User talk:Thomasfan666

Welcome!

Hello, Thomasfan666, 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 nooblets:

• Beginner's Guide
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read anything at all, make it the above two 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
• Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask
• 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.

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. 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!  --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 23:57, September 6, 2007

Episode scripts

About that, I'd rather you not. If you must, make a seperate page: an UnScripts page. You can link it to the main page, and I can maybe spruce it up a bit too. Mr Whiskers 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pox

LOL! Nice addition to the Pox page! --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reviews

They're terribly short and not really helpful to the people that requested them. Please mind looking at some reviews by other people and reading the guidelines. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat have to agree with socky here. While I love the idea of getting a perfect review, having all tens on your reviews and very short comments doesn't really help improve them, and after a while the validity of the reviews has to come into question. Try and add more comments on how to improve things and what you feel would help the article. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What they said. Please be more in-depth with your reviews. But thanks for trimming down the queue, I guess. Saberwolf116 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this another way... Hi Thomasfan666 - thanks for taking an interest in reviewing, we always appreciate people taking the time to try and help other users around here. Honest! However, your reviews are pretty short, and they might not be that helpful to the people who requested them. My thinking is: if you're going to take the time to help people out, you're going to want to know your time hasn't been wasted, right? I recommend taking more time over a single review, and giving more helpful feedback and advice. If you honestly can't think of any advice to give, maybe it's better to leave it for a more experienced reviewer to pick up. Have a good look at the guidelines - this lays out what people are looking for from a review. If you do any more reviews, I'd recommend following them, or you might find out your time has been wasted. Take a look at some reviews by Saberwolf up there - he's one of our best reviewers, and knows his stuff. (Oh, and another tip: if you want to call someone "n00bish", it might help to have a look at how long they've been here - Sycamore, who you directed that comment at, is one of our most established users with plenty of featured articles and a previous WotM winner to boot!) Anyway, just thought I'd mention it - good luck and see you around the wiki. --UU - natter 15:53, Jun 25

Well Socky, Saberwolf16, and UU, I'm a busy dude and Between work, Model Trains, and my family, I don't have much time. However, thank you for the notices/warnings and I will get right on it. After all, don't you want to be quick and/or to the point?

          -Thomasfan666

If you're a busy dude, don't bother reviewing. People put time and effort into writing articles, they expect the same from a review. It's common courtesy, and anything less is an insult. As you so glibly ignored the friendly point I was trying to make, I'll be much more blunt this time: another effort-free review will be rewarded with a ban. --UU - natter 19:55, Jun 25

No, I really appreciated the depth of thought and quality in the review. I believe that it has inspired me to new heights. Pup

Meich Goten! (German for "My god") I never felt this warm inside ever sense i ate a burning hotog! Thanx!

-Thomasfan666

Adoption

Have another look at my user talk page, and let me know if you need anything else!

Last friendly chat

Thomasfan, read this carefully: do not add the featured category to articles that haven't been featured. Also, don't go claiming credit for articles you haven't contributed to (unless your name somehow doesn't show up in the Young Ones article's history by magic, or something. You're trying my patience a little with these antics, just stick to getting to know the site and working on your own articles until you really get the hang of things. I hope I don't have to have words again. --UU - natter 08:19, Jul 1

Are you trying to get in trouble by removing UU's message? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it makes me feel bad. this is my 2nd year here, and I understand what I did. Accidents happen, but don't shove it right here, makin me feel really bloody bad!

You can start anew by archiving your talkpage. Just removing a message is frowned upon however. Good luck editing Uncyclopedia. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It could have been worse, I could have banned you. Don't complain about getting friendly advice, or next time I won't bother, and I'll just give you enforced time off. --UU - natter 08:06, Jul 6

The first and second ExOps Reviews

Hello Thomasfan666. I am simply querying your decision to blank my entire review of your article, if I am going to spend time reviewing it then I feel it is not unjustified for me to ask you to respond to me personally rather than deleting the entire review. A review throughout which I tried give you feedback to make the article better. I notice that you have re-submitted an article that is very similar to the original back to pee review, simply with a couple more pictures and a template suggesting that Americans might not get your humour. I accept that my review was not very positive and I can also understand that you may want a second opinion. Please could you message me with your feelings toward my review and any part of my comments that you felt were unjustified. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed your article, please let me know if you have any issues with my comments. --ChiefjusticeDS 07:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at ExOps earlier and was intending to review, but time wasn't a friend of mine here. What are you planning to do with it from here? I'm happy to throw my two cents into the mix as well if you like. Pup

I'll adopt. (n00bs) and take it from there. PuppyOnTheRadio, ya in?

