User talk:Alpalwriter

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome!

Hello, Alpalwriter, and thanks for joining Uncyclopedia! Before editing further, please take the time to read our Beginner's Guide. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, check out the following pages:

Scotty and the bloody knife
Writing funny articles
Understanding Uncyclopedia: About usBeginner's GuideHow to editOur projectsGetting ideasHelp menu
Understanding Funny: How To Be Funny And Not Just StupidFunny and not just stupid imagesChoosing words creatively
What to avoid: VandalismCyberbullyingWriting about yourself or your palsDramaOveruse of initial quotationsOveruse of lists
What people have asked for: ArticlesPictures
Additional help: Get spelling/grammar helpFind or become a co-authorHow to write an UnNewsAsk an AdminGet feedback on your work

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.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but it certainly is a fun and easy way to express your creativity. To write an article, it's recommended that you start it in your userspace (for example, User:Alpalwriter/Article about stuff) so you can edit it at your leisure. If you decide to create it in the cold world of mainspace, make sure it is in accordance with the policies laid out above, and if you're not done put the "Work-In-Progress" template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.

If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the community forum or in the chatroom, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, our Adopt-a-Noob program can bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian!  ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 07:51, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

edit User:Alpalwriter/Muhammad: The Authentic Biography

It is an interesting article with humour present however perhaps it could have a bit more words. Short sentences or paragraphs or sentences that you can write between each picture widening the joke in the picture. Otherwise some of it seems an attack on Islam and not funny. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:07, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That might be a difficult job, though I'll try. But it'll take some time. - Alpalwriter (talk) 10:09, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I've notified an admin to see what he thinks of the article as I am a bit unsure as to whether you are going about it the right way. I'm sure you're not intending to cause offence but some of it reads like that to me. Also the article may need to be moved to a title that people will find more easily. We'll see what we can do meanwhile try and widen the story, show Muhammad going to the market and visiting some relatives. If you do an almost "Life of Brian" take on it and show the history of the time more realistically than in religious teaching, without tainting the man himself and offending most of Islam than that would be probably the best way to go. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:16, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
The 9-11 picture was a step too far. Well done for interpreting landscape architect but it is a subtle joke and one which the article claims that the reader is misinterpreting the wrong way. Instead of offending the Islamic prophet divert the blame away from him (as there is no need to point the finger at him, that's stereotyping of a religion) and point the finger at the actual terrorists and say that Muhammad would not have accepted this. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:25, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
PS - I'm going to move this to your namespace as the current version is not good enough for mainspace yet.

Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:28, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see you've moved it from namespace. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:29, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
He has only copied it there; I will delete the mainspace copy.
I am running with photos disabled. My initial reaction is that the article does not fit, as mainspace is a satire encyclopedia and not a comic book. Photos with funny captions are usually sprinkled in alongside funny text to give the superficial impression that this is a complete encyclopedia, until the reader studies them and sees that they are not on the level either.
A second reaction coming not long after the first is that the intent of this article is to ridicule Islam in pictures and not to amuse the reader. "Shit be upon him" in the first paragraph, no matter how ScottPat tries to soften it, sets out a point of view (and, if there is a joke, thus begins by spelling it out) and alienates a large number (or perhaps all) of the target audience. The photo captions here, especially the use of the second person, are unfunny and deliberately provocative. I suggest that rather than let other Uncyclopedians twist to make this article acceptable, author ask himself what his goal is here. My guess is that you wrote the case against Islam in photos for the overt purpose of rubbing Muslims' noses in it. Spıke Ѧ 12:06 16-Mar-14
PS--Copying a page, as opposed to using the Move button you will begin to see in a few days (or asking an older user to do it), has the disadvantage of discarding the change history, which lets you use the History button to recover any old version or pieces of it. Spıke Ѧ 12:12 16-Mar-14
PPS--I screwed this up. The mainspace copy was the newer one, having one additional edit from Alpalwriter and four from ScottPat. If youse agree you want the newer edits restored, I can fish them back from the mag-tapes. Spıke Ѧ 18:00 16-Mar-14
No, thanks. - Alpalwriter (talk) 18:05, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

edit The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita

Thank you for tolerating my occasional deletions from this evolving article. I continue to wonder whether you are writing primarily to amuse yourself by putting slaps against Islam into writing, and whether the average reader who does not share your opinion will be amused. However, mushing together Rushdie with the Bhagavad-Gita is the low level of scholarship that Uncyclopedians relish.

