User talk:LuMontyZ

Welcome!

Hello, LuMontyZ, 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:LuMontyZ/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 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!  -- MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:07, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Probably a bad idea...

...to tell another user to "go f***" themselves. Please don't, especially not the newbies. Thank you. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, May 14 '12 21:35 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I was considering a ban but I will relent if you apologise for your outburst on ResurrectedSage (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser's talk page. Sorry would suffice. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:29, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

It has been done. He's related and it's the humor we're used to. Apologies for the incident. LuMontyZ (talk) 03:46, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, saw the message. BTW, if you add something to your user page (i.e. something or nothing about you), your sig goes from Vandal Red to a Positive Blue. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:26, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Now stop being a vandal. RS (talk) 17:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Testing

Testing...switches, lights, funny levers. All systems go. Now to edit the Fire Emblem Abridged page.

User:LuMontyZ/Fire Emblem: Abridged

You ask for "consistency" on VFD, evidently to claim that an article you nominated for deletion is at least as bad as this article, which I gather is one of yours, or a friend's, that we voted to delete.

I see in the archive that I nominated this article for deletion last 20-Jun. The text of my vote was: "[Someone commenting on the article's talk page is] right; author delights in cutting down a videogame, without any cleverness in describing it." That commenter I quoted in the vote as having written: "It just sounds like...'Fuck, fuck, fuck, gay person, fuck, fuck, fuck, I hate life, fuck, fuck, fuck, I kill you all and I enjoy it, fuck, fuck, fuck...' Vulgar indeed, but the article is indeed rather stupid." The vote was 1-5 and the article was deleted. You now have a copy in your userspace for further work.

"Gamecruft" is a suspect category, as it is rarely funny except to people who play the game. The biggest problem here is, again, that the article consists of the author cutting down the game, without any cleverness. First, episode-by-episode, and then character-by-character. Lines such as, "Seriously, who plays this pile of compost?" is the author cracking wise to prove how cool he is, not saying things about the game as though he were writing an encyclopedia article to make the reader laugh.

Let's start at the start. The Oscar Wilde quote is exactly the form of Wildeism I said was objectionable; one can't even tell who (or what) it is that Wilde is saying he'd "tap," although the lore is that he'd tap anyone. The intro gets off on the wrong foot, as it does not describe Fire Emblem, but describes an article on Fire Emblem; that is, more emphasis on me, me, me, the article-writer.

On the first episode, after the Tourette's outburst, all we get is, "rather bollocks....inbreeding and other such nonsense." We get the picture, the game is crap. Now puh-leeze, make us laugh! On the second episode: "To make a long story short, don't play this game...." We get the picture: Don't read the rest of this article! On the third episode, "What the blank" is a tasteful way to avoid more swears, but we get the picture: The encyclopedia writer thinks this game is horrible. What he should be doing, even conceding that he is writing only to people who already know the game (and that's a problem) is to present what's in the game to make clever sport of it. If the game just doesn't make any sense, the writer could perhaps present the game's assumptions as though they did make sense, and then find himself getting caught in the contradictions. Instead, the reader feels like the writer is just trying to minimize sales of the game at all costs.

In Sacredly Stoned, censored or not, the only way you have to make sport of the game is to claim that it is about f***ing and horse****, and that's just not clever. I don't know what the guy on the talk page meant, but "Crude" doesn't just mean sexual or obscene, but crudely devoid of anything that's genuinely funny.

When we get down to the section "CHARACTERS" (why the all-capitals?!) we are in a world that VFD voters call "listcruft." And still the individual list items don't have any clever humor. One by one, the characters are simply slutty or gay. Regarding "WHY LUBE IS REQUIRED," at this point I don't give a ****. Hope this review helps. Please make it funny. Spıke ¬ 01:04 14-Nov-12

The original draft revolved around the concept of shipping and taking the tendency for effeminate guys in Japanese productions to be gay to an absurd level. The draft was given to a group of my brother-in-law's friends. Being Japanophiles they found it funny. I suppose the audience here isn't as broad as I thought it was. ResurrectedSage and I are making fun of the stereotypes behind such games and in fact the entire culture. I redid the article into its present form to fix up some of the vulgarity.

The newest draft fixes many of the issues, but I can't see that it made a difference to you. Truly, I am simply stating that your review seems to jump between the present and otherwise most recent version. I'm just trying to get a feel here. Anyways,the Wildeism is RS' sense of humor, I should have removed it immediately. I have a few ideas that can liven it up. Also, if the Oscar Wilde Quotes is so important to the site (not being sarcastic or anything) I implore you to use your leverage you have (as far as I can glean) to clean it up. Lu 01:31, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

For the above review, I only read the newest version. It was simpler to review what is than to review the entire process by which it got to be that way. Also, I don't care whose fault anything is. I assume a large change from the deletion date is that you censored it with asterisks. For me, that is not the heart of the problem, nor is the generic Oscar Wilde quote; the problem is the emphasis on the reviewer/author rather than on entertaining the reader. By all means try to liven it up. Also, unless you know exactly where you are going with it, please write it to read as a "factual" encyclopedia article. Always, keep in mind that some of your readers will know nothing about the game (that is, they will need an explanation, which you can take your own liberties giving) and some of your readers will actually like the game and will not want to read simple grade-school put-downs of it. Spıke ¬ 01:47 14-Nov-12

PS--On the article you nominated for deletion, I made my position clear: I don't think it's very funny (and it goes on and on) but I recall trying to cut through the Wildeisms a couple years ago, only to realize that they are all linked together beneath the surface. Spıke ¬ 01:49 14-Nov-12

I understand! I completely re-did the article, keeping only what was truly Fire Emblem related. I used a few in-jokes that, well, really aren't because many will be able to get them (the annoying narrator and making one of the mechanics more alive than it is). I don't know if it's funny enough to publish, but it's definitely a better article. Still touching it up and checking formatting but feel free to read it if you'd be kind enough to continue feedback. As a last message, I wasn't trying to put blame on anyone. I was attempting to describe the article's evolution and what should have already been done to fix it. Lu 02:15, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

I see you've worked on the article. But the first-person style is weird and unnecessary, and the Intro is worse than ever, I mean more than ever about the narrator rather than the story. Please try, slowly at first, to take yourself out of the narration. You have styled the whole thing as a person-to-person chat between you and the reader (to prove that you are in the know) and it is only slowly starting to be of actual service (that is, laughs) to the reader. On minor points: No, I wasn't saying you were trying to blame someone, only that I have no interest in figuring out who wrote what; and it doesn't hurt to write an unfunny sentence from time to time if it gives non-gamers what they need to understand the humor. Spıke ¬ 02:25 14-Nov-12

I see. I just thought since annoying narrators span from documentaries to video games it'd be an interesting element. So third person really would be better? I'll work on it. Lu 02:30, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Normally third-person is better, as we are a fake encyclopedia. If you really know why you're doing it, first-person is permitted. I'm not sure you do, though, and I wonder to what extent you simply want to take center stage. Given that all your past edits can be retrieved, please do experiment with third-person. Spıke ¬ 02:38 14-Nov-12

Ah, I see. That changes my style completely. Normally when writing satire I use whatever person sounds best, But of course, this is a joke encyclopedia! So, third person is the best way to go. To be frank, I enjoy center stage, but only as a side effect of what I'm doing. From now on I'll be writing articles in the third person and sniggering behind the scenes, rather than abusing the first person. I made a rudimentary change to third person in the article. I plan on working with it from there. Lu 02:50, November 14, 2012 (UTC)