Talk:Don’t some work

Damn, you're so... well, ah... *hug-tackles Mrthejazz* Crazy. 1234 ~ 03:37, 3 February 2011

I dare say. That is far from appropriate courting procedure. I realize now that you are clearly smitten, but I wonder if your courset was sewed on too tight, or nay perhaps you're a bit too happy to see me? Have you met the Marquis de Sade? A fine fellow. Just the other day, I enjoyed tea with him and Elizabeth Bathory, who I have to say has an impressive castle.

It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 03:52, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS AWESOME

yep. --~  08:37, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

From Pee Review

I have this in mainspace until it's reviewed. I fear deletion for political reasons.

It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 03:58, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, hells. I'll try to review this. I guess.

1234 ~ 03:12, 13 February 2011

Not you! Just kidding. I will ensure to review your review, though, so be wary. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 20:20, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's almost done and it's pretty horrid, so don't expect much.

1234 ~ 20:21, 13 February 2011

Concept:	7	I'ma hazard you're aware of the irony of putting such a thing as this up for review - you're literally saying don't put work into things, the opposite of Famine's dealy, and reviews are work. Requesting one is like an implied promise that you intend to put more work into something, and that you've already put in sufficient work that you now need help from another to continue... it amuses me in of itself. I have to wonder if you could have something about that, though - after all, you're sporking Famine's, but no need to stick to it entirely, right? Not that you have; you've already added a fair amount and taken the piece from simple reversal, after all, but there are so many other things you could pull in from around the site. At any rate, I'll do a little work, myself, whatever that even is. I'll also go vote on some stuff and leave some comments nagging people about various site-related things and try to pull some articles out of the AAP category... not useful, eh? Seriously, Famine's thingy has bugged me a mite, as well. It's like it's saying that the only important thing to be done around here is write articles, and that just ain't so. I mean, look at ChiefjusticeDS - hardly useless, but it's been quite a long time since he 'worked' on an article. And Sonje - she does images, something Famine specifically lists as not work, and she also hasn't written a single thing herself, yet where would the articles she has illustrated and the songs she has vocalised be without her expert aid? Famine's crusty thing belittles that, as well as what many others do that ain't writing articles, either, so I'm quite glad you've taken the time to put in a little 'work' of your own and say the cronking opposite. It needed saying, and in the spirit of Uncyclopedia, it needed saying funnily, which I'd say you've done rather well already. Problem is, though, while a wonderful thing to parody, it is also almost entirely an in-joke as it is. More so than a lot of them; it's not just referential to the site and an attitude within, but to a very specific documentation of that attitude that isn't even in mainspace - perhaps you should make it more accessible? Use the parody of Famine's dealy, of course; that is the structure, and a very fine one, at that, but don't leave it at that so much as you have. Make more fun of everyone involved as well, of the points, of work in general, of reactions, of how seriously people take the notion of work. Not just here, but perhaps on wikis in general... 'work' is, after all, a particularly strange notion on a hobby site like this; what are we here for, really? And on Wikipedia, it's even more serious - if you could tie that in, effectively mock the wikipedias and the entire notion of 'work' throughout wilst sticking to the frame of Don't some work, it wouldn't just be an in-joke, but an obvious and strong feature candidate accessible to a wider audience, as well, sort of like Wikipoleonic Complex. Those familiar with Famine's would of course still get more of this, but there is certainly no need to leave it at that. And let's face it, somewhere back in Uncyclopedia's history, it was a parody of Wikipedia, and if we cannot mock them as well as our own overserious selves, what can we mock? I know, I know, that would take even more work than you have already put into this, but... it'd be so awesome! At least, I think it would be. Feel free to smack me now if you feel otherwise, but I had to at least try. As it is, it's just so self-referential, without that much else. On a completely separate note, what's exactly is the grouping of the stupid bullshit links? I mean, why is that really there? What else might it need, and since it doesn't actually tie this to like articles, it's a bit of a non sequiter. Or will there be more of a series, or shall it just be a floater? It gets me wondering, is all.
