mine to get something laugh out loud that we can put up to a vote and maybe get this thing featured on the main page... Am I being too ambitious? Perhaps. Is the flow fucked up again with my edits, yes probably, but I think with your funny and mine something good is happening. Feel free (it is a free country) to mix back in more of what you had and I will think over any changes to what I've left on there today. You seem pretty cool, and I don't mean to offend with my edits. Again, I think we could make this a great article. --Spqr Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects