User talk:Yuewolf

The cat in the hat

Your take on the Cat's story was great! A bit miscapitalized, though. In fact, it turns out that there was already another article under the properly capitalized name. But it sucked, hard. So here's what I did:

• Deleted the sucky article at The Cat in the Hat (I can do that because I'm an Admin).
• Moved your article from The cat in the hat to The Cat in the Hat.
• Posted a note in your talk space to tell you what I did (you're soaking in it).
• Twisted off the lid of another bottle of Tequila, though that has nothing to do with the above.

Thanks for the excellent contribution, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 22:23, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rate my contributions... or else....

Yes, that's right. I want you to rate each of my contributions. GO! --Yuewolf 23:11, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Plurals

Your new article Natural highs is... interesting enough. It has potential. But it also has an "s" at the end, which irritates the living crap out of me. You might consider moving it to Natural high, just to be consistent. Now, if it were a category, plural would be appropriate, as in Category:Natural highs. But you'd have to add a bunch of articles to the category to make it meaningful, and that tends to attract attention -- so be sure it doesn't suck first. Man, do I need a shot of Tequila... glad it's Friday. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 23:28, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You back?

That was a long break...... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Award from UN:REQ

This user created Opinion, an article originally requested on Uncyclopedia:Requested articles. You're welcome!

MadMax 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

lyrithya's page

This reply is before I have looked at CO. I doubt you have enemies that are following your edits. It is possibly your articles are lacking some key killer feature that all good articles share. The crappy ones may well be as crappy as you say, and you have not VFDed them so no one has seen them. there are 34,000 articles and only 100 good ones. (perhaps) I am going to look at CO now see you on its talk page--K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 19:09, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually continued from the CO discussion page, since this is not actually about that article.

First. I understand. I too, started writing here in late 2005, it was pretty safe to write anything. I am afraid some editors slap ice templates willy nilly under the Idea "would I write it this way?", "Do I get this", "Did I laugh x number of times?" "is it superficially pretty?" Once as an experiment, I adopted an absurd little thing, that was poorly formatted. I made it follow the wikipedia clone manual of style, broke it into sections, added two images, but added absolutely no new jokes or anything. It is still as stupid as ever, but it looks so much better, people did not kill it.

My theory of humor comes from friends that are professional comics. It's like a secret to a magic trick. If everyone knows about it and to look for it, they will see how formulaic some comedy is. But generally comedy is funny because the audience did not expect the "punchline", so in lists of three, the human mind starts ordering things with the first two, and the pay off one is the joke. Ever try to make a baby laugh? create a pattern of behavior so he expects something to happen next, but insert a random silly surprise. Some comics don't use the three, of course, I am not saying the only way to be funny is in threes, I am just saying 2 is not enough for the pattern, and four or more can get tedious. Look at a David Letterman Top Ten list. they are not all random, there is a build up to the punchline. The philosphy of threes, goes back to antiquity. Three is a powerful number. I am not sure if thats why the humor of three thing works or not. I don't think anyone has it out for you. and if you see banal articles about cats or dogs etc - tag them. There are self appointed quality police doing that nightly, tryibng to get t he chaff out of the gold. Not that CLO is chaff, but Frosty felt it needed something more, and I gave you my idea of what that may. I found nothing wrong with the article. I got the concept., I wouldn't have tagged it. I had to rewrite some of my 2006 era articles because they fell under the microscope of the "not good enough/funny enough police. I certainly hope that someone is not following your contributions and kind of holding you up to a higher standard.

Take a look at featured articles, and see what qualities they share, not non-featured articles. All non features are possibly going under consideration for 1) featuring or 2) deletion. Thems the breaks. --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 21:08, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, don't you go giving up on us... sometimes it takes a bit to get into the swing of things, but should you stick around, read more, write more, perhaps review some, you'll get back into the hang of it. You're certainly better than most of our noobs, and many of those unfortunately do stick around when I really wish they wouldn't. But don't tell them I said that, okay? *shifty eyes* 1234 ~ 17:41, 21 June 2011

Also, I reviewed the CO page. >.< 1234 ~ 14:22, 24 June 2011