Now, rather than paring back your text, I suggest you need more text in one area. You will find in How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid that we view piles of photographs in the same way as we view lists of one-liners: They are departures from the business of writing funny stuff, which sometimes tell the same joke over again, and often induce newbies to make unfunny additions to them. I would prefer that you add new sections that use these photos as jokes in passing, rather than keep them stacked up and drag the reader through them all, as though you had the neighbors over for an awful Home Movie.

Regarding one of my deletions, a list of promised future articles, I am not sure we need a "The Satanic Verses of..." series, as it might be telling the same joke over again. For example, given a successful article in which a serious subject is done in the style of Bobcat Goldthwaite, we don't necessarily need a handful of articles done that way. Cheers! Spıke Ѧ 22:24 17-Mar-14

Please be assured that my primary interest is not to amuse myself but to write a good Uncyclopedic article which shall amuse quite a few people. Taking into account your suggestions, I have made some substantial changes and I hope the article as it stands now looks pretty decent and acceptable? - Alpalwriter (talk) 02:49, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I do not know the underlying material so my review will be superficial. You are very heavy on the initial quotations. We discourage these at UNQUOTE. Yours are, thankfully, attributed to actual people and do relate both to the utteror and to the theme of the article, but I would go with no more than two short ones, and Oppenheimer stating Shiva as shit should not be your first word; suck the reader in first. I am not saying don't use the material; only develop it later on the page. The puns on names are the weakest humor, and NO'Flattery looks like a typo. The cast is full of red-links, and when you introduce Rushdie, you have to confront the relationship between your version and reality, which spoils the joke. Have your "encyclopedia article writer" be firmly in the alternate universe and unaware that he is. On "is reported to be writing," see CoW#A simple style is most encyclopedic.

Thank you for keeping in check the photo gallery and the tales of gang rape, and I'm sorry I can't do a better job of saying whether the result is a good comedy take on Rushdie and Hinduism or suggest improvements on that front. Spıke Ѧ 03:00 18-Mar-14

I've tweaked this article again. Of the two initial quotations that remain, I think that putting the longer one first, which seems more scholarly, will make the Shit quotation outrageous in comparison and therefore funnier. I also arranged the photos and graphics differently. If you find yourself having to dictate spacing with <BR>, you're doing something wrong.

Please do not use large lettering. This detracts from the appearance of an encyclopedia. If you have something large to say, use large language. Also because of the "encyclopedia" cover, don't end things with a moral-of-the-story or cheerleading. I took one of these out of the Did You Know, and there is still one at the very end of the article: a statement of the hopes of Uncyclopedians. Please write something different if you need the article to end with a zinger (many do), something that sounds less like Porky Pig's "That's all, folks!" Spıke Ѧ 16:54 18-Mar-14

PS--Thanks. Did you notice that JerryJellyson post-edited you at Bhagavad Gita, working your title a little more into the text there? Incidentally, it's See also, no excess capital letters, just as Wikipedia does. Spıke Ѧ 17:05 18-Mar-14

Many thanks indeed for nominating the article for VFH and for the time-to-time guidance and suggestions for improvements which surely have made a big difference! Alpalwriter (talk) 03:13, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

edit Learn2Preview

I hate to be picky, but would you please click on Preview to see how your edits will look, then continue editing and click on Save only at major stopping points? I am called on to review edits of new users (which unfortunately still includes you) and would like to be called on a little less often. Spıke Ѧ 01:25 19-Mar-14

