User talk:Jesus F Christ

“Jesus loves Uncyclopedia.”
~ Jesus F Christ

Praise Jah, He has come. Aleister 19:21 19-5-14

I thought I had wiped it well enough that no one would notice my erection. I did not do the pyramid though. Wait, who is this Jah dude? J F C 19:31. May 19

In addition, I'm trying to talk to this User_talk:Abuse_filter about my bans, and they wont even let me talk to him/her/it. J F C 20:56. May 19

Swearing a lot (or not)[edit source]

For what it's worth, 'fuck', 'fucking', 'fucked', along with 'shit', 'crap', and all their friends may be considered somewhat vulgar, but they aren't swearing and should actually be just fine for use in any setting where good Christians congregate. On the other hand, "darn", considered as an alternate spelling of "damn", is a far more serious bit of blasphemy than "fuck". In fact the Bible is quite clear on this: The only really serious form of blasphemy is swearing in the name of the Holy Spirit^[1]^[2] and in fact I'm not even sure how you'd go about doing that.

Just thought you might like to know... Snarglefoop (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with all the swearing stuff, and the bible stuff. I did not know that anyone cared about "darn" these day's though. pussies. ... anyway, thank you for the information, but um... RE "Just thought you might like to know" ... Are you sure that I did not already know the Holy Spirit? You wait till I tell my father. lolz. RE " I'm not even sure how you'd go about doing that"... then... Why don't you try? J F C 23:29. May 19

References ('cause why not)[edit source]

↑ The Holy Spirit is one of the less well known deities in Christian theology (except to Mary), and seems to be responsible for language skills and artistic endeavors.
↑ This is all explained someplace or other in the New Testament (not that anyone ever actually reads the New Testament, as all the fun "stuff" is in the Old Testament). But anyway, it's there if you actually do look yourself. Honest.

Praise for Jesus F. Christ[edit source]

You are hereby awarded the

Purple Spleen

For heroic work in cleaning up the Uncyclopedia one article at a time.

For your superb contributions, your dying for my sins, and your excellent physique -Hotadmin4u69

--EMC^[TALK]01:29 May 27 2014

Thanks bro. I think that smoking article is pretty dam funny in places. J F C 01:45. May 27

Yeah it has its moments. Thanks again for improving it. --EMC^[TALK]20:03 May 27 2014

I think smoking would sail through VFH if it was nominated now, but it almost appears a shame to put it through yet as it can probably be a lot better still. It's kinda going in two different directions a bit. He starts of by saying "For reasons unknown, this is done for pleasure.", then goes on to describe lots of reasons like being "cool" later on. It's like two different authors in places and needs to be smoothed out a bit IMO. ... Also, it could use (and maybe loose) a few pictures and some clever template like {{factoid}} or something similar to break the text up. ... As for dying for your sins, np bud. Jesus is getting used to it. As for my physique, I'm still bulking up a bit, but it's nice to be noticed. J F C 22:45. May 27

thanks for the advice[edit source]

I saw you added to my page a little and left some advice in the edit history note. Much appreciated, I'm glad it hasn't been immediately deleted considering I'm fairly new to creating uncyclopedia pages. Again, thanks for the good advice, I'll definitely make sure I follow it. - lord ferd

Hea, no problem. I'm glad you liked my additions. I can see that you are working on it more. :) If I were to offer anaddition tip it would be this: Make sure your jokes are funny to everyone. Not just people who know the school. It's ok to have some stuff in there which only you and your friends might understand, but the majority of the humour needs to be accessible to all readers. Oh... 1 other thing, and it's not really that important, but... Sometimes you are not logged in when editing, and also you can user the "preview" button before you save. That way it lets you view what the page will look like, but will not actually save the page every time which is better than making lots of small saves. Keep editing! J F C 18:13. Jun 4

I am fuck[edit source]

I am fuck because my dad couldn't pronounce "fucked". He would say "fuck", whether the fucking took place in present or past tenses. I am wondering if, perhaps, you too are fuck, since you seem to have approved of at least one of my articles. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I just can't explain it. For some reason there appears to be a lot of swearing around me these days. Perhaps your father was refering to Fucking? Related to: signs now theft-proof The Austrian town has erected theft-proof road signs embedded in concrete blocks. Perhaps that is the town you were conceived in, and so it's perfectly natural to call you Fuck, or Fucking. Fucker now doubt also I suggest was mentioned. As for approving your articles, I have approved of more than just one. I have been approving of them since I joined Unyclopedia in 2007. As for if I'm "Fuck"? No. I was Fucking, but now I find freedom more amusing. My plans for such are on my userpage and subpages. I have 40 days to stand in a Dessert first however. It will take time for the cakes, cookies, biscuits, gelatins, pastries, ice creams, pies, puddings, and candies to bake. J F C 18:04. Jun 5

German babel[edit source]

Hi JFK, you're right, I'm that user. I'd repair that babel but I don't know how. Any suggestion? As for that other thing, I'm a late sleeper in the morning and that's a very bad thing for a German, not only because I'm always late for towel-sunbed-reserving. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just spent a while fishing around trying to find exactly what to change, but I'm not sure, I think there are a number of things actually... so I have asked someone who knows a lot more about this than me for some help, hopefully they will be along soon to advise us. J F C 13:40. Jun 7

Just give me a notification on my user disussion page as soon as you know more and I'll see what I can do. NaturalBornKieler (talk)

13:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

email[edit source]

After not looking at my email account for a few weeks I see an email from you in there, but am afraid to open it. Does it contain some kind of virus, rogue code, or pictures of ladies that I would not want on my computer, or do I have your word as Jesus Fucking Christ that it is safe to open. I've consulted experts. Aleister 21:17 9-6-14

I'm Jesus Freedom Christ, but you have my fucking word. Any virus' any e-mails may contain were not intentionally included. J F C 21:28. Jun 9

You know who[edit source]

My bad Jesus, will request a self ban. Thanks Gabriel Turner (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No point asking me for one of those. Maybe try reading HowTo:Get Banned? If you want a real ban nominate yourself on UN:BP? That will do it. ... If you want a joke ban maybe try Uncyclopedia:FFS. Oh wait. You can't because it's been closed down because it's not considered "needed" so you can't use it... Shame. It would have been funny. I guess the only other way you could get a joke ban would be to actually ask an admin (which I'm not) for one. I would not do that though. They might ban you... Maybe you could ask an admin to reopen that Uncyclopedia:FFS. I would ask myself, but I can't because I'm Jesus F Christ. It's a cross I have to bear... J F C 21:06. Jun 11

Just for the halibut[edit source]

I just made that notification bar appear. Shame it's not for anything more important than saying hi as I'm passing. --UU - natter 19:47, Jun 13

Holy mackerel! It's cod dam Under user! I have missed you like the dessert misses a fat man with a spoon. Hea man. It's beyond awesome to bump into the man who created pee review. I noticed you trying to get a ban over at the other place... Things are more relaxed here. A little anyway, as this actually is Uncyclopedia now. I consider the other site simply there to block noobs from us for a while. :) It saves having to train them up. Everyone ends up here eventually, so the other site still being there is just one big joke. On them... Also... If you want a joke ban here UN:FFS is closed. Along with RotM. The noobs that are running this wiki currently don't understand that the purpose of awards and such is to motivate people to do things, not to reward them for doing them afterwards. The noobs who run this wiki currently think that because there are not many people doing reviews it's a good idea to close RotM when obviously closing RotM will mean there are even less reviews. Fucking numpties. Mate. When I came back to Uncyclopedia I saw SO MANY fucking things wrong with how this site was being run I quit being a sysop with MrN9000 and created Jesus Fucking Christ. Who was then immediately banned by the "automatiic block filer wanking filter". Uncyc had gotten so far up its own ass it thought it should start telling users what to call themselves... Using a fucking BOT to block people based on that! Idiots. Apparently this is the "free" wiki. I dropped the Fucking for F when I got bored of typing Fucking all the time. ... Anyway I'm fucking back with avengance mate. In my opinion the "answers" to what Uncyclopedia needs to do to fix itself now are described on JFC's userpage and his subpages. I have no idea if Uncyclopedia will listen to me. It's not as though I'm Jesus Fucking Christ or Something... I would really, really, really like it if you returned to Uncyc. It would make Uncyclopedia again feel like... Um... Uncyclopedia? Also, I'm actually writing stuff! J F C 20:16. Jun 13

Dude, I'd love it too, but this is the longest unbroken spell I've had with the laptop and my sofa in some considerable time, and that's unlikely to change. Plus, as I said across on t'other place, I just can't come up with any funnies any more. It's like something got switched off and I don't like it.If both of those situations change, I'll be back and in full effect. Good luck to you in getting heard though, generally speaking you were always a guy with his head screwed on, and if you have ideas on improving things, people should listen. Hope they do. See you next time I'm passing! --UU - natter

20:23, Jun 13

I bet you have not lost your mojo. Try looking down the back of the sofa. There are a few really funny people around the site currently and I have already laughed my arse of many, many times since returning to Uncyc. I'm editing. I'm not "writing". There is so much funny stuff around the place to play with and shape into an FA. I'm enjoying doing it anyway. ... One of Leverage's recent edits to one particular article actually made me piss myself recently. Just a little bit. Perhaps I'm just getting older... J F C 20:37. Jun 13

Wow, Under user's here. I hope you stay. I'm always wishing people would stay and they never do. Then I get stuck with all this work. Work work work. Hmph. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:46, 13 Jun 2014

Patrolled edits[edit source]

You're enthusiastic about this feature but it doesn't do no one no good if nobody takes advantage of it. Would you mind lending a finger to help get rid of those pesky exclamation marks? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:46, 13 Jun 2014

I'm pleased that you know so much about this feature. I'm more than happy to administrate Uncyclopedia when it pulls it's finger out of its ass and starts actually generating some exclamation marks to remove. I have personally removed many, many in the past, and have also been doing so since I came back to Uncyclopedia. Check the logs. Do you know how to look at that? I have been doing that. Why are you suggesting I do something which I am already doing? J F C 21:00. Jun 13

Oh, I think I understand what you are suggesting now. You are concerned about what happens to patrolled edits when Jesus is next crucified, and/or makes his next ascension? That is a very reasonable question. Which I mention here. Uncyclopedia is not, and never will be lacking in suitable candidates for sysop. Also, there is not, and never will be anything on Uncyclopedia which can not be done "because there are not enough admins". If perhaps that's what you are thinking? maybe? ... :P J F C 23:10. Jun 13

No, I know how to look at the logs. I just hadn't bothered. You may safely pretend this conversation never happened. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:20, 14 Jun 2014

edit[edit source]

(You wait because the page is still on VFD and the nomination on VFD has not yet been closed by an admin. You don't fuck around with VFD stuff... Also, the page author/editors might want to read the nomination and this tag helps them find it on VFD.)

Excuse me but why was the above dummy edit neccessary? Thanks. Gabriel Turner (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Was it not necessary? You asked a question. I answered it. J F C 17:58. Jun 14

HMC[edit source]

Your topic for the competition is Death to Cookie Monster

So go create an article on your user space. Contact me (or an admin if I don't respond soon) for any questions. You have two days. Remember:

CREATIVITY, ORIGINALITY and HELARITY. You will be judged on all three of these out of 10 for a score of 30.

HAVE FUN!

--ShabiDOO 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Bevel[edit source]

Cool, some good changes. Keep going. Thére's a couple I'll revert, mainly for word-rhythm, but nice improvements so far. I'll leave you alone with it, and won't look at it for awhile. Have you checked out the Face in the Cloud guidebook page yet? If not, youz in for a treat I reckon. Aleister 21:28 16-6-14

Wait. Stop it. You know I checked the face in the cloud pic! I sent you a e-mail about it! Like... A few days ago? One of us is loosing the plot. Probably both of us. Yes, I looked at it. Like I said... I don't buy it! I linked you to a few other similar things I expect you have seen before. Did you not get that e-mail with the links? I remember Zana had a better memory... :P I will do a few more edits, glad you liked some of the changes. I feel like I'm messing with your daughter or something editing this. :) ... The next section I'm about to have a go at is a little bit "ranty" ... maybe a bit too one sided and not self mocking enough to be so.. Well, that's what I would say to a noob if I saw it in an article, but you are a better writer than me, and I suspect you know more about Bevel than me so who am I to complain!? I will leave that section and have a go at the rest in a bit... Oh, I'm doing it section by section using the [edit] button thinggy, so it's easy to revert and it means you can revert right away if you like as it will not edit conflict me on the next bit ... I can't wait to see which edits you leave in! I see how I messed up the song now... Did not get it 1st time round... J F C 21:37. Jun 16

Cool, do what you do, keep going at full trot and between us we'll do it right. No, I'll look around for the faces email. Didn't see it. You don't see the faces??? Any of them??? The goddess of liberty (?????). Has funnybony written? I spoke to him a couple of days ago and he didn't know you were back. Was very happy. Whoops, my stomach says time to eat. Aleister 21:52 16-6-14

You see. This is how you lost all those e-mails I sent you about Peru... You never got an e-mail which started "I'm reading your cloud article now... Hmm.. When I looked quickly I saw 1 face right away. When I looked for a min or so I could see 3 faces. I think the first face I saw was Bevel." According to my e-mail at Jun 11 at 7:11 PM. .. Oh, and nothing from FB, but I edited the article he just uploaded. Looking more at the article... I think to make it funnier we would need to pretend that the author was an expert in the subject to qualify their opinion against that of some of the rest of the establishment. That way you can set up a character and then self mock that character in balance with the more opinionated 'ranty' bits... J F C 22:15. Jun 16

I found your email in my Aleister account, which I wasn't checking. So answered it there. Nice email. And I haven't really looked at FB page that much to analyze it with setting up a new character to self-mock. FB has written close to 600 pages, quite a body of work. And with the faces, you have to give some of them time to emerge, and the goddess of liberty is worth the wait (as all goddesses are). Ha, my spellchecker doesn't recognize the name 'Aleister', so I'll have to sign a different one Tom the vegan turkey 12:01 17-6-14

UnDebate:Does Wikia suck cock?[edit source]

I provided an explanation in the form of a link to WP:POINT but apparently that was not enough. What I meant is pretty much what you said - you are using a template you disagree with to prove a point about its usage. I'm not fond of that sort of thing, but I am well aware that I am a rabid Wikipedian and I have no interest in edit warring, so rather than revert again I will back away over the cliff and fall into hell... no wait, that's not how it goes. Make some amount of sense? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 17 Jun 2014

Nope. Are you accusing me of something or not? What have I done wrong? Please explain. Have I been prejudged again? J F C 04:26. Jun 17

Sorry, I kind of reverted you, by nominating this page to VFD. In my opinion, an article should be deleted, if the community decides it should be, and it normally decides so on the VFD page. If you are afraid that the page won't be deleted, it implies that many people might defend it, which, in turn, implies that the community will think it is worth keeping, in which case it should be kept. Anton (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing... hmm... don't know that I was trying to be accusing really, or telling you you did anything wrong, just saying that you seemed to be (said you were, even) tagging a page with a template to prove a point about the template, which probably violates some Wikipedia policy no one cares about but me. The idea of WP:POINT is that you shouldn't follow a policy (or use a template, or whatever) in a way you disagree with to prove a point about that policy (or template), and I thought you were saying that you disagreed with {{fix}} in some sense, but maybe you weren't, in which case I cannot find fault with you. Anton, I agree with everything you said and the fact that we seem to agree is all the more reason to chuck {{fix}} out the window with the goats. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 17:29, 18 Jun 2014

"The idea of WP:POINT is that you shouldn't follow a policy (or use a template, or whatever) in a way you disagree with to prove a point about that policy (or template)" I did not do that. I basically agree with fix, and have used it for years. I just think it needs to work differently. I think maybe when fix expires the admin should place the article on VFD. It's all good on your VFD nom. ;) No need to explain to me :) It's up to you. :D J F C 17:56. Jun 18

I like that idea. Maybe we should have a vote. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:02, 18 Jun 2014

If you think so. Maybe... as Gordon the Gopher once said... Go for it? ... :) ... I think we probably don't need to move all the expired new articles to VFD though if you were thinking of going that far. Just the monthly ones should be fine. J F C 19:33. Jun 18

Why abortion is fun[edit source]

I don't know if it's good or not that the page was deleted, but I would still like to express my opinion. The point is that there is nothing such as wrong point of view. Those who accuse abortion as a cruel process don't necessarily consider the fact that the absence of abortion in some cases (such as rape, even if it's something extreme) would be something a lot more cruel both to the woman and, probably, to the child she is bearing, if he later realizes how much his birth costed his mother. That's why, I don't think that Uncyclopedia should have an article only because of the viewpoint it presents, it should be based on how funny it presents a viewpoint.

