NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS User:Nerd42/sig | User talk:Nerd42/talk | User talk:Nerd42/talk2

Where to send your comments

To discuss the content on User:Nerd42, see [[Talk:User:Nerd42]]. To talk to Nerd42 about his contributions to Wikipedia or any other normal uses of a user talk page, just post here.

say something

Hello, I am a n00b, how do you write a quote thing?

hmmmm... my signature's not quite right, it should say The Uncle, not 62.173 etc... Wait, this is Wikipedia! I thought it was Uncyclopedia! 62.173.74.118 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The V.F.D sugarbowl was originally Esme Squalors in one of her fancy "in" tea sets, then when she hosted a tea party where Beatrice (Lemony Snicket's love) was invited. She stole the fancy bowl containing sugar, even in THE END.

uh-oh, my signature's having trouble again. --Nerd42 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying out meh signature again!

Oh yeah --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 14:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Yes! Yes! PWNED! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just wanted to make sure that you knew that some really frown on transcluded signatures. See the guideline; including comments by some developers of the Mediawiki software (see Rob Church for an example). There are some defenders, but sometimes it is brought up in [Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deryck Chan|RfA discussions]] - I used one for a while but gave up and thought you would want to knowingly make the decision since you will probably here some complaints - Trödel 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedians should have a constitutional right to a very silly and long signature if they feel like it. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: LDS Categories up for deletion or movement

Nerd42, the following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble. If you are around, please express your opinions ASAP. Thank you. WBardwin 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.2.22 Category:Latter Day Saint history to Category:History of Mormonism
5.2.23 Category:Latter Day Saint History Books to Category:History books about Mormonism
5.2.24 Category:Latter Day Saint Historians to Category:Historians of Mormonism

Wait a minute ... I have no objection to "Mormonism" and "Latter Day Saint" being different but overlapping categories - but what does this do exactly? --Nerd42 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A User:Bhoeble (who I don't know) has proposed the above changes in the administrative function Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 17. By placing them in this log, the user puts his proposed changes up for a vote. I had an opinion, and so voted on that page/line item. I also tried to notify some of the more active LDS project members. So, if you are interested take a look at the votes to date, and state your opinion. Hope that clarifies things. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was History of the Latter Day Saint movement and related variants on the other two. Do you prefer how the original articles were named?

I think the original proposal by Bhoeble was trying to follow a Wiki standard which would place the primary identifier, ie history, at the front of the article name. He just wants to tag "Mormonism" on the end, which I object to. WBardwin 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the project's style guide about names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) Any concerns you might have could be addressed here as well. It may be time to talk these over again, particularly to be sure we include the Restorationist in the best category. WBardwin 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I guess I'm really disagreeing with the style guide then. I think the names ought to be "Article {Latter Day Saintism}" when refering to anything that isn't LDS church specific --Nerd42 14:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weird stuff

testing 123 --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??

My IP address has been blocked for "vandalism" obviously by accident, since I haven't done anything. It is possible that someone on the same network as me might have been causing trouble though. Oddly, though, if you can read this then I can edit my own userpage. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can either post your IP here or email an administrator.--Shanel ^§ 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme see if this works: is it User:207.160.205.13 ? --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a public library. I think someone else in the library got the library blocked. Stupid. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your IP address? Stifle (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you gaves block should have expired by now. --pgk^(talk) 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks :) --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 14:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Smith (Mormonism)

In the time I've worked here, I have plugged away at the biographies of the original Quorum of Twelve Apostles. But I have very little information to hand on Joseph's brother, William. He is not very well covered in Brighamite" materials. I would expect better sources in your personal library and materials available to you. Would you try your hand at expanding the article? Information about his work with the original RLDS would be very relevant. Thanks. WBardwin 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraid I wouldn't know anything about him. Was this a message that went out to everyone on the project? --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet -- I thought I would appeal to editors who are involved with the "Prairie Saints" first, as I haven't had much luck with materials originating with the "Utah Saints". User:John Hamer hasn't been around much lately, but he would be a good source. Best ......WBardwin 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of a "Prarie Saint" and when did that term originate? --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While addressing some of the limitations of the LDS movement designation for churches in Utah and the Midwest, historian Jan Shipps, while President of the John Whitmer Historical association [1], coined the terms Rocky Mountain Saints and Prairie Saints to rename the "Utah" and "Missouri" branches of the movement. These new terms have begun to gain a following among historians today, but they are not commonly used among the majority in the LDS movement. I rather like them myself and try and use them whenever I can, location rather than leader being slightly less inflamatory in some circles. Best......WBardwin 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with "Smithites / Brighamites", "Missouri / Utah Saints" or what ever. But I think the "Rocky Mountain" and "Prarie" just confuses people needlessly. I generally say "call people what they call themselves" --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sig

hey would you have any problem with me usin your sig also??? i find it interestin and i was wantin 2 see if i coudl use it my self

respond when ya get a chance,

thanks,

Ancientanubis 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the code here is under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless I am greatly mistaken you don't even have to ask me. I borrowed the sig code from User:Dawg on Uncyclopedia. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Project article template

I wanted to bring you up to date on a little project I'm undertaking. See the discsussion at Trodel's page: User_talk:Trödel/Archive_4#The_Project_and_template, and my own talk page.