This is for you. I'm hopefully going to have a chance to comment on ExOps today but have a million and ones things to chase. have a quick look through UN:BEST and see if there is an article that is similar in voice/flavour to what you are after and let me know what and why so I know what you're wanting to achieve. Pup 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said hopefully I would have a chance... sorry, got sidetracked creating something new. Thought you may appreciate it as discussions we had were partially the inspiration for this. Isaac The Tank Engine‎. I'm not touching Thomas still - I'll let you change that as you will, but I wanted to play with Rev Awdry a little bit. I know, playing with preachers is never the right answer. Pup 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Okay, there's enough from CJDS to be getting on with in regards to the article. One other thing you may want to add is an Org chart showing who reports what to where and how... although tempting to be stupid with nonsensical with this, I'd say try and keep it as true as you can -p maybe steal the hierarchical structure from an existing military?
2. Run it through a spell checker
3. Is/are the character(s) funny, or are we just saying something funny about them. Try juxtapositioning two conflicting paradigms - Nuns with guns style. Alternatively make them the archetype. Silent Bob is funny because he's not just quiet, his all but mute...

Pup 07:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Isaac the Tank Engine

In case you have missed the point, this is not about Thomas the Tank Engine. This is more a dig at the Chronicles of Narnia and the Passion of the Christ, and in general the attempts by religious organisations to make religion "accessible by the kiddies." Using the vehicle of Rev WV Awdry, who created the Thomas character in his Railway series shortly after the end of WWII which of course had a devastating effect on England. Shortly after the end of the war the Chronicles of Narnia were released by CS Lewis (hmmm, two initials and a five letter surname and a prominent Anglican author) and the death of George VI, the head of the Anglican Church. Thomas is a vehicle which drives the point.

The other thing that is heavily used in this is Via Crucis (otherwise known as the way of the cross or more commonly the Stations of the cross) which is a Catholic/Anglican tradition that was changed in 1991 to rest more heavily on scriptural basis and was also (reportedly) the basis for "Passion of the Christ."

I rely very heavily on HTBFANJS when I write here which suggests that I avoid throw away lines and try and use the truth wherever possible. I also have a reason why I have the layout I have and have avoided too many gags. I don't aim for length when I write but quality of the material. I actually wrote about twice this much and then condensed it as it was too long to hold the joke initially. The line about "the two daughters of Culdee" actually is the most that I want to get toward gags, and even then I'm tempted to remove it as it detracts from the purpose.

What I'm thinking about redoing when I revisit this is have it that it was a random 6 or 7 stations that got found are not the first 6 but a random 6 or 7, and do a little photo imagery to show Isaac being crucified.

The material that you did in there would be good for the Thomas page.

In regards to ExOps - you and I write very differently. If I was to write it I'd bulldoze the lot and then recreate it from the ground up, and to be honest I wouldn't enjoy it - I've re-written a couple of things on Uncyclopedia that I thought that the concept was ripe for ridicule but the delivery was poor - ExOps doesn't strike me as a rich vein for me to plumb. Pup 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: ExOps

Yeah, we're still friends. I've lost interest in uncyclopedia. They deleted my Pox article calling it unfunny game cruft. The Fuckers can go to hell. As if they know what funny is. Not one thing on this shit site has made me laugh since they changed it. That "how to be funny and not just stupid" guide is the biggest piece of bullshit. Stupidity is the major source of funny. If these dumbasses need to make GUIDELINES on how to be funny then it's just Wikipedia trying to be funny. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thomasfan666. You have new messages at SWJS's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PEE review, or thereabouts

User talk:PuppyOnTheRadio/Pox Pup 03:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC) edit #998

Signing

I notice you haven't been signing your posts correctly around the wiki. When you finish a comment, you're supposed to sign it with 4 tildes (~~~~) so people know who you are, like this:

This is a comment. ~~~~

Cheers! Saberwolf116 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was signing with three for a while as my old sig had the "date" attached to the back end, so if you come across a few of my older posts there will be a three tilde sig. If there's any newer ones I'm sorry but I have to admit that I have missed a few of them recently, but those that I've noticed I've fixed.

If anyone comes across an unsigned post of mine drop me a note with the details of where it is and I'll fix it. Pup 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the name of Isaac are you doing?

• Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnScripts: Timmy the Wank Engine "Timmy Gets Raped"
• Blanking of pages getting you put up for potential ban
• UnBooks:Thomas comes to breakfast

Read HTBFANJS and read UN:BAN. Pup t 02:03, 19/07/2009

Long time no see...

And to be honest much the same with SWJS, so I think he may have flown the coop. Pup t 03:02, 24/10/2009