User talk:Nerd42

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 05:33, 13 January 2006

Welcome!

Welcome to the Homestar Runner Wiki! We're glad to have you as a member. If you need any help, feel free to ask anyone on the welcoming committee. You can also post questions on the FAQ talk page.

Here are some tips to get you started:

• If you need general information, editing tips, or answers to frequently asked questions, check out the help page.
• Before you do any significant editing, be sure to familiarize yourself with our wiki standards.
• Read up on the rules and guidelines for your user page.
• If you're not sure what you can do to help out, head over to The Stick.
• If you're looking for more community interaction, you can also register over at our forum.
• Above all, be sure to be bold and have fun!

Feel free to delort this message when you're done reading it. (In general, it's considered poor etiquette to remove others' comments from your talk page, but this message is just here to be helpful. It's fine to remove it once you don't need it.) I hope this information is helpful, and that you'll have a good experience contributing to our knowledge-base and our community.

Sincerely,
Heimstern Läufer and "The Homestar Runner Wiki Welcoming Committee", 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

hi there. how come there haven't been any strong bad emails for so long? --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  15:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything in a long time. See the massave discussion about it. By the way, your sig seems a bit long. We're still working out hard and fast rules, but there's been considerable discussion on the matter. Welcome to the wiki, glad to have you aboard. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

aw, it'd be a shame if you couldn't do fancy sigs. --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can do fnacy sigs, take a look around, STUFF have a lot of sigs. Just not as long as you have. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good showcase of acceptable, original, sigs. The "Pie in bub's face" sig is also too long, ignore that one ;) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's some examples of your sig, a smaller version, an even smaller version that would be preferable, the standard maximum, and my sig:

   Nerd42    email  talk  h²g²  pedia  uncyc 

   Nerd42    email  talk  h²g²  pedia  uncyc 

   _{Nerd42    email  talk  h²g²  pedia  uncyc} 

⇔Thunderbird⇔

It should be noted that we also discourage background colors in sigs. — It's dot com 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK well I'm on a bunch of different wikis, so if my sig's not allowed on here I'm still interested in suggestions including background colors anyway. Adding the <small> tag was a good idea. :) --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

resolving signature issues

My new sig comes close but still doesn't measure up ... :(

_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, I fixed it! But now it's too small to read the little teeny words. :( --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Before Censorship

Hey! First of all, as an aside, I think the sig above is great, and adequately legible. But on to what I was going to talk about: I noticed an edit summary on Timeline in which you described "Common Era" as "anti-religious/politically-correct censorship" that (someone) was "trying to pull off." First of all, the issue does come up once in H*R, in lackey, and what appears there is B.C. and A.D. And since the attempt at assigning such dates to 'toons is kinda absurd, I doubt the matter will come up again; if it does, though, I'd actually faver "Common Era." While I'm myself a Christian and a fan both of "passionate orthodoxy" (see The Wheel) and any opportunities to glorify Christ, I do also believe that a wiki, as a public knowledge base and as a microcosm of a political community, ought to be religiously neutral. While I personally believe that the cross was in fact the watershed event of the history of the universe, I don't expect members of other religions to share that view; thus my use of the neutral terms would be motivated not by an antagonism to religion but, in fact, by a valuing of freedom of religion!
But wait—I forgot; my main point wasn't whether or not to use them, but that the tone of the edit summary was a little confrontational. That was a real person (in this case Lapper) who made that edit, and he does read edit summaries; he may or may not agree with being characterized as anti-religious and a censor, but I suspect he wouldn't. The problem is that the phrasing speaks not only about the issue but about Lapper's intents and identity. Anyway, your comment was hardly flaming, and was only mildly confrontational—but it would still be a good idea to try to avoid hurting other users. —AbdiViklas 05:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)