PS--But having reviewed them, please use exclamation points with extreme rarity and not followed by some other punctuation. Again, it keeps us from looking like an encyclopedia and doesn't add a lot of funny. Spıke Ѧ 01:27 19-Mar-14

edit The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita on VFH

Hi, Apalwriter and welcome here! I don't know what Bhagavad-gita is so I cannot judge your article, but I think you need to be a bit more careful with using the word "shit" (this is a possible reason for Funnybony's comment on VFH). If you need any advice, I would suggest trying to be more objective - objective with humour, which would imply not being objective at all but pretending you are. This would also imply not stating your opinion clearly, but letting the reader judge. Nice job and don't take some comments too seriously! Anton (talk) 19:01, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Debris certainly sounds better! Anton (talk) 19:47, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

edit Preview and Minor Edit buttons

Yeah as stated before you probably should start using them to prevent clogging up the recent changes feed. In other news, keep up the good work! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:45, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed! I'll keep your instructions in mind. (I almost always Preview, but, sadly, sometimes I only realize improvements little later. But I'll try. Thanks again!) Alpalwriter (talk) 11:05, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

You didn't start it, but that VFH ballot is certainly turning into a Forum or talk page! I'm glad Anton199 is working with you on specific wordings. Also note that, twice on the ballot, Shabidoo, who has had the most specific criticism, invites you to contact him at User talk:Shabidoo if you would like Chapter and Verse. Thank you for being one of the calmer participants during your sudden trial-by-fire! Spıke Ѧ 11:55 20-Mar-14

I've a question. Does the article in its current form at all qualify for Uncyclopedia? Does it at least seem to satisfy the bare minimum requirement for inclusion here? So that I can get an idea where, in the eyes of an experienced user such as you, it stands and how far I've to go with it. I mean how would you rate the article? Many thanks. Alpalwriter (talk) 12:16, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

If it were taken to Votes for deletion, I would vote Symbol keep vote Keep.. (If someone else had nominated it at VFH for main-page featuring, I would probably have abstained, as I think it is clever and playful, but sometimes I vote against nominees I think are likely to alienate first-time readers.) I would have voted Symbol delete vote Delete on your first work, as pictorial essays don't fit in mainspace and it seemed to have an overt agenda of persuasion; however, placing it in your userspace was a satisfactory alternative. Go to Votes for deletion, read some of the nominees, perhaps even vote if you will write a decent reason for your vote, and see how bad some of our articles are. You are hardly the worst editor and I hope you'll stay. As I say on the ballot, some of the drama seems to be based on two voters' desire that we treat eastern religions more favorably. Spıke Ѧ 12:31 20-Mar-14

I also think it is worthy of inclusion in the mainspace, just not polished enough for a feature. The transitions in the story it tells are just too sudden, and not logical. Also, it is unclear what Rushdie has to do with Krishna, perhaps this is part of the joke, but it doesn't seem to make sense, even in a loose form. For instance, Rushdie makes a comment, then Krisha suddenly becomes Shame as a result of that comment. Why should this deity be influenced by the comment? I like articles that set up a framework and make sense, then surprise the reader with an unexpected ending. Take or leave my suggestions, but don't let the criticism discourage you from writing. You seem to be a promising new writer. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:25, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your feedback.
Two things: 1. The framework is already set up in the Plot. 2. Rushdie's comment is just one of many logical accusations brought against Krishna by the team of 5 people. The thin line between Rushdie's dialogue and Krishna's dialogue is supposed to indicate that the former is not immediately followed by the latter. If it was followed, there wouldn't be a line, as there isn't one in a dialogue between Doniger and Krishna. Alpalwriter (talk) 22:37, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very important part of writing fantasy in a satire encyclopedia: that it (and its transitions) have a connection to something real; otherwise you won't bring your reader along. You have said on VFH that the connection is in the text, but few of your readers — and none of your reviewers/voters here — know the text. Spıke Ѧ 22:30 20-Mar-14

Hi, good to meet you. As I say on the voting page, you could masterpiece this one. You seem to be a deep thinker, know your stuff, and will learn to do it better as time goes by. It took me almost four months to get my first feature, and I have at least a dozen by now. Religion and the honoring of some forms of conscious-religions set a high-bar for satire, imnho, and you seem to be someone who can get over that. When the dust settles hopefully Funnybony and you can hang out, he'd be a great source for a page such as this, but not in the form that it was nommed. And comments aside, Funnybony does know the Gita material, and spent many years studying in India. A fine fellow well met. Anyway, enjoy, and yes, most of the pages on the site are worth their weight in pixels and nothing more! Aleister 22:47 20=3=14

edit More alternatives

With your Satanic Verses VFH nomination, you are now serving three masters: (1) The desire to make Uncyclopedia readers laugh; (2) the desire to make VFH voters vote yes; and (3) whatever point you originally wrote the article to make. Sometimes, when one has three criteria, one satisfies none of them successfully.

