User talk:Mrpastry909

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome!

Hello, Mrpastry909, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for nooblets:

If you read anything at all, make it the above two links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (Button sig) above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply put {{adoptme}} on your Userpage to join. Again, welcome!  --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 00:09, October 10, 2007

edit Communication

E-mail is generally not the correct way to have correspondences for Uncyclopedia matters. Please do not post your e-mail address on Uncyclopedia. I have responded to your comments on my talk page as is common practice for discussion begun there. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

edit I couldn't help but notice your talkpage comment

Don't worry about copyright; everything here is protected by fair use because it's being used for parody. Go to Google images search and take a look. Good luck!  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 03:59 Aug 13, 2008

edit Responses

Mrpastry909, I have responded to your questions on my talk page (as is customary). That said, I would like to give you the same advice that I give all new users. A lot of new users come to Uncyclopedia and dive in head first, which is great, but can sometimes lead to problems, especially if you're new to wikis in general. I highly recommend hanging out for a bit, reading articles and editing existing articles before you try to write one of your own. Good places to learn about Uncyclopedia and wikis in general are our beginner's guide and Wikipedia's introductory pages; they should be considered essential reading before using Uncyclopedia. After you've got a sense of how to use wikis and what our policies are, you should try hanging out in our forums and our chatroom; get the hang of us and then dive into article writing. I recommend all this because lots of new users start out, write something, find that it's been deleted for some reason or other, proceed to get frustrated and storm off unhappily. We very much want you here and if you know how we work, you won't find yourself dealing with frustrating problems. Good luck. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

edit Your review request

Just so you know, generally you create an article, then link the review request to it, you don't put the article text in the review page. I've created a page for you in userspace here and put the content in. To upload pictures, use the "Upload image/file" link on the left menu there, then put it in using the [[Image:Name.jpg|align|size|thumb|caption]] format, like so:
UUspark

Hi, this is me!

As to your story, well, it doesn't seem very funny at the moment, more a true-life story about someone going through quite a tough time - I'd suggest having another look at HTBFANJS and playing around with the story a while, then going back for a proper review - I've deleted the request for now, but you can easily request a proper one now you have an article to link to. Good luck! --UU - natter UU Manhole 15:27, May 9

edit Wand of Gamelon

Welcome back! and thank you for making a vast improvement on Section 5. Now, this section (which begins, "The story begins with...") doesn't sit well with Section 2, which begins "The game opens with...") The thing to do now is to take control of the whole article and make it flow better from start to end. Cheers! Spıke ¬ 08:18 22-Aug-13

On today's edits:

  • Most articles use {{Q}} rather than {{Nicequote}} at the start. Be sure the quotations are relevant and funny; otherwise the article is no worse starting without them.
  • The first section is essentially an Intro and doesn't need a ==Header==.
  • "Fuck it" pretty quickly spoils the "encyclopedia article" veneer and doesn't have any comparable benefit except the fun of swearing at random readers. (I know the prior text had this problem too.)
  • Please don't code more than one blank line between sections. There is no reason your page's sections should be separated by more white space than those of every other article in the encyclopedia.

Thanks! Spıke ¬ 20:22 22-Aug-13

PS--You say in your Change Summary, "I'm not too familiar with the text coding...." I'll give specific advice if you add questions to the end of this page. Trial-and-error works fine too, as does calling up another page and imitating it, but please press Preview to see how it looks; don't press Save at the end of each little experiment; only when you reach a major stopping point! Spıke ¬ 23:25 22-Aug-13

If you must keep replying in Change Summaries rather than here ("I don't know, I still think tons of swearing and LOTS OF SPAGHETTTTTTTI WEEGEE would be a bit funnier"), the problem is not that it isn't funny (though it is funnier to you than to the average reader; the problem is that it keeps the page from looking like an encyclopedia article, which is the framing joke inside which we write our jokes. Spıke ¬ 12:56 23-Aug-13

edit Faces of Evil

Keep going with this! But--

  • Go easy on the templates, because templates suck. Be sure that the very start of the article is both encyclopedic and enticing to make the reader decide to jump in.
  • Go easy on the quotes. "Interviewing" people and writing about current events and twists and turns of policy doesn't look encyclopedic--but it does look like a news article--for which we have the UnNews service. You might want to write an UnNews, not instead of this but in addition to it, especially if it is based on something that actually happened in the real world.

