Jump to content

Talk:Uncyclopedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.40.192.43 (talk) at 05:34, 12 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

why

is this page so dull?

Less funny version of

Uncyclopedia is just a profound less funny version of encyclopedia dramatica (which it copied). 99% of the articles on encyclopedia dramatica are funnier than 99% of those on uncyclopedia. Pindle 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but on uncyclopedia the articles are funny on purpose. --Isra1337 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's even worse, and means they try really hard and suck at it. Even the format and tools try to be funny, but fail miserably at it. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindle (talk • contribs)
You know, you could stop trying to make people believe ED is funnier than Uncyc and spend your time improving ED so there would be no question amongst rational men/womanmen that ED is funnier. No wait, arguments based solely on opinions are more fun, so carry on.--SirNuke 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because every Mediawiki/humor site is a copy of ED. --Rcmurphy 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't a copy of anything, it isn't funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindle (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your comments/criticism, Commenter/Criticiser #256532. (Hereafter referred to as Pindle.) Uncyclopedia, voted Best Website for Comedy by Big Important Awards Magazine six years in a row, welcomes and loves all comments/criticism that we recive. Your comments/criticism are/is taken very seriously which is why all of our comments/criticism are handled with care by our personal cadre of Tibetan Monks. They will sorted into piles depending on various factors including, but not limited to, length, the ratio of typos to stickers of cats, the amount of characters in your social security number, and the number of roads you had to walk down to submit the comment/criticism. We hope that you will return to our site in the near future.
On behalf of all the members of the Uncyclopedia Volunteer Bakery we thank you for your comments/criticism. --AlexMW 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you, Pindle. I, too, think that Uncyclopedia is profound. It's good to know that our efforts to convey the truth in an unbiased manner have not gone unnoticed. Of course ED is funnier, it's a "humor" wiki! We are just making strides in spreading wisdom and truth to the internet world.
I am thoroughly heartened by your comments. --Keitei 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your unfunniness is exemplified by your lame e-attack/save face on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindle (talk • contribs) 23:28 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Your unfunniness is exemplified by your lame claim that Africa is the birthplace of farting. --AlexMW 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attack? Save face? Why must I? I am confident in what we stand for, and glad that you have grasped it so well. --Keitei (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncyclopedia is awesome and I'm not just saying that because I have sysops there --insertwackynamehere 02:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia pwns noobs and is the funniest crap ever... See: is't funny, bt it's crap... It's cheap jokes and bad jokes that are so over used that they become funny. And dennis moore hates everyone who dislikes uncyclopedia!!! G|VE H|M YOUR LUP|INS!!!! Tingle

The logo, it's not a Potato

My first thought was that the logo was of an egg. Potatoes are not hollow. Furthermore its funnier as an egg because it might suggest that something further has hatched out of the uncyclopedia and developed a life of its own, just as these user editted sites can. I don't know it isn't a potato but I'm happier to believe it's an egg. u10ajf--139.133.7.38 19:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a potato. --AlexMW 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a puzzle potato, in fact. Zombiebaron 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a potato. I know because I made it. This is the original logo, and the current puzzle potato is a continuation on the tuber theme. Its name is Sophia. --Rcmurphy 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)d[reply]
It doesn't matter, it's all lopsided and squashed, that is what is important!! --JimmyT 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is terrible

Personally, I don't know why this site was ever created--it destroys everything! And they say it's HUMOR!! Watching Barney is more funny than this website. I also hope no one makes the big mistake of making Wikilinks to Uncyclopedipoop or whatever that weird place is called. What do you think, anybody? Janet6