One strategy is to go to Shabidoo for assistance; or request a formal Pee Review. ChiefjusticeDS has just returned to the website, who specializes in useful advice. You have already encountered him at VFH, but only to say that the rest of us are overheating.

Another strategy (for you, not for the article) is to abandon the article, let it go down to defeat (it will remain in the encyclopedia and you won't have a hand lopped off), and pursue something different where you neither need to tell a story nor to win a vote. Pursuing a narrower definition of success might get you there, and we all need small successes in the early stages. The attempt to get on the main page (you may blame me) is perhaps not the best thing for you.

The two typical ways to find something new to write is to look at the requests for new articles, and to visit votes for deletion, where you might find a bad article about to be deleted from the website that you can save. Spıke Ѧ 00:19 21-Mar-14

Many thanks for the advice! However, I believe I can serve all three masters by serving the higher & true master: To write a great satirical article. It'll make Uncy readers laugh, make VFH voters vote yes, and fulfill my original purpose. If the article as it stands makes you feel that it has inner contradictions, that sometimes it is too cheap (when it talks about sex) and sometimes it is too profound (when it talks about metaphysical philosophy), it is I think only because the article is not so finished yet. For example, I could add more dialogues that talk about metaphysics. I'd certainly go to Shabidoo for assistance if the need be. Alpalwriter (talk) 00:37, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Inspiring! Go for it! Of course, as Aleister notes above, "unfinished" articles are not usually nominated for VFH; but as I note above, you may blame me. (On the other hand, "metaphysics" doesn't make anyone laugh.) Spıke Ѧ 00:42 21-Mar-14

Correct me if I'm wrong, but metaphysics can make people laugh; contradictions and paradoxes can make people laugh; "metaphysical satire" as they call it, I think. I feel this article, owing to the complex nature of its basic topic, could be interesting & enjoyable for a very wide variety of audience. Isn’t that a good thing? Alpalwriter (talk) 01:27, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysics never made me laugh. Hell, Calculus never even made me laugh. Carry on, then. Spıke Ѧ 01:36 21-Mar-14

I personally enjoy and have a personal history in metaphysics, and when I mention consciousness info it's something I try to include in many of my articles, although just centered in some. In a little of the stuff I've written here I put in quite a bit of educational material, as I see satire as often both enlightening and as a way to communicate little-known data as well as once in awhile pass along some mind-bending concepts (not everything I write is "funny" per se, to me funny is a by-product of satire but not it's final goal. Spike and I may disagree on that, but a site like this one needs many points of view). I won't read your page for awhile, as I can see you're working on it at a fever pace - which is the way to go sometimes - and for me it's better to read an article in its final stages. When you do feel comfortable that it's at a good point SPike's idea of asking Chief Justice for a peer review may be the way to go - Chief is a master at those and you'd be lucky if he did one for you. Aleister 2:40 20-3-14

edit Make up your mind

The image you swapped out from {{India}} was also used in Curry. I made the same change there and deleted the old .gif, where the uploader said it had been stolen. Now you have uploaded a new image of the Taj Mahal. Please be sure both pages use the same thing when you are done, and use UN:QVFD to request deletion of any images that are abandoned for something better. Spıke Ѧ 15:49 26-Mar-14

I've so far uploaded some images that I used in earlier versions of my articles but later removed for something better and now I may never use those images in future such as this one. Do you want me to go and add "QVFD" on each and every one of them?? I mean is that what you were really asking me to do? It appears most of them have some satirical value and may be used by someone else in some other article here in future. Alpalwriter (talk) 16:27, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