Don't you agree that if a reader reads through a humour article, which amongst other issues deals with abortion, laughs, tells his friends about it and then laughs again with them, and after that something comes up in his throat and makes him say: "But if that guy is right, than this is quite serious!" (sort of like the Ig Nobel prize), don't you agree that this will be a lot more effective than the repulsion a reader will feel, having seen several shock images? Because, as you noticed, when people are shocked by the appearance, they rarely try to dig deeper to find out something beneath it.

And, more personally, I think the word "offended" was misused. I was not offended by the images, I was shocked by their use. If someone writes a humour article, he wants to make people laugh. And I thought it was simply cruel to try to make people laugh at the image of an abortion, which is also fake, I suppose, because it is not done that way. I didn't have the chance to meet the author, Socky, but trusting your judgement and having reread the page after your explanations, I assume that I was wrong about the last part.

What do you think? Anton (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool dude. I'm happy to talk about this until the cows come home... :) Perhaps you missed my last comment because the VFD was closed shortly afterwards. I said this:

My position is that I'm simply not offended at all by these images, and although I did not "giggle" which is my test for VFH I did "feel amused". You can be assured that I will never and have never voted for anything based on any reason other than humour. Also, some images can offend me. When I was an admin I once cock blocked a better writter than me (who knows who they are) from using a fully clothed non-suggestive picture of a young girl in one article, just because of the title of and context article. I have a line. It's just far from these images... Images which can hurt people that can't defend themselves I don't like. IMO These images can not hurt anyone. I wonder if these images will be nominated for deletion now...

So to reiterate I simply do not personally find these images shocking at all. Not one bit. I expect it would be shocking to many. I would not expect that many who would find it shocking would click on an article of that name. Personally I would expect to find shocking images in such an article on such a subject on Uncyclopedia. Personally what I find most shocking is that Uncyclopedia is deleting things on the basis of "socking". Not humour. I remember no discussion or debate about the humours aspects of the article I raised. I can find many different ways in which it was funny. The continuation of this conversation for another example. Which is amusing, so let's go! :) ...

Allow me to give you another... I completely agree with: "Don't you agree that if a reader reads through a humour article, which amongst other issues deals with abortion, laughs, tells his friends about it and then laughs again with them, and after that something comes up in his throat and makes him say: "But if that guy is right, than this is quite serious!"

But then you loose me at:

"(sort of like the Ig Nobel prize), don't you agree that this will be a lot more effective than the repulsion a reader will feel, having seen several shock images? Because, as you noticed, when people are shocked by the appearance, they rarely try to dig deeper to find out something beneath it."

Because...

Some people like different styles of humour. Some people like Nobel prize quality articles layered with details and sophisticated concepts. Some people like "sock" image humour. People who like Nobel prize quality articles are not likely to click on an article of the name. Those who do like articles of that style are likely to click on an article of that name.

Personally I'm not a fan of "shock" images myself generally, but in some cases I think it fits. In that article the timing of the ==See also== section which simply linked to planned parent hood was particularly amusing to me. Simple and direct. We have variously other very short articles which use a similar style. For the record, I have no "strong" views either way on the ethics of abortion. Perhaps you did not read all of my comments on VFD. ... Anyway, Jesus was always a bit vague on that per virtue of being born before cartoons could be drawn. :P Mohammed still get's pissed about it though. I tell him to chill out, but they keep poking the poor guy with a stick. J F C 16:59. Jun 20

The reason why humour was almost not discussed on VFD was your first comment, where you stated that because abortion was something shocking, the article ought to be shocking also. Since that moment, everyone started discussing how shocking it was. I understood what you meant, when you said the funny thing was that abortion is not funny. And I agree that it can be amusing. But only from a distance. I have looked at the image dozens of times and nothing changes, I find it as shocking as before, just because the author made up this cruel process (once again, abortion is not done that way) and portrayed it in as many details as possible. The parts you called verbose I found the best parts of the article and having looked at the page for a few times, I realize that it should have been kept for these lines only, and I would rewrite it, but Socky really said everything that could be said in these few lines. A masterpiece side by side with ... something, that is not a masterpiece.

By the way, I am afraid the Ig Nobel reference was hard to understand: the Ig Nobel prize is awarded to discoveries that "first make people laugh and then make them think". Sorry, for having put it there.

On a more creative note, maybe you would like to write something about abortion or anything related or non-related to the topic? Because if yes, I would be more than willing to collaborate with you. How about that? Anton (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue to play... [Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/Archive275#Why.3F:Abortion_is_FUN|Here is a link to the archive]]... To suggest that it was I who raised the issue of shocking is hardly fair. Before I voted, others had voted. Here are some of their reasons:

1. Delete. Shock or almost shock images mixed with ...

2. Not as bad as I expected it to be but it sure isn't good

(What was not as bad as expected? Shock I assume? I would and did)

3. Rolling with the tide. I thought it was funny until...

4. Delete. No. Just no

5. ...because of the shocking content..

So... To suggest that it was ME who raised the issue of shocking when actually I was just trying to address the issue which was already being discussed and was obviously already the focus issue of that vote. So... I talked about it. What I said was justification for why shock was needed to make the funny work. If the images had not been shocking it would not have been funny IMO. RE "And I agree that it can be amusing. But only from a distance." ... I stand my ground in saying that the article before it was deleted was very funny (and perhaps even a little enlightening) to a lot of different types of people. Obviously not everyone. :) I guess now those who did not like it don't have to worry about accidentally clicking on a link for it one day... :P I'm only teasing. I don't really mind that much at all about that article. What is far more interesting is the debates which these sorts of things can generate. Which is another reason why we need them... :P

HeHe...

