From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Doing my part
Dude I went to go vote but it's not listed anymore clicked on your link and realized I think it's being featured! Good job loved it!--Dr. Fenwick 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
edit I wholeheartedly disagree with your pee review, but thank you for the extra effort that I
I did not find it helpful and I demand constructive comments regarding areas of improvement.
You said the article was random; I couldn't disagree more. The article remains consistent and topical throughout, addressing the invention, rise of, and fall of the soapbox in a soundproof room. It never strays into random territory.
The names are puns, you whippersnapper.
Considering that the article only has one, just one, not any more, joke, the article length is perfectly acceptable.
And when you put links to your own articles at the end of the pee review, it makes it look an awful lot like you're abusing the system only to whore your own articles, which would be enormously inappropriate.
I demand a detailed, reasoned response for why you think the article deserved the score you gave it, because the comments you gave are insufficient to me as a writer; else wise I will be forced to challenge you to a duel and insult your honor as a gentleman. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- After having about
ten minutesan hour to cool off, I apologize for overreacting. To use an expression that became trite out about five years ago, my bad. Sorry if I misread your intent, but it seemed awfully logical and connected about ten minutesan hour ago.
- Cicero, Cato, Demosthenes, Seneca: Famous Ancient orators. Those compound words insult the people on the soapboxes, who can't hold a flame to their skill in oratory. Also, Paul Eitranter = Polite Ranter. His name describes his function, which I find marginally clever and humorous. Same goes for Mr. Lessener over there.
- I guess you and I have totally different definitions of random and topical. For that matter, it seems you and I have totally different review methodologies, and what makes a good article.
- Also, I'm sorry for using my words as a knife against your neck, which is actually kind of cool if you think about it literally, but sorry. Thanks for responding civilly. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I looked through some of your reviews on pee review, but there aren't that many available for quick convenience, so I can't with one hundred percent certainty say what's bad/good about your review style. (By my review style, I mean the style I would review articles with, although I'm afraid I lack suitable critical judgment so I don't do reviews.)
- On my article and the baby fetus shake one, you listed random as a criticism of humor.
- On a special note, those "random"s in such lovely colors are what really threw me into a fit, more than any thing else.
- I don't think any of the content in either of those two articles you reviewed was random at all. Good examples of random humor are Rogue Punchlines, or possibly Random Humor (There are innumerable amounts of terrible articles that employ random humor). Like on baby fetus shake article (which I though was a wonderful case of dark humor), the author mentioned environmentalists, and Al Gore is a famous environmentalist, so having a comment from him is appropriate. I'd like to hear your opinion about why you think these two articles are random, if you wouldn't mind.
- Moving on, I think good reviews are the ones that give very specific criticisms. Scores, I don't think, are helpful. I would add a bunch of comments at the end of the review that go into further detail and contain a few ideas on areas of improvement and how to possibly improve them. One Eyed Jack gave another article of mine a good pee review, so I'll list it as an example. Dr. Skullthumper and Under User give good reviews, too, I think.
- So in summary, look up the definition of random again, because yours is borked somehow, and go into greater detail in your reviews. The more detailed you are in your criticisms, the better you can help the author of an article.
- Right, well. They could've been any other names, but I chose ones that were a little clever. Names let me the two characters talk about their families, which led to a joke.
- Well, if you just want to know how good it is, without knowing where to improve it, then short and sweet will do you just fine.