Humour:	5	As for specifics of the humour that's here and whatnot... hmmm... I'll just go from the start. Introduction 'Library assistant'? That seems odd, somehow. What do those folks even do; how does that equate to the irritating folks here that just work and complain when others don't? The standardising the humour notion is pretty... well, accurate, actually. To be funny, perhaps it could refer to something else, some instance of it, or some such? Examples are your friends, mon. Famine couldn't be arsed, save for the ego-trip, but that needn't stop you. Famine's metaphors are.. not good. They look more not good in yours, reversed in meaning, though, and don't really come across as funny to me, either. I have absolutely no idea what you could do about that. Maybe poke at them? I mean, you do with the footnotes, but they're all the way at the bottom - who really does read those things, anyhow? Why not pull them all into the body of the piece, since there are only three, for that matter? 'So unless you want me to mock you'- this would make more sense if there was more mocking in what leads up to it. As it is, the only humour about it potentially comes from the twist from 'respect' to 'mock'. Work is not It's Famine's list... but perhaps you could add to it? Link the things to perfectly legitimate ones, say, link the quote one to a article with a very good quote at the begining that clearly took thought, point the image thing to RadicalX's corner, perhaps, that kind of thing. In-jokey, but then again... The saying that normal sane people do that, though, is good. Might add about that being what the entire place is, though maybe spelling it out would indeed be too much. But this could be a place to work in more general notions of mocking the wikipedias, if you do decide to do that. Work is More of Famine's listiness... okay, I can't really find much fault here. Not sure I understand why you chose Jesus as your conceit, but it works. When I work I think you may be overdoing this one a mite - just sarcastically calling everyone pathetic and whatnot starts feeling like solid derision and the humour loses its flavour, frankly. Namecalling is just not that effective. More subtlety might not go amiss... and perhaps more examples, general wiki jokes, etc might help, too. The Beginning (A trip down ego lane) This whole thing seems a little odd to me. Since you're still using Famine's article, it seems forced, somehow. Perhaps part of it is just turning the fellow into more of an arse than he is... why do that at all when there's so much actual content to mock? But then again, the article began as if someone was simply saying the opposite of what Famine was. Why are you now speaking as if you are Famine, or at least some idea of the guy, pretentious and derogatory and whatnot, saying that work is imperative' and this is how it's done? And why not use a different article, entirely? You could take something simple and hilarious - something less contrived that did not necessarily take a great deal of 'work' and yet still comes out funny to a majority of audiences, and shift what follows to fit with that? Might come out making more sense as a whole that way, too. The Idea (That I’m going to make better because I have a Monopoly on humor) Must you put that parenthesised bit in the header? I mean, good point, but it's so in-you-face as it is - why not actually demonstrate the monopoly more? Or at least make it smaller. Or shorter. The content itself is just Famine's, though. Pretty meh like that, really. So why not do something more with it? You could try to work the line at the end into the content itself, give it a more urgent tone, mebbe, but then again, it doesn't even fit what this is. Don't some work. Why is it sudenly sarcastically saying the opposite, hmm? The Starting Research Now you're back in the original voice. Quite frankly, I much prefer this one. It's fairly typical of what one would expect on a wiki, reasonable but lazy person putting stuff to shame. I also rather like how you use what is another of Famine's lists, annotate it with time estimates, and then toss the entire notion out the window. The History of the Accordion, The Biblical Research, Jewish Music, Non-English is always good, Something to work with, What is it missing? - 'Oops. I forgot to tell a joke,' indeed. That and one or two others are the entirety of the funnies in these sections, and while it is indeed what Famine had, the way you are using it is equating to fluff. If you don't have anything to do with it, why not get rid of the bulk of it entirely? Since you apparently went for the lazy approach, anyhow, there isn't much point to it all, anymore. Admittedly, the fact that there is all that fluff makes