User talk:Schamschi

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Welcome


Terumvra greets you and bids you welcome to Uncyclopedia.

Greetings and well met, Schamschi. Thank you for creating an account and giving me this wonderful opportunity to go through your refrigerator in search of quality mustard. Er, that is... I mean to say, welcome. Hopefully, you shall soon proceed to contribute good stuffs to this... er, place, but in the meantime, feel free to poke around. I do hope you like it here and choose to stick around.

Now that you are here, these tend to be of use for folks like you:

These may also be of use:

Please remember to 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 and will help you avoid annoying some people needlessly.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but it certainly is a fun and easy way to express your creativity. To write an article, it's recommended that you start it in your userspace (for example, User:Schamschi/Article regarding stuff) so you may edit it at your leisure. If you decide to create it in the cold world of mainspace, make sure it is in accordance with the policies laid out above, and if you're not done slap a construction template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.

There are plenty of other things to do, of course. Often articles will require proofreading, among other fix ups, and for the more artistic of folks, there's the option of aiding articles that need more images and making them prettier, for instance.

If you need help or have questions, you may of course feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, ask on IRC, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is here to bring experienced editors straight to you. If you would like, I would be more than willing to adopt you, or you may leave a message on any other adopter's talkpage to join.

Again, welcome.  ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101122 - 04:44 (UTC)

edit Hello, and you've found your way here without a map!

Hi, and good to meet you. That Brahms page was quite a project, nice work. I haven't read every word but will get to it at some point. That random guy at the goat article left you a post which you may have missed, so I'll post it here. Pages like that are kind of a blight here, but, as we are a wiki, there is little to do about such articles on the site except for VFD (maybe you can nominate it there). And more pages like Brahms and you'll be getting your own features soon. Giraffe Neck 10:47, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Here is the note Aliestar left for you on the VFH nomination page:
To Schmaschi: Obviously, you've never locked horns with a goat!!! You've never LIVED man! How could you understand the drivel in the article when your brain has never seeped into your eyes and you wiped it away with a SMILE because you knew it was the perfect moment, the only one you may ever have? Can you begin to comprehend what it is to have to live with boredom every second of every day, like I do? To have only one memory to cling to as maybe once a week Susan or whatever her name is feeds you corn and rubs on your elbow again? If not, I am not surprised this article means nothing to you. I pray that someday you will have your goat to cling to as well, kind sir. Until that day arrives in your pale, nongoated, life, and you clambor here to vote Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! only to find that the page has long-ago failed and been archived, I bid you adieu, and peace be upon your very steps until your moment of bliss. Aleister 20:03 27 12
@Aleister/Giraffe Neck: Thank you for your kind words about the Brahms page (although I'm not quite sure if this was supposed to be a joke or not). And no, I won't put up your page for VFD (which, probably, was a joke) because, apparently, some people like it. I was just stating my opinion that I don't think it should be featured (which was not a joke). And thank you, but I haven't missed your changes to your comment on the VFH page... Schamschi
Ah, one of the most certain ways to tell that you really are an Uncyclopedian: Encountering an Aleister on your talkpage, being, well, Aleister. Welcome again, Schamaschi, and may your presence always be heralded with oddities. Also, it is good to see folks voting because they actually thought about it and feel that way, as opposed to just bandwagoning or whatnot, even if I do happen to disagree with said votes. Do keep it up. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 15:21, 28 December 2010

Yes, of course I meant it about your Brahms page. Lots of work has gone into it. So much work that I haven't read it all yet, but can see that you know how to write, analyze, and need some work on your funny. I like your VFH comments, honest and not afraid to pull any punches (although you are often wrong and are swinging at the shadow while the guy is eating a sandwich). It's good to meet you too, welcome. Aleister 18:59 29 12

edit Globular

Your userpage is very beautiful. --Black Flamingo 21:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm glad you like it, because I worked long and hard on it. Schamschi

edit Hi there

I see you've read Magic's review of me and Shabidoo's article, Stupid Cats. --Purple mini lolly Lollipop Purple mini lolly - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 01:00, 15 May 2011