Ah, I had no idea that's what the Ig Nobel prize is. I figured you were using that as a generic way of referring to any high quality work like (for example) saying it could have been written by Hardwick Fundlebuggy... IMO it should be possible for something with sock images in it, or only shock images in it to win the Ig Nobel prize (whatever that is). I doubt it is currently, but I think it should be.

Per the collab.. I'm flattered. ... I don't really know very much about the subject of abortion, so I'm not sure I would enjoy writing about that, and I'm not really creating much in the way of new suff. I'm really just editing whatever anyone else is editing on the wiki currently. I favour Category:Vital articles type encyclopedic style articles generally, although I will have a bash at anything. Generally I look at recent changes, see who is around and either edit whatever they are editing at the time or have recently worked on. My interests are what some might call "conspiracy theory" related or "occult" subjects but I'm interested in lots of different things. If you have anything in particular you are working on just let me know and I will toss in a few edits. If it's something I'm really interested in I might toss in lots and lots of edits. :) Leave me a link here if you like as I might not be around too much in the next few days, and so might not be able to edit it for a few days. J F C 23:10. Jun 20

OK, this wasn't a carefully-made assumption (about you starting the talk about shocking). I agree with most of your arguments anyway and so I don't know if I should answer any other points you made.

Concerning conspiracy theories, it is a very interesting subject, and I think that we need an article about Bavarian Illuminati. We already have one about Illuminati, written by Zana Dark, but it takes a very original approach to the topic and doesn't talk about the actual movement. In fact, I don't know much about them, only that many people tend to confuse the Illuminati with Freemasons, and I am quite interested in Freemasonry as well. Also, with recently published fiction books about the conspiracy, it has now become a trend, so maybe looking at the actual historical events would be a good idea. Are you interested? Anton (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested. :) Personally I think Zana understands the "Illuminati" rather well and her article kinda covers the subject in a good way. I think that article could be made an FA without too much effort... I might try to do that myself... To me the Illuminati or "THE ILLUMINATED ONES" or whatever name people use really just refers to people who know things which others don't. I think you get an Illuminati in the school playground when some of the kids first figure out tricks which they can use to manipulate their peers who do not know those tricks. The people who share that knowledge with some, and not with others would then be called the Illuminated ones. If you get my drift. ... IMO I think it's a ridiculous idea to suggest that the organisation founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776 is currently controlling the world. ... I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that the world is not controlled by various different people who between them choose to keep shared secrets from many for their own mutual benefit and so create what Zana perhaps might call the Illuminati. organised religion being a very good example of this in the past. I think we need an article on Bavarian Illuminati and if we had one I would like it to be making fun of people who look at the Bavarian Illuminati and can see that it's clearly a nonsense conspiracy that they control the world, and so have dismissed many other possibilities. IMO that is the purpose of Dan Brown. He muddies the waters. Maybe it might be fun to claim that the Bavarian Illuminati never actually really existed, and that it's all just from an early Dan Brown book? Maybe... Truth is I don't actually know really very much about the Bavarian Illuminati. I have studied them a bit, but not a great deal, and dismissed them as not being core to what is "going on". I think they are a distraction. We also have an article on Freemasons which really, really needs to be fixed up. That is a subject I do happen to know a little about. Lucifer might not like me editing that article as they gave him a bad press you know... :) ... My preference is for editing and fixing up older established 'vital' type articles which have lots of links to them, and especially if they have many interwiki links. When it comes to writing I'm more of an editor than a writer, which is one of the reasons I favor fixing up older articles. I bet there is loads of good material hidden in the pages history of Freemasons.

Also... We have this template:

New World Order

: Powerful Organizations That Totally Don't Exist

Anything on there might be of interest... So, if you want to start of Bavarian Illuminati go for it, I can help a bit but maybe not that much. Or pick one of the others which is not FA and I will try to help you get it featured. Up to you. I'm not able to predict how much I'm going to be around for, but I'm sure I can do some editing on this. The New World Order article itself is not FA, we could do that if you like. Take your pick! J F C 14:42. Jun 23

Actually, rewriting Freemasons would be a great idea. Would you like to work on it in my or your userspace? If you are interested in modern conspiracies, then this would be a good idea, because though Freemasonry is not such a secret activity, it still has a lot more power, than is known. I heard about it having an important influence on the French government, for instance, but I don't know about other countries. I wanted to say something clever on the Illuminati as well, but couldn't. So I am afraid this message is too short compared to yours.

Also, just an idea. I think the world is full of secret societies. Now, if there are at least two pretty big societies with similar interests, but if they are located in different countries, then they can form a steady alliance and help one another. In that case, sooner or later this will produce a huge organization, basically controlling a big part of the world. Now, if three or four societies allied themselves, then they would basically control everything.

So, do you know any two (at least) secret societies that allied themselves? Anton (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You are asking me to theorise now because I don't know. As I said I suspect that if secret societies have allied themselves then they have done that over a common secret. I think in the past people were most scared of death and so various organisations sprang up to use a false explanation of death as a way of controlling people. Think of it this way... Currently we have Islam, Christianity and Judaism left over from when Akhenaten (Abraham) split things 3300 BJFC. Since then a lot of different people have been at the top of each one of those religions. Some of those leaders figured out the truth... They know if their religion is bullcarp or not. They also choose not to expose their 'rival' leaders because if they did their rival leaders would expose them. Or perhaps they are in agreement. Who knows... .. So you want an example of two secret societies that have allied themselves? How about Islam and Christianity? Per more current stuff.. Lots of organisations around the world scare me at the moment. The one that scares me the most currently is the Bilderberg group.