the oops that much funnier, but it's still just tacked on, so to speak. Harder to get funnies from that. Time So far, Update This doesn't entirely make sense - you're operating under the frame of doing this to make others look bad, yes, but how intensive was it really? Then you go into the thing about work, and it's just... what? The article is 'Don't some work' - saying puttering around and little things are just fine and dandy and what sane people do, though sometimes there's reason aplenty to go to proper bother and write things along with the pretentiousm you still don't put a great deal of effort into that... but then you end it on the note of getting up in the morning and working non-stop? Sure, sure, sarcasm, right? But it doesn't seem to fit. It's too out of the blue... and the end is the worst place to lose your reader, mon. At least, it is to me. Making it make more sense would probably help, though. Sense in terms of itself. Whatever itself is.
Prose and formatting:	4	I'm afraid Famine didn't put that much work into his presentation. It's just not particularly good, and where you follow it too closely, yours seems to suffer for it as well. Take for instance the table of contents - that's a terrible place for it, considering how the lede tries to transition. Since it doesn't really serve a purpose, anyhow, though, might as well chuck it entirely. Famine's grammar also isn't that good - missing and misuse of commas, needless capitalisation, questionable paragraphing, etc; I'm not sure emulating that is such a good idea. Add to that poorly formed lists, inelegant usage of headers (a h1 in the middle of a page is bad. Well, not always, but in general. And here. Here it just looks bad) and a whole general lopsidedness of the thing, and... eh. You'll get no argument from me about the 'trip down ego lane' thing being just that, but there is also just so much of it and so little jokery about it, proportionally to the size. Problem is, though, I'm not really sure how much you can change while still sticking to Famine's frame; looks like you've already shortened the 'The Beginning', and the pictures and whatnot, while making it look more like an article and less like a rant, pull it away quite a bit... more and it may well move too far. Still, if you can fix the grammars and whatnots, format the lists, cut out more needless, work in more general humours besides just mocking Famine, you should be able to still stick to the frame whilst getting it to look a wee bit better. That could be part of the joke, too - irony in how the don't do work is better... Guuh. My normal complaints are mostly on what Famine already did, though, which is just irritating. Only things that're actually your doing that I can think of are some of the headers - smaller headers should be for subsections of the same idea, and when the idea changes, should get a new section. Famine had that problem too, but you may have actually made it worse. I'm not sure. At very least you made it different. And there are also the image captions - the folks musing with the pipes are all very well and fine, but who wants to actually read all that crammed in small font into a small box? It's not that what's there is bad, but... I dunno. Might want to try to shorten the longer ones, even if you are running a supporting sidestory there, just so folks are more inclined to read it.
Images:	6	Wheee, pipes. Decent, but you do need to be careful with the sidestory-ness. It's related, but doesn't directly tie in, so there is danger of losing the reaser even before the too long captions. The last one also seems more random, which sort of fits, but sort of not, so be careful with that. Overall decent images, yes, decent gig going with thim, except for the stick which seems completely out of the blue... it fits with its section but not the other images. And could you maybe get another one of that same guy - another screenshot of him from the same whatever that's from, perhaps? Mix it up a little more, perhaps... What was I saying?
Miscellaneous:	6	Okay, I'll admit - I don't entirely disagree with Famine's notions, especially in regards to... some. There are a few users who I really wish would stop dicking around and do something useful... write something, read something, spend some time on something, GET THE HELL OF MY TALKPAGE something... but... eh. Actually, I tend to mind them a lot less when they just keep the lengthy chatter off my talkpage...
Final Score:	28	That's my rant to the counter-rant to the rant. Or something. Hopefully it makes sense and whatnot, or at least contains some helpfulness. Satire, eh? Oh, gods, I really hope Famine never reads this. Not the article; that justifies its own existence well enough, at least in userspace (probably be fine in mainspace even as it is, though it's still too in-jokey to really go anywhere), but this review, it's... oh well.
Reviewer:	1234 ~ 22:26, 13 February 2011