Indeed, I have. Also, the fact that you commented about it on my talk page makes me want to read the article itself. At first glance, it seems kind of stupid. Schamschi, 01:06, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
I like helping out new users. It was nommed for VFH, but it didn't make it. --Purple mini lolly Lollipop Purple mini lolly - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 01:09, 15 May 2011
Ah, I somehow missed that. Well, that's not saying much since I'm not a terribly active user, but I'm still watching what's going on on VFH even if I am too lazy to read all the articles. From the current ones, I read Stratego, Everybody Loves Raymond, Why?:Does Mads Mikkelsen not speak one line of dialogue in Valhalla Rising?, HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first, UnPoetia:Why, oh why, Mister Cat!, and I finally got around to reading Mailing it in to see if really was that good, but yeah... My Uncyclopedia membership has yet to turn into a passion. Still, happy to explore the place and talk to other users. Ah yes, and the thing about the article looking stupid was just a joke (because of the article's title). Not that it is not stupid (I haven't read it yet)... Schamschi, 01:30, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
Well read it. ;) --Purple mini lolly Lollipop Purple mini lolly - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 01:46, 15 May 2011
Btw, speaking of reading articles, I've yesterday discovered UnBooks:The Frogs. Do you know that one? If not, I can recommend it. It is very long, but I think also quite good, although probably not what you would usually expect from an Uncyclopedia article, which is probably why it wasn't more popular in VFH and the Top 10 voting of that month. I think I'll drop a note on the article's talk page commending the author. And now I'm going to sleep, so don't expect me to have read Stupid Cats before tomorrow... Schamschi, 01:57, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