I've yet created what will undoubtedly be another controversial, but much needed navigation template - let me know what you think: {{LDSproject}} -Visorstuff 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

N42, would you mind commenting on my proposal at Talk:Mormonism? Thx! --AuntieMormom 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nerd

I reverted your userpage for you, because it got blanked again. Yes, I know, I'm a life saver, without me the world would be a complete and utter mess. Thank God for Tompkins! tmopkisn ^tlka 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey thanks man. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His age

I just want to point out something. Just because he was a first time voter in 2004 doesn't mean he just turned 18 around then. He could have been an immigrant, just getting citizenship, or like many people here in Canada, just one who couldn't be bothered to vote. Just a thought. Kaiser matias 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have linked to where I made the claim, though I don't remember where it was now. On some blog or other. The thing is, I'm trying to make my biography look like a real / regular Wikipedia page, and that means citing sources, using neutral language, all that. So thanks for that tip ... I'm gonna have to rethink the whole "Real Life" section. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 01:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ifMUD

I happened across the IFMud article today and am going to nominate it for deletion. I am familiar with the topic as a fan of modern IF and a regular lurker on rec.*.int-fiction, but unfortunately the Mud pretty clearly fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you know of sources that show that it does meet the guidelines, please add them to the article. It is less likely to be deleted if it makes a sourced claim to notability. Eluchil404 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ifMUD ought to be notable because of he XYZZY awards at least. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK NEWS 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems

I have nominated ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get the text of the article back somehow so I could perhaps post it on music.wikia.com ? They accept that kind of content. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Drake & Josh Go Hollywood

A tag has been placed on Drake & Josh Go Hollywood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nolookingca (T | C) 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Part of the Pilgrim's Progress

Hello, fellow editor, this pseudepigraphic work was usually bound with printings of the Pilgrim's Progress. Yes, Google Books was where it was recovered from. It is also found in the two volume limited printing of Bunyan's complete works; however, since it was not written by him it is not usually found.--drb (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, but can I download it anywhere? --Nerd42 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments on AS talk page

(If you haven't seen my response on the page this came from, it's only to say I've taken the discussion here. Hope you don't mind.) ;-)

SentientParadox's dismissal of the Indian guy

I think I ought to respond to some comments made back in January that you can find under Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 21#Article fails to address the following when I wasn't paying attention because they're still relevant I think.

Sorry, these are not excellent points at all. Neither are they logical questions. For example, let me answer each of them:

What are the parts of Asperger syndrome?
- A.S. is not made up of "parts." It is a condition described by a number of possible symptoms, nearly all of which are addressed in the article. Read it.

I think by "parts" he meant "essential features." What is definitely there or else it's not Asperger's. The clinical definition is very poor and the article just kind of reflects that inadequacy I think.

What things are not compared to Asperger syndrome?
- Rocks. Trees. The Moon. Cancer. Shall I go on? The question is ridiculous.

No it's not. Since there doesn't appear to be a clear positive definition of Asperger's, he's asking for an apophatic one. That is a perfectly sensible question.

One cannot have an intelligent discussion about any subject by discussing what the subject is not.

Yes one can, see Apophasis. And his comments were at least constructive, unlike yours, SentientParadox, which just attacked him and had nothing to do with improving the article. Just ignore comments you don't like next time. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give you this in retrospect. The choice of the term "ridiculous" was poor. I apologize for that. What I'm about to say is not an excuse, so please don't take it that way. I have Asperger's, and sometimes spout without realizing that's what I'm doing. BUT, I'm also old enough to at least realize it in retrospect. Unfortunately, I still don't always realize it in the moment. I do, however, stand by the logic. In other words, one cannot accurately describe Asperger's Syndrome with a simple set of symptoms. It's just NOT that simple. The condition is far more complicated than that. It ISN'T much like anything else (though it is very similar to full blown Autism in some respects - enough so that it is classified as an Autistic form). AS is so different from one person who has it to the next, quantifying it through exclusion of other possible thing simply is not possible to do in any accurate fashion. AS is too ambiguous. Not only do I have it myself, but all three of my children have it, and, believe it or not, my wife now strongly suspects she has it as well. We will be looking into that, because it is very likely true. Her brother was diagnosed years ago. We are all as different from each other as any five people may be if randomly picked from any number of populations. One person with AS can share no common traits with another, yet share some with others. I guess if you wanted to pick one thing, one trait we ALL share, it would have to be so general it could apply to millions of people who do not have AS. We are all LOUSY communicators most, if not all of the time. In most cases I would agree that "apophatic" explanations can define a condition. It doesn't work that way with AS. AS could "not" be this or that in one person, yet be those things in another. I can't explain it in a single post. It's taken me many years to understand it. Even this Wikipedia article can never explain what it is to have AS. AS is an experience that simply cannot be explained in simple terms short enough for a Wikepedia article and be totally accurate.

Definitely, after reading my response there, I see things that happen to me on a nearly daily basis trying to explain it to others working with my kids. The statement I made, "One cannot have an intelligent discussion about any subject by discussing what the subject is not." is, I admit, inaccurate, UNLESS the subject is Asperger's Syndrome. AS cannot be defined accurately in that manner.

It was also probably not the best choice of words to state flatly that the questions were illogical. They are illogical, to ME if I were to ask them myself. I do have AS, and often forget that others aren't asking questions based on my own experience (look up "Theory of Mind," if you haven't already). "I know these things, so you all should know them too!" is what it amounts to. No, it doesn't make any sense, but that's how my brain works if I don't stop to think about it, and obviously I didn't when I responded. When I was a kid, I NEVER stopped to think about it. I was that kid who was always shouting, "The emperor has no clothes!" whether anyone cared or not. I do try to consider where others are coming from now, but I don't always remember.

Just as I forget to take other people's varied experiences, and lack of the same understanding I have though, quite often through no fault of their own, my own experience and viewpoint as an Aspie is not taken into consideration by others. This has nothing to do with anyone here, but it can have an affect on how I react to questions and comments I find illogical and unfathomable. It can be extremely frustrating trying to explain what it's like to have AS and what it is. It's not an easy thing for those who don't have it to understand. Hell, it's not easy for US to understand it! Over time though, we hear the same questions over and over, most of which cannot be answered with simple "pat" explanations, yet that seems to be what too many people want. That frustration sometimes comes across sometimes. I don't mean it to, it just does. AND, it doesn't help that I already have trouble explaining many much simpler things, due to my lack of communication skills. It's a daily hazard I live with, and have now for fifty years.

It takes YEARS to fully comprehend AS. There are no simple explanations. All I can say at this point in my life is "Thank GOD at least some of the people working with my kids have been willing to listen, and try."

In closing, I'm not sure who "the Indian Guy" is you referred to. The bulk of my response was to the unsigned poster at the very top of that section, not you. I did, at the time, happen to disagree with your assessment of his points, and now realize the way I put it was, well, blunt. All I can do at this point is apologize and hope you accept it. So...

I apologize. Peace. --SentientParadox (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous poster was from India. I found that out somehow. Don't remember how now. Probably traced his IP address.

It seems to me that it's a mistake to call something the subject doesn't complain of and which doesn't involve significant impairment in day-to-day functioning a "syndrome." Who is to say that having a narrow range of interests or having repetitive behaviors is "bad" while the opposites - having interests so spread out you never accomplish anything in any particular field and behaving chaotically - is "good"? It seems to me that how this "syndrome" is being defined makes it more of a personality type than a "condition" requiring a "cure" or treatment. What next, "teenybopper disease" or perhaps "gothalgia"? (Being a clueless valley girl or a goth as an impairment)

The definitions of the condition are also extremely vague. There doesn't seem to be anything really definite about them - it seems to be mostly gray area stuff.

I think this may be a case of modern psychology itself becoming deranged. I went to see a psychologist who diagnosed me with this thing, but I saw his paper and he'd written half my answers down completely wrong - like failing to include the word "not" which changes the whole meaning of a sentence. If this kind of sloppiness is common among psychologists I don't know whether the conclusions of their field are to be trusted. I took a psychology course in college that didn't seem very reassuring on this issue. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. You saved this?! I barely even remember this unfortunate conversation. I'm not the Wiki much anymore and only stopped in briefly to review my own pages and, well who knows really. I was bored and killing time, then stumbled over this and noticed your comment at the end, which I obviously hadn't seen prior to now else I certainly would have addressed one thing.

You mentioned "doesn't involve significant impairment." But surely you must know that signifivcamt impairment is certainly part of the criteria that MUst be present, else the diagnosis should not be made. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? SentientParadox (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Joker in other media

Please read through WP:BRD, WP:RELIABLE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond that, act within what those lay out and use the talk for page to show that there is a consensus to add the fan films.

Also read through WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your edit summary here is not civil and it borders on a personal attack.

- J Greb (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? The Idea Wiki is still in danger. I liked your proposal of regulating dumb ideas, however OMG THIS WIKI IS STILL A MESS SOMEPONY HELP!. Please go back to the wiki. I'll be thankful for that. Best wishes, [[2]. 190.101.78.49 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (i know its an unsigned comment but this must be said)[reply]

h2g2

Traveller in Time <tit> completely confused by the myriads of pages and links
"something"

"Nothing happens, well that is a good thing. However, your links to HooToo are a little outdated. <erm>
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, I am afraid the h2g2 page is a bit reduced due to lack of what they call 'third party references'. Perhaps you know of some newspaper or academic study relating to something more then the Edited Guide <biro>.
<cheers> for now <ok>"
83.163.143.216 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of IfMUD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IfMUD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IfMUD (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. czar 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]