User talk:Craw1

Why do they call it a talk page? It only contains writing! Unless... *runs off*

Wumbo

Yeah, I looked at the page history, but even the version prior to the vandalism had {{fix}} tags on it, and didn't seem funny, inspired, or interesting. Also, I apologize for offending you with the text of my vote, but it takes fewer letters to write "retarded shit" than it does to write "an uninspired, uninteresting and unfunny topic", and letters are at a premium when it's 2100 and I'm cleaning up after an idiot vandal without any decent booze in the house.

Don't take it personally. It's just my opinion. And I'm an idiot. If several other idiots agree with me, well, at that point, your article will be huffed. That's just how we deal with articles that don't meet our exceptionally high standards. But it's not out of your hands. You can (a) vote "keep", and give a convincing argument. You can (b) try to improve or expand the article, and notify the voters that you've done so. And even if it is "huffed", you can (c) always get it moved to your userspace, and work on it there until you believe it is good enough to go back into mainspace. Remember, if you don't know why other folks don't find it funny, you can always ask for a Pee Review.

Don't let it get you down. My first article here was met with the same reception - it was VFD'd after someone tripped over it on Special:RecentChanges. I chose to improve it (and I also threatened some of the voters with bodily harm). And it stayed. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Apr 30 '12 6:40 (UTC)

I guess the problem here is that I mistook the fix tag to mean I had 30 days to get the article in good order. I reread it, and it looks like it might only refer to expansion (making it bigger), and not quality-control. I had also hoped in that time to get some collaborators. I am not sure if I completely understand what you mean by uninspired, uninteresting, and unfunny. I have read the beginner's guide on writing for uncyclopedia, including the various suggestions it makes on how to be funny, and a number of those suggestions were directly incorporated into the article. Were you trying to say that "Wumbo" is a doomed article topic to begin with? Note that I never made one mention of Spongebob in it - it is essentially a made-up sciency thing with a silly name, and one that can be applied very easily to lots of things. The fact that it originated from Spongebob only serves to add some bonus value to people who recognize it. If the issue has more to do with my writing style, then please tell me what I did wrong and how that I can fix it. Also, I think that I will abstain from voting on my own article's VFD status. If it does get deleted, then it is not a big deal. I will do as you said and put it on my talk page. Thank you, --Craw1 (talk) 13:50, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fix tag gives you 30 days to work on your article, and is reset every time you edit. However, if I see a {{Fix}}-tagged article that is stubby, lacks pictures, doesn't make me laugh, and attracts vandals, I will toss it on VFD.

I think your writing style is fine; your gramor and speling, while not perfect, are above average for a Spongebobologist, and you never once mentioned Chuck Norris. :) Here's the problem, though: you don't really explain what Wumbo is, so, as Blackflamingo said, why should I care about it? Is Wumbo a particle? Saying that it "is the scientific basis of wumbology...[and is] a special case of 'jumbo'" doesn't help much, because you don't explain wumbology, and Jumbo isn't a thing, it's an adjective, a descriptor. "Wumbo...[has a] potential to incite animal cruelty"? How? Do wumbo-rays affect peoples' brains, turning them into hamster-throwing, dog-stomping monsters? It just seems so...vague and random. Now, randomness isn't always the kiss of death; sometimes, it can be elevated to an art form. But usually, it's the hallmark of a bad concept.

As MrN9000 and Socky both appear to like your article, it's possible that I am guilty of jumping the gun a bit. If it passes the VFD, please do continue to work on it. Your first and last paragraphs do have promise for expansion. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, May 1 '12 2:09 (UTC)

To explain a bit, I was purposefully keeping it vague. I do not know if wumbo is a particle or a descriptor, or both, and neither does the audience. We do not need to know what it is, just that it has something to do with "bigness". I guess some interpretations of mad science might work on a similar premise(?), where all you know is that things are happening that only kind of make sense. The difference is, instead of saying my time machine runs on clocks and my laser burns through other people's lasers, I'm saying that jumbo shrimp somehow reflects the nature of "size-ness". As for the animal cruelty bit, I was trying for an inverted "monster destroys everything" section. Great big monster destroys everything, military takes it down, everyone feels bad for the monster and nobody cares about all the people it killed. Wumbo incited animal cruelty by leading scientists to create the innocent and lovable creature of pure terror, the Wumbomination. The creation process presumably involved torturing and traumatizing it, though I failed to mention that in any obvious way. Big error on my part! I hope I covered everything. I'm going to go fix up Wumbo a bit now. --Craw1 (talk) 04:31, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. And remember, I'm an idiot, and I generally fail at articulating what I find funny. So you might ask somebody else's opinion, too. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, May 1 '12 4:34 (UTC)