User talk:Thatblondguy

Mark David Chapman

I appreciate that you want to work on Chapman, and please do so, but to take a hatchet and chop out a past editor's work, esp. on who is watching the page, is not polite. Please discuss it on the article's talk page or right here. Welcome to uncy, and I don't want to discourage you here, you have talent, some at least, enough to put an umbrella over your head in a rainstorm I suppose. Wanna come to a party?. Ok enjoy, Aleister in Chains 17:40 10 3

When that little thing on top says you have a message, it means to look here. Talkin' about our old friend Mark David, kind sir. Al de'Chain, later that day

I answered your note on my talk page. And please actually read the logic behind the Profanity article from which I see you changed to remove all the swear words (ok, just thought of this, that's an item for Worse 100 for 2010). Anyway, maybe you can create your article and name it "Profanity Lite". That would be funny. Aleister in Chains 11:44 11 3 mmx

Hi, left another note under yours on my talk page. And again, good to meet you. Aleister in Chains 18:24 11 3

Dude

If you don't like the fact that some of our articles here have swear words you are probably editing the wrong wiki. Some articles have been vandalised, but some use swear words as a method of humour. If you can't handle that you REALLY are on the wrong wiki. By all means remove vandalism, but learn the difference between that and humour. If you try to "censor" Uncyclopedia you will not make friends here. MrN 11:18, Mar 11

G'day

Hi, I thought I might just make a point here as you seem to be getting off on the wrong foot with a few people, and I thought you may appreciate a welcome hand.

This is a wiki, which means that - technically - you are welcome to edit almost any page you like. However, you have to realise that everyone here has exactly the same right, and by getting into revert wars with people you are in fact contributing nothing positive. If a particular user has started to revert the work you've done on a particular article, that generally means that the user involved has a particular reason to be doing the revert. Rather than continuing to revert back and forth, speak to the user and find out why they have reverted your article. Don't go in there and say "I don't agree with this because it offends me, so I'm going to continue reversion" as that is definitely counter productive.

As for the type of humour that we have here - have a look at UN:BEST. This is a collection of the articles voted for as features by the community, so as a result it's a good yardstick to work from in regards to the tone that works here. If you want to do something that is different to the style here, then of course feel free to go for it - diversity in approach creates a wider appreciative audience. But by the same token don't feel that your way is the "right" way in the face of the evidence - diversity in approach also means that although you may not like it, somebody else is likely to. In amongst this are some gems of irony and satire that you would appreciate. The bulk of them also tend to have a minimal amount of swearing and profanity. Some of which may even class as "old people's" humour.

And as for the different articles that refer negatively to Jesus - it is a satire wiki, and at it's foundation is to change the status of something. Which means the more respected that something is generally, the more likely it is to be a target for humour. To steal from HTBFANJS, which is a guide which we have found works well on here -

“Status Change. Stephen Colbert has suggested that all good humor involves status change. For example: if you are walking down the street, and bump into the President of the United States and he apologizes to you profusely, gets flustered, then asks you for your autograph, that's funny. ”

~ How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid

Now, given the example, would you suggest that Jesus was more of an authority than the President of the United States? (Although I agree that Jesus being black is not a funny aspect. Given the fact that he and his family came from the middle east, and that there in no mention of what colour his skin is in any recorded documentation of the time, it is altogether likely that he was of a darker complexion. Definitely not African American, but then again he was definitely not White American either.)

Oh, and I'm from Australia, so I'm required by law to say something like "Bewdy Bonza, mate!" at least twice a day. I think that I may have satisfied my legal requirement for the day with this one post.

Nominally Humane! some time Thursday, 20:51, Mar 11 2010 UTC

Well, thanks for the intervention. I've learned all of my lessons. From now on I will embrace swear words, never delete entire Uncyclopedia articles that took three weeks to write, confront less strangers, and most importantly--from now on I'll be funny and not just stupid. Thanks for the advice. It's time for me to shape up. I've been slackin' off. Every once and a while I just need somebody to slap me in the face and say "Snap out of it, fool!" Maybe this isn't the right wiki for me. I'll look into it. I'll stick to the unimportant articles. If I'm voted off the island, I'll live.

Black doesn't always mean African American. African American doesn't always mean black. Asian American doesn't always mean bad driver. Jesus was, though, probably tanner than the prissy Englishmen who painted his pictures depicted him. And it really would be miraculous if Jesus was African American, White American, or any American. A Native American Jesus would really be pushing it even if we're trying to appeal to minorities.

I'm Southern American. I'm required to judge other cultures at least three times a day. Thanks again. -thatblondguy

Oh. You're Southern American. Well, that explains everything. (Which I can get away with as there are few people on here more Southern than I.) Nominally Humane! some time Thursday, 22:52, Mar 11 2010 UTC

Child Obesity

You'll see in the change history for the article that I tagged the article as a formality for Rifting. He nominated it for deletion, then saw that there were already 20 votes and rescinded his nomination. I saw that not all 20 votes were active, I put his nomination back, and put the tag on your article, a formality to notify the author.

If you will go to Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/archive204#Child_Obesity, you will see I voted to Keep the article. In fact, except for the nominator, there were no votes to delete it. Spıke ¬ 00:46 25-Mar-10