User talk:Dbtng

What spam are you talking about? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Soauu, your assistance and role in the community is appreciated. On the other hand, I read all the dox you posted a couple years ago. Do not want. Thx. --Dbtng 17:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay then. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In defence of HTBFANJS

I saw your post on Chiefs talk page and thought I should just say a couple of things. HTBFANJS is not a be all to end all in regards to comedic writing, but it is a good set of guidelines to work from when writing comedy, and especially when writing parody. When regular editors review an article they tend to look to this as a guideline upon which to base a critique, but that doesn't mean that an article that does not fit into the HTBFANJS guideline is bnot going to be funny. The unfortunate thing is that if it doesn't fit in within this guideline it is likely to be stupid.

I would suggest reading through this and using it to work out the best tools to adjust your own writing to get the best possible potential out of it. Some articles, such as Six Hats are based very strongly on the guidelines mentioned in here, however there are others such as Microsoft Knowledge Base that rely strongly on other forms of humour.

Good luck with editing spherical cows. There's a lot of promise there, and I think with a bit of guidance it will be a featurable article. Nominally Humane! some time 03:27, 26/02/2010

Thanks, Puppy. I do appreciate the kind remark about my article.

I muted my criticism of HTBFANJS and other standards of it's type in my original comment. While I have no quarrel with the contents of HTBFANJS, it isn't the panacea it is viewed as. I do understand the value of a consistent presentation throughout the whole site, and I see how a single reference document is valuable in communicating that presentation style. Step back just a bit though, and realize that the moment you legislate what humor is and should be, you've effectively killed the joke. Furthermore, to simply refer someone to HTBFANJS without providing deeper insight is a casual dismissal and not true communication. I do not by any means feel that the reviewer used HTBFANJS as a crutch in this way, however I feel that it does happen.

Again, thanks for reading my article and providing feedback. --Dbtng

Fantastic. It looks like we're on the same wavelength. If and when I get the chance, I'll have a deeper look at your article and see if I can give you something a little more constructive from my end - although I have to confess I have so many irons in the fire it will probably take a while. Nominally Humane! some time 04:19, 26/02/2010

Well, I would certainly appreciate it. I'm going to follow Chief's suggestion that I focus the Cows piece to just one main joke. I'll write a new version or two over this weekend, so maybe check back in a couple days. --Dbtng 05:43, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think HTBFANJS is the absolute guide to comedy, either. I don't know that anybody does. But I can't resist commenting on "the moment you legislate what humor is and should be, you've effectively killed the joke." Look at what I consider to be some of the comedic greats: The Marx Brothers, Abbot and Costello, Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Monty Python, Steve Martin. They worked under definite restrictions as to what they could and could not do. Some of the greatest comedy, like some of the greatest poetry, painting, music, etc., has come out of strict guidelines. In fact I just read an article recently that said some experts on comedy believe it's generally better when it has to follow restrictions. Pushing the edge is often much funnier and more creative than just drawing outside the lines. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  03:57, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Random Pee Review

I Pee Reviewed User:Dbtng/Special:Random based on version 4412758 of 03:17, February 27, 2010. I hope this helps! King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  02:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

IC

Hey. I'm in prcess of doing a review of spherical cows but I haven't finished yet. I'm thinking that you may benefit from getting involved in IC. As it's a communal work it means that you get more of an insight as to how others put together an article and build on it, and means you can start using that kind of technique for yourself. We've just started working on Batman. Have a chat to User:Why do I need to provide this? as he is the IC head honcho, although really if you just go to Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization you can just add yourself to the list and go from there. Nominally Humane! some time 22:55, 2/03/2010

What Puppy said. Although I'll add that the list is for people who are applying--I do screen applicants' edits so I don't sign up some random vandal. But as the article you wrote that I Pee Reviewed showed that you're a random not-vandal, I imagine you'd get approved. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  00:02, March 3, 2010 (UTC)