edit Doping in sports

Thanks for the help with proofreading it! It is very appreciated my friend. I am French so occasionally mistakes slip by! :) Snowflake mini Mattsnow 21:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just working through June's featured articles because of the top 10 voting (it's the first time I participate in a monthly or yearly top 10 voting). It was now the second time that I read your article and I still cracked up at a few passages (for instance at the picture with the guy who is said to have been training for only 4 days). Looking at my current notes, it looks like this article will almost certainly have a place in my 10 ten votes! Schamschi, 21:17, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Great to see somebody who takes his time to weigh his votes! Are you working on something at present? I see your name around, but I don't think I've read one of your articles. Cheers! Snowflake mini Mattsnow 16:02, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you take "at present" to mean "every once in a while, when I'm in the mood", yes, I am working on an article. In fact, it is already in main space. It's the article Johannes Brahms. I didn't start it from scratch and tried to incorporate as much of what was already there in addition to adding my own stuff, because I thought there was some pretty funny stuff in there before. It's also my only article, if you don't count HowTo:Travel to and Through the Southern United States, which I've contributed to in some ways (mainly formatting and spellchecking — the article had looked horrible before, but I liked it, so I kind of semi-adopted it —, but I also wrote or edited one or the other section and made some other minor, but not completely insignificant modifications (hope Angryfaic, the author, agreed with them...)). If it weren't so bloated in some places, I would nominate in on VFH, but somehow, I've lost my motivation about it. And I won't lie, I intend to nominate Johannes Brahms too in the end, but there are still some modifications that need to be done, for instance, the last section has to go because it doesn't fit in with the rest of the article. Also, when I recently looked at it, I was displeased to see that the article Jasper from The Simpsons had been deleted by Dr. Skullthumper, thereby fucking up the Whoops in the Brahms article (if you don't get the joke: Brahms was well known for his mighty beard, and the article makes some jokes about it, and Jasper Beardly, the character from The Simpsons, has a pretty impressive beard too, as his name already suggests), although I admit that the article "Jasper from The Simpsons" was pretty bad. Luckily, I discovered that the problem can be easily remedied by linking the Whoops to The Simpsons#Jasper, which I intend to do the next time I make an edit to the article.
So there you are. Now, to continue reading Chicago Seven, where I'm in the dilemma of not knowing whether to put spaces around em-dashes or not (there are many hyphens in there that should be em-dashes). As far as I've Googled, the standard is not to put spaces around an em-dash, but Google also says that this is only a style guide and not a rule, and I somehow think it looks ugly without spaces. Do you have anything to say on that matter? Schamschi, 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Schamshi, I thank you A LOT for such a detailed answer, I read your article Johannes BraHams but I gave up halfway through, and I'll tell you why (free mini pee review), sorry if I am a little blunt sometimes, but I would not have taken the time to do this were it not for your great answer. Brace youself.
The prose is great. The humor is average. The article is WAY TOO LONG. I don't know this guy, and nothing compelled me to read further, no matter how you like him. I laugh at the intro, and maybe a couple of times before I stopped reading. WAYYY TOO LONG, as I said. My little suggestion would be to cut it down A LOT, and insert more pics. It needs more pics, it just feels like the Sahara after 3 minutes. Maybe it's your idol and you are proud of your article, in which case, I would tell you to leave it as is. But if you caress the hope of nomming it on VFH, as it is, from experience ( I have benn tharashed on VFH before) NO WAY! I feel with you writing talent (obvious, from what I can say) You can do a lot better by having shorter articles with more pics. I hope that helped and give me feedback on my TP if you feel like it! And thanks for defending me on the OH Internet forum, which I initiated on a drunken Rage lol, I remember that Snowflake mini Mattsnow 03:49, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for your feedback, it is certainly appreciated! Don't worry, I've lost my emotional attachment to that article long ago, so feel free to trash it as much as you like :D .
Yes, it is very long, and I don't blame you for not wanting to read all of it, however, that alone cannot be an argument, since longer articles, or articles that are about as long as Johannes Brahms, have been featured in the past, for instance Tom Paine, and Game Of Thrones is currently on VFH and not doing too bad. Maybe the Brahms article is not good enough to justify its length, but then, this can also apply to a short article, so the length doesn't really matter, I think. Also, keep in mind that I will probably delete the last section, the "Afterlife" section, because it doesn't go together with the rest of the article, and this section makes up about 3KB, not much, but all the same.
Yes, I am aware that there are very little pictures in the article, and, even worse, I intend to remove the one with the music score because I think it doesn't really fit into the article, and place it into the Mozart article, where I think it will be better suited (it is not by me, and again, I like the idea, but with my overall concept of the article, it doesn't fit anymore). Up until now, I tried to make the pictures not only illustrate, but also enhance the article, meaning that they are not replaceable with information in the article, but are still relevant in some way and not completely detached. However, this leads, as you said, to the problem that the article looks like the Sahara desert over long periods of text. Maybe, if I have some ideas, I will try to add more images, although I would rather go for quality than for quantity (and damn if you don't like the images that are already there... just kidding).
And about the humor: Experience tells me that what one person finds hilarious, someone else may find not funny at all, and the other way round. Experience also tells me that if someone finds something funny, they will not find it funny forever, but that humor wears off. Do not think that I still laugh over the Brahms article, except maybe a slight chuckle sometimes when I'm in the mood. These realizations led me to the conclusion that humor is not an intrinsic quality of an article (or any other work), but a way of perception, which, in turn, brought me to the conclusion that I cannot rely on humor alone. While the article was, of course, inspired by one or two ideas that, at that time, I found funny, possibly even hilarious, I tried to construct the article in way so that it will appear good and not stupid and make sense even to someone who doesn't find it funny at all. This basically means that I didn't care about humor in the end. Sounds strange, doesn't it? Well, it's a pity you didn't find the article funny, but then, you didn't find it crap either, so that's an achievement, I guess (funnily enough, the intro, which you found funny, was not written by me, but was, save for a few changes, already there before).
Also, I tried to make the article so that it makes sense to someone who doesn't know Brahms. So that the article doesn't rely on the allusions, but stands on its own. I think you said something along those lines about the Novak Djokovic article, and I whole-heartedly agree with you. Did that work with the Brahms article? Judging by your feedback, I have the feeling that it didn't.
Another thing, can I ask how far you read it? Because I am aware of the danger of an article this long falling apart, and I've tried to avoid it at all costs (this is, incidentally, the reason I didn't vote for Tom Paine in the top 10 voting; I thought the story section was great, but then, it just seemed to drag on, which is why I decided for War of Colonial Aggression instead; this article was basically just regurgitated history, which is not really to my taste, but it seemed to be more of a unity). It took me long enough to realize, at some point, that the first paragraph of the life section was practically completely disconnected from what follows. This was because the first paragraph was, for the most part, not written by me, but almost everything else was. I've changed it since then, and it is now better than it used to be.
And finally, the drunken OH Internet rage... yes, I remember that forum, it was something about banners, wasn't it... then somebody mentioned Nazis... Well, it's not that I particularly cared about whatever this forum was about, I just didn't get why Scofield got so worked up over it. I mean, yes, it should have been in BHOP, but it was subsequently moved there anyway, and I didn't see what the big deal was. Glad to see you've sobered up, though.
Wow, if this goes on like this, this talk page section will be longer than the whole Brahms article... Schamschi, 18:19, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

