User talk:Nerd42/old user page

You have new messages.

Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2

yay look at me I have a Talk page I am much more likely to check my email or Wikipedia:User_talk:Nerd42 more often than I check this talk page. Archives: User talk:Nerd42/archive1. New stuff on top please.

\/\/3|(0m3 70 |\|3rd5, 7h3 fr33 (4ndy 7h47 4ny0n3 (4n 1337.

1n 7h15 (0n73n7-fr33 v3r510n, |\|3rd42 74k35 (r3d17 f0r 480u7 42 4r71(|35.

h²g² - 8|06 - 7r1p0d - 630(17135 - |\|3w6r0und5 - 3|\/|41|
|\|3rd42\/\/1k1 | \/\/1k142 | |\/|374 | |_|n(y(|0p3d14 | \/\/1k1p3d14 | \/\/1k1|\|3w5 | \/\/1k1Qu073 | \/\/1k1(17135 | |\/|3d14\/\/1k1
|\/|3m0ry 4|ph4 | 1F\/\/1k1 | |-|0m3574r Runn3r | |-|0m3574r F4n57uff | 5n1(k\/\/1k1 | Jn4m48453 | 8|u\/\/1k1

Picture Uploading

I got a good picture of a grue on a rampage, and I would like to know how to upload it to Uncyclopedia so I can put it in some articles.

Ack!

You jerk! You wrote a great Linkin Park article, but also an article with an anti-atheistic spin! I'm torn! I didn't even know what to vote on your poll! How could you be so inconsiderate as to shatter my absolutist, black-and-white world view? 206.248.129.144 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...

lol ur funny --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

How do I get those cool little menu boxes that people put on the top of their userpages? I'm talking about the ones where the different buttons link to things like subpages, user talk, and user contributions. Help is greatly appreciated. --Xombi p 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I got it. --Xombi p 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How do I edit the Vote for deletion page? --Flavius Jewsephus 2021 8:45 P.M. September 3, 2007

Forum

IF you want something to change, I really think you have to comment on every article of that list we suggested. Most of people simple didn't get what were you talking about. -- herr doktor needsAcell  [scream!] 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

Hoya Nerd42, I rewrote this article and I would enjoy your opinion on it, for obvious reasons. I've requested a picture at RadX's corner as well, so don't worry about it being too bare.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

good job on that! :) right now i'm rather worried bout my h2g2 article. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Help me

I am such a noob I don't even know if I'm doing this right..I want to write some stuff, and I read up on how to make a SubPage but can I have a sub page that no-one can see until I'm done with it? Or is it normal to have a bunch of half written crap floating around? Thank you No0bc4k35 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ther wuz 6 n00bs from Newgrounds

User:Nerd42/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant. restored and moved. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Deletion policy, again

I thought you'd be interested in this discussion. It involves a just created stub that got summarily deleted while I was trying to work on it. No deletion procedure at all, just gone.

--RudolfRadna 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a n00b editing how-to [[1]]. What do you think? Any ideas how to make it better?

--RudolfRadna 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Human nature

I added some stuff, and will try to do more. Funny idea.

--RudolfRadna 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess your stuff is funnier than mine. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucracy stuff is funny also, I just had a different version of human nature. I'm more interested in satirizing how humans tend to be their own worst enemies. . . probably can work the two ideas together as the thing gets written. --RudolfRadna 16:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionism (alternative to deletionism?)

I appreciated your comment in the village dump about good stuff getting deleted Forum:Open invitation to join group for the purpose of working together on improving articles with promise that have been tagged 'NRV'. I'm going to focus on trying to add to existing pages instead of creating new ones yet, since I'm new at this and it seems to be an easier way to edit uncyc without being summarily NRV'd just because I thought of an idea like "Threnody for the Victims of Treemonisha" which is FUNNY(tm), but don't have the time to go into a lengthy discourse about who was at the premiere, what they had for dinner, what different critics said about it, its use in movies, how potatoes reproduce, etc (nor do I think that doing those things would improve the joke or make it funny to people who don't know what the Threnody is, or what Treemonisha is, but that's another story).

Thanks for your input, and it's great to know that some people here agree with me that the way uncyc is being run, specifically as to NRV, could use some fine tuning.

