User talk:JoeMonco

A snapshot from a Red Alert 3 full-motion video, I think

Do you like the latest installment of the American Gladiators... I mean, the Red Alert series?

Please vote below. Results will be shown when you have voted.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.

Yes

No

Gina Carano!

There was one vote since the poll was created on 18:41, 12 January 2013.

poll-id 4EB4D98CF80D4BD9D68AC2755E3529CB

First!

I win. -- JoeMonco 13:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, JoeMonco, 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:JoeMonco/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 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 put {{adoptme}} on your Userpage to join. Again, welcome! 

Limited time offer!
Do you feel unappreciated? Do you need someone to stroke your ego? Do you need the latest Uncyclopedia gossip? Do you want to know which user is being shagged by which admin? Than Join The Uncyclopedia UnSignPost , Better sign it.. Delivered each Thursday by the our local paperbotboy

You can't escape the welcome template! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 13:18, May 23

Revert

I saw you made a large removal from that article, did a brief read through of what you wrote and what you removed, and thought that the previous diff was better. If you wish to do a rewrite, then do so under your userspace. Such as in User:JoeMonco/Linux then get it Pee reviewed and if it's good enough, then move it to mainspace. That tends to be the norm around here. Besides, nothing on a wiki is permanent. Just check the previous diff and all your work will be there for you to move to your userspace. (Bonner) (Talk) May 23, 17:37

Reviewed!

I've completed the review of Ubuntu that you requested at Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ubuntu. So far, the article looks good, but there's a lot of stuff I've covered in the review that you may want to look over. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 05:16, May. 27, 2008

Thanks for resurrecting Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars

Hey buddy!

Really big thanks to you. Finally a great funny C&C3 article has been resurrected! And Tiberium is bad...really. Hope to see you around soon, and it'll be great if you could help to beef up the other rotting C&C articles such as read alert 3 and kane's waffles.

Thanks!--ASHPD 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea of rewriting that article came to me last night as I was busily doing laundry. Don't get me wrong here but I think the C&C series was just as bad under Westwood's brand name . Let's face it - Kari Wuhrer's performance in Red Alert 2 was just as repulsive as that of Jennifer Morrison in Tiberium Wars. But then again, Morrison screwed up mainly because she just didn't care, whereas Wuhrer was simply a bad actress through and through. But then again, people like Red Alert 2 because it bears the Westwood Studios logo and we all know too well that C&C fans are quite nostalgic in general. Westwood never did a bad storyline or filmed a bad shot on purpose; the low-quality cut-scenes were simply the results of a low budget. RA2 follows the same standard that has been set by the first C&C game, or, in other words, a quality somewhere below an average B-movie, and we know this can't be good if the future installments don't start raising the bar a little. EA kind of did the right thing by using nicer props and hiring these small-screen actors instead of, say, Wuhrer from Eight-Legged Freaks. However, if the gameplay and the storyline simply don't improve, the whole series is going to go down in the drain anyway. We live in the 21st Century now and if we simply don't leave behind what we thought was good some 15 years ago and move on, we are just holding back human civilization for no good reasons.

I hate to say this but it's not really my thing to do all the EA bashing for gamers that don't want to move on. I hate RA2 and I don't want Kari Wuhrer to prance around in front of my screen like a stupid 42-year-old cougar that she probably is now, and, honestly, I don't even know what to write about a game (Red Alert 3) that isn't even out yet. I rewrote that article for the sake of my own entertainment, and if you think I am some sort of Wiki-Messiah then you are really in for some huge disappointment. Do your own research, write your own stuff, and don't count on me, OK?