edit The TKF Verbal Certificate of "You're Good"ship

You're good. Congratulations, you've earned it. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 18:31, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I think you're good, too. Schamschi, 18:36, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

edit Your Sig

Do you want me to design you a new one? It's free, and your current one is sort of plain, with no pop-out menu or anything. I'd be happy to help, if you're interested.

Farewell, A (Ruins) 20:20, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

edit Your sig -2-

Your sig is the most plain of all plain sigs. It looks like you just made the color black and boldend your name, and took out all other links, like your talk page. If you like, I could spruce it up with a link to your contributions and talk page, plus a pop-out menu. Whatever you want (within some boundaries), I can do, just ask. A (Ruins) 23:08, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that because that's what it is... I just couldn't think of anything fancy that was fancy enough to justify its fanciness while still not being too fancy, so I just made it as plain as possible without it being as ugly as the default signature. But you're right, it could do with a link to my talk page and maybe to my contributions in a pop-out menu. If you could do that, that would be great. Schamschi, 23:16, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I'll start working on your sig now. BTW, do you want to keep it black, or change the color? You can choose which, go ahead. A (Ruins) 18:31, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Double plus: The links and pop-out menu are done, just tell me what style&font you want the links, and color, and you're in business. Click here to see it. A (Ruins) 19:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'm in no hurry. Also, I've thought about it, and you're right, my signature is a bit too plain, color-wise, and I am thinking about making it a bit more colorful, when I get unLazy again. I have some ideas, but who knows, I'll experiment a bit. Actually, I think I can manage the rest of the signature myself. In fact, if you hadn't offered me your help with the signature, I wouldn't have been motivated at all to change it, so I thank you for that! And for your changes to the signature up until now, I thank you too. It was a pleasure doing business with you. I hope your summer writing competition is going well and you have fun with it! Schamschi, 03:13, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

edit Glad to see you're there!

I thought you were gone! Don't be too nasty about the formatting lol Snowflake mini Mattsnow 08:33, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I have been rather inactive lately, but I'm not completely gone. I still read the dump, but apart from that, I just look at the edits of pages that are on my watchlist when I am notified about them via email (in most cases they're on my watchlist because I undid vandalism at some point on these pages) and, if necessary, undo these edits, like I did today (or yesterday, if you're in Canada, as I think you are), as you apparently noticed. As for that, it wasn't really the formatting why I undid the edit, but mainly the fact that what the user in question added was just a bunch of text they copied both into the talk page and the article (unsigned on the talk page), and in the article, they put the text below the template that typically belongs at the bottom of the article. While the text was related to the article, the user had obviously put no effort in making it fit in with the rest of the article, and also, it contained three ugly external URLs that weren't even formatted as links and that pointed to some files written, according to the user, in Chinese. You see now why I undid that edit?
Also, for some reason, I read Girl with a Pearl Earring and Womp Rat while they were on VFH. I wonder how Girl with a Pearl Earring is going to score in February's top 3 voting, I liked it very much. And I'm glad to see that, with the so called Conservation Week, a focus is put on improving old articles, as opposed to constantly writing new articles and neglecting old articles people don't care about (and thereby passively cause them to be deleted). However, I doubt I'd be of much use there, since I'm still not finished with the Brahms article (meaning that, on the rare occasion that I do spend a thought on it, I can't decide on some minor things). So, good to hear (or read) from you. Schamschi, 22:34, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
Cool! As for me, I didn't write much, but I just finished 1984, which I had one hell of a great time writing. The articles you're mentioning are great! I'll mercilessly edit the articles you're watching so that your inbox is flooded and you come back often! (kidding :P) Snowflake mini Mattsnow 21:07, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

edit i did that thing you asked me to do

sorry i took so long, but if you haven't noticed this place really sucks right now and i don't really feel like doing much of anything anymore (not that i've ever done anything worthwhile). hope you're happy (i don't mean to sound rude right there, i'm an idiot who isn't good with words and things). --Lee Harvey Osmond (talk) 20:55, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I post again on my talk page; to summarize, why don't we be done with these (character) and (person) suffixes and make Harry Potter be the content page that you have restored? And don't take readers of other pages to the disambiguation page, but directly to your content? That is how Wikipedia would do it. Cheers! Spıke Ѧ 13:26 16-Jul-13

edit ♯ and ♭

Good move at Johannes Brahms! No reason why not. (I can't see the ♭, but that problem is on my end.) Spıke Ѧ 15:33 2-Mar-14