If you do indeed have "something better" then please list the old, "worse" one on QVFD to help clean up the site. There is no controversy in asking that your own, orphaned photos be deleted. If, in your opinion, the photo is begging to be used by someone else, then you can leave it on the website, but please type in such a complete description (with Categories) that people seeking such a photo will be able to find it; for example, don't assume it will be found by its name alone. Spıke Ѧ 16:42 26-Mar-14

PS--Please go to UN:QVFD and list the images to be deleted there. The images themselves don't have to be tagged, and in fact we have no way to locate tags on individual images. Spıke Ѧ 17:14 26-Mar-14

Is it okay if I just leave the "QVFD" tag I put on the image pages as it is? Or should I go and remove it (or undo it)? Please let me know. Thanks. Alpalwriter (talk) 17:37, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, all deleted, okay, thanks! Alpalwriter (talk) 17:44, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

edit Template:India

You might read the template's talk page and User talk:InMooseWeTrust. This template is getting huge, and that user tried to make it much larger to illustrate by example the diversity and disorder of India, but that is too much to pack into a template. Number bases has a passing connection to India but is not something the reader of the other articles will want to link to. The template should serve the reader by picking good next articles, not everything with some connection. Spıke Ѧ 22:24 27-Mar-14

Unless the connection is articles rewritten (either in part or in full) by me that became features. But I agree - Number Bases fits in with the {{math}} template, not {{India}}. Due to the relationship to India it has been added to the See also section of India though.                               Puppy's talk page03:42 am 30 Mar 2014

edit Anu Malik

Well-spotted! But this has been on the site since 2006, and the author won't see some tag. I have nominated it at Votes for deletion. Come vote! Spıke Ѧ 22:30 27-Mar-14

PS--PuppyOnTheRadio saw it at VFD and knew that this was once a good article that had had its humor replaced by dry facts. I have restored it to its past glory and withdrawn my nomination. Spıke Ѧ 20:18 29-Mar-14

Are you sure you have restored it to its past glory? As far as I can see, there is no change at all since you added VFD to the article on March 27, 2014, at 22:28. Alpalwriter (talk) 21:26, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! What happened is that I clicked Save and closed the window (to save megabytes on my metered service) and did not see that, as the restored article had a link to another website, my own Abuse Filter demanded that I confirm my edit before saving it. It is fixed now. Spıke Ѧ 21:38 29-Mar-14

PS—We have a new VFD Poopsmith and you should let him tidy up articles after the ballot is closed. Spıke Ѧ 22:44 29-Mar-14

PPS—Mimo&maxus has reverted your addition of Anu.jpg to the start of this article. Evidently Malik looks like Dench. I don't get it, but would you two please talk to each other and arrive at the funniest result? Spıke Ѧ 23:00 29-Mar-14

edit Talk:G-Wiz‎

I presume you are talking to me here, but it is dicey to post on the talk page of a random article and assume I am monitoring all changes to the wiki (though it is true at the current level of activity). I agree it is stubby and not very funny. Like the last one, it is too old to dispose of by tagging (see its History). You can nominate it at VFD yourself, and I will vote Delete, but mind the instructions (add {{VFD}} to the article, and don't exceed 20 active ballots on the page). Spıke Ѧ 22:55 27-Mar-14

edit The award!

Great job with your articles and your userpage now has a new template! Congratulations! Anton (talk) 13:06, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you very much! Alpalwriter (talk) 14:14, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

edit Malala Yousafzai‎‎

Gun Backfire

Yousafzai's fateful mistake may have been her choice of weapon.

This article in your userspace is beginning with a comedy theme of Slut Humor which, as far as I can tell, is not based on anything in real life, and we already have too much Slut Humor on-site.

As I interpret the Wikipedia article on her, she had made her life work the universal training of accurate marksmanship to all Pakistanis. This is what led Gordon Brown to start his UN petition campaign called "Teach everyone to shoot straight." The incident that propelled her to worldwide fame was either

  1. Taliban disagreeing with her implication that they were inaccurate shooters, or
  2. Taliban who had benefitted from her education campaign and wanted to show her so.