"Uncyclopedipoop." That's clever. --Rcmurphy 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have only read some of the lamer articles on the site. Try reading some of the best stuff: AAAAAAAAA!, Zork, Nihilism, Redundancy. Some uncyc articles are lame, but there's a handful that are truly genius. --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah there are alot of really sucky articles ... the basic idea of the project was a good one though I think. --Nerd42 20:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is some users on uncyc take themselves seriously, and actually behave as bad as most wiki editors, deleting arts etc etc. there is no sense of proper insanity, and too much is obviously us-centric, although there are some poms in there somewhere!SatuSuro 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insanity isn't really the point. We generally value ordered funny more than random funny. And what's a "pom"? --Rcmurphy 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was very saddened by the Charlie Brown article there . . . can't the Schulz family sue? And if they don't, I would. Also, Nintendorulez, "AAAAAAAAA" was a stupid link . . . don't EVER do that to me again. Anyone want to comment about how wrong that Charlie Brown article is? I have a mind to zap that entire article and paste a Wikipedia article. Janet6
Er, then you'll be banned, just as you'd be banned for blanking a WP article. Try Best of for some good articles (and some bad ones that snuck in). Even I agree that a lot of the stuff on Uncyc is garbage. Such is the fate of a wiki - particularly one that aims at humor, which is subjective, rather than objective facts like Wikipedia. --Rcmurphy 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YOU TELL EM, BOSS-MAN! Jack Cain
To each, his own. In fact, I enjoy UP, in fact, I even created the Hurricane Katrina (User:You Want Million Dollar) article, after being inspired by the existing one. Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but unfortunately, Uncyc isn't joking when they say they're not a democracy. Voting there is a joke, the admins decide everything. I think it would be cool to start over with a new parody project with similar principles in it's operation to wikipedia, but similar content to Uncyclopedia except for some kind of "Make fun, not debate" kind of policy to counter the Lame Blogness of alot of Uncyc articles. Oh, and get rid of the profanity.
I've pretty much gotten banned there for getting on some admins nerves. They say I have to write a full article that they like in order to get back on, which I might do and then again might not. Good thing on WP you can write OR just edit, but to be a good Uncyclopedian you have to do both. --Nerd42 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, crazy admins, sounds like a place I know... ; ) Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like the entire internet itself --Nerd42 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acctually Nerd, the way I see it, is that you bascly pissed off lotsa people, aswell as never wrote a full article. The two are not linked.[[User:Zombiebaron|Zombiebaron <small> ([[User talk:Zombiebaron|talk]])]] 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wholeheartedly agree, uncyclopedia is stupid. plain and simple. It has a lot of great stuff on there, but yeah, some people protect their articles to the point where it starts to kill the whole point of a wiki. Just recently I saw some additions I made to an article a while back has been reverted by the author. A check of the history shows that the article writer has reverted practically everything added, as well as on other articles he has written. Apparantly he feels he is the only one allowed to be funny. I realize not all the changes people throw up may be funny, but it's damn annoying how un-cooperative some users are. - Picklefork 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that Uncyc isn't like Wikipedia. Anybody can add facts to an objective, encyclopedic article, but many jokes on Uncyclopedia are self-contained from the beginning, and often adding to them results in an uneven and contradictory mess of an article (just look at the George W. Bush page). Many authors have definite ideas about what joke they want to make, and adding humor not related to the original joke can weaken the page. That said, some writers are overprotective and I know it's frustrating. For some articles we have more than one version, so that people can create separate jokes about a subject without mixing humor within the same article. --Rcmurphy 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man uncyclopedia REALLY sucks. i'm glad there is more people that thinks this way. there is a line and that website crosses it OVER AND OVER AGAIN. it was a funny idea but then it was just...ruined. ruined by a bunch of mediocre people trying to be funny, is not humor, it's just people writing agressions about those things they don't like. BURN UNCYLOPEDIA DOWN! BURNBURNBURN! you see, it's not funny but annoying to the point it maked me want to write with caps.

Neutrality

The phrase "Some argue that the Un stands for unfunny." is completely unsourced and just looks like a weasley way to get a negative opinion in. I'm putting the NPOV template on here before I remove the phrase.--Savethemooses 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can construe it as anything but a weak slam on Uncyc. Besides, "unfunnycyclopedia"? That doesn't flow at all. --Rcmurphy 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It must be so hard for Wikipedians to keep the NPOV when editing this article. :)IQ

Is this article still POV? because I would like to translate some of if to the Danish wikipedia --Opspin 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I guess it's cleaned up now, I'll go ahead and translate it now. --Opspin 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Content"

I'm disputing the content section of this article. Given that Uncyclopedia is saposed to be the "content FREE" encyclopedia I don't think its very fitting to have a section about its content. Sure, Wiki may not be about wit or style in its writing, but please exercise a bit of creativity here. UP is for fun, its article shouldn't be dry like the rest of Wikipedia.

HEH

I updated the picasso page with "Picasso's Disturbance" --Cyberman 17:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that the entry on UP for "Wikipedia" is a spoof of this page? Clever. User:Charlie123

Wrong, this page is a spoof of uncyclopedia. Me and my homocidal screaming carrot friends will be contacting our lawyers about this popyright violation!
I THINK U ALL NEED NEED TO GET LIFE AND A JOB, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE U HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS TO BE CRITISISING A PERFECTLY GOOD WEB PAGE. UNENCYCLOPEDIA ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBLITY OVER WHO IS INSULTED OR KILLED TO DEATH BY THE OVER LOADED HUMOUR ON EACH PAGE!!!!!!!