--RudolfRadna 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To NRV something is simply human nature. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair NRV is mostly used to protect articles that may not be up to scratch, and to give them enough time (a week) to move an article or in most cases a stub, into something with a little more substance. Anything that is considered unsalvageable is just deleted, so these articles are above the minimum threshold. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

OK. Didn't mean to argue logistics, I've just said I think too much stuff of reasonable quality is deleted generally. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It all balances out in the end.....when you think of the utter shite that gets featured. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

He's got a point.--RudolfRadna 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dictatorship

Now that Famine's put up the gallows pole again, and you seem intent on hanging yourself, it might be time for you to re-read the Beginner's Guide to Being an Uncyclopedian. Content management is an administrative responsibility. My understanding of the vision of this site is that was really supposed to be an encyclopedia, but with witty, satirical obscurement of reality... not the random humour-riddled, vandalized, fluff magnet that many try to make it. If there are articles you value, work to make them funny and thoughtful, but remember that ultimate responsibility for what makes the cut or not rests with the admins, and this isn't news. -- T. (talk) 03:18, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Eh, was that about the democracy bit on Wiki Administrators? Because I actually appreciated it. I've given Nerd42 a lot of shit, and I'd be a hippo-critic if I couldn't take some of it back. At the moment He's working on a project for himself at my direction, so he's got a tiny bit of leeway as long as it's funny. And this time, he got my sense of humor right. But your warning isn't a bad one - we just watched Nerd42 pick up three chainsaws and juggle them without cutting his arm off. Honestly, if that was skill, we need to keep him aound. If it was luck, when he moves onto the blowtorches, it should be a fun show to watch. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:41, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to be funny, ladies and gents. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That fake new messages template

Gets me every time. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 19:58, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Me too--Bradaphraser 23:06, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I love fake new messages, like the one at the top of Satan. The legit-looking ones really DO get me, the others are comedic.--abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvWXYZ(talk|contrib) 23:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

LOL mind links to Wikipedia:Practical joke. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer nude massages. -- T. (talk) 18:56, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got a new female uncyclopedian now, from Sweden, and they do that sort of thing there....will give her your number..... Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I've actually never met a swedish masseur/masseuse. IQ

A criminal turns on his computer, and AOL tells him, "You've got Mob!" --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:57, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

To be in the Addressing of you

Dear Mr. 42,

I would like to thank you for your edit of Grand Theft Auto: Lego Island. It seems that edit may have got Gwax off of its' case. However, there is a growing problem. Countless people (IP adresses) are trying to mutilate this article beyond repair. There is only so many times I (or splaka) can revert it. I look forward to your feedback on this growing nuisance. --Kyle1 01:18, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that at all. --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  14:49, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to become an atheist

Kudos on this article. It's not hilarious, but I do admire you for taking a stand. Especially for holding your ground against that whiny little bitch Johnny C. Raven

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

Wow.

Isn't often I get good comments. :) And I would agree with your assessment of Reasons to become an atheist ... it still needs some work.

It's nice being right. --Nerd42 02:10, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not very religious myself. I was raised Catholic but have grown disillusioned with the Catholic Church and organized religion in general. But I do still believe there is some type of Supreme Being; I still attend mass on holidays with my family and occasionally go to Episcopalian services. But even if I did become a die-hard atheist, I would still have no patience with the assmunches who keep voluntary prayer out of all public school functions, don't allow nativity scenes in public parks, and insist on replacing the word "Christmas" with "Holiday(s)" in every public venue. I like my pornography and obscenity-laced humor. I will fight for my right to enjoy that and will fight just as hard to give religious people their say.--Naughtyned 12:08, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You sound like a fair-minded person. Just don't blame organized religion in general for the disaster that people call the Catholic church. --Nerd42 15:39, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

How old are you? 14? And yet you have such enlightened and erudite views on religion... --—rc (t) 18:12, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No way man. I voted (for Bush) in 2004 for the first time. --Nerd42 19:01, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

QED indeed. How is it that you can get angry when (I assume) your religion is bashed, yet you're justified in bashing other faiths? Hypocrisy anyone? (Re: the age thing, I really thought you had given your age before, but I must be thinking of someone else.) --—rc (t) 19:10, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Er, that's not what I'm "mad" about ... I was kinda mad at JohnnyRaven for his saying I have some dark evil sinister twisted scheme for turning Uncyclopedia into a right-wing propoganda site.

I don't generall bash other faiths or even other people. When I think they're wrong, I say they're wrong. I think the Catholic church is corrupt to the core and has absolutely no spiritual validity whatsoever. (which is a pretty darn good reason not to be a Catholic in my opinion) I also think the Protestant churches are all wrong in their doctrines, though I think they're probably closer to the actual truth than are the Catholics. The Mormon church may be even worse than the Catholics. The Community of Christ smokes crack.

