User talk:Steamslinger

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 13:54, February 13, 2013 by Steamslinger (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

The Big O

Thank you for signing in. I don't agree with your change history that I am "ruining the funny"--your "funny" is awfully ranty. Nor is it "minimalist" to simply revert to the version before you started adding to it. I will ask a third party for an opinion. Spıke ¬ 21:20 30-Jan-13

While we wait for a senior editor to walk in, I'll patch in the usual welcome message, which contains some useful stuff:

Welcome to Uncyclopedia

Spike the Dog (06b)

Articles are better if they contain pictures. "Thumbnails" like this one contain captions, and funny captions are the best.

Hello, Steamslinger, and welcome to Uncyclopedia. This is a wiki (a collection of pages that anyone can edit). Words in blue are "links" and if you click on them, they will take you to another page. This wiki is devoted to comedy. It pretends it is Wikipedia, but we exist to make people laugh, not to bore them. If you aren't interested in a fake encyclopedia but in writing fake news stories, we have UnNews, and there are other projects for scripts, lyrics, how-to guides, and so on.

What you can do

You can create an article of your own. For starters, create it under your own name; for example, User:Steamslinger/Bedbug. (The red instead of blue is a link to a page that doesn't yet exist.) You can help out without writing articles; just pick articles to read and, if you see an improvement in writing or in comedy, jump in and edit it. In fact, there are ways to help out without writing at all, such as helping us organize stuff and monitoring Uncyclopedia when vandals attack the pages.

What you need

If you want to write articles, what you need is a sense of humor and an ability to write good English. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and you can get help in any area. But everyone needs an ability to work with other people. Decide to be polite, be positive and helpful toward others, and assume others are doing the same toward you.

What to read

Here are some pages that might help you:

For personal help
  • Active administrators of Uncyclopedia are able to help you, and they are paid twice what regular users are, which still doesn't buy a cup of coffee.
  • Several Uncyclopedians have indicated their willingness to adopt new users.
  • I will be watching this page for a while and will know if you type text on it. Afterward, you can contact me on my own talk page.
  • If you've written an article, we have a review process where an experienced Uncyclopedian will read it and tell you whether it's good and how to make it better.
How to post to talk pages

Please follow these general rules:

  • Add comments at the end of a talk page so people notice your addition.
  • Start your paragraphs with one or more : characters to indent them and set them off from other people's posts.
  • At the end, type ~~~~ (four tildes), which gets replaced by your user name and the current date and time.

I hope you enjoy it here and write a lot of funny stuff! Spıke ¬ 02:06 3-Feb-13

The Big O redux

Okay. I've looked at the additional material and it comes across as a fanboy rant. Having read the remainder of the article, it comes across as a fanboy rant. That would be fine if you were trying to make a parody of a fanboy rant. (See Michael Jackson for a fantastic example of a parody of fanboyism.)

  • Yep. Exactly what I'm going for, though SOME folks won't understand the humor. Also, its kind of juvenile/unfunny to throw in random words like "Robot Hooker" or the deletion of Apple Tomato. Wouldn't it be nice/funny to have it be a bit more clever? Thats all I'm getting at. Also, thanks for noticing this.*

The major issue I can see with the article - with or without the latest revision - is that it has been edited and post edited and revert warred and, in short, is a horrific mish-mash of differing perspectives. *yep*

So I read the additional material and tried to remove it from the remainder of the text. And it's not funny. It's sarcastic instead. Sarcastic can be funny when you can draw the audience along with you. Here you'll find most of your audience will be lost very swiftly as they have no reason to invest in it. And trying to make sarcasm into funny is difficult, because you have a added emotional aspect that your audience have to deal with.

Does that mean it's all bad? No. But your opportunities to point out the ridiculous here are lost in the tone. You have got some gems in there that have possibility. *hmmm. should I be more random or more clear then?*

My suggestion: Don't add any material to the existing article. Main reason I say this is that as it stands I'd be likely to request deletion for the article with or without the additions. Instead I'd suggest creating a new article from scratch here, but I'd suggest reading HTBFANJS before starting. *ah! I see*

And write the article like an encyclopaedia entry. Divorce yourself from the emotional aspect and approach this in as factual a manner as possible. Let your reader “discover” the ridiculous rather than trying to shove it down their throat.

  • Valid point.*

And never, never use the term “butthurt”.