FROM THE PROUD CREATOR OF THE PAGE B.I.G CHEESE

If you can't laugh at something just click off the pages. I'm going to tell you now, when this comes up on VFD (and it will) I will vote against. I think it should get special exeption on the grounds of "not taking ourselves too seriously". Seriously, go and read their version of you have two cows and Adolf Hitler. DJ Clayworth 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll also vote keep in that case, I find it funny;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that Adolf Hitler is part of the Oprah Winfrey conspiracy. Check it out. --66.66.45.216 19:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia rules! It's a joke and should be taken as such. It was never an attempt to rip on Wikipedia. People who complain about it really need to get a life. Cyberia23 22:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys! We're satire, but no way as useful. Wikipedia is awesome. :) --Chronarion 04:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We only roast the ones we love. Wikipedia is as useful as Uncyclopedia is hilarious. And Wikipedia is very useful. When I need a resource, I use Wikipedia, but when I want satire, parody, or whatever type of humor the article is, I use Uncyclopedia. --Savethemooses 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just discovered Uncyclopedia - great site, some excellent spoofs. Kinda cool that WP has been around enough to get the honour of a spoof, and even cooler to see it done well. The Wikipedia page in particular finds that great spot between truth and absurdity. Pcb21| Pete 10:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we know the name(s) of the founder(s)? They should be credited. AxelBoldt 00:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say the founders are Chronarion, myself and a few others. --Euniana/Talk 01:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been around since the beginning as well --PantsMacKenzie 22:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been around since the very beginning, but I did join in March and, quite frankly, I'm freakin' hilarious. :P --Savethemooses 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. If it were anyone else, you'd be in for an ass whupping.
I hadn't been back to UP for a while after the masses starting loading in, though I'm surprised where MichaelPlease and I's one night of fun with making Oprah articles has lead to... --ericasky 04:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a glitch with the website: is this temporary?

No it's always that shit. --ElvisFromUncyc 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying UP is down? --Huffers 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best sentences on uncyclopedia: "Creationism - The idea that God was so bored out of his mind he spent 6 days creating everything on our planet, and for good measure put in several jokes to fool us into believing it must have taken him much longer." It's at this article: [1] Rbarreira 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would be bitterly disappointed if any Wikipedian gets even slightly upset over Uncyclopedia (UP). If UP upsets you, then, frankly, you really need to lighten up. I think the UP is pricelessly funny, very clever and is in all ways a tribute to the success of Wikipedia. I also will be extremely annoyed if anyone tries to list this page for VFD. I know that some of UP's founders frequent this discussion page, and I wanted (as someone who was around in the founding days of Wikipedia) to express my huge respect for what you've put together. Manning 00:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear lord, the seriousness of this page and the lengthy research is by far as funny as uncyc :-P --70.107.211.23 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this bit out of the main article as it is POV and possibly off-topic:

On August 13th, 2005, Encyclopaedia Dramatica filed a DMCA request to Uncyclopedia to remove possibly infringing images and the ED logo, used on outbound links to ED. Legal matters are still being pursued.

There are no images alleged to be copied other than the æ ligature (which only appears in a template promoting ED by linking there from related articles in Uncyclo's main article space - now disabled, evidently) and the one bit of identifying info linking Sherrod DeGrippo (girlvinyl) to ED. See [2]. Verifiability is an issue here given that neither site constitutes a credibly neutral source, even were this nonsense in any way encyclopædaic. --carlb 08:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly connected to this - Uncyclopedia seems to be down (21.12 British Summer Time)

Wikia was undergoing server problems at the time. The information is from a first person source, the uncyclopedia founder, myself. --Chronarion 21:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the article

""Restore... it's not "wholesale blanking of text" it's removing of trivial details that amount to spam and vanity for a nonnotable site""

So, in other words, your fixing this article to your POV?

Does this [3] and then this [4] hmmmmmmm.--ElvisThePrince 12:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In his defense, the fourth revert did occur on a separate day. But I agree, reverting after stopping watching the page sounds strange. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's off my watchlist doesn't mean I can't come back... Facts are, thie article is wayyyyyy too detailed for the topic being discussed. It is highly POV for fans of the site to come here and fiull it up with nonnotable details and links to itself. Heck, that's promotional and spam, which is against policies here. This site is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Your attitude is highly uncivil (for one thing, section heads are not supposed to be aimed at people, so I am switching it) and expresses your POV over the normal functioning of this site. This site is getting spammed up the wazooo by highly partisan fans of certain sites who don't know (or don;t try to follow) the concepts of POV and notability. This needs to stop, and your obnoxious behavior is a good place to start. DreamGuy 12:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmmm, is obnoxiouse behaviour is it? You seem to be reading an awful lot into it, methinks the lady doth protest too much. I do think that given the shennanigans going on with this and the related article charging in like a bull in a china shop mass blanking does seem a little provocative and edgeing towards trolling, especial given that (at the last count) 4 seperate editors have reverted your blanking.--ElvisThePrince 13:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two million hits per month is hardly non notable. Source:[5] --70.107.137.102 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I question as to why "DreamGuy" (LOL! Cool handle!) is advising that a "detalied" article be trimmed down. It was to my understanding that the purpose of this wiki is to inform people. I think details are kind of a must.

