User talk:James1011R

		This user usually does not write long Pee Reviews. Reviews by this user will usually never be higher than an average of 5 lines per score.

Welcome!

Hello, James1011R, 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:James1011R/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!  --EMC ^[TALK] 00:54 Sep 27 2009 00:54, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hey, man. Thanks for taking the time to do some pee reviews. Unfortunately, while you're on the right track, clearly putting some thought into them, they still weren't exactly what we'd call in-depth. If you could please reread the guidelines and try to put more advice and whatnot in future ones, what could be worked on, what could be improved, and better yet, some ideas of how, it would be appreciated.

That said, sometimes examples'll help more than anything else - not only perhaps giving examples in reviews of articles that do similar things well, but in this case, examples of what makes a good review. I'd suggest taking a look at reviews by these people - they're supposedly the best, and usually pretty helpful. And no, reviews don't need to be as insanely long as some of them might tend to do (others less so), but you should still get the idea. Hope that helps. 1234 ~ 20:01, 20 November 2011

Thanks for the help. That's why I "improved" the ricer pee review. I will consider this to write reviews with an average of two lines per score. I also try to point out the issues. James1011R 20:07, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Two lines is not exactly the best guideline - usually a paragraph per thing is a minimum, please, unless there really is nothing to say, but that's what the amount will depend on - what there is to say. And even the best articles will have something. 1234 ~ 22:39, 20 November 2011

Hey, I basically came to say what Lyrithya just said, but since she's already said it, I'll just say howdy. Welcome to the site, hope you stick around, we're always very grateful for anyone willing to do reviews. --Black Flamingo 04:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Hey man, why do you go around creating stubs that you know will get deleted? You should at least put the construction template on it, but I'm sure you know. Mattsnow 04:23, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hey

What's the purpose of this? -- UserTalkContributions 00:16, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

To mock the fact every article I write gets QVFD'd. James1011R (talk) 00:18, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you place the articles in mainspace? -- UserTalkContributions 00:22, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Because userspace makes it more funny. James1011R (talk) 00:23, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Another reason why I do care about this.

Humour:	8.8	You had done a pretty good job. I mean, for someone who disappeared not long after registering, you are one impressive comedian. I mean, I had a hilarious laugh at all seven examples of what you must not do when you review an article, and after all, you did read the Beginner's Guide. Sections 4 to 6 (that is, from Weird Scores to Invalid Review), really hits the funnybones of not just mine, but for the potential reader. This is the creme de la creme of all jokes, but should you save such things like that for the first, so that your potential readers could laugh and continue to laugh as they went through the other parts? I mean, these headings as well as the contents should deserve the first portions of the article.
Concept:	7.5	The whole premise of a scoring system gone wrong was executed in magnificent steps, and you certainly presented the Beginner's Guide to Pee Review in just seven examples. The concept is great. I am impressed that you got a very good skill at doing an article this impressive. But to be honest, this deserved to have a title of "HowTo:Make a Bad Pee Review" into the mainspace for HowTo, because this is basically describing how not to make a Pee Review. In which I found it really helpful.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	I commend this really well, the prose. But the article is just too fucking short. It is literally short; don't get me wrong, I love this article, but I felt that it is too short. What you need to do, is to explain why this is not a good way of scoring it, rather than just putting it in short sentences. One to ten sentences should be enough; after all, brevity is wit. Just don't make it too short a sentence, because eventually you want to execute punchlines for the article you're creating. What you want is long periods of laughs, not short, brief, fly-by-night laughs. On the other hand, the formatting is well-executed, you used the Pee Review template as a base for providing examples of bad Peer Reviews, and that is all I can say, because there are other things on my mind I would like to talk to you about.
Images:	0	What I found disappointing in this article is that there is no pictures anywhere on the article. There is nothing but words on this article. I mean, any article that does not have any images is something that is considered as unfinished. But you are not a failure. Just because you have not put up the images yet does not mean that you are a failure. First off, you can always go up to RadicalX's Corner to request images, or even better, send a message to any user that is really multi-talented to request an image that hasn't been made yet, but is a really good idea for your article. Secondly, may I suggest to search around Uncyclopedia for some images that could be really useful (but don't stick images in just for the sake of it) for your article, that is funny, coherent and relevant to the HowTo article you are doing.
Miscellaneous:	7.7	Average Score. Because I can't think of anything else. (The result is 7.66666666666666.... when averaged, but I rounded it up to 2 significant figures.)
Final Score:	30.5	Well, at least I got a good laugh out of this. I mean, this article is really worth it. The main sections are funny, but maybe try extending the article way further. This isn't VFD material whatsoever, nor VFH material either. Maybe try extending it, and talk to the more experienced article writers for some advice. I'm just here for reviewing.
Reviewer:	|Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

|Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:26, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

This is actually something I don't see everyday. Good job reviewing. James1011R (talk) 02:06, March 6, 2012 (UTC)