Me? I'm RLDS. --Nerd42 20:22, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uh, on getting "angry when (I assume) your religion is bashed" -- it's not that exactly ... it's more like I feel upset when people openly viciously ridicule Jesus Christ ... it just doesn't seem funny to me at all. More kind of sad actually. I think any Uncyclopedia articles and images dealing with Jesus ought to be more ... subdued doesn't fit here, perhaps light-hearted fits better. I actually laughed at Image:JesusLOL.jpg -- it has the more sort of "just having fun with the idea" attitude I'd rather see than the "LOL let's put Aslan in a garbage bin and say it's an aborted baby" kind of crap that's circulating around here. --Nerd42 20:32, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You weren't mad about this? You could have fooled me. Or is it just blanket bashings you don't like, while specific intolerance is okay? I don't know what RLDS is, and for the moment I'm not going to look it up because I don't want to color this as a theological debate. (But if you do want to debate theology with someone someday, you should probably look a bit further into the meaning of "church.") I don't care what religion you are. One of my best friends is Hindu. I don't agree with Hinduism, but who's to say I'm right? What right do I have to trash another's personal beliefs because I think mine are "more correct"? Yay bigotry! --—rc (t) 20:51, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

—rc (t) is right, you are being hypocritical. Most of my family is still Catholic and while I have trouble with the Church, myself, I don't think it should be singled out for abuse. All religions have some level of corruption. While I do think that the Catholic Church as an institution is more corrupt than most, there are some members of the clergy and lay employees of the church who do good work and promote genuine spirituality. I would not try to talk someone who was happy with the church into leaving. As for what's the "actual truth" that's a matter of opinion that we could discuss endlessly, but I'd rather not. It's better to live and let live, and not involve yourself with someone else's personal beliefs unless those beliefs lead them to hurt others.--Naughtyned 21:14, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No I am and haven't been mad that my VFD nomination failed for Reasons not to be a devout Christian. My issue there was that the article isn't very funny, for the same reason Reasons to become an atheist isn't that great of an article either. Both articles have the exact same amount of merit. (ie they both suck)

If one cannot say "I think/believe X idea is false" without being intolerant, then I am intolerant. Of course there are good people in the churches who believe the false doctrines but have still done alot of good things for the world. I haven't said any people are bad for believing things, I merely believe that certain doctrines are false and certain organizations are corrupt. --Nerd42 22:01, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You can think or believe X idea is false, just don't be too sure of yourself. If you say you know your right becaus it says so in the Bible then

(1) There are people who are equally sure of what they believe because of the Torah, the Koran, or some other holy book.

(2) There are over 1,000 Christian churches that all have equally convincing arguments of why their version of the Bible is correct.

If God is so cruel and arbitrary as to condemn people to Hell for picking the wrong religion(without making it clear which one is the right one), how can you not constantly worry that you guessed wrong.--Naughtyned 23:40, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I never said or even implied that anyone was or was not going to Hell. I always try to be sure of myself on purpose, because I try to know what I'm talking about or else admit I don't. Is there something you really think I ought to change about a particular article or something I've said that is outside the boundaries of free speech and general courtesy that I ought to take back? Otherwise, I've just said what I believe. What do you believe? --Nerd42 23:45, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If one cannot say "I think/believe X idea is false" without being intolerant, then I am intolerant.

Here's what you said:

1. The Catholic church is a disaster.

2. The Catholic church is corrupt to the core and has absolutely no spiritual validity whatsoever.

3. The Mormon church may be worse than the Catholics.

4. The Community of Christ smokes crack (don't know if that was a joke or not).

These statements certainly go beyond "I believe this doctrine is false." Let's say, hypothetically, that I said "I don't believe in Buddhism." Would anybody get angry? Probably not. Nobody should care if I don't subscribe to Buddhism. But what if I said "Buddhism is a disaster and is devoid of spiritual validity"? Uproar! And rightly so.

I haven't said any people are bad for believing things, I merely believe that certain doctrines are false and certain organizations are corrupt.

So...the organization is corrupt...but the people aren't? How do you make that distinction? Is there some force behind the organization that I'm not aware of? Moreover - again - you need to be clearer about how you're using the term "church."

Is there something you really think I ought to change about a particular article or something I've said that is outside the boundaries of free speech and general courtesy that I ought to take back? Otherwise, I've just said what I believe.

I don't know if you were talking to me or Naughtyned in that post. I'm only referring to what you said on this page. For my part, I don't usually even read Uncyclopedia articles about religion. I'm sure the pages about Catholicism, Mormonism, Shinto, Islam, etc. are all mocking to some degree. Who cares? It's not worth fighting to get a humor article removed because it might make me, personally, angry. It's not affecting my beliefs unless I want it to. Nor are your statements - but then, yours aren't satirical, they're just jerkish.

