User talk:Reallybloodymental

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 15:46, June 10, 2013 by Reallybloodymental (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

My Frikkin Contribs:

edit My favourite articles

edit You're a Sexy Noob, Well done and Well-cum!

Hello, Reallybloodymental, and thanks for joining Uncyclopedia! Before editing further, please take a gander at our Beginner's Guide. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, check out the following pages:

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, feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the community forum or in the chatroom, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, our Adopt-a-Noob program can bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian!  ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 08:33, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

edit Protip

You may want to take a look at some of these to help you get an idea of what your articles should look like. Your articles lack in descent wiki markup and solid chunks of funny text. So I suggest you look over some of them, so you can use it, so your articles look well formatted. Happy editing :) ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:27, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

--Reallybloodymental (talk) 10:32, October 20, 2012 (UTC) What you've said is confusing to me. My formatting is bad, ok, but what has a lack of solid chunks of funny text got to do with formatting? Listen, I am happy with my sense of humor, and if it is bad then I will leave. That has nothing to do with formatting.

Taking a look at What came first - the chicken or the egg?, I see a lot of listiness. Lists are generally considered to be bad even if they are funny because they don't look attractive this has nothing to do with your humor. Having chunks of funny text with images is the way to go, not lists, short sections and images. I also think you need to add interwiki links to your articles more. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 10:36, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

--Reallybloodymental (talk) 10:40, October 20, 2012 (UTC) Ah ok, thanks I understand now. I will think about it and make a decision, then. I get butthurt. lols, I could storm out any minute.

edit Mensa

Your criticism on VFH was not really that the article wasn't feature-worthy but that it wasn't the article you would have written. As your contributions clearly tug the article in a radically different direction (performance art versus my dry encyclopedia entry), I wish you would create a separate article. (We already have the very different Mensa entrance test, as we have multiple articles on global warming, President Obama, and President Bush, and we have no requirement that there be any consistency between them, either on content or on tone.) Spıke ¬ 23:19 9-Nov-12

PS--I have reverted you, so that the VFH vote can proceed on the version submitted to a vote. As I mention in the change history, your new text is still freely available by selecting your last edit with the History tab. It is clearly good enough for mainspace in some form, and could be voted on for VFH in its own right. It simply makes no sense to try to merge it with the other stuff. Spıke ¬ 23:28 9-Nov-12

PPS--Your vote for my article would still be welcome and will not keep your version from eventually existing in parallel. As for your assertion that "nothing stands out": Fat women in Spandex doesn't??? Spıke ¬ 23:32 9-Nov-12

Well as a concept it doesn't stand out. I mean the concepts in your writing are fine, but perhaps too smooth for me.
That's my problem, I can be a bit hit and miss.
You're right; it's mainly because I would have written it differently. Therefore from now on, whenever I encounter an article that is good and amusing but with things missing that I would prefer, I'll abstain. --Reallybloodymental (talk) 21:33, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for flipping your vote. Now do please develop what you wrote. Spıke ¬ 21:45 10-Nov-12

edit Did You Know?

As I tried to explain by reworking the Intro, when you submit items to a department where different winners are picked out of a hat for display each time the main page is generated, then when you add dozens of items to a thousand-item list, and when many of them practice the alleged humor of repetition, no one will ever know.

Separately (as the Abuse Filter just got done telling you), we are for your original comedy writing, not links to a YouTube video you found amusing. So, no, this page didn't need the link. Sorry. Please write funny stuff! Spıke ¬ 16:49 9-Jun-13

I've written some new ones. I hope they are better.
But I don't understand what you mean by "no one will ever know." I feel like you're deliberately not explaining this to me.
However, perhaps there is one meaning I can take from this: The more people repetitively post lists of likewise jokes, the more likely it is that that repetitive trait will appear in the archive, thus that increases the probability of jokes being randomly selected yet still appearing to be similar.
This is how I would have explained it. Do I take things literally so I have to word things in this way? I'm not sure. --Reallybloodymental (talk) 08:42, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'll try again. When you are "on a roll" and you type the following into Uncyclopedia:DYK submissions:

  • ... that (this is part of a mystery write this down series?) Ur mamma, ... dats WHO. You get ur black ass ova here now!
  • ... that (this is part of a mystery write this down series?) Ur mamma who?
  • ... that (this is part of a mystery write this down series?) Ur mamma.

--that you are submitting lines for a feature in which which some entries are displayed at random, and the humor that consists of reading your entries in sequence is guaranteed to be lost. If it was part of your submission that Admins had to ensure that certain of your entries were displayed in the sequence in which you typed them, then you made a submission that demands that the nature of the DYK feature change to fit you. Your feeling that I am deliberately trying to be obtuse, is gratuitous drama. Spıke ¬ 11:20 10-Jun-13


You've probably got a fair bit of mod work to do, so you didn't have the time to understand what the lines I submitted were all about. I called it a "mystery write this down series" because it would be just that - a mystery. If the lines could appear at any time randomly, then the only way to find the sequence would be to either a). be boring and search the archive or b). write them down each time you come across one in the same series.

Honestly, I admit that I am guilty of drama from time to time, however that's only because 1). I take things seriously sometimes and 2.) I like being silly sometimes. The worst of both worlds, I suppose.

Anyway, I can honestly say that I take things literally. I really do, it happens often. I was not trying to be dramatic.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. --Reallybloodymental (talk) 15:46, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects