User talk:Naughtyned/Archive 1

Please ease up on the redirects. While things like "Arthur Fonzerelli" are good redirs, "The fonz, doens't need every iteration of Fonz under the sun to point to it.--Sir Flammable KUN 20:36, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

undic

I moved Wake 'n Bake back, procedure for undictionary has changed and does not involve using the [move] function anymore. Read the MTU tag a bit more. --Splaka 21:16, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ned. Thanks much for the UotM vote. I like how you tied our respective articles together with the notable names template. So long as the fake bios stay at a reasonably low number, are well written and sufficiently detailed, I imagine we'll be allowed to keep them from being huffed. Oh, and I appreciate that you weren't bothered by my small additions to woof. As a dog enthusiast, I just had to add a little something once I stopped laughing. Cheers. -- T. (talk) 16:21, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked Woof. I usually consider it a compliment when people add to, rather

than subtract from, my articles.--Naughtyned 16:42, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Team America, etc

From VFD: I added links because I thought it was a funny concept. It probably is too long to be a category and since it is entirely plagarized (I think) it probably shouldn't be an article. I'll miss it though. For those who don't know it's the theme song to Team America World Police. It's much funnier if you've seen the movie.--Naughtyned 05:54, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What if you (or someone who knows the subject) were to create a Team America World Police article, except that it's a documentary, not a fictional film. That seems to be a common meme (I tried it on WarGames, though not to very good effect). Then, you'd have an excuse to pull the lyrics out of Category:Things featured in "America, Fuck Yeah!" and put them in the article... and then you'd also have an excuse to apply the category to all the items therein. That would be funny, neh? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 19:16, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of anything to write about that now but it is a good suggestion. Thanks Bob.--Naughtyned 19:33, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

For helping to advance the cause of world atheism, by encouraging Nerd42 in his/her efforts to make practicing Christian Americans look like complete and utter fuckheads:

• (a) By giving "kudos" to his/her favorite attack page;
• (b) By referring to me as a "whiny bitch" and a "repressed homosexual" (hey, good one!);
• (c) By failing to read date and time stamps which would have given you an accurate idea of the sequence of events; and
• (d) By thus making Uncyclopedia a generally shittier place for Christians, given that the level of abuse will continue to rise as more and more non-Christians stumble upon Nerd42's unfunny crap,

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

FYI: I'm essentially through with Uncyclopedia, though I'll probably continue to check it out occasionally. In the meantime, go ahead and trash my articles, images, etc., if that helps make you somehow feel less likely to gradually turn "gay," or more importantly, less likely to want to sell your mom's remains to a necrophiliac. That would really be a tragedy, in my opinion.

Good luck, dude! --Johnny C. Raven 15:22, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Learn to take a joke, dude! If you don't want me to call you a "whiny bitch" then don't prove me right! And, BTW, when did I ever trash one of your articles or images?--Naughtyned 18:52, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(a) It's not a joke, because a "joke" has to actually contain humor content, and if you think "you'll gradually turn gay" and especially "you can sell your loved ones' remains to necrophiliacs" are funny, then I feel really sorry for you; (b) It's not directed against me, it's directed against atheists, and I'm not an atheist; and (c) I never implied that you had trashed any of my articles or images. Why would you assume that's what I meant? Maybe for the same reason that Nerd42 would assume that I somehow believe he's actually some sort of "vast conspiracy"? I'm thinking no, because while you're just trying to help, Nerd42 says that because he/she wants everyone else to think that Nerd42 is a vast conspiracy. It makes him/her feel bigger and more powerful, you see.

Well, guess what - vast conspiracies can usually afford to hire actual joke-writers, at least when the situation calls for it. --Johnny C. Raven 19:24, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(a)The article may not be that funny, but your reaction to it sure is.

(b)When I said "Learn to take a joke" I was referring to me calling you a whiny bitch

and repressed homosexual. I don't know or care if your gay, but again, your reaction

is amusing.

(c)You said "go ahead and trash my articles, images, etc..." what was I supposed to

assume that meant? Did you think that I was going to start trashing your articles and images

because I'm out to get you? I don't have a problem with you in general, I just

don't understand why, of all the potentially controversial articles on Uncyclopedia, you

chose this one to let your prissy little self get offended by.--Naughtyned 19:44, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, I should try to be nicer. I've had my problems with anger management, too. My ban log

shows that I over-reacted to a perceived insult. But, I quickly realized I was wrong and

apologized. You don't owe me an apology, though I think may owe one to Nerd42.

Of course, that's up to you, but for your own sake I think you try to get over all this

anger you have. At least half the articles on Uncyclopedia are offensive to someone.

If you can't take raw humor then maybe you shouldn't be here. But don't be bitter

about it, just realize that this isn't the place for you and move on.--Naughtyned 20:09, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Standard tactic. "Oooh, I'm really a nice, reasonable guy, and I'm sorry I insulted you. What a warm, fuzzy person I am."

As for the rest:

(a) At least someone's trying.

(b) There hadn't been any jokes related to this incident yet, so why would you assume I (or anyone else) would take it that way?

(c) Saying it's okay to trash articles in the future is not the same as accusing someone of trashing articles in the past, unless you have a time machine. Do you? If so, I'd like you to be my best friend. Beyond that, have you actually read the article, or just the (admittedly much funnier) reactions to it? I've read just about every article on religion here I can find, and none of them - none - are as nasty, mean-spirited, and sick as this one. If you see one, please bring it to my attention, and then we'll just see what happens when someone tries to edit that.

Finally, why do both you and Nerd42 continue to insist that I'm offended by the article? I understand that it serves whatever weird-ass purpose he might have, but why keep it up? Do you really not understand my motives here, or are you just doing it to make yourselves feel better in some way? --Johnny C. Raven 20:25, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if someone else is trying to trash your work. I don't know why you think I would want to. I have read the article and found it not all that funny, but mildly amusing, and not particularly offensive. I could say the same about Reasons not to be a devout Christian. Now if you'd like to have the last word go ahead - I've said all I have to say. To me this is much ado about nothing.--Naughtyned 22:42, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Woof

I saw your appeal to Todd, and since I had a free minute and I don't know if he's around right now I moved "Woof" to user:Naughtyned/Woof. --—rc (t) 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I greatly appreciate that!--Naughtyned 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)