No I am and haven't been mad that my VFD nomination failed for Reasons not to be a devout Christian. My issue there was that the article isn't very funny...

Nonsense. If that had been the only issue, why on earth would you have countered it with your atheism article? I'm not saying you shouldn't have written your article, but really, isn't that tantamount to a flamewar, albeit a constructive one? Which certainly implies that you had a problem with the article other than it being merely not funny. --—rc (t) 01:22, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"why on earth would you have countered it with your atheism article?"

To demonstrate the absurdity of calling this kind of crap funny. It's a basic conservative political principle: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." --Nerd42 03:13, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

On the issue of people taking offense: Hmm ... interesting. So ... "Bush lied" and "Bush is a big fat liar" are in whole different categories for some people? ... I hadn't thought of it that way before. Hmm. I'll have to think about this one some. --Nerd42 03:19, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Er, I don't know what you mean. Why are you talking about politics? Things that Bush does, for better or worse, affect hundreds of millions of people and are thus subject to criticism or praise, just as with any political leader. Moreover, plenty of politics is factual, or at least quasi-objective. Was the Great Leap Forward a bad idea? Yeah, I doubt many people would argue it wasn't. Is transubstantiation true? Who knows? Religion is personal (well, ideally) and unverifiable.

To demonstrate the absurdity of calling this kind of crap funny. It's a basic conservative political principle: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."

And it's just a coincidence that you chose to demonstrate that article's absurdity in that manner? How many articles not related to religion have you done that with? --—rc (t) 03:51, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK ... Reasons to become an atheist isn't that great of an article really. But then again, neither is Reasons not to be a devout Christian. If it were up to me, I'd probably delete both of them.

I have sort of done several pages that are sort of a mirror-universe parody parody of Uncyclopedia. These aren't really done with any kind of idea of ... not liking the pages they are parodying. These include:

• TuobA:aidepolcycU parodies Uncyclopedia:About.
• Making up Racso Edliw quotes and Making up Matrix quotes parody Making up Oscar Wilde quotes
• Uncyclopoly is kind of a parody of the Community Portal.

and uh, Uncyclopedia 2 is supposed to parody something or other.

lol, answering all this stuff is distracting from my working on my latest article Grand Theft Cosmo. --Nerd42 04:04, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about whether a page is good or not. Like I said before, I'm only concerned with what you've said on this page. And are you seriously claiming that the articles you listed are "responses" in the same way that the atheist page is a response to the Christian page? That's ridiculous. The ones you listed are harmless parodies. They're not counter-articles and they're not meant to show the lack of humor in the pages they parody (unless you have a serious problem with the humor quotient at the Community Portal). --—rc (t) 04:13, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, teh reasons not to be atheist and those other pages are not the same thing.

As far as what I've said here, I believe those things. I have friends who are in other religious groups and I can tell them I think their churches are false right to their face. Those are the kind of real-life friends I have. One of them's even Community of Christ - and seriously, he doesn't smoke crack, he's just a little ignorant. I'm a debating kind of person. I have strong convictions.

I do not, however, plan to try to force my views on Uncyclopedia (or Wikipedia for that matter lol) or anything of the sort. That is what JohnnyRaven has said - he was accusing me of becoming an Uncyclopedian for the sole purpose of being a propogandist. That accusation is false and groundless.

and on equating religion with politics: I love to quote a saying my grandfather said once, not sure where he got it from, but "A church is one of the most political bodies on the face of the earth. There are politics everywhere you look in religion. In fact, that's what most of the Old Testament is about. Such and such a king did this, some other nation did that, a war started, Ahab lied, Israelites died, it's been the same thing all through history. --Nerd42 04:28, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As far as what I've said here, I believe those things. I have friends who are in other religious groups and I can tell them I think their churches are false right to their face. Those are the kind of real-life friends I have. One of them's even Community of Christ - and seriously, he doesn't smoke crack, he's just a little ignorant. I'm a debating kind of person. I have strong convictions.

Once again, it matters not to me what you believe, but how you react to other religions. And you are supremely condescending about them. "He's just a little ignorant" - superiority complex, perhaps?

I do not, however, plan to try to force my views on Uncyclopedia (or Wikipedia for that matter lol) or anything of the sort. That is what JohnnyRaven has said - he was accusing me of becoming an Uncyclopedian for the sole purpose of being a propogandist. That accusation is false and groundless.

I don't know your argument with JohnnyRaven. It's not an issue here.

and on equating religion with politics: I love to quote a saying my grandfather said once, not sure where he got it from, but "A church is one of the most political bodies on the face of the earth. There are politics everywhere you look in religion. In fact, that's what most of the Old Testament is about. Such and such a king did this, some other nation did that, a war started, Ahab lied, Israelites died, it's been the same thing all through history.

Hence the "ideally" in my post above. Your post makes it sound okay for people to die in wars and whatnot - oh, it's "natural," it will happen no matter what, just as it has all through history. Is that a reason to accept it? Slavery has been widespread through history as well, but you won't find (many) people arguing in favor of it today. Besides, isn't one of the common disparaging claims about the Catholic church (particularly from other religions) been its level of politicization? Are you now recanting your first statement? After all, it's historical! Unavoidable! --—rc (t) 04:54, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say wars were OK, I said there is and always have been lots of politics in religion. And I really do think he actually is ignorant -- he really knows very little of what his own church believes and (if I remember right) admitted it. But he is a good friend of mine and I still respect him. --Nerd42 05:00, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to end this non sequitur here. Your remark about GWB wasn't even remotely related to religion. It's like saying here's an apple, and here's an wooden block. They have no apparent relation in context, but I'll compare them anyway. I'm sorry I responded to it at all.

And your friend...whether he's actually ignorant about his religion or not I certainly don't know. But you represented him as ignorant because of the religion he practices:

One of them's even Community of Christ - and seriously, he doesn't smoke crack, he's just a little ignorant.

Say what you mean from the beginning, or things get messy. --—rc (t) 05:16, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

PS I noticed Johnny C. Raven shut up after you accused him of being a homophobe. I think you must have hit a nerve. He is probably a repressed homosexual himself.--Naughtyned 12:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I do not plan to encourage rumors about JohnnyRaven's possible sexual orientation.

I would like to say I have nothing against him personally either. But alas, that is not quite true.

1. The user calling himself "JohnnyRaven" made groundless personal attacks and accusations about me in a public forum (VFD) that everyone is likely to read with the sole purpose of damaging my reputation in order to silence my opinions.
2. My (relatively reasonable I thought) response to this resulted in my being banned from Uncyclopedia for 48 hours, further damaging my reputation because Special:ipblocklist is readable by everyone. (wouldn't be such a big deal if it was a secret that I'd been banned that time) I blame his starting the flamewar for this. I'm not about to let something like point 1 just go unchallenged.
3. He is unable to prove his point and cannot/will not back up what he said with any evidence.
4. He refuses to retract his statement.

I could add "refused to apologize" to this list, but that would be letting emotion get into this. I don't care at all about an apology - I just want the guy to retract his statement, and that'll take care of my problems with him.

You can read about it on User talk:JohnnyRaven.

The funny thing about the "Reasons to become an atheist" / "You'll gradually begin to turn gay" thing is that according to atheist belief systems/philosophy, that wasn't an insult. It would be to a Christian. --Nerd42 15:36, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

how did all that get started anyway ... I just said "don't blame the orgnized religion in general for the disaster that people call the Catholic church" ... considering how unpopular catholocism is on Uncyclopedia and christianity is in general, I had no idea it would sprout such a long drawn-out converation. On my Uncyclopedia user page of all places. --Nerd42 05:02, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Starting a new heading, since the old thread is getiing hard to follow

Nerd42, I just think you should be fair. There are specific things you can condemn the Catholic Church for but I don't think it deserves a blanket condemnation (Ditto for the Mormons or the Community of Christ). I stand by what I said that all religions have some level of corruption. I am not completely closed-minded to the idea of organized religion but haven't found one that seems right for me. As for what I believe that is that only God knows the ultimate truth, and that he's more concerned with how well we follow the Golden Rule than how much we know about the finer points of theology.

I don't think your article Reasons to become an atheist would cause most people ill-will toward Christians since anyone with half a brain can see it's a joke. But some of what you said here might give Christians a bad name if people took your views as being representative of most Christians. I don’t want to censor you, but you should give a little more thought to what you say. Being outrageous works well for parody but not for serious discussions.

Oh yes definately. I in no way intended the article to be serious or based on reality. And I am not the type to give away free tickets to Hell. However, you have to realize, because they disagree, either only one of the churches is right, or they are all wrong. They can't all be right. --Nerd42 15:02, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant? If not, then read.--Naughtyned 16:11, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. A couple years ago I'd tried to find that poem again and couldn't. :) I'll add it to my eBook collection. ^_^ --Nerd42 17:02, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes definately. I in no way intended the article to be serious or based on reality. And I am not the type to give away free tickets to Hell. However, you have to realize, because they disagree, either only one of the churches is right, or they are all wrong. They can't all be right.