7	Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
	I'ma hazard you're aware of the irony of putting such a thing as this up for review - you're literally saying don't put work into things, the opposite of Famine's dealy, and reviews are work. Requesting one is like an implied promise that you intend to put more work into something, and that you've already put in sufficient work that you now need help from another to continue... it amuses me in of itself. I have to wonder if you could have something about that, though - after all, you're sporking Famine's, but no need to stick to it entirely, right? Not that you have; you've already added a fair amount and taken the piece from simple reversal, after all, but there are so many other things you could pull in from around the site. At any rate, I'll do a little work, myself, whatever that even is. I'll also go vote on some stuff and leave some comments nagging people about various site-related things and try to pull some articles out of the AAP category... not useful, eh? Seriously, Famine's thingy has bugged me a mite, as well. It's like it's saying that the only important thing to be done around here is write articles, and that just ain't so. I mean, look at ChiefjusticeDS - hardly useless, but it's been quite a long time since he 'worked' on an article. And Sonje - she does images, something Famine specifically lists as not work, and she also hasn't written a single thing herself, yet where would the articles she has illustrated and the songs she has vocalised be without her expert aid? Famine's crusty thing belittles that, as well as what many others do that ain't writing articles, either, so I'm quite glad you've taken the time to put in a little 'work' of your own and say the cronking opposite. It needed saying, and in the spirit of Uncyclopedia, it needed saying funnily, which I'd say you've done rather well already. Problem is, though, while a wonderful thing to parody, it is also almost entirely an in-joke as it is. More so than a lot of them; it's not just referential to the site and an attitude within, but to a very specific documentation of that attitude that isn't even in mainspace - perhaps you should make it more accessible? Use the parody of Famine's dealy, of course; that is the structure, and a very fine one, at that, but don't leave it at that so much as you have. Make more fun of everyone involved as well, of the points, of work in general, of reactions, of how seriously people take the notion of work. Not just here, but perhaps on wikis in general... 'work' is, after all, a particularly strange notion on a hobby site like this; what are we here for, really? And on Wikipedia, it's even more serious - if you could tie that in, effectively mock the wikipedias and the entire notion of 'work' throughout wilst sticking to the frame of Don't some work, it wouldn't just be an in-joke, but an obvious and strong feature candidate accessible to a wider audience, as well, sort of like Wikipoleonic Complex. Those familiar with Famine's would of course still get more of this, but there is certainly no need to leave it at that. And let's face it, somewhere back in Uncyclopedia's history, it was a parody of Wikipedia, and if we cannot mock them as well as our own overserious selves, what can we mock? I know, I know, that would take even more work than you have already put into this, but... it'd be so awesome! At least, I think it would be. Feel free to smack me now if you feel otherwise, but I had to at least try. As it is, it's just so self-referential, without that much else. On a completely separate note, what's exactly is the grouping of the stupid bullshit links? I mean, why is that really there? What else might it need, and since it doesn't actually tie this to like articles, it's a bit of a non sequiter. Or will there be more of a series, or shall it just be a floater? It gets me wondering, is all.
5	Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
	As for specifics of the humour that's here and whatnot... hmmm... I'll just go from the start. Introduction 'Library assistant'? That seems odd, somehow. What do those folks even do; how does that equate to the irritating folks here that just work and complain when others don't? The standardising the humour notion is pretty... well, accurate, actually. To be funny, perhaps it could refer to something else, some instance of it, or some such? Examples are your friends, mon. Famine couldn't be arsed, save for the ego-trip, but that needn't stop you. Famine's metaphors are.. not good. They look more not good in yours, reversed in meaning, though, and don't really come across as funny to me, either. I have absolutely no idea what you could do about that. Maybe poke at them? I mean, you do with the footnotes, but they're all the way at the bottom - who really does read those things, anyhow? Why not pull them all into the body of the piece, since there are only three, for that matter? 'So unless you want me to mock you'- this would make more sense if there was more mocking in what leads up to it. As it is, the only humour about it potentially comes from the twist from 'respect' to 'mock'. Work is not It's Famine's list... but perhaps you could add to it? Link the things to perfectly legitimate ones, say, link the quote one to a article with a very good quote at the begining that clearly took thought, point the image thing to RadicalX's corner, perhaps, that kind of thing. In-jokey, but then again... The saying that normal sane people do that, though, is good. Might add about that being what the entire place is, though maybe spelling it out would indeed be too much. But this could be a place to work in more general notions of mocking the wikipedias, if you do decide to do that. Work is More of Famine's listiness... okay, I can't really find much fault here. Not sure I understand why you chose Jesus as your conceit, but it works. When I work I think you may be overdoing this one a mite - just sarcastically calling everyone pathetic and whatnot starts feeling like solid derision and the humour loses its flavour, frankly. Namecalling is just not that effective. More subtlety might not go amiss... and perhaps more examples, general wiki jokes, etc might help, too. The Beginning (A trip down ego lane) This whole thing seems a little odd to me. Since you're still using Famine's article, it seems forced, somehow. Perhaps part of it is just turning the fellow into more of an arse than he is... why do that at all when there's so much actual content to mock? But then again, the article began as if someone was simply saying the opposite of what Famine was. Why are you now speaking as if you are Famine, or at least some idea of the guy, pretentious and derogatory and whatnot, saying that work is imperative' and this is how it's done? And why not use a different article, entirely? You