I have given you Autopatrolled rights. This won't change anything on your end, but it will keep your edits from being flagged as possible vandalism for review by our Patrollers. Good writing! Spıke ¬ 20:39 3-Sep-13

Hey, forgive me if this isn't the best way to contact you. You said that templates suck? What do you mean by templates? Let me know so I can continue to improve Faces of Evil, and let me know what you think of the jokes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrpastry909 (talk • contribs)

A template is anything coded like {{this}}. The one I am talking about is the reference to YouTube Poop at the start of your article. Wikipedia articles sometimes have these labels, when some nag decides that the article needs work and someone else ought to be the one to do it. As we are a fake Wikipedia, that is how they got started here. Garish templates that tell the reader how to interpret an article that he hasn't even started reading are just insulting--they amuse the writer and don't amuse the reader.

See the Welcome message above for advice on how to sign your posts. In addition, please type one or more : characters at the start of the post to set it apart from posts from other people. I personally prefer that both ends of the conversation be on the same page. None of the Power Users who gave you grief above are here anymore, and the current management will be happy to give you grief in entirely new ways. And when your article is complete, use Pee Review to ask another Uncyclopedian to give you a piece of his mind about it. Cheers! Spıke ¬ 20:59 3-Sep-13

edit Sir Swagsalot

I might be wrong, heck, I'm usually wrong, but all I was thinking while reading your pee review, was "cool it." I expected constructive criticism for that and I only got some in the second paragraph. Next matter, for the "fag" portion, I'm sure that it was obvious enough that I didn't intend for it to be right down to the fucking sentence. I included that swagfag shit and you didn't say anything about that. The fact that I used "fag" shouldn't be a problem.

I'll rewrite the article when I have time. --Tyrone McGee (talk) 02:03, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

The tone of Mr. Pastry's review is offputting, rather than constructive (so is your "right down to the fucking sentence" retort, so you might "cool it" too). Several of the points he made are valid.
  • I mentioned to you a long time ago that no one is likely to look up "Sir Swagsalot" in our encyclopedia. You don't so much "need to have some realism in your article" as much as have some connection to reality. The key to humor in a fake encyclopedia is not to go off at random but to provide a cracked interpretation of something in the real world. If you are writing about the Crusades, what you write should have something to do with the Crusades. That still gives you a lot of freedom to wisecrack.
  • Mr. Pastry is correct that toilet humor (if done with no basis to the real world) is usually not funny enough for here. For example, the rock-star "Discographies" where someone takes record tracks and changes one word to become a toilet pun are generally going away. The fact that you used "fag" indeed is not a problem. A case where you used "fag" and expected it to be funny with no work on your part, is a problem.
  • It would be a problem if "Sir Fagsalot" were an attempt to inject humor from the 1950s (the slang for cigarette is still used today) in an article about a medieval knight. Likewise if you were to describe events in the year 9000, or 9,000,000, or if a character uses language that simply doesn't fit the era. Nonsense that is clearly out of context harms your article's credibility. But in fact, "Sir Fagsalot" is probably just another toilet joke.
I'm pleased you do intend to take this article further; please take the review points to heart and ignore their tone. Spıke ¬ 02:36 6-Sep-13

edit King Harkinian

Thank you for the quoticide; you are doing the Lord's work.

Newbie John0701IsBack2 has begun King John Harkinian. I have complained to him that the name John is not how Wikipedia says the character is known, thus his page is unlikely to be tripped over; also that this page already exists, and he should give it up and come work here. Also, cheers for deleting {{Nowikipedia}}, as Wikipedia does have a page by that name, albeit only a redirect. Spıke ¬ 21:24,21:25 13-Sep-13

Personal tools
projects