Only if you believe in absolutes. --—rc (t) 00:23, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yep that's me. Absolutely. --Nerd42 01:48, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If you understand the story of the blind men and the elephant, the moral is that only God knows the absolute truth. We mortals can only grasp the mystery of creation in a very limited way, and thus all religions are wrong to some extent, though those that make a sincere effort to know the truth can come close. And I believe that God knows that we can't always be right, therefore he is more concerned that we do right.--Naughtyned 09:08, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I agree entirely. God knows the absolute truth. It has been shewn that He exists as a meta-magnetic construct outside the lefthand corner of the Universe, the corner where the dustballs tend to collect. Everyone on Earth agree on His perfect and immutable qualities; the Buddhists agree that He is a Trinity and Jesus Christ is His left kidney; the Hindus know that He is One and wrote the Bible but NOT the Upanishads; the goddamned Unitarians know that only they are right and everyone else is wrong. You see, if every religion on Earth had a different conception of God, then it would be plain that He is just a silly superstition, on a par with leprechauns, faeries, djins, and Bella Lugosi. But since everyone on Earth agrees on His nature, He must certainly exist. Whew, I am so glad it is all clear and not at all silly. ----OEJ 01:35, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

How do I always manage to get into these long discussions?

Look, One-eyed-jack, I'm not going to get into another "Does God Exist?" debate with Uncyclopedians. If you want to talk to me about that, then join h2g2. There's a link to my user page there on my user page here.

Naughtyned, I think you're mostly right. But our being wrong leads us to do wrong, don't you agree? For example, I'm completely confident that the terrorists of september 11th are wrong as Hell in their idea of God. --Nerd42 01:48, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Carlos the Mean is happy with you award

I'm a complete militant atheist, and I think this is great. Not particularly funny, but still great - I can't tell whether it's mocking atheists or theists, and that's the way satire should be. Though it was possibly meant to mock only the atheists, in which case it's only good because Nerd42 is a parody of himself. --Carlos the Mean 01:03, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm a parody of myself. I like that. :) So it ... is an actual award then? I should put it on my user page or something? I wasn't sure whether the Cookie actually counted as an awardd or not. You know how you're never sure whether the help pages are joking or not around here. lol. --Nerd42 02:34, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There you go. It wasn't originally intended to be an award, it was just a nice name for a subheading... but now I've given you an award I just invented and which I think could be quite useful. It's for when somebody does something particular to Uncyclopedia, like gratutitous Grue-related violence, making one of those damn nonsense pages, acute but not necessarily very funny satire (like yourself), something completely out of touch with anybody anywhere's idea of good taste but nevertheless hilarious, or a joke that nobody gets and can't be explained. Also, you get to have 'CUNT' after your name, which appeals to the 13 year-old in me. I made a potato-in-trophy picture to go on the right too, but all sorts of things went wrong and I have to go and be in the real world (:O) now, but rest assured the trophy's in the post (that's mail to you Americans). --Carlos the Mean 08:18, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh ... I thought you were congradulating me on getting a cookie under the previous heading. lol --Nerd42 17:51, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could put that on your user page too. Nobody's stopping you. --Carlos the Mean 19:08, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK think I will lol, at least until someday I maybe win some cooler awards for being cooler than I am now --Nerd42 19:29, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Re: Russian Reversal

Hey, come on, "vandalism" is a bit harsh there, isn't it? ;) DrAwesome 01:15, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Adding "In Soviet Russia, dead horse beats YOU!!" to the top of the page, when that phrase already exists elsewhere on the page, would be considered vandalism on other wikis. Of course, in the Wikipedia Universe, vandalism is anything that the Wiki Administrators probably wouldn't like. Feel free to edit the page if you think you can actually improve it :) --Nerd42 01:26, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Didn't know it existed elsewhere on the page, actually. I had never had the wherewithal to read the entire thing. Anyway, yeah, I already feel free to edit it, but thanks. -DrAwesome 04:03, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK good then :) --Nerd42 04:26, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I re-formatted your comment on the village dump, to make it wiki-comment-esque. I also answered it below. And, I think, I made you sound pretty good. ;) Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:37, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh ... *goes to check what the heck this is about* --Nerd42 18:58, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Meh

Ok, that semi-spamming of templates isn't really funny. Those articles were not written by communists, but about communists. What would be funnier is This article was written by capitalist pigs and doesn't reflect mother russia's true views or something. Please slow down. I hate banning you, then you come to IRC and yell at us. --Splaka 02:17, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping somebody would edit the template some, but the basic idea is, like, to put together a BLACK MARK OF COMMUNISM" on teh articles. I don't actually think there's anything wrong with any articles that got the template LOL, I thought it would help make them funnier though, just having this little "A Communist wrote this" thing there. I'd quit messing with it about fifteen minutes b4 I got your message. --Nerd42 02:24, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For collaborative Interactive Fiction writing, check out IFMud --Chronarion 19:32, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