What do you think? Spıke Ѧ 01:26 30-Mar-14

That's very intelligent and interesting! Alpalwriter (talk) 01:33, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Both attributes are frowned on here...but you may use the idea anyway.... Spıke Ѧ 01:37 30-Mar-14

I honestly think your idea is pretty intelligent and interesting but I don't find it that funny. Would it at all be okay if I continue with my slut humour theme and eventually move the article in the mainspace? Alpalwriter (talk) 01:54, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

No one tells an Uncyclopedian not to write humor! But if you think the Slut approach is preferable, I wonder why. Also, I like my concept so much that I might write a competing article along those lines, given that you don't want to use it. Spıke Ѧ 12:59 30-Mar-14

With apologies, I am InB4U. Spıke Ѧ 14:53 30-Mar-14

No problem. Congrats! Alpalwriter (talk) 14:55, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

edit Knowledge

Sorry if I stood on you toes changing that caption. Saw the cracked paint on the image and couldn't resist.

Are you thinking of rewriting this article in a more significant manner? I have a couple of sketch ideas that could work, but the problem I have with the article at present is a lack of cohesive concept. It jumps from one idea to another. Let me know what you have planned. (After all, I could always go back an write a proper article for Epistemology instead.)                               Puppy's talk page03:31 am 30 Mar 2014

That’s fine.
No, I’m afraid I’m not thinking of rewriting the article. Alpalwriter (talk) 05:56, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

edit Fallacy

I don't think this article needs a Wikipedia template as the reader would know what fallacy is being a common word in the English language. Wikipedia templates are usually only used when the subject topic is obscure or when the article directly parodies the wikipedia page and so requires a link for comparison otherwise it ruins the joke of a parody site. I'll remove the template now but please write here if you think there is a reason why it should be on the article just let me know here. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:46, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Your reason for removal seems to outweigh my reason for inclusion. Thanks for removing it. Alpalwriter (talk) 10:57, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

edit User:Alpalwriter/Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Just having a look at this article and I'm not getting the funny here. I understand that there is the restriction on Muhammad images, but the topic is covered so well in articles like Political cartoon or with images like File:Mohammed with sausages.jpg or File:Mohammed.jpg - or a number of images in Category:Muhammad. I don't see how the dogs on the beach or the picture of a pig are funny. Crass, definitely, but not funny.

Is there a point behind this - other than trying to break a taboo - that I'm missing here?

Anyways, I've moved it back to your user space as it's not fleshed out enough to be an article in its own right. Let me know if there's something I've missed as - as it stands - it's QVFD material.                               Puppy's talk page11:19 am 03 Apr 2014

Since Islam treats pigs as unclean and kind of prohibited creatures, depicting the prophet as a baby pig is I think funny.
For a dog, getting fucked (perhaps for the very first time) by another dog, is kind of a revelation, which I see as funny. Alpalwriter (talk) 11:31, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Our webhost, by comparison, sees stuff like this as "delete on sight." I don't care if it's from Wikipedia. Spıke Ѧ 11:38 3-Apr-14
I'd actually change this into an article, rather than a collection of random images designed to shock rather than amuse. Make it a parody of WP:Victory Day (United States) with elements of WP:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy included. That Muhammad sausage cartoon covers the piggy element well without being overtly crass. Make it a national holiday in Denmark that is no longer being celebrated except in some obscure area, celebrating the artwork of Dutch masters.
Having said that, read through HTBFANJS before trying to create an article from scratch. Keep working on improving articles that already exist, and use that to learn how to write funny before trying to leap without a net. My first few articles I created were terrible, but the more I worked on articles that others had written, the more I learned, and the better I wrote.                               Puppy's talk page12:06 pm 03 Apr 2014
Dittos. This second comic-book contribution of yours has the obvious point not of humor but of overt blasphemy. (Not that we mind blasphemy, when in the service of humor.) The entire point seems to be to disparage Islam — in a way that's just funny enough to seem to belong on this website. That is polemics, not comedy. Spıke Ѧ 12:47 3-Apr-14
Personal tools