Talk:Atheist Jesus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheist Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

		This article was nominated for deletion on March 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

a pic that might help...

I made this picture... it might help the article... idk were to put it... someone else can do that though... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auk (talk • contribs)

OK

From your talk page I can see that you have a habit of undoing other people's work simply because you yourself don't find it very funny. That is very arrogant, and detrimental to the idea of this site being a collaborative effort. Please don't do it. I've made some changes with compromises to your version; but I wouldn't be surprised if you reverted them all entirely. If you do then I think I won't bother carrying it on, but think about it before you do, because this article is not your personal property. --Atomik Spongeface • Ⓣ Ⓒ 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am out of control. The trouble with your edits to Joseph's second paragraph is that you've made it make more sense; you've explained his motivation for not believing it the second time - but how is this more funny? It's less funny. The humour comes from Joeph blindly seeing God as the father of the child as a convincing story. You haven't added humour, you've taken away from what is already there. I know sometimes rewording is useful to improve the flow like what you've done in the first paragraph, but I don't understand what you think you're trying to achieve in the second. mAttlobster. (hello) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. If that's the kind of idea you were going for in the second paragraph then reverting it was fine. Except, maybe it was just me, but I never really tacked on to Joseph blindly believing that God was the father. It just didn't seem that obvious to me that that was the idea. Hence why I added the wrong thing. I think it would be better if you placed more emphasis on Joseph blindly believing that God was the father, because he did, after all, say that he was "a little suspicious". --Atomik Spongeface • Ⓣ Ⓒ 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)