LOL I wrote Wikipedia:ifMUD. --Nerd42 20:21, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discussion

I was mocking the fact that people like to start flamewars with you. Not you in particular. Sorry if that didn't come through very well.--Bradaphraser 21:55, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm concerned however. I don't like to start flamewars with people and think this place is getting way too unfriendly. (towards me in particular but also in general) --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:00, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned too. That statement made no sense whatsoever, and frankly, it only opens wounds that could easily be healing if people wouldn't keep opening them. And it also makes some of the (apparently) nastiest people here, such as myself and Nerd42, angry that you're doing it. So stop, OK? Just leave it alone. --Jean-Pierre X.Y.Z. Ravenne 22:03, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And we were all waiting on IRC with a cake for you too.... :( -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

LOL I got kicked off teh IRC channel several times by Flammable for no reason. --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Its OK.....I've changed your name in the icing to Dawg. :) Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

might be a good idea 2 get him a cake - seemz pretty mad that I copied his signature. it's frekkin wikiML code for crying out loud! if he asked me 2 change it I would but instead people are just ... screwing around with my signature page forcing me to hard-code everything. what is it with people around here? --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  22:21, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Everyone agreed, it was the best cake ever. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Cursed!!!

You have been cursed. Enjoy! Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:13, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nice work so far - Windows 3.1 is coming along, but it still needs a ton more love and care. Hard work, eh?

And I particularry liked the Wiki Administrators edit - It's hard to ban you for slandering my good name and destroying my image as a hopelessly romantic princess when I'm laughing that hard. Keep up these good edits! You're still cursed, but damn fine edits so far. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:42, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Um, OK Famine ... but you nkow ... I was just asking a question. Your saying "Yeah, we're running our site our way." would have gotten the response "OK fine, it's your site." from me. I think everyone is assuming I was being a whiner there, when really I was just thinking about all that work people had done to make the two alternate versions of Reasons to become an atheist and the work I did cleaning up the page that would get destroyed. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:56, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'll pretend that I didn't see those non-full-length-article edits. Pump out an article, man! Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 19:59, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

No longer pretending. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:14, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)

gj

Good job on 'windows'. --Chronarion 00:31, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Way to go on being "notable," dude. Despite the jokes I've made at your expense, I DO like having you around. Feel free to edit any of my pages you find improve-worthy (and I'll feel free to roll them back if I want. HA!) Again, Congratulations.--<<>> 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, reading back over that, it was more sacrastic than I wanted it to be. Man, I'm such a jerk, I can't even be nice when I want to be.--<<>> 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What's even more notable is that Nerd42 made the original list and Famine didn't! Go figure!  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was on the original list but Famine wasn't?? LOL. I didn't think the entry on me was/is a problem at all. I mean, it's not true, but this is uncyclopedia! :) It reads alot like a parody of my wikipedia user page. So I wonder whether the person who wrote the entry on me looked at my WP page first, because it reads quite similarly heheh --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

VFD

Nerd, check your diffs. You're erasing each vote you make with the successive one. --—rc (t) 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

oh no you're right! i guess editsection doesn't work the way I thought it did. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, and uh, thank you for pointing that out to me!! ;) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, my Quotes articles survived again! LOL, and also a contribution I made to Uncyclopedia:About made it onto somebody's blog! (encyclopedia of unicycles) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia H2G2 Entry

Feather in Your Cap Award

This person has done something very helpful for Uncyclopedia, and thus is deserving of a Feather in their Cap. Respect this person.

---

In case no-one has said it yet congrats on the H2G2 Entry --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay!! :) it might get on h2g2's front page too. I'm thinking of adding something about UnNews to it also, but haven't mustered the authorship prowess yet. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nerd, I've been watching you for quite a while now. I have had little to no contact with you on a one-to-one basis. I know that many admins have become frustrated with you in the past.... but.... ok. I am officially inviting you to the #unnews chat, at your convenience. I would do so to give you chance to contact admins (specifially myself), as well as to give you an opportunity to more actively contribute to Uncyclopedia. I may regret this in the future, but you really seem like you want to help us out, and I feel like you haven't had much of a chance lately. See you there.  :)--<<>> 19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. I can only think the main reason everybody suddently likes me so much though is because I haven't been contributing as much as I used to. LOL. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ONX Reloaded