Anyway! ... OK. Cool. Let's do Freemason. My preference is to edit in mainspace rather than userspace. That way anyone else can join in also. Looking at the article currently it's pretty poor, but there is some material in there which could be used for something good. I suggest we just edit the heck out of that page. If you really don't want to do that and create a different page in user space then we should probably nominate the "old" article for VFD if we want to 'replace' it with our version when it's ready. That's kinda another reason why it's just easier to edit the current article... It's fine to turn it into something completely different if we want to, so we may as well do it in mainspace. If you really want to go the userspace option I'm cool with that also, but you will have to get the page started. :) Do you have a concept idea for how we could do it? I have a few ideas, but they are not awesome currently... :) We probably need to agree what perspective our 'author' will take on the subject a little before we start also... I highly recommend that you have a good trawl through the history of the page as pages like this one often get good material added which is then later removed and not in the current version. Even if it's rubbish I often get good ideas for an article just by browsing the page history so maybe give it a go if you don't normally do it. There may be nothing good there, I don't know as I have not looked yet myself... Talking about perspective... Do you know much about Albert Pike? I think it's important to know about him if you want to write about Freemasons... He has a very prominent statue next to Washington in the center of the USA. He also wrote a book called "Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry" which was given to many new freemasons up until the mid 1970s. Some very interesting stuff in that book. As Pike said... Just call him 'Lucifer' ... :) J F C 00:51. Jun 24

There are some very large blocks of text here, but since you brought up something I said in the deletion discussion, I feel the need to point out that I don't give a winged bathtub that the image is 'shocking'. I thought the image was funny before I read Socky's statement that that was actually how abortions are done and the point of the article is basically to raise awareness. If it were not a real method of abortion (the image is taken from a medical journal, says Socky, so it had better be real) I might have gone on finding it funny, but since it is apparently a real abortion method, the article began to seem more like a serious political statement than a joke - which is what it is (it's 'morally justified' because it's apparently supposed to convince people not to get abortions or to drop the pro-choice stance; read the previous vfd nomination if you don't believe me). It also dawned on me at some point that the article was basically content-free, and not in a good way. The way it's written it's basically just sarcasm, which HTBFANJS advises against. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 24 Jun 2014

I found it funny. I voted keep. It's that simple. I was attacked for voting keep by people who did not find it funny (IMO) because they were shocked. There was a joke there. I have explained multiple ways in which it was funny. It's not my problem that others don't understand it (because IMO they were shocked).... Also IMO if something appears "more like a serious political statement than a joke - which is what it is (it's 'morally justified' because it's apparently supposed to convince people" Is also irrelevant. If an article is or is not any kind of statement political, religious, or whatever is irrelevant to Uncyclopedia. All that matters is if it's funny or not that's it. Also this argument/discussion is getting a bit boring now surely... Can we forget it please, I would rather talk about new things, and I'm talking about a new article now. J F C 11:27. Jun 24

Bilderberg group? Interesting. Is it because of the power they have? Or something more substantial? I am afraid I don't know that much about Feemasons (just a little more than I do about the Illuminati), but writing a humour article about something is always a good opportunity (for me, at least) to find out more about something. I'll definitely read about Albert Pike. And soon (in a few days), I'll start editing the mainspace article on Freemasons. In a few days, because I have something tomorrow, and then I still need to read about Pike and more about Freemasons, and then the Uncyclopedia article and its history (thanks for the advice) to understand what tone might be suitable. I might even get a book on the topic. Do you have any suggestions for a reading? Anton (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take this seriously... Try to get your hands on an actual copy of Morals and Dogma. It's available to buy now, and also you can download it from a lot of places. Other than that obviously Wikipedia is a good start. The thing with Pike is how obviously important he is to the history of USA and freemasons, and yet how little is actually said about him. Probably because he named the freemasons god as being Lucifer. ...

Oh you asked my opinion about the Bilderberg group and their power. To me "power" comes from money knowledge and influence. To me the Bilderberg group is a meeting of the most powerful people from around the world once a year. I would not necessary be against that except for the fact that they were meeting in secret for 50 years prior to 2012. Before that time "conspiracy theorists" were labelled insane by the "press" for even mentioning them, and there was virtually zero press coverage. For 50 years... ? Many people denied that they attended when they did. Attendance is against the law for the politicians of some countries, but they still go. Why did "the press" never bother to cover such an important event with so many important powerful people attending? That's what I want to know. ... Could the football teams directors all meet in secret like this without public knowledge?

You asked about "Or something more substantial? " Are you talking about Lizards, aliens, and hollow earths? If so, I have spent a considerable amount of time investigating lots of the more far out theories including the pyramids (if that's a thing which interests you let me know!!!) and I'm pretty sure that the world is currently being controlled by "people". Normal people. I'm also pretty sure that those people would like some of us to believe that they are something more than people. The controllers of the world have always claimed that before. I see no reason why they are not now... IMO "Project Blue Beam" is along those lines, as is the whole Gaia worship movement which is intended to set up a one world religion which can then be controlled. Still, I might be wrong. Truth is, I'm not really Jesus... J F C 17:52. Jun 24

By "more substantial" I was actually asking whether you investigated the matter. I see that you did, so you answered the question! Sorry, for not being able to say anything more substantial myself, but everything you're saying is very interesting, and I can honestly read this for hours. Anton (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sound like you are just "waking up". Awesome. Welcome to reality. :) Try to google "albert pike letter to mazzini" have a read of some of what you find. here is one link. Have a search around and try to decide for yourself if this letter is bullcarp or not. He outlines the "plan" which we are clearly all following. One minefield to avoid here is that "IT'S NOT THE JEWS". I'm telling you it's not... A lot of people like others to blame them though. If you are new to the realities of Pike and the masons this might all be a lot for you to take in. Good luck! J F C 12:55. Jun 25

Yes since you don't understand anything I say apparently. The things I named as my impressions of the article led me to find it not funny but rather a sarcastic political statement (not both!), which I must spell out to you for it to be understood, I guess. Yes, by all means, continue talking about whatever it is you were talking about. I will disturb you no further. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 16:46, 24 Jun 2014

I have no wish to debate with you further about your opinions of me. So long as I have now educated you to the fact that Uncyclopedia has no policy on NPOV we have done something good./. We do not care about POV. If you want to use your opinions of POV to bias your appreciation of humour that's up to you. It's not policy. If you have a lot to say about me/this, why not write an article about me/this? ... Or did you just want to get the last word in? J F C 17:52. Jun 24

Cookie![edit source]

What a yeoman's job, to work the article as you did. Gives me the willies to imagine taking a full page like that and doing it justice. "Cookie Monster earned about 2 million cookies within the first year of the book's publication". Aleister 19:22 20=6=14

Yeoman noun, plural yeo·men. 1.a petty officer in a navy, having chiefly clerical duties in the U.S. Navy.

2.British . a farmer who cultivates his own land.

3.History/Historical . one of a class of lesser freeholders, below the gentry, who cultivated their own land, early admitted in England to political rights.

4.Archaic. a servant, attendant, or subordinate official in a royal or other great household.

b. a subordinate or assistant, as of a sheriff or other official or in a craft or trade. adjective

5. of, pertaining to, composed of, or characteristic of yeomen: the yeoman class.

6. performed or rendered in a loyal, valiant, useful, or workmanlike manner, especially in situations that involve a great deal of effort or labor: He did a yeoman job on the problem.

I think we all know Hyperbole has won. I suggest we nominate and delete his page on VFD quickly before all the other the votes come in. That way one of us might win instead. J F C 23:19. Jun 20

Creedence Clearwater Revival[edit source]

I'm down on the corner hearing it through the grapevine with this band!--Ketchup Boss (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering how you knew, about your plans to make me blue. It's some other guy, they heard before. Between the two of us guys you know I love you more. J F C 14:47. Jun 23

Dudes, blood on the water. MrNJFC, I realized earlier today, did you read the directions in each section of the cloud faces? The goddess of liberty has quite a lot of detail about how to see her, that's why it's a Guidebook to the Faces in the Cloud (guidebook being the word, it tells folks how to see each of them), so, yeah, everything else, cool, whatsyadoin? Aleister 1>29 24=6=14

Yea. But... I wanted to look for myself first. Which is why I did not read your (guide) article before I spent time looking at the image and sending you that picture of what I saw. If I read your stuff first I would have seen your stuff. :) ... Ay? ... What am I doing? You know... Chilling out. Relaxing. Saving mankind. The usual. How about you? Been up to much? How is Brad Pitt doing these days? J F C 01:36. Jun 24

Bertie Wooster Hugh Laurie[edit source]

I have a gay crush on him. --Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yea. I know. You told some other guy also and we all read the same newspaper. J F C 11:27. Jun 24

Pearl jam fan?[edit source]

If so,what is your opinion on the "Jeremy" video?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really listened to much of their stuff. My first impression of that video was "It's a bit lame". J F C 01:16. Jun 25

Hugh Laurie did it[edit source]

WOW! IT'S FUCKING DOCTOR HOUSE OR SOMETHING! I just love parodying in jokes.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So try. What you did then was put something on a talk page where it's safe from the admins. Can you manage to create an article in the mainspace and not have the admins huff your article? That is more difficult. I expect House could do it, but probably not you... ;) J F C 13:22. Jun 25

Voice Farm[edit source]

Remember a one hit wonder from 1991 called "Free Love"? Probably not.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

JFC's middle name is "FreeLove". JFC, do you have a copy of the photo of that Egyptian eye that you found in some clouds? I didn't see and can't find the email. Thanks. Aleister 19:52 25-6-14

Per Al. Done. Who keep eating my e-mails?? ... It's still a fake btw...

Per Ketchup. Depeche Mode? They sux. J F C 00:38. Jun 26

No no. Search up on YouTube "Free Love" by Voice Farm. You got the wrong song with the same title.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh that! I think it's all a giant one world conspiracy. Probably started by the B 52's to spread similar sounding nonsense which eventually (and unfortunately) culminated in the creation of Right Said Fred who will eventually take over and control the planet. Many think they already do... J F C 02:54. Jun 26

We speak of many things in a grain of sand. Jesus Free-love Christ, I checked the pics out and you had sent them, they were just so small. Unreadable and I can't copy them to my computer to blow them up. Would you be so JFC kind as to upload them here and put them on the talk page of the Guidebook (just search 'Guidebook' and that takes you there). I'm really interested in the first one which has lots of circles and writing on it. The second one was found on ATS, and I'm calling it an Alice Paul-maybe. Interesting you saw it as a woman too. It actually goes down a little further, with the shoulders and chest in there too. Thanks for your time, and for allowing me to touch the hem of your garment (I may have got peanut butter on there, so give it a good wash). I am but the humble servant of the poop throwing monkeys, Aleister 12:10 26-6=14

Rock Lobster[edit source]

The true late 70s New Wave classic.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Holiday[edit source]

Just so you know, I won't be able to edit Uncyclopedia for a few weeks (starting this Monday), but I'll do as much work as I can on Freemasons today. The good part is that my holiday will give me plenty of time for reading. Sorry for a late announcement! Anton (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool. If you are looking for someone else to study take a look at a chap by the name of Manly P Hall]. He is a very well know high level mason who published a lot of "information" about the masons. Hall is perhaps the most well know mason for making public works. When he died Hall gave his entire lives notes to a chap by the name of Jordan Maxwell. Now... This "Jordan Maxwell" chap is named as the primary source for "Zeitgeist" the film. Maxwell is also possibly the most prolific living conspiracy theorist theorist on the planet. Odd that wikipedia do not consider Maxwell important enough to have his own page on Wikipedia. Also interestingly for a long time when you typed "Jordan Maxwell" into google the image link which you would normally get for most people with a wiki page was actually going to Maxwell's page on the Freemasons web site. On that site he is described by the masons as being one of the most important anti-masons of all time. The masons agree that Maxwell is an important person. Yet Wikipedia don't. I wonder why... Wait. I don't wonder at all... :) Have fun researching dude, I will edit the article more in the next few days... J F C 12:19. Jun 29