- Though, just in case an author wants to know where to improve, I would still include detailed comments. A friendly piece of advice you're welcome to ignore, if you so choose. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, Farley, I hope you enjoy it! -- • <-> 00:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
edit Speaking of Nominated Articles...
edit A Favour is in Order
hey! It's Andy here. You know, the guy who thought your article was funny and put it up for VFH, and got it featured? Yep, just checking. Anyways, in my recent foray into the art of bullshit, I created a page about EA's Black (Video Game). It's a cracker of an article with some alright satire and lots of crazy words like "stupid" and "psychopath". I put it up for Pee Review, and as a last resort I'm asking whether you'd review it for me. It's not really that funny (I admit that compared to your masterpiece its crap) but that shouldn't make it any less of an enjoyable read. Pleeeeeeaase review it for me, if you can find the time? --Andy the Idiot 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ended up reviewing the UnNews story. I liked it, but it was by no means perfect. It was enjoyable, and that's what this website is all about, huh? It's not a freakin' competition. Also, you're American right? That's why you used "Favor" instead of "Favour" on my User Page. Well, it's not bad. I just don't think it looks right. Anyway, you're a nice contributor. I enjoy all the articles you do. --Andy the Idiot 02:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (Americans.)
Dunno what happenned. We kind of both reviewed each other's articles atthe same time. But YES, you Pee Review helped!! It was really interesting to see what people thought. But, about that plot thing you said? I can't because the game HAS no freakin' plot!! I should put that in somewhere too, but it could be very hard to poke around the corners of my concept. Its like drinking milk - very messy. Its a work in progress after all. Oh, and the Rabbis thing is taken from a Simpsons Comic where the rabbi says, "you shouldn't answer my question with a question." --Andy the Idiot 02:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
edit Thank you
Thank you for helping me get my first ever featured article!--Dr. Fenwick 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
edit Re:STOP! Just, Just...STOP!!
You are correct. "Necro"=Death. Also, "Pax"=Peace, and "X"=X. Cheers! • • • 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Why I said that, I'll never know.
edit Pee Review
Hey, thanks for the review, it was very helpful. In fact, have a thingy:
|Rejoice, Cajek! You have been entitled to the |
Golden Shower Award
|For donating high quality material to the Pee Review.|
I'm gonna start by fixing up the formatting, then move on to the tone and viewpoint. Cheers! -20:08, Oct 22
All right, all right, I was getting around to it, honest! Unfortunately, despite my best attempts to avoid one for at least, oooh, lots of years, I seem to have gained a life recently, which is getting in the way of spending all my time on here. It's annoying, and I'll have to do something about it.
Anyway, what I mean to say is: thanks for the review, all thoughts are welcome, particularly from a stellar new arrival like yourself. One comment: I know it's short. I'd hit a wall, that's why it was up there, really. Still, useful ideas and left me feeling positive enough to crack on and finish it some time soon. Ta very much - here, have cake (I'm not really a fan of those golden shower things).
- Man enough? Am I man enough to review one of your articles? Well I do plan to, as it happens, but... I try to do several reviews a week that are easy - as in "take a look at the article, suggestions on how to improve are obvious, review takes a few minutes, the queue is reduced". However your articles tend to fall into the hard but worthwhile category, which means "pretty damn good, I'm going to need to look at this closely and really think about giving helpful suggestions. I probably can't knock this off in a few minutes at lunchtime". I only do a couple of those a week, when I find time. I might find time tonight, we'll see!
- That's a compliment, by the way!
- Oh, and thanks for not taking offense at that comment about a life. Just re-read it and realised it could have sounded like an insult, if one were inclined to take it that way. Good job you're not so inclined, hey? And from my experience, having one seems to be over-rated. It just gives you less time for the important stuff, like playing games, listening to music, watching movies and making half-decent articles on an online comedy wiki. Ho hum! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rightyho, I've taken a further look at Object Permanence, and given some further feedback. Hope you find it helpful. Could you now return the favour and take a second look at HowTo:Fuck Off? I've set it free from my userspace and let it slip into the great wide waters of Uncyc. I expect it to be vandalised in a matter of minutes! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the further feedback. While I don't write just for VFH, I certainly wouldn't stop you putting it up! Now, how did you put it in your colourful idiom? W00t? (Weird, sounds like a word someone invented while playing Scraggle). Something like that, anyway... And good luck going for that feature hat-trick, although I think the Cancer article has a much better chance than Edit History. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)