User talk:LuMontyZ

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Archive

edit Testing

Testing...switches, lights, funny levers. All systems go. Now to edit the Fire Emblem Abridged page.

edit User:LuMontyZ/Fire Emblem: Abridged

The missing conversation is being moved to archive, per Romartus' suggestion. It can be viewed here: User talk:LuMontyZ/Archive 1

All of this is rather moot now and I'd like it removed. Evidently my own removal was reverted. Seeing as how the article is completely different, free of vulgarity, has only one or two sex jokes that are actually game material, and how most of the material is inoffensive at worst, I'll have to ask around to see how I can have this removed. Until then, this "thinking out loud" will be here for anyone who sees it and can help. The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuMontyZ (talk • contribs)

It was I who reviewed the long-ago version of your article, and Admin Romartus who undid your deletion of the transcript. Although you agreed to archive it instead, I can see no record that you succeeded in creating an archive, and the link to it above appeared in red, so I created an archive for you myself. Preserving the transcript of discussions is our way of doing business. If you mean the past conversation when you say, "I'd like it removed," we don't do so. We all have on display the wrong way we used to do stuff before we learned the right way, also the welts on our respective knuckles by which we learned the difference. It strikes me that you have corrected the faults the reviewers saw in an old version (sex jokes are inoffensive, provided they are actually jokes!) and you are blameless. Spıke Ѧ 19:22 16-Jan-14

Ah, my mistake. I thought I succeeded with the archive (it's under my user page) but if you've created one for me, all is well otherwise. Being able to review past material is important to me as well so I'm glad that's how things go around here. I should have said moved instead; no harm done. As for the article, I needed a break from it and some other stuff (ironically, this includes why RS wrote it in the first place) and my free time doesn't hurt. Thanks again for your help, past reviews and this. --Lu 19:27, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Now looking at the article itself (maybe someone will do the formal Pee Review you requested): Its tone has indeed gotten more serious. But it still starts out too slow. Your Intro is your one big chance to suck the reader into reading the whole thing, and you spend too much time describing how the article is structured and why. (Moreover, even your statement that the discussion is limited to 4 and 6-13 doesn't seem to be true.) Parts of it are written as a recommendation, and an "encyclopedia article" should be descriptive. That doesn't mean your own opinions won't flood in, through the descriptions you elect to write. But there should be a minimum of digressions about what "most people say" or insistences that "it's true that." (We say more about writing simply and straightforwardly at Choice of Words.) All in all, however, these are mere quibbles compared to where the article was two years ago. Cheers! Spıke Ѧ 19:30 16-Jan-14

Why thank you! The mistake in numbering is already corrected and the intro is a work in progress. I've already devised a potential way to work around the "most people say" deal, as that was bothering me as well. I'll also check out your linked article. --Lu 19:33, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

I now see the archive you created — dated within 3 minutes of the one I created, so you might have created it in a tab and not yet saved it, or I may have missed it. At any rate, the archive I created for you archives everything that was on this page, not just the stuff that relates to the article, which is the way we do it, so I kept mine and deleted yours.
You are welcome to use the Move button at the top of the page to move it from your userspace back to your mainspace; or if you think there is a chance of being accused of countering a vote of VFD, say when and I'll do it.
PS--Your signature isn't good, as it gives the reader no way of seeing your exact user name, or better yet, linking to your user/talk pages. If you want to customize your signature, please do it as we set out in UN:SIG. Spıke Ѧ 19:40 16-Jan-14
Sorry LuMontyz, I should have archived that talk page and shown you where it was. It it only took me a year to learn how to do it properly but then I am a slow learner. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:04, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
Haha don't worry Romartus. Everything turned out well. --LuMontyZ (talk) 21:37, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

edit User:LuMontyZ/sig

Yikes! I can only assume you pressed the button in UN:SIG while not logged in! The sig file looks fine--but your IP address doesn't need a signature! I have moved this to the name shown above, which is surely what you are going to type into My preferences. Spıke Ѧ 22:42 16-Jan-14

Thanks so much, Spike! As soon as I did it I realized I had been logged out from my break between edits. --LuMontyZ (talk) 02:09, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools