Talk:Science

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

Rewrite

I have completely rewritten this page from the ground up (the scientology slant was boring and stupid). I need help with it, and there will be much to add in the coming days. Specifically, a mathematical formula spelling "why you be hatin'?" in symbols would be awesome, but other changes are certainly welcome.--Sultanofsurreal 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From Pee Review

I rewrote this article, because the old version's scientology slant was utterly boring. I'd like someone who knows how to manipulate the mathematical formula button to make a formula which spells "Dolemite why you be hatin'?" in calculus-y symbols. And definitely needs more content; new sections and more added to the already-existing "history" section. --Sultanofsurreal 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked pretty blank so I put up some images. --Jives 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Humour:	4	Irony is not just writing things counterways. There are some good moments, but at the most the humor is "2+2=5" style.
Concept:	2	Well, this have to do with things I really like and believe, so it's personal. But the author seems that kind of pinko anti-science cultural relativist (as your antropology college teacher that exhaled an exotic herbal musk). "Science was made mainly by white men, so it must be wrong".
Prose and formatting:	3	I'm sorry to say that I almost could not read it until the end.
Images:	3	Cheesy fifties sci-fi would do miracles here.
Miscellaneous:	5	Needs rework, but it's relatively well stitched to its proposal.
Final Score:	17	Don't take this personally, I just hated the initial concept by personal reasons. I'm a science geek level 20 atheist, the kind that carries a Charles Darwin card on the wallet...
Reviewer:	herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)