User talk:Lucifuge Rofacale
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Prior conversations are at User talk:Un-Lucifuge Rofacale.
edit Great Move
Well, you did not get your stuff in order before the Great Move, so your former account here has been renamed Un-Lucifuge Rofacale, along with all your previous conversations and contributions, and I really don't know how you got back in. If you are the same person as before, please try to re-merge them. 14:07 28-Jul-15
- No, I don't get it either. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 14:56, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
With apologies, I asked UnNews Senior Editor EStop to transform this UnNews so that it looks like comedy first, and personal ideological rant a distant second, and he has done so. 21:53 22-Sep-15
- Sorry, I didn't realise that any of it looked like an ideological rant. On the whole, I thought it was rather funny. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 00:19, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
That's the way it struck me at first. But he adds texture to any UnNews he touches.00:39 23-Sep-15
Yes, you did. I don't think my UnNews:Kudlow again teases Senate bid is better, but enjoyed putting yours side-by-side with the other UnNews about conditions in Heaven. 00:48 23-Sep-15
- Hi, sorry about my tardiness! Thought your article was very funny indeed, it reminded me of a Private Eye piece! I picked up the comment about not finding a picture so made one for you, because I really wanted a side-by-side with mine (from that point I was committed!). Not knowing Sewell was a cantankerous old sod may give the impression of a negative editor, but I saw where you were coming from especially after a bit of reading up. I just pulled it towards more of a news story by placing your dialogue within a frame of his first day's employment in Heaven, and shuffled the paragraphs to make the storytelling more linear. As for material, all the jokes and great lines of yours remain pretty-much intact, it is your article so I wanted to be sympathetic with the editing. I do hope you like my treatment too. I probably went to town a bit too much, but editing this was such fun, because it was an education and made me laugh out loud several times! 09:03 23-09-2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping all of the jokes and lines I inserted and inserting many of your own which made me laugh and caused me to feel slightly jealous for not having thought of them myself! You did a fine job and I love the picture; Sewell would laugh his head off. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 14:53, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I did not know about the "cantankerous" bit and may have mistaken in-the-style-of-the-subject humor for rant. Glad the collaboration worked out so well. I've given the pair top spot, over my article on Kudlow, which had jumped the shark, not unlike Kudlow himself.15:21 23-Sep-15
No, and no. This is a Featured Article (voted to the main page). These are "presumed not to need new help being funny." They can be brought up-to-date (preferably coordinating with an Admin, who might misunderstand) but adding "bickering quotations" is an attempt to install new and different humor.
And bad humor. As I tried to clarify in my Edit Summary, and you can read in detail at UNQUOTE, the function of initial quotations in any article--if you really must--is to induce the reader to continue, not to get the first word in. Comic-book quotations that go back and forth don't do the job. Quotations of the subject to convince the reader what a fool he is are advocacy, not comedy at all. 16:16 13-Oct-15
- Alright, you're the expert but personally I really liked that Oscar Wilde quote. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 13:52, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is a good quote is not the point. When you get Featured Articles and some other guy decides they would be better with a Wildeism, we will act comparably to protect your work.
On your edit today: There was indeed one extraneous word in the Intro and I have deleted it. Your revert, on the other hand, among other things reinserted a complete duplicate of a sentence.17:10 16-Oct-15
I reverted you here too, and begged via the Edit Summary for you not to just point out that he would be the first male First Lady but develop the idea. A proposed daily schedule full of feminine activities for Bill if Hillary makes it? Would it be lesbian if the First Lady groped dignitaries' wives?16:26 13-Oct-15
- Haha. Thanks for the suggestions Spike. I'll think of something along those lines.
New user Flameoguy has just stated on the talk page that this article sucks, and I agree: It is nothing but bickering quotations by a series of Anons who don't know anything about formatting, and as unfunny as our "video game" series. You are the editor to redo it entirely based on a shallow and deep analysis of the real thing. 23:43 17-Dec-15
- Wow! I'm deeply honoured. Thank you. I'm afraid I've not read The Communist Manifesto but I'd be happy to work on the article. So far it's got potential, I like the idea but it's rather lazily and sloppily done. I'll see what I can do. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 21:36, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
- As someone familiar with the Manifesto, all I can say is that it actually stands more as a piece of propaganda and less of a deep analysis of much or proponent of much. Perhaps this can be played upon with over-simplified understandings of complex subjects (a common critique of leftist thinking after all). Also it was famously written by two authors (Marx and Engels), a play on schizophrenic writing could be used. Finally the link to modern influences of the Manifesto has been overplayed by satirists, hecklers and the like, with it usually claimed to have been used as the basis of Stalin's dystopia, Corbyn's philosophy, or anyone remotely left's philosophy, so perhaps suggest how the Manifesto came to influence some unlikely to be influenced by it (Kanye West's presidential campaign leaflet?). Just ideas, have a play. SirScottPat VFH NotM WotM WotY UotM 21:58, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
ScottPat, my invitation to Lucifuge is not to exclude you, as you have done fine work documenting Comma-nism, Capital-ism, and I think Full-stop-ism. If you are back for the holidays, you might have a running start!22:28 21-Dec-15
- I've given Lucifage something to work with. SirScottPat VFH NotM WotM WotY UotM 22:49, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
Good clean-up here; the remaining quotations tell a good joke. However, John Galt did not need a new quotation that tells the last word, first; what it needs is a grammar clean-up. Cheers! 16:04 25-Apr-16
Above and beyond my previous comments (in your archive and at Talk:Salon.com), the article is now getting too listy. You are entitled to your outlook on Salon, and I mostly agree with it; but it is a tenet of Uncyclopedia that lists of one-line entries, which are expected to be funny merely by stating them and without an explanation, are not original comedy writing (see UN:LIST). So, in the article, the section Editors and columnists uses a list to make the single point, over and over, that Salon editors are notorious left-wingers, a point already made with creativity in the Intro; and half of it is totally cryptic except to fellow readers of Rand who retained any of it. What To Read Award Winners likewise lists titles of notorious books by authoritarians and tyrants to make the same single point, over and over. And Typical Salon topics, and especially its preface, more or less that "In half of these I am not writing original comedy at all but quoting Salon so that you will agree with me that they look like fools" needs major rework. That is, the whole article needs more cleverness and less to give the impression that it is a list of examples that deserve derision when you can't be bothered to add cleverness to it. Write some clever text to make these slices of cheese a real sandwich! 17:39 15-May-16
- I don't come on here often, it's more of an entertaining hobby than a main project and I am trying to think of additional segments to add to the Salon.com article besides just the list. In the meantime, whenever I think of a funny thing to add to any of the lists I do so although I have massively downsized the lists as you may have noticed. I might do a satire of how their articles tend to be written. Ironically enough, most of their articles just consist of bullet-point lists so maybe we could include some self-referential humour in the article! --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 17:43, June 1, 2016 (UTC)