User talk:OptiPest

Welcome, OptiPest

This is serious. READ IT.

Before making your first article look over ED:101. If you don't, it is unlikely that your article will survive for more than sixty seconds and you risk being banned by ED Sysops.

We realize a lot of you are busy or may be new to ED, so here's just the most important info:

• Read ED:101. Seriously. The information contained within is invaluable. Further tutorials of use can be found here.
• To answer a message, reply on the user's talk page (Tab at the top that says 'discussion').
• Sign your comments by using four tildes (like this ~~~~)
• These are the sysops. If you have a problem, talk to them. They're here to help; we promise.
• The TJC is the community portal. It's linked to from every page; just look at the top left of the page. Check it daily.
• Use Special:Upload to upload pictures. Be sure to give them meaningful names. Also, do not upload any CP or Bestiality pr0n or you will be b&.
• Feeling social? Enjoy forums? Join here.
• See ED:HELP and ED:POLICY for everything else.

---

TKN Bot 19:05, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

The Elliott Argument

I would like to know if this, User:OptiPest/The Elliott Argument is appropriate for this site. If it is, can you advise me on the best place for it, or if not, I will delete it altogether. OptiPest 19:16, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

• Thank you for placing it in your userspace and not being "willfully retarded", as stated on your userpage. As it stands, I do not believe that article is appropriate for this site. I mean, discounting all the redlinks & lack of pictures, the content still does not relate much at all to lulz, drama, or the internet. You might write a blurb about it on another article or give it a subsection on Atheism though. TylerRosenow → ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:20, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! It met with some trouble when I put it on RationalWiki and Wikipedia declined it too. The actual creator of this junk is "Willully Retarded" and everyone was telling me we should put it on here. Before continuing any further, I wanted to know if there is anything I can do to make it better, such as creating an article on the creator himself and then linking the argument to him or just trashing the individual in question and adding it as a section. Any input would be greatly appreciated and I thank you for the info already provided. OptiPest 19:27, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

• Mocking the aspie who created this content is more our style. You may wish to create an article about him with some external links as proof of his confusing faggotry... in which you can incorporate some of the 'Argument'. TylerRosenow → ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:31, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! I will do just that! OptiPest 19:34, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

• The Amazing Atheist is well-aware of Encyclopedia Dramatica and has tried to blank his article on several occasions. This might be good for causing him some angst as well. E-FIGHT!!!! TylerRosenow → ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:37, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Sorry, I mistook what you said to mean The Amazing Atheist tried to take down the Elliott Argument, instead you meant his own article! I am a lil slow sometimes! Fuck you very much! :) OptiPest 20:09, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

If you'd like some help writing an article about this abomination then give me a yell (I'm studying for finals and I'm a little busy, but holy shitballs I was about to write this myself anyway.) Foxytastic 00:17, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

• I can definitely use some help in writing this. I have so much to add to it and it will probably be one of the longest articles on here! anything you can do to help fuck the guy up is greatly appreciated! Just click on User:OptiPest/Chad "Atheist Killa" Elliott and see what i have so far! OptiPest 02:18, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

What you have looks pretty good but I think the main issues are it is a) much too long (I definitely think some of the argument itself could be summarized) and b) reads too much like a personal attack - I understand that the article is designed to ridicule him but I think that you have to write with a certain amount of detachment or it undermines the credibility of the author(s) and the article itself. I'll have a go at this on my PC and get back to you. Foxytastic 23:57, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

This moron isn't worth our time. I'd advise deleting this article as the stupid is currently burning my eyes--Educatedatheist 01:13, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

• If you don't like it, fuck off and go play with yourself! OptiPest 02:16, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

• ^this. you write about whatever you want, i lold (and fapped). -hipcrime 13:57, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

By the way

I can delete that other page if you're done with it. (you just blanked it) TylerRosenow → ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:41, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Please do! OptiPest 19:51, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

RedLinks

Just to show that there are pages here with (almost) relevance that you could utilise here's the first paragraph with a couple thrown in...

The Elliott Argument

The Elliott Argument ...presupposes that atheists in fact only have two options for the existence of the universe, and that it is logically impossible to present a third option. Both of these supposed options are claimed by the author to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. They are presented throughout the formal argument as well defined acronyms. The first one being STE which stands for Space Time Eternal, and the second being SCPNCEU, which represents the thought that Something can come from PURE nothingness and then create entire universe(s). According to The Elliott Argument, STE is irrational and illogical for a number of reasons. The first based upon the alleged impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. The claim is then made by the author, that there is absolutely no evidence that space and time themselves are in fact eternal in the past. The second acronym, SCPNCEU, is also claimed to be irrational and illogical by the author for many reasons. The most common claim made by the author here is that the acronym (SCPNCEU) in fact defies mathematical absolutes, the law of cause and effect, known philosophical truths, and is in itself an inherently flawed concept. The author also makes the claim that there is in fact no known evidence that something can come from 'pure' nothingness and then that something create/or be responsible for creating entire universe(s), and that there is no evidence PURE nothingness can ever be achieved.

- Mr Jonzz 19:57, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! I was just going to leave it as is, because it is a joke anyways and it looks good when there are RED links! But if I have to change it, I will! OptiPest 20:02, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

No need to change it at all; just highlighting the fact that there's stuff out there if you did. It's probably a good idea to keep the disclaimer there at the top otherwise people might sperg-out...

All REDLINKS are intentional so leave them alone you fucking autist.

- Mr Jonzz 20:56, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

CAPTCHA?

Can a Sysop turn off the CAPTCHA for me? This is getting ridiculous! OptiPest 13:10, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

Article Completion?

When I am done creating my article, do I just copy it over to a new article or do the Sysops move it for me? How do i request the article moved to it's own location instead of a userspace?

I'll move it. --Andrés ^(talkplx) 21:58, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

• Can you look it over real quick and let me know if I need to tweak it? Thanks! OptiPest 22:56, 13 October 2012 (EDT)