Thanks! I learned about these characters about a month ago. Now, a couple of days ago, I returned to the Brahms article to make some alterations, and when looking through the article today, I noticed that I had used U+23 (the “number sign” #) and the small letter “b” for the accidentals, and I therefore replaced them with U+266D (flat sign) and U+266F (sharp sign, Wikipedia uses them also). It doesn't make a crucial difference with the sharp sign, but the letter “b” used for a flat sign simply doesn't look nice.
The reason you don't see the U+266D (flat sign) is probably the lack of a font that supports it. The characters are both in the Basic Multilingual Plane (the code points U+0000 to U+FFFF), so they're not especially exotic or anything. You might want to try the DejaVu fonts, they're free and apparently they have a very broad coverage of Unicode characters, which makes them very suitable for a fallback font (a font to substitute a glyph from when the font in use doesn't support a character). Schamschi, 23:18, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've bookmarked it for the next time I'm around unmetered WiFi; however, if the font is anything like the 5.1 MB download, I might not keep it installed permanently, but take your word for it that that is a ♭. Spıke Ѧ 00:20 3-Mar-14

edit Harry Potter

Thanks for stopping in and patrolling your old stuff. This guy's edits are the only recent ones I didn't patrol, because I don't know much about Harry Potter. If I had read to the bottom of his edit I would have reverted. He also edited Harry Potter (films) and I doubt that it helps. Spıke Radiomicrophone13:53 7-Nov-15

Hello! Actually, the sentence I deleted at the bottom of the article (the one about Voldemort having his life fucked over by Harry too many times) was part of an entirely different edit by Un-Lucifuge Rofacale. The section that Un-Lucifuge Rofacale added with this edit was, in fact, the remnant of an old section originally added by Narcissus Black on August 19, 2008. I immediately recognized this section, because back when I searched through the article's history, I stood out to me as one of the few later additions that were not garbage. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought so (although I didn't like the section enough to keep it).
About the other sentence I changed (the one about Voldemort caring about Harry's education), which was indeed added by SamK310800: I thought the idea was great, which is why I changed it to be more factual to better fit in with the overall style of the article. And regarding the edit in Harry Potter (films): I don't find it very funny either, but I think the article is not very good in the first place, so it doesn't really matter. Schamschi, 14:46, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

A drastic improvement in any case. As our user name database was merged, Wikia added the Un- to Lucifuge as disambiguation, but he has been back under his original name, which is his pan-Wikia account. Spıke Radiomicrophone15:40 7-Nov-15

edit Max Reger

Now mentioned on the main page. Could you promote one of those photos to first position or provide an additional one, and move {{Wikipedia}} to a convenient location further down on the page? Spıke Radiomicrophone15:59 7-Nov-15

OK, I'll just add a picture of Reger at the start. I didn't add one because it wouldn't have any entertainment value, although admittedly, it would look better. Schamschi, 16:21, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

A good caption can give it entertainment value, or lacking that, a hint to the comedy strategy you are about to foist on the reader. Spıke Radiomicrophone16:40 7-Nov-15

Yeah, I know, but I couldn't think of any that would both have a context to the image as well as to the comedic angle of the article. A picture of Reger devouring a mountain of sausages would be fitting, but there don't seem to be any … Schamschi, 16:44, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

Then a picture of sausages sans Reger? Spıke Radiomicrophone17:04 7-Nov-15

I don't know. Reger's gluttony is not the main point of the article, there's only one small mention of it, and it's not even in the intro section, so an image of sausages alone as the main picture in the article would probably be out of proportion. Actually, I like the current version, and I think that a jokeless image of Reger is still better than one with a contrived joke just for the sake of it. Schamschi, 17:20, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools