User talk:Dbtng

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit In defence of HTBFANJS

I saw your post on Chiefs talk page and thought I should just say a couple of things. HTBFANJS is not a be all to end all in regards to comedic writing, but it is a good set of guidelines to work from when writing comedy, and especially when writing parody. When regular editors review an article they tend to look to this as a guideline upon which to base a critique, but that doesn't mean that an article that does not fit into the HTBFANJS guideline is bnot going to be funny. The unfortunate thing is that if it doesn't fit in within this guideline it is likely to be stupid.

I would suggest reading through this and using it to work out the best tools to adjust your own writing to get the best possible potential out of it. Some articles, such as Six Hats are based very strongly on the guidelines mentioned in here, however there are others such as Microsoft Knowledge Base that rely strongly on other forms of humour.

Good luck with editing spherical cows. There's a lot of promise there, and I think with a bit of guidance it will be a featurable article.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 03:27, 26/02/2010

Thanks, Puppy. I do appreciate the kind remark about my article.
I muted my criticism of HTBFANJS and other standards of it's type in my original comment. While I have no quarrel with the contents of HTBFANJS, it isn't the panacea it is viewed as. I do understand the value of a consistent presentation throughout the whole site, and I see how a single reference document is valuable in communicating that presentation style. Step back just a bit though, and realize that the moment you legislate what humor is and should be, you've effectively killed the joke. Furthermore, to simply refer someone to HTBFANJS without providing deeper insight is a casual dismissal and not true communication. I do not by any means feel that the reviewer used HTBFANJS as a crutch in this way, however I feel that it does happen.
Again, thanks for reading my article and providing feedback. --Dbtng
Fantastic. It looks like we're on the same wavelength. If and when I get the chance, I'll have a deeper look at your article and see if I can give you something a little more constructive from my end - although I have to confess I have so many irons in the fire it will probably take a while.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 04:19, 26/02/2010
Well, I would certainly appreciate it. I'm going to follow Chief's suggestion that I focus the Cows piece to just one main joke. I'll write a new version or two over this weekend, so maybe check back in a couple days. --Dbtng 05:43, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think HTBFANJS is the absolute guide to comedy, either. I don't know that anybody does. But I can't resist commenting on "the moment you legislate what humor is and should be, you've effectively killed the joke." Look at what I consider to be some of the comedic greats: The Marx Brothers, Abbot and Costello, Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Monty Python, Steve Martin. They worked under definite restrictions as to what they could and could not do. Some of the greatest comedy, like some of the greatest poetry, painting, music, etc., has come out of strict guidelines. In fact I just read an article recently that said some experts on comedy believe it's generally better when it has to follow restrictions. Pushing the edge is often much funnier and more creative than just drawing outside the lines. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:57, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

edit Random Pee Review

I Pee Reviewed User:Dbtng/Special:Random based on version 4412758 of 03:17, February 27, 2010. I hope this helps! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

edit IC

Hey. I'm in prcess of doing a review of spherical cows but I haven't finished yet. I'm thinking that you may benefit from getting involved in IC. As it's a communal work it means that you get more of an insight as to how others put together an article and build on it, and means you can start using that kind of technique for yourself. We've just started working on Batman. Have a chat to User:Why do I need to provide this? as he is the IC head honcho, although really if you just go to Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization you can just add yourself to the list and go from there.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 22:55, 2/03/2010

What Puppy said. Although I'll add that the list is for people who are applying--I do screen applicants' edits so I don't sign up some random vandal. But as the article you wrote that I Pee Reviewed showed that you're a random not-vandal, I imagine you'd get approved. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 00:02, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

edit Fedora (Linux distribution)

Thanks for bringing this up-to-date. We usually hate lists of puns (like Discographies) because overnight anonymous editors think they can add to them and expand them limitlessly. There is little chance that Anon will think he can add to this list. However, if you could convert the list to a funny paragraph and use the puns just as passing gags within it, that would be even better.

