User talk:FookYooChineseFood
Welcome![edit source]
Hello, FookYooChineseFood, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for people like you:
- Beginner's Guide
- Our Vanity Policies - why we don't care about your friends
- How to be funny and not just stupid
If you read anything at all, make it the above three links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:
- About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
- How to get started editing on uncyclopedia
- Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue
I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (
) above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.
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:FookYooChineseFood/Article about stuff) so you can 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 put the "Work-In-Progress" template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.
If you want to write and don't know where to begin, consider contributing to Uncyclopedia's current colonization of the week, a group writing project to improve a single popular article. Anyone is welcome to contribute, so come help out!
If the current colonization doesn't suit your fancy, then browse our rewrite and idea categories. We have lots of articles just sitting around for someone to improve, so don't be afraid - dive right in!
If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. Again, welcome! --Sycamore (Talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Pee reviews[edit source]
Yeah, you may have read the article, but it's abundantly clear you haven't read this or the clear request that the review be done by a member of PEEING. Spamming four poorly done pee reviews in twenty minutes isn't helping anybody and certainly won't be appreciated by anyone. In the future if you aren't going to take the time to do a thorough review, just don't bother. -OptyC Sucks! 
CUN21:43, 28 Feb
- This doesn't mean your attempts to make yourself useful are completely unappreciated, but try to be better prepared and get some more experience before you start reviewing articles. Don't be discouraged, but keep in mind that we have certain policies on this site you may not be familiar with (yet). Try to be more careful next time. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- To set the above in perspective: Hi FYCF, thanks for taking the time to review a few articles for us. Although it may not seem like it, we do really appreciate it when people take the time to help other users out by giving them feedback on their articles. However, if you are going to take that time, would you consider maybe spending more of it on one review, rather than giving several really short ones? If you simply give one line or so per box, you're not really giving enough helpful feedback to work on ("it just needs more out-and-out funny" being the kind of thing I mean - if people just knew how to make it funnier, they would already have done so, they want tips on which bits to change or focus on, you know what I mean?) Take a look at the pee review guidelines, and recent reviews by the likes of Tagstit, Sycamore and some of our best reviewers to see what I mean. I just think that if you're gonna take some of your own time to review someone else's work, it feels better if you know you've given them the kind of help they can work with, you know what I mean? Think about it, anyway. Hope this makes sense, and see you around the wiki! --UU - natter
16:31, Mar 1
- To set the above in perspective: Hi FYCF, thanks for taking the time to review a few articles for us. Although it may not seem like it, we do really appreciate it when people take the time to help other users out by giving them feedback on their articles. However, if you are going to take that time, would you consider maybe spending more of it on one review, rather than giving several really short ones? If you simply give one line or so per box, you're not really giving enough helpful feedback to work on ("it just needs more out-and-out funny" being the kind of thing I mean - if people just knew how to make it funnier, they would already have done so, they want tips on which bits to change or focus on, you know what I mean?) Take a look at the pee review guidelines, and recent reviews by the likes of Tagstit, Sycamore and some of our best reviewers to see what I mean. I just think that if you're gonna take some of your own time to review someone else's work, it feels better if you know you've given them the kind of help they can work with, you know what I mean? Think about it, anyway. Hope this makes sense, and see you around the wiki! --UU - natter
- Thanks to UU and Sockpuppet for your helpful information. I certainly had no intent to "spam" a pile of reviews, as you've correctly deduced. I see that my review of the Al Gore entry was reverted as I invited. I might suggest that, if a person only wants uinput from PEEING, that s/he consider opening a second review for responses from us "lowly common folk."
I will carefully study several reviews from PEEING members to see what people are looking for in terms of thorough reviews before I undertake to do another review. --FookYooChineseFood 22:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)