User talk:YourMotherHasMyUnderwearArchive1

Somebody has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic.

Journeyman

Well to be honest, I'll QVFD something if it hits two categories; one short, and two not funny. Your article evidently hit both of those categories I'm afraid. Try looking at a couple of good articles such as Oscar Wilde and Biggles and also read Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid a couple of times. If you need anything else just ask :) (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 28, 11:29

Tried to post on your page, I guess you locked me. Thanks for saving me from myself. Anyway, I revamped the article and removed references to the show Rome, which Kevin McKidd is known for but I guess it was obscure. Is it funnier now or is there just no saving this turd? Thanks for the constructive criticism. There's a lot there I can work with!--YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, anytime :) Although I don't know how you were stopped from editing my talk page...I may look into that one. (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 28, 21:22

Well if you look to your left you'll see a button that says "Featured content" click that and have a read through some of the articles there. They're the ones that have been featured on our main page and so technically should be good :) (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 30, 18:23

Review of Journalist

Sure! As far as reviewing your articles goes, would you like me to adopt you? That way we could have a direct link.

It takes a while to become funny on here. You know the secret to getting featured? Writing a lot of articles. Keep me updated as to Journalist. (Write on your talk page, I'll respond) --  Le Cejak • <-> 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Then I can remove that embarrassing logo from my user page, seeking adoption, that's been there like a week with no bites.--YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm going to wait for the guy who adopted me to say that I would be worthy of this task. Be back in a minute, perhaps with a new template for you. In the meantime, what would you like me to review? --  Le Cejak • <-> 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've written 3 articles, Journalist, UnNews: Single guy gets a tax cut, says he'll spend it on porn, and Journeyman. I got a horrible review of Journeyman, and I'm inclined to just delete it, but maybe it's somehow salvageable. I'm planning to take on Katrina, which could be really funny, but currently is a big mess of shit. Some of it is even real! Yech! --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm glad you understand that real things suck (although they can be used in interesting ways). The one I see with a huge amount of promise is your article journalist. The unnews is interesting, but it's very short and "giggle-based". As for the third one, I've never seen the show so it would be difficult to "get it". Come to my userpage and browse my articles if you want. In fact, most of them need reviewing. Choose one you like, and take your time if you choose to review something. --  Le Cejak • <-> 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But... but... I liked pen island! Really, giggling is better than, In Soviet Russia, giggles laugh at you, and I've had sex with lots of gigglers.

Yesterday, I had a look at your artistic chemistry article, and, unfortunately, I didn't really get it. Something to do with hippies and drugs, I guess? I stuck to the, "if you don't have anything constructive to say," rule on that one. Sorry :(. I'll have a look at some of your others.--YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Review an article that you get, I guess, and make sure you go in depth. I guess just choose one of my articles to review before you really sink your teeth into pee reviewing. --  Le Cejak • <-> 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed Why not: Cannibalism. Unfortunately, the real world intrudes, and now I must write some code for my job. --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 18:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, sorry. I'm not qualified. You really should go to Uncyclopedia:AAN and just ask someone on their talk page. --  Le Cejak • <-> 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it! Not an in-depth enough review for an award, but still: good start! --  Le Cejak • <-> 13:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)