User talk:Sylvirfoxx

Welcome!

Hello, Sylvirfoxx, and thanks for joining Uncyclopedia! Before editing further, please take a gander at our Beginner's Guide. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, check out the following pages:

• About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
• Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue
• Votes for Highlight Page - read the very best articles and have your say about what goes onto our front page

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.

If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the community forum or in the chatroom, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, our Adopt-a-Noob program can bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian!  ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:50, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. What a stupid way of leaving someone a comment. But it's all good. I guess.

And on a totally irrelevent note, what function does ";" even serve, anymore? --Sylvirfoxx (talk) 01:28, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Communicating by typing text onto a shared page is definitely a step backward from email. But it is all we've got, as typing onto shared pages is what we do. It goes easier if you open new topics at the bottom of the page, where we all look for such stuff. Welcome to the website! Spıke ¬ 01:12 18-Dec-12

And thank you! --Sylvirfoxx (talk) 01:32, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

And what does the semicolon do?

At the start of a sentence under WikiMedia, it mandates an "unnumbered head" such as this one. Otherwise, it enables boiler-room personnel in contact with a Pakistani customer support center to ask: "Is that the one with the tail?" Spıke ¬ 01:15 18-Dec-12

AH HA! I KNEW IT! --Sylvirfoxx (talk) 01:27, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, "any more"; I see what you're asking; it's a fair question. You see; right there, the semicolon implies, better than a full stop, that there are two complete sentences but they're bound together. When I've written what I want to write, but I want to fine-tune the way the reader reads it, I find the semicolon a useful tool. Spıke ¬ 01:34 18-Dec-12

I occasionally find it useful, too... especially when attempting to communicate infinite sadness. ;_;--Sylvirfoxx (talk) 01:36, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is all fine-and-good for those with dimples, but.... Spıke ¬ 01:38 18-Dec-12

Steven Moffat

I don't know Jack about Moffat, and I don't like the constraints of the Pee Review format (such as number grades), but I'll tell you what I think. The sense of humor is evident but the article clings to formulas for getting laughs, to its detriment. For example, your Intro should have one purpose: to hook the reader into continuing with the rest of the article. So spending half of it on a list, though its length is plenty ridiculous and scores you technical Funny Points, achieves the opposite result. Moreover, that Moffat is "hated, loved, and feared" is a catchy turn-of-phrase but it leaves me clueless as to what I am in for if I read on.

Section 1: I presume Gasblown is Glasgow. I realize I am in over my head in lack of knowledge of the background material, and yet cringe at the forced acronym GUST.

Section 3: Yes, I am skipping ahead, as I don't know enough of the background. But you are not giving me any hints--the melodrama is unhinged from the real facts--and the tortured phrasings are lost on me, though they might hit home with Scots.

Section 4: "Suddenly decided"? This is a cop-out. Pursuit of lucre, desire to profit from others' work: these are motives. Sudden decision is not. Be more inventive about how and why they came to agreement.

Section 5: The device of an overlong, struck-through, link (to an article you really don't need to link to) is a gimmick. I realize that the section is trying to tie together a theme (a career of continual mayhem) that wasn't made continual by the article.

Images: They are a good start; the article needs perhaps two more. These two seem like canned funny bits imported in their entirety, but what would be better is to bring in photos that aren't funny and make them funny with your captions. You need to type the second one at the start of the section and with a full stop at the end, to make it render correctly on everyone's screen. Hope this helps; it would be better if I had known the background, though some other readers from the US will probably be in the same fix unless you go halfway in the article. Spıke ¬ 02:11 18-Dec-12

I really appreciate you taking the time to read it and advise me on areas I can improve. (GUST really and truly was the arcronym of his group. I couldn't believe it.) I'll hunt around for some more suitable pictures (I was being paranoid about over doing that aspect), and work on the specified areas! Thanks!--Sylvirfoxx (talk) 19:20, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Regards from your reviewer.

On images and paranoia: our landlords at Wikia are presently conducting a purge of photos of bare genitals, but we have never had a problem filching photos from anywhere--even one that belongs to Moffat--and claiming immunity under the legal doctrine of Fair Use. Although it's my fault for not knowing about Moffat and GUST, you are the author, and a bad reviewer may be a good test case that points you to one audience you didn't reach. We sometimes say, "Wrong ≠ Funny" (unless it's funny, that is), so perhaps you should set out to write a biography that is not so much wrong as half-wrong, or just right enough to inform uninformed readers of the basis of your flights of fancy. Spıke ¬ 20:04 19-Dec-12

Paranoia regarding copyright is something I have an unhealthy lack of, and I was referring to unintentionally overpowering the article with images. I shall make it a point to be a little more half-wrong, and to be more interpretable to those fortunate enough to be free of Moffat's unhealthy influence. Despite Brit telly not being in your ballpark, your review has been quite helpful. --Sylvirfoxx (talk) 20:41, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I peed

Since I've never visited your talk page before, I was unaware of the review you've recieved already for your article on Steven Moffat. So I responded to the Pee Review entry for the same. Can't hurt. Here it is. Good day. --Tumb13weed (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)