  • Ah. Gotcha. So no uses of /b/ Vocab. Though I can understand why, since we're trying to keep things classy , to an extent, and not just outright bizarre/childish/idiotic*

In the meantime, I'm going to leave the article as it is for a few days - you may find stuff in there you want to keep. After that I'm going to attack it with an ice pick and see what of worth survives. If you want to keep your stuff, then I'd suggest grabbing it now.                               Puppy's talk page10:37 30 Jan

  • obliged. Could you not revert it back to the pathetic page that it was, if you're going to change it though? Maybe have someone else add some actually FUNNY to it? It honestly looked like a 9 year old with the humor-level of a Whoopie Cushion + knowledge of internet Humorz went through it, before I had a chance to add some Sarcasm. I'd honestly really appreciate it, since the Big O (along with alot of other animes) is a gold mine of intelligent-humor/sarcasm, etc. What I'm asking is, since I know that you're going to have to clean it up (immensely), could you at least remove the childish bits and make it actually FUNNY?* The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steamslinger (talk • contribs)
I'd love to clean this up. I'm intending to. My major issue is I know next to nothing about the topic. Of course, that hasn't been a limit in the past, as I can always find out.
The intent of your edits was fairly clear. The problem is that - as a general rule - we're a satire site. Some people see that and think we are a repository for meme driven humour and randumbo which tends to be the opposite of what we are. So the article prior to your edits was bad.
My first rule when writing - or rewriting - any article is to develop a concept. A good concept in place means that all you need to do is fill in the gaps and you have a good article. A short article with a clear concept is far better than a long one with no concept.
My approach here will be to strip out almost every joke that there is in the article, along with any attempt at random humour. Don't get me wrong - random humour can work. Crossbow is one of my favourite completely random articles here. But Unless you plan to have the entire article as random, then mixing that with straight satire is difficult. Twitter does try to do that, but manages to do it only by creating a new frame. (In other words, it's not an article per se.)
HTBFANJS has a bit to say on using a frame, and on random humour. This article could work as a purely random one, but I'd steer away from it.
So my concept would be to go for a more straight guy approach. Aim for an encyclopaedic tone, and bring the article into a unified voice.
It's superhero anime - both genres ask for suspension of disbelief. If we strip down that suspension of disbelief we suddenly have a significant number of ridiculous elements. By addressing those and pointing out their issues we suddenly have our kernel of humour.
The comparison between this and Batman may be justified, but I think that's the wrong way to go as an overall, unless it's done with subtlety.
The second possible concept I'd look at is taking it from an “in universe” perspective. (Speaking of Batman) Bruce Wayne is a fantastic example of how this is done. This article I'd suggest you read, and after reading have a look at how it came about. I wrote very little of this article (except for one very juvenile joke), but I had a fair bit to do with creating the concept.
This is a prime example of building a good concept. Once that is done filling in the blanks is much easier.
So - I can rewrite this, but I'd rather not. Instead I'd rather you did. I'm happy to be here to lend a hand the whole way through, and we can make it a collaborative effort, but this sounds more like it'd be suited to you to write.
Let me know what you think, and we'll go from there.                               Puppy's talk page12:05 01 Feb

Alright! Sounds good. I've got a college schedule, so I'll be super busy (like most of you), but I'll do what I can to contribute to different pages on here since SOME of them are in need of some major-editing (and some are just MISSING). But that sounds good. I look forward to working with you Gentlemen/Ladies. Steamslinger (talk) 01:55, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Very happy about the eagerness to collaborate. (Famously, "they don't teach that in college.") Spıke ¬ 02:06 3-Feb-13

Hey guys! I just found the time to reset my password (I had forgotten it) and to respond. So I have the entire Big O series. There are several characters missing on the Un-Wiki page and I could also provide portraits of characters and events (such as the attempted carjacking of the main character's car), etc. What are the rules on that? Would there be any copy-right related limitations? Anyhow, I'll do what I can, whenever my work-load on my end eases up. I've got some stuff planned out for the page (and I also hope to make some more pages, since there's alot of content / possible articles that are missing from Uncyclopedia, since no one has written them yet).

Talk pages

You can sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) or just hit the 'signature' button above the editing box, which is the one second from the right. Hope that helps. --Snippy 06:07, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Another important point, Steamslinger: It just doesn't work in this medium to comment in-line on each individual point. Yes, it's clear *which parts* of the above dialogues are yours, but it's hard to follow. If these were paper memos, you could write comments in the margins, but at Uncyclopedia (also Wikipedia), it's universal and it's clearer to state your opinions in a wad after the other guy's. Indented, as this paragraph here is, so it's clear this paragraph isn't a continuation of Snippy's comment. Cheers. Spıke ¬ 11:31 1-Feb-13
Another reason *bracketing your comments with asterisks* doesn't work is that starting a paragraph with * creates an item in a bulleted list! Spıke ¬ 02:05 3-Feb-13
Personal tools
projects