-- JoeMonco 16:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pee

Just a quick note to say your pee reviews have improved massively from your first one. Thanks for helping out! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:52, Jun 2

You're welcome.-- JoeMonco 11:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Two further comments. One: as you've now completed 5 in-depth reviews, you're eligible to join PEEING, call yourself a Fresh Stain, pop the userbox on your page, and generally consider yourself a quality reviewer. Or not - if you're not into joining user groups on online comedy wikis. Your call. Two: while the score and the comments on your last review were probably pretty accurate, we try to be a little more encouraging where possible - OK, so it's a crap article, but just telling them so stands a chance of driving the author away, when we'd like to encourage them to stay and improve. And if you wonder if someone who writes crap can improve, take a look at someone like Led - his first contributions pretty well sucked, and now he's one of our most featured writers! However, this is not a dig, just something I thought I'd mention in passing. I like your style so far - hope to see more of you around the place! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:07, Jun 3

1. At the moment I don't think I am interested in getting involved with this kind of community thing, but thanks anyway.
2. I'll try and improve next time. Thanks for the tip by the way.

-- JoeMonco 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to this - your tag has now been on this for a while with no movement - did you get so bored that you left? No problem if you're not gonna review it - I'll go ahead and remove the tag if you don't respond fairly soon, so someone else can pick it up. --UU - natter 10:40, Jun 23

I have been sick/busy for the last couple of weeks. Sorry for not keeping my promise, although, I must say, writing stuff here is not exactly one of my priorities, as you might have noticed. Anyway, if the same thing happens again, feel free to remove the tag. Cheers! -- JoeMonco 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, for an occasional editor, I like your style! --UU - natter 10:20, Jun 29

Re: Pee 2

Joe! Just a quick note. Don't let your reviews' quality start to slip - this isn't really up to PEEING standards and to the person who wrote the article it may feel like you're being intentionally nasty to them. You need to try and avoid just insulting the article and offer more constructive criticism. This is just a warning, though, cause a lot of your reviews have been good (as you UU said above). Thanks. - [17:30 4 August] Sir FSt Don Yettie

I don't know what that "PEEING" standard you are speaking of exactly is. All I know is that every reviewer has his own integrity. The article you mention is, in all honesty, kitsch. We can all start giving each other a pat in the back for a job well done, but what is the point of having a review then? Besides, I am not saying that the writer is a faggot or whatever and should die in a fire, because that is a personal insult and personal insults should only be carried out when someone tries to kick you in the rear end or by a bum. Furthermore, the writer in question has a pretty steady supporting crowd (however undeserving that is) already and my opinion is not going to do any realistic damage any time sooner. And, heck, I am entitled to my opinions and isn't that a kind of rights that every reviewer is supposed to have? -- JoeMonco 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're entitled to your opinions but you should try to express them more kindly. You should always encourage reviewers, even if they're not noobs. Calling the article "unimaginative" and using all sorts of other interesting language could clearly annoy the writer...or worse. Also your review was quite short and didn't seem to offer any tips for improving on the areas you felt were poor. And it is slightly odd that you decided to review something that had already received a review.

The PEEING standard I am talking about is this. - [22:19 4 August] Sir FSt Don Yettie

One of the reasons I am not joining review groups of any sort is that I am extremely unwilling to follow the protocols and standards they have set out for their members. A review does not need to have any tips as to how to improve whatever, because that's exactly how reviews operate in the real world. Besides, is it really necessary to give this particular person any more encouragement despite that he has got plenty already? All I am doing is pinning down the exact problems that the article has, and that's all. I don't see the writer running away crying any time sooner, and I find your persistent pattering of your own agenda kind of counter-productive and annoying.

If you want me to expand the review, that's fine. However, I don't think it's going to be any more than about how exactly each and every plot twist is preposterous and/or how exactly each and every character is generic. In other words, the expanded version is not going to be prettier than the one in question here. Ask yourself, "Is this really what you want?"

-- JoeMonco 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Uncyclopedia. You're not writing a review of the latest movie for a flash film mag. What you should be trying to do is help other users improve their work. You seem to just be trying to write the kind of clever review that professional critics write (often with annoyingly "I-know-everything" results in the case of a lot of professional critics). That's not the sort of review we want! You're meant to be helping them. Uncyclopedia reviews do need to have tips on how to improve the article. You should not be battering an article. The guidelines I linked you too are not just for the PEEING usergroup, they apply to every review.

