User talk:TurtleSandbox
Yo.[edit source]
- *huggle*
So. I come bringing a question. It is a vaguely important one, in that it has almost nothing to do with anything and almost something to do with everything.
But I am curious. Why are you here? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101110 - 19:09 (UTC)
- *huggle*
- Like all good relations ships start, I saw a picture of some kiwis, the fruits, with faces. Then me and a friend fiddled around on he site looking at articles until we decided to create our own. *Segway* Which spike
killed my dreamscommented on and gave us -somewhat- constructive criticism. Nahhh, I kid, he gave us some tips and hints which Ill get on top of asap.- Mmm, that works. Kiwis, though? Odd.
- Eh, he tends to be pretty blunt, but if you can get past that, what he usually has to say tends to be pretty helpful. Unlike me, he has a grasp of what works and what does not... whereas I spend half my time on Illogicopedia and sometimes lose all touch with sensibility as a result, thinking articles about man-eating plants are a good idea sometimes... I saw you already cut out a fair amount. That's a fun part... O_o ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101115 - 20:46 (UTC)
He's blunt but true, me and a friend are working on it, in studyhall actually. O.o 111 edits....
- Study hall, eh? Well, of all the uses, writing is not a bad one. Also, please sign your comments. It's a generally good habit, even if it doesn't really matter as much currently on your own talkpage. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101115 - 22:12 (UTC)
- Haha sorry, keep forgetting to sign em, and yep, was in study hall, and kiwi was the first page I saw. Also, where are you from exactly? TurtleSandbox 23:14, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. And that's... damn, those are cute. o_O And such silliness... er... I'm from... er... somewhere. *shifty eyes* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101116 - 03:11 (UTC)
- Haha sorry, keep forgetting to sign em, and yep, was in study hall, and kiwi was the first page I saw. Also, where are you from exactly? TurtleSandbox 23:14, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Some elf world? Just a guess? TurtleSandbox 14:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Is there an elf world in the land of denial? In which case, it's possible. What about you, if you don't mind my asking? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101121 - 16:28 (UTC)
- Some elf world? Just a guess? TurtleSandbox 14:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
Elephant Shrew[edit source]
In the conversation where Lyrithya adopted you, I saw your invitation to read Elephant Shrew. Long a party-crasher, I took up the invitation, and feel this article has a promising future, only in Votes for Deletion. Here are the problems:
- What we are doing here is writing pages that claim to be from an encyclopedia. In these pages, you may put lies, or crap, or goofiness, as long as it's funny. But the article gives me the impression that what you set out to do is write a sales brochure! to get everyone as excited about elephant shrews as you are.
- Some of us tolerate initial quotes with teeth gritted. Lyrithya and I have at times gone into an article to perform "quoticide." A good quote will be from a well-known person, might be something he really said but never about elephant shrews, or might make a joke about the person. What you have is ten seconds of witty repartee from a TV show, attributed to three "random guys." In my opinion, this is not better than nothing.
- The article starts with an encyclopedia cliché. This link is to a recommendation I wrote--not official Uncyclopedia policy, but smiled upon enough that they permitted a link to it from UN:HTBFANJS, which is. Please consider what I say there.
- Section 2 uses nonsense numbers which many people here believe is not funny by itself.
- Section 3 is a list. It's effortless to write one-liners in a list, compared to writing really funny stuff. Also, every Anon in the world will be editing your article later because they think they can add just one more funny thing to it. You will spend the rest of your lives deleting their contributions.
- Section 4 celebrates the fact that it has nothing definitive to say. The problem here is that it again weakens the impression that this is an "encyclopedia article."
- Please reread the article carefully, because it still contains some mistakes, such as run-on sentences and missing commas. If you are kids (which I think you are, because you make World War 2 sound like a video game), take your teacher an apple, or some whiskey or whatever she likes, and ask her to grade this as a paper; you will get some good English lessons.
- It's not wrong, but your =Level 1 section heads= look too big. I recommend ==Level 2.==
Well, that was cheaper than a Pee Review! Actually, it was the same price, but maybe faster. Keep working on this, and good luck! Spıke ¬ 17:38 11-Nov-10
- Thanks for the criticism, Ill be sure to check those. Would It be cool to post on your talk page when I think its worthy? TurtleSandbox 19:49, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. Spıke ¬ 02:18 16-Nov-10
Hello, hello.[edit source]
Hey, come by more. Miss ya... also, Chief deleted your shrew - you'll have to talk to him to get it back, but I'm sure he'll oblige. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101201 - 00:27 (UTC)