Hey Nerd42, its ONX again. remember me? (curse of ONX) Yeah. Im back to rule over uncyclopedia mercilessly. hehe.... time to rain hell. ONX 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo, ONX whats up man? hey, don't look now, but the invasion has started. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

move

I moved Organization to User:Nerd42/Organization... until it's cooked. -- sannse (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

new Nerd42 logo

I'm trying to make a new logo for my screen name using pieces of the letters from this picture I might post it to uncyclopedia when it's done. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Using stuff from wikipedia

Hi, I'm new here and I wonder if you can tell me the policy on copying stuff from wikipedia. There's a hilarious version of [The Diarrhea Song that I'd like to add. - Peregrinefisher 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A good portion of the stuff here is adopted from Wikipedia articles. Your article won't get deleted just because its based on something from Wikipedia - but it might if it's stupid. Side note: just wondering why you asked me paticularly, since I am neither in charge nor very respected here. (nothing wrong with asking me, but I was just wondering where you got my username from) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 02:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your name is at the top of Template "Noob friendly". - Peregrinefisher 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool! :) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

idea

they want us to start by making a miniwiki in scratch pad and to then see if it takes off because they carn't see as much potential as we can. so iv made a scratch pad at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Illogicopedia, we can try that or we can rent a server and buy the address and put adverts onto it to pay the rent cost.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC) perhaps you could try putting a better explanation of our idea on the main page, mine is rubbish,im finding it quite hard to explain it.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nerd42/McDonalds PlayPlace

I'm writing an article about teh McDonalds PlayPlace LOL --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

XMas

Bradaphraser was throwing away last year's Christmas cards, and realised they had purposefully forgotten about you. This user is completely thoughtless, doesn't care about Multi-culturalism, and therefore DEMANDS you have yourself a Merry little Christmas... NOW! Failure to comply with result in disciplinary action up to and including excommunication from the Capitalist Church

May you focus on your successes and forget your failures here at the end of the year. Never forget how we all improve one another's lives. Season's Greetings.--<<>> 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Chrizzle, Happy Hanukizzle,
and a Kick Ass Kwizzle from Me & Snoop Dizzle!

---

--Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

help me please

rofl copter i'm a n00b and i need to know how to restore a previous version of an article after its been vandlized. Vindicatorofthedamned 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

history tab

Illogicopedia

Just thought you might be interested in seeing this, http://editthis.info/illogicopedia/Main_Page --Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ooh. aah.

dunno if i have time for helping much though ... --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

feel free to edit and stuff, and i can make you an admin, i just wanted you to know about it and to know its going well. Still haven't persuaded wikia yet. perhaps with your help we can get it hosted, i know you did not want to go to a farm my it looks so much better than the scratchpad.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll at least register over there ... you need a better logo, cause it looks too much like the encyclopedia dramatica --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Iv improved the logo now, it looks much better, more sorta bright and lively--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HallBugs!

HallBugs!!

Gert5 Invites You To Become A Contestant In HallBugs At User:Gert5/hallbugs. VOTE!!

---

just FYI: i'm not really contributing very much at all right now and don't plan to do so more in the future due to my dis-satisfaction with the recent direction of the site. also in unrelated news, i'm one of the founders of Wikia:Illogicopedia and any silly writing i do is going over there right now --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Newbie Help

Im not really new, been on here for 2 years just readn' stuff. But please tell me how to upload an image. Please. Thanks much! Penubag 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Special:Upload --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Help me

Please, someone who calls themselves nerd should bea able to tell me this: I can't figure out the Mathematical Formula feature on the edit page. I want something with pi in it, but not the π version, I want it the way pi is supposed to look, and I know this is possible because I've seen it. I also can't figure out how to have a fraction bar. PLEASE help ASAP!Sminty 16:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with math formula

Please, someone who calls themselves nerd should bea able to tell me this: I can't figure out the Mathematical Formula feature on the edit page. I want something with pi in it, but not the π version, I want it the way pi is supposed to look, and I know this is possible because I've seen it. I also can't figure out how to have a fraction bar. PLEASE help ASAP!Sminty 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrorunner question.

hmm,well, basically my question revolves around "my watchlist"...when i click the link, it goes to the page, everything is normal, but im curious as to what the red or green numbers are that are beside the subject that i had edited, or am watching. 21:36 july 30, 2007

where the crap did you find ME to ask this question? for the record, I'm not here. I'm here instead. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Links!!

Hii how do i make a link to a certain point in an article??

86.167.183.24 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

noob (sorry)

i have a wikipedia account,m so dont dumb it down please. many of the article i wanted to edit had no edit tab. why is this, its very frustrating Ritzbitz00 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)