could take something simple and hilarious - something less contrived that did not necessarily take a great deal of 'work' and yet still comes out funny to a majority of audiences, and shift what follows to fit with that? Might come out making more sense as a whole that way, too. The Idea (That I’m going to make better because I have a Monopoly on humor) Must you put that parenthesised bit in the header? I mean, good point, but it's so in-you-face as it is - why not actually demonstrate the monopoly more? Or at least make it smaller. Or shorter. The content itself is just Famine's, though. Pretty meh like that, really. So why not do something more with it? You could try to work the line at the end into the content itself, give it a more urgent tone, mebbe, but then again, it doesn't even fit what this is. Don't some work. Why is it sudenly sarcastically saying the opposite, hmm? The Starting Research Now you're back in the original voice. Quite frankly, I much prefer this one. It's fairly typical of what one would expect on a wiki, reasonable but lazy person putting stuff to shame. I also rather like how you use what is another of Famine's lists, annotate it with time estimates, and then toss the entire notion out the window. The History of the Accordion, The Biblical Research, Jewish Music, Non-English is always good, Something to work with, What is it missing? - 'Oops. I forgot to tell a joke,' indeed. That and one or two others are the entirety of the funnies in these sections, and while it is indeed what Famine had, the way you are using it is equating to fluff. If you don't have anything to do with it, why not get rid of the bulk of it entirely? Since you apparently went for the lazy approach, anyhow, there isn't much point to it all, anymore. Admittedly, the fact that there is all that fluff makes the oops that much funnier, but it's still just tacked on, so to speak. Harder to get funnies from that. Time So far, Update This doesn't entirely make sense - you're operating under the frame of doing this to make others look bad, yes, but how intensive was it really? Then you go into the thing about work, and it's just... what? The article is 'Don't some work' - saying puttering around and little things are just fine and dandy and what sane people do, though sometimes there's reason aplenty to go to proper bother and write things along with the pretentiousm you still don't put a great deal of effort into that... but then you end it on the note of getting up in the morning and working non-stop? Sure, sure, sarcasm, right? But it doesn't seem to fit. It's too out of the blue... and the end is the worst place to lose your reader, mon. At least, it is to me. Making it make more sense would probably help, though. Sense in terms of itself. Whatever itself is.
4	Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
	I'm afraid Famine didn't put that much work into his presentation. It's just not particularly good, and where you follow it too closely, yours seems to suffer for it as well. Take for instance the table of contents - that's a terrible place for it, considering how the lede tries to transition. Since it doesn't really serve a purpose, anyhow, though, might as well chuck it entirely. Famine's grammar also isn't that good - missing and misuse of commas, needless capitalisation, questionable paragraphing, etc; I'm not sure emulating that is such a good idea. Add to that poorly formed lists, inelegant usage of headers (a h1 in the middle of a page is bad. Well, not always, but in general. And here. Here it just looks bad) and a whole general lopsidedness of the thing, and... eh. You'll get no argument from me about the 'trip down ego lane' thing being just that, but there is also just so much of it and so little jokery about it, proportionally to the size. Problem is, though, I'm not really sure how much you can change while still sticking to Famine's frame; looks like you've already shortened the 'The Beginning', and the pictures and whatnot, while making it look more like an article and less like a rant, pull it away quite a bit... more and it may well move too far. Still, if you can fix the grammars and whatnots, format the lists, cut out more needless, work in more general humours besides just mocking Famine, you should be able to still stick to the frame whilst getting it to look a wee bit better. That could be part of the joke, too - irony in how the don't do work is better... Guuh. My normal complaints are mostly on what Famine already did, though, which is just irritating. Only things that're actually your doing that I can think of are some of the headers - smaller headers should be for subsections of the same idea, and when the idea changes, should get a new section. Famine had that problem too, but you may have actually made it worse. I'm not sure. At very least you made it different. And there are also the image captions - the folks musing with the pipes are all very well and fine, but who wants to actually read all that crammed in small font into a small box? It's not that what's there is bad, but... I dunno. Might want to try to shorten the longer ones, even if you are running a supporting sidestory there, just so folks are more inclined to read it.
6	Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
	Wheee, pipes. Decent, but you do need to be careful with the sidestory-ness. It's related, but doesn't directly tie in, so there is danger of losing the reaser even before the too long captions. The last one also seems more random, which sort of fits, but sort of not, so be careful with that. Overall decent images, yes, decent gig going with thim, except for the stick which seems completely out of the blue... it fits with its section but not the other images. And could you maybe get another one of that same guy - another screenshot of him from the same whatever that's from, perhaps? Mix it up a little more, perhaps... What was I saying?
6	Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
	Okay, I'll admit - I don't entirely disagree with Famine's notions, especially in regards to... some. There are a few users who I really wish would stop dicking around and do something useful... write something, read something, spend some time on something, GET THE HELL OF MY TALKPAGE something... but... eh. Actually, I tend to mind them a lot less when they just keep the lengthy chatter off my talkpage...
28	Final score 1234 ~ 22:26, 13 February 2011
	That's my rant to the counter-rant to the rant. Or something. Hopefully it makes sense and whatnot, or at least contains some helpfulness. Satire, eh? Oh, gods, I really hope Famine never reads this. Not the article; that justifies its own existence well enough, at least in userspace (probably be fine in mainspace even as it is, though it's still too in-jokey to really go anywhere), but this review, it's... oh well.