I'm not looking for a fight, here, I'm trying to give you some friendly advice. - [23:04 4 August] Sir FSt Don Yettie

To back up what YesTimeToEdit to edit is saying... Dude. You gave a score of 1 for concept. Clearly that's wrong. You do not have to comply precisely with UN:PRG, but you should follow the guidelines for scoring. A score of 1 suggests it should be deleted imminently. Clearly that's not the case is many people are voting for it on VFH. Also writing "I wish I could be more forgiving in this regard, but every word of this piece of writing is a free trip to Guantanamo Bay forced upon each and every one of my brain cells." IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. MrN 23:22, Aug 4

Ideally, everything should be fixable, but this is clearly not the reason why we have the "delete" button in the real world. If a score of 1 suggests the article should be deleted immeinently, then, yeah, why not? But, then again, that's just my opinion and I am entitled to it. You folks have clearly misunderstood the meaning of freedom of speech and probably shouldn't edit a wiki at all. I am not obliged to like anything at any rate, neither is anyone else. I have the rights to hate this article just as much as you have the rights to hate film mags or my reviews. If you really want this wiki to improve, then you should allow people to express their opinions more freely instead of attempt to restrain them with needless guidelines. We can either keep arguing on and on about this or just put our differences behind us and move on. In fact, why are all you here? Shouldn't you be spending your time writing why this article is worth keeping either per se or with modification, or such? -- JoeMonco 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's crowded in here! Joe - you're right, you're entitled to your opinion, and you have every right to express it if you want to. There are really no "right" or "wrong" scores in a pee review. However, there are maybe better and worse ways to express opinions.... You mention personal insults above, but in your review you said "Mediocrity of this magnitude should be considered a war crime. I wish I could be more forgiving in this regard, but every word of this piece of writing is a free trip to Guantanamo Bay forced upon each and every one of my brain cells. This is by no means enjoyment of any form. This is downright torture, and torture should be condemned, not praised." When expressed about someone's writing, that feels pretty personal and definitely insulting. If you don't like it - fine, say so, wouldn't want it any other way. But don't give them a total annihilation and be done with it - the point of Pee Review here is to try and help people. If I review articles I don't like, I still try to give some positive comments - think how you'd feel if someone made those comments to you!

While we don't want to force protocols and standards on people, we do try to make Pee Review a forum for constructive criticism where possible. Mark and opine as you see fit, but please try to be a bit nicer about it. Cheers! --UU - natter 08:30, Aug 5

To add a bit, mate, just what gives with giving a review to something that's already got one? Hmm? You trying to insinuate something? That was my space you took up, that was. There ain't no room in one Review space fer the both of us. When an authour puts up an article for review, they want one review. If they want a second, they put up the article again and label it 'second opinion'. Don't want to sound like I'm trying to make this personal, but one review space means one review. We understand each other?

Uh...oh God, let me rephrase that, I sound like a bloody admin. I meant...do we have a friendly agreement? <Silently fingers the blade of his knife>

BlueYonder - CONTACT

That's a tad confrontational BY, if you don't mind me saying. Besides, people are entitled to put up a second review if they don't agree with the first - it's been done before, and if done properly can give extra valuable insight. Chill out, Joe's review doesn't make yours any less valid. You both have an opinion. They differ. Last time I checked, that was allowed. --UU - natter 15:40, Aug 5

Yes, yes, all right...I retract, I suppose. Personally I've never seen it done before and it seems a rather impractical policy, but...I retract. But I still agree that it was a tad harsh of a review. BlueYonder - CONTACT

Let's settle down

Some members of the Cabal already jumped the gun and banned you. While I've unbanned you for the simple reason that no one gave you a warning before blocking you, I will say this. Feel free to review in whichever way you see fit, as long as you tone down, SIGNIFICANTLY, your condescending tone. The review process is to help writers improving, not to feed anyone's ego. If you can do that without throwing around bombastic decelerations such as This is downright torture, and torture should be condemned, not praised, then - by all means, keep doing that. If you can't do that, stay away from reviews. Thanks you. P.S., this one is the first and last official warning ^TM you will receive. ~ 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)