Sure, thanks! Anton (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yo JC[edit source]

Hey bro! How's it? Great to be back in touch. Yeah, the funny thing about that Stones story -- it's basically real. Pfffffff!--Funny bony 16:32, Jul 3

Shhhh! Don't tell em that! It's all part of a big conspiracy I tell you! No truth here... These are not the droids you are looking for... Move along... :) ...

Dude, anything by Mick is awesome. Here is one of mine... It's the 4th July tomorrow got any plans dude? Also did you take a look at my HAPPY MONKEY entry? I was pleased with that one, although you probably need to be me to find it funny. :) J F C 16:43. Jul 3

Fatboy Slim[edit source]

Ketchup Boss could never by my woman...

Are you into Fatboy Slim's unique late 90's dance music?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude I was into it when it came out. When the fat boy came on the scene acid house was old school, and Prodigy along with the Chemical Brothers were brining in the new sounds. J F C 17:35. Jul 3

By the way,remember "Your Woman" by White Town?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you offering yourself to me? If so... Sorry, I only sleep with virgins. J F C 17:43. Jul 3

Remember the catchy guilty pleasure song "Mambo No. 5" by Lou Bega?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You remind me of one of those Russian internet dating bots who never actually engages in conversation, but just asks additional questions. Have you ever dated an internet bot? J F C 18:04. Jul 3

No. I use Siri though.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mambo No. 5

Remember this guilty pleasure song?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. J F C 20:55. Jul 3

Speaking about the Prodigy, "Smack my Bitch Up" is probably the most controversial music video made made.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blind Faith, ‘Blind Faith’... Also the English National anthem is far more controversial than smack my bitch up. J F C 21:25. Jul 3

Grew up in the 90's, huh? Great decade!--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

...and the 70's, 80's, 00's and 10's. How about you. When did you grow up? J F C 23:20. Jul 3

The 90's

I grew up in the time of Grunge,Toy Story, and video game technology.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

IMO The trick is to never finish growing up. J F C 00:32. Jul 4

John Lennon[edit source]

Read my article about John Lennon right here:User:Ketchup Boss/John Lennon.--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I will, but not right now as I got a few things on... Do you know about Pee Review? Put your article up there! That's what it's for. To draw attention to articles which people are working on, and plan to work on more. ... That way, others can also check it over for you as well as me... J F C 20:17. Jul 4

On the topic of music, ever seen the hilarious "Sabotage" music video by the Beastie Boys?--Ketchup Boss has a openly gay crush on Bertie Wooster (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The rumors...[edit source]

Are all true. Believe the hype. ~Formerly Annoying Crap 08:31, 9 July 2014

Oh my. Oh. My. God. Literally in this case! It's Zana! THE FIRST USER ON UNCYCLOPEDIA who ever spoke to me back in 2007! Is it really you? *Pokes zana* Mr N

12:24. Jul 9

No. The rumours are all a conspiracy by users from the knife. Sorry. --ShabiDOO 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah. So it's Aleister's fault... Mr N

15:29. Jul 9

It's actually Mrthejazz's fault. Remember him? --ShabiDOO 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The name rings a bell, but not a loud one. I have been on and off the site loads of times over the years. I think I remember the name. He was into hard core techno music right? Mr N

16:04. Jul 9

He was a sockpuppet for Lollipop ... remember him? --ShabiDOO 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I remember Lollipop! I remember this... What he said about jerking off to star wars was poignant. It is actually a fact that I myself first ejaculated while looking at a picture of Princess Leia. Yes. That picture. The one in the bikini with jabba the hutt in the background. Probably not ideal for ones establishment of karma, but still. I welcome Freudian analysis... Mr N

16:29. Jul 9

All you need to know is in the first picture and caption in Science Fiction. Just to put all rumors to bed (where they make demands), Zana and I are not the same person. I started that because TKF had perma-banned her for literally nothing, which I proved in the court of law before Romartus, and so I wanted to keep her name alive. It was a pleasure being Zana (if you know what I mean). Aleister 23:58 9-7-14

Aleister's sockpuppet wasn't Zana it was Magic Man. Remember him? --ShabiDOO 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Aleister knows these things because it was him that sold me the picture. 3 or 4 years ago I think it was... Yea... Zana always did like to 'talk back' to the admins. Almost like some kinda rebel or something. Not the kinda attitude we want to encourage around here... Wait Magic Man? No. Never heard of the dude. I knew a Magic man though. Bit of a wizard apparently. Mr N

01:45. Jul 10

I never masturbated to star wars. Oddly enough, I always used to fantasize about Jesus, and now here he is! If we could only find Santa for some hot 3-way action I can die happy. ~Formerly Annoying Crap 07:05, 10 July 2014

On the Sock[edit source]

Whose sock is it anyway? WohMi, the Dueling King (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] The Holy Spirit is one of the less well known deities in Christian theology (except to Mary), and seems to be responsible for language skills and artistic endeavors.

[2] This is all explained someplace or other in the New Testament (not that anyone ever actually reads the New Testament, as all the fun "stuff" is in the Old Testament). But anyway, it's there if you actually do look yourself. Honest.

[1]

[2]