Incidentally, talk pages like this one are usually used for posts, even "diary" posts to yourself as you have on your user page. User pages are more often used to introduce yourself to other editors. However, it's up to you. Spıke Ѧ 15:33 8-Jun-13

Hehe. I'm not sure if I want to open up that can of worms. Re-write an entire section of an article about a Linux distro? I can see that getting sticky. Maybe I'll get into an edit war with some fanatic. Sounds like fun! Dbtng (talk)

That's always a risk on a wiki, though if you replaced a list with a funny paragraph, most other editors would support you. The History tab says the article in question has had no registered Uncyclopedian on it since the famous Todd Lyons in 2006, except LisaKachold lately, who only added to the list as you have. Seriously, a cheap pun for the last half dozen releases is no more clever than a punk-rock Discography. Do what you can. Spıke Ѧ 20:14 8-Jun-13

K. Yes, it does need an update. IRL only the last three Fedora releases are still supported. All the rest should be in the 'homies chillin in the dirt section'. I'll replace both sections. Just need to think of a good joke first ... Dbtng (talk)
I'm still a little short on good jokes, but I've adopted the article. Doing some pruning, trimming, trying to get at the core of the humor. That was barely even a joke. Maybe I should say something about root now too? I'm not funny today; not even nerd-funny. Whatever, I'll hack away at the piece until it's readable. Dbtng (talk) 22:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

<graphic removed to make my talk page more work-safe> Thanks. Humor is not a constant presence for many of us (especially after an hour of Admin chores). It will hit you when you are driving or in bed. Just remember to write it down when it hits you so you don't forget.

Would you please turn the illustration you added into a thumbnail? Study the coding now in this section to learn how. Separately, the long list of external links at Spherical Cows, to which you just added, makes me wonder if we are retelling someone else's joke (in which case it wouldn't belong on this website) or adding value of our own. It is famously not the business of the non-rent-paying tenants of this website to send readers away from it. Spıke Ѧ 17:23 9-Jun-13

Thumbnailed. Thx for the code. The spherical cow page is an adaptation of an accademic joke with a long history. You don't like those links, hmm? I do. Particularly the one I just added. Dbtng (talk) 17:47, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

No doubt. The links at Spherical Cows (corrected for clarity)Dbtng (talk) might be different aspects of this "academic joke." But the large list accumulating at Cat is largely YouTubes and what-not on the vague subject of cats in general, and I've blown away the lot; see above. By the way, sometimes when a humor strategy won't come to mind, it is easier to look at a photo and write a funny caption, and sometimes the latter may lead to the former. Spıke Ѧ 17:57 9-Jun-13

The spherical cow article actually resulted from knowing the joke and coming across Ingrid Kalik's wonderfull graphic, of a spherical cow jumping over the moon. I had no idea who she was, but I tracked her down and got her permission to use it. The whole idea of space cows begged to be written. I did it a couple years ago. Still found it funny when I came re-read it the other day, so started messing with Uncyclopedia again.
Dude, I didn't expect an edit to the Cats page to last. Only reason I did it was that I found the whole Cats Verification business extremely funny. I do that with my cat. Dbtng (talk) 18:51, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
I cut out a couple of those links on the spherical cow page. Yeah, I didn't need all of them, and some of them were bad.

Cheers, sensible editing is always welcomed. You do WHAT with your cat? Spıke Ѧ 20:43 9-Jun-13

Cat Verification: the act of informing a Cat that it is, indeed, a Cat. This is typically performed by kneeling down near a resting (and soon-to-be-perturbed) Cat, petting it and saying: "You're a kitty!" Yeah! I wish I came up with that. Dbtng (talk) 22:25, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I have ritual body language that informs the cat I am very comfortable standing next to it but am not to be rubbed on. Spıke Ѧ 01:40 10-Jun-13

Personal tools