From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I removed your picture from VFP, but it seemed you were interested in the feedback most. In order to make sure you saw/see all the comments, I'm reproducing it here. Cheers! KATIE!! 10:46, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- New, submitted for consideration by the artist. Herostratus 03:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) um, could I get a vote? I mean even an "Against" vote would be fine. Don't just ignore me here. (P.S. Turk 182... 1985 Timothy Hutton movie...) Herostratus
- For - "DAGREE - $12" Ha. Pretty funny. It's not laugh-out-loud hilarious, but it made me chuckle. --DrAwesome 18:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Doesn't do it for me. Acid Ammo 20:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Against --EvilZak 21:51, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Against 01:43, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Against good start but i dont think it works out of context. I sense something great in the future but --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM ::: 05:55, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Against Amusing but could be better. --—rc (t) 06:14, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- When significantly editing a page that has the NRV template on it (Arnold Palmer), it is generally a good idea to remove the template so that it doesn't accidentally get deleted. -- 16:24, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Right, thanks for taking the time to communicate with me.
- Well, basically, after I created the article, someone (rightly!) slapped a delete tag on it (it was my first article). Even though it was well justified, it was still a "red flag" to me, so I put another box (of my own devising) in protest; then I cleaned up the article somewhat and put another box indicating that. Then, being in box-making mode, I put another box warning about the content -- it being my vague intent, I guess, that eventually the article might consist entirely of warning boxes, which, I suppose, some might find of passing amusement, or not. Anyway, I figured that since I had removed the actual delete tag, and edited the box text (a copy I made, not the actual template) to refer in passing to the original poster's supposed confession to a prediliction for incestuous transvestism (wearing of the garments of close relatives of the opposite sex), which, I supposed (perhaps wrongly) some might find a jape of momentary worth, that the article would not be in danger of deleteion. So.
- So I myself am not inclined to change it. But if you want to delete the tag, all the tags, or the article itself, that would be of small loss, so as you will. Herostratus 13:37, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Almost invariably, message boxes detract from an article. You would do best to keep your focus on Arnold Palmer related humor and avoid things that you might consider funny ideas for things to do on a page. In fact, the whole funny things to do on a page thing really only works when it's done in the proper context. As another side note, avoid adding articles to categories that are completely irrelevant or creating new categories that only one or two articles will fit into.
- Always keep in mind that the heart of our intent is humor and satire, not just random content and nonsense. -- 14:47, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, thannk you for you kind consideration and reply and your improvements on the article in question. Yes I agree that the whole "boxes" thing was not really working. Oh well, it was my first article, live and learn. Yes, all your points are well taken, and I appreaciate the guidance. I would, though, and with greatest respect, beg your forebearance for not necessarily being in complete agreement with all your points, to wit:
- as for "...avoid[ing] adding articles to categories that are completely irrelevant or creating new categories that only one or two articles will fit into.", consider that categories are, after all, content as well as meta-content. That is, not being hidden from the consumer, they can perform the the dual roles of (1) taxonomical classification AND (2) causing the consumer to erupt in a sudden burst of laughter -- occasioned, perhaps, by the very juxtaposition of an article with a actagory for which it seems absurdly unfitted. And, after all, taxonomy is less critical here, because relatively few viewers are using this as a source for serious investigation of a subject. I hope. Does any of that make sense?
- Besides which, sheesh, there are tons of categories... OK, looking in Category:People I get "Category:People who need people" with seven apparently randomly-assigned articles, "Category:People with sqare feet" (2 articles); the category "People who want to destroy all things" includes the article on the Keebler elves -- hardly an accurate (or fair) classification for a group of harmless animated bakers, n'est-ce pas? And so forth. And yet, although I would be at a loss if asked to explain exactly why, I do find this personally amusing. So maby it's a matter of taste.
- As for not creating tiny exclusive categories -- I'm sure that you didn't realize that there are four articles properly attached to the category "People who are not Kurt Gödel", with doubtless more to come, plus four articles in the closely related category of theories either by Kurt Gödel or people who are not Kurt Gödel, and not of course counting the article on Kurt Gödel hemself, and all connected by sometimes non-obvious internal referants. Since so many variations of the common German name "Kurt Gödel" are extant, it makes sense (to me) to have a category that would allow (1) a serious researcher (in the unlikely event that any come here) to sort all that out, or (2) the humor consumer, if inclined (perhaps by some earlier academic trauma?) to find entertainment in japes aimed at logicians and philosophers of mathematics, to easily access material related to his or her (perhaps perverse, but who are we to judge?) appetites. So I'm restoring the category, as I'm sure you'll agree is proper now that I've explained the situation.
- As I'm sure you'll agree, the House of Fun has many mansions. Satire, while extremely fine when done well, can be dry if overcooked (so to speak) and tedious if taken in large doses. As for your implications that my articles are "random content and nonsense" as opposed to "humor": you wound me, sir. You wound me. In defence, I can only note that I simply don't agree. But also... Good Lord, man, take a look at this site... OK a random walk takes me seven articles to get to one clearly better than mine: Cary Sherman, Massassi, Too Weird, Arrr, Georgi Markov, Ski-jumping, Dispensationalism. The later is awsome; the others have something good, something not-so-good about them, but they sure don't make me say "why do I even try?". So why are you picking on me?
- Your most obed't and humble servant, Herostratus 19:50, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- That the categories are currently a complete pile of crap is not a good enough reason for continuing the trend; someday a great person will come along and fix them (at least that's how my fantasy world works). For now, I intend to execute damage control as I get motivated to action. As for the people who are not Kurt Godel bit, it helped that I got annoyed at it being a subcategory of Arnold Palmer (or something like that); I probably would have left it alone if I wasn't already in the process of cleaning up Arnold Palmer. As for the related theorems, they were in a category that was named something or other who who something or other (double who and really long); you might consider putting them in Category:Logic instead. For that matter, in general, try to find an existing category that would work before creating a new one. Beyond all that, you're doing a fine job, and everyone always gets off to a bumpy start; I used to get "talked to" a whole lot worse than this. Oh, and don't act all subserviant and stuff, I don't deserve it.
- Oh, and I wasn't trying to say your article was random nonsense, just that it had a few elements of such; that was mostly a generic statement meant to try to disuade you from turning towards the random content dark side, so to speak. As for the random crap that we already have, if you look at how I vote on VFH, VFD and such, you'll quickly pick up that I'm substantially more opposed to a lot of that stuff than some of the other admins and people. -- 20:23, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we need a superego here, I'm sure! OK, all your other comments, thanks, noted, I appreciate it all, seriously, thanks for taking the time to help me learn, even though we may lock horns in the future, being perhaps of different personalities, but I will always take what you say into serious consideration. OK and for being less humble, it's hard to change a lifetime of habit, but I'll try. Here goes:
Yr humble and obedient sev't who has secretly been spitting in your coffee these twenty years, Herostratus 16:54, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC) (j/k of course) :)
I think you're starting to go a little to far with this Kurt Godel thing. It may just be me, but I don't see as there being a significant gain in humor from having so many different, yet similar, articles. I suggest trying to figure out a way to condense it down to one or two articles from the current five or so. -- 20:33, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm, you may be right. Not sure; tell you what, I'm gonna take a break for a few days anyway, and I'll mull it over... Herostratus 20:40, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- No, I understand. On the other hand, if it's confusing enough, that could be funny. Maybe. Or mildly amusing. Anyway, right, it's not terrible so it can sit for a while, after which I may (or may not) consolidate. Herostratus 21:16, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
edit Kurt Godel