External or Not?

Dreamguy likes the argument that Uncyclopedia is an external site, however it is hosted on Wikia, so I wouldnt call it an external site in the way that......Keenspot is an external site.

To be fair I'm not sure how relevant that is, yes there is a big overlap between wikia and wikimedia but I don't think it's that formal, I get the impression that Wikicites is a second cousin project rather than a sister project. --ElvisThePrince 14:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... if Jimbo Wales is the parent of Wikia and Wikimedia, Wikimedia is the parent of Wikipedia/Wictionary and Wikia is the parent of Wikicities/Uncyclopedia/Memory Alpha, doesn't that make them first cousins? Oh, and I'm my own grandpa... or something like that. --carlb 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate things further Wikia is the adoptive parent of Uncyclopedia/Memory Alpha (or is it god parent?)--ElvisThePrince 22:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am wonder if part of the problem is that using pipeing and interwiki links it's not obviouse that a lot of the links are interwiki ones, now I've had a quick shufty but can't find any agreed way to flag them as such (in the ame way external links have the arrow) so I would suggest that the links be changed from the [[Uncyclopedia:Article Name|Article Name]] to simply [[Uncyclopedia:Article]] (where it's obviouse that it refers to an interwiki). --ElvisThePrince 16:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links are slightly different in colour (lightblue instead of blue - the colour matches the external links) so no, they're not identical. If you wanted the "external link" arrow on any link, using the full URL should give link to some random site external to Uncyclopedia ;) with the arrow (even if, like the "This article is a whatever stub. You can help Wikipedia by editing it." template, the link target's not truly external). Just an idea... --carlb 23:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed the colour diffrence (and in fact still can't see any maybe my browser is doing odd things or it's too subtle) are interwiki vs. using full URL, I'm just lazy I guess and prefer interwiki links (and they seem more wikiappropriate somehow) although in this situation I guess it would make sense. --ElvisThePrince 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, again

Okay, now your just being stubborn about this. For the last time: It is not a promotional fan article. And furthermore, you will not win, we will have a real, complete article on the Uncyclopedia, no matter what you think about it. No matter how many times you blank the page, we will turn it back into a usefull entry.No matter how you dress it up, what your doing is flat out, plain and clear Vandalisim. Why dont you go pick a fight with somone else? Your not going to find one here. Jack Cain 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the traditional meaning of the word "encyclopedia" is still in use here. Wikipedia is not paper, and is written collaboratively. Those two radical concepts ought to have changed the scopes of the meaning of an "encyclopedia" dramatically. I don't even have to mention the fact that most encyclopedias have not changed themselves to embrace the advent of the Internet as a new primary source of knowledge, communication, and cultural exchange, which a sizable minority rely on while the majority remain oblivious to its existence. You may as well blank Slashdot and its countless related articles. Or Linux, a very non-notable OS used by fans only. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to remind the above user that the majority of the worlds population does not have internet access and they still maintain and pratice their cultures. plus, its an undisputed fact that internet culture is the most degenerate culture of all. It seems to me that your coming from a position of very little prespective. From where you're sitting the internet may be the main means of communication, but in the rest of the world, including developed nations, face to face incounters are still the perfered and most widly pratice means of communication. hahaha. Is this from uncyclopedia? Its an undisputed fact that anyone claiming a fact to be undisputed is poo poo head.

Referrals

While we love getting new users, please don't send Wikirejects to us. We're having a time with a dynamic IP trying to make "Carlow Crab," as well as two new users who say that they've been "banned" from here (and possibly sent over via referral). Please refer carefully. We really don't like having to put up with stupid people that you guys may have referred to us as a joke. We know you don't mean it, but still...consideration.--UnFlammable 04:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this appearing on the page - and why is Uncyclopedia unobtainable today (19/9)? -SomeUser

Slashdot article Pretty much all that needs to be said... -Fuzzy 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, occasionally people blank entire pages, insert advertising statements, or add messages that promote certain agendas, such as spreading anti-Semitic remarks.

Anti-Semitism should be the least of their worries. Don't get me wrong (Some of my best friends are Jews) but this site in pretty much anti-everything else too, and Jews represent such a small part of the internets population.--58.104.4.214 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between jew related humor and anti-semitic hate content; uncyclopedia tends to be pretty good at leaving the former and killing the latter. This goes equally well for all other minorities. --Gwax 09:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half-Jewish and I'm a sysop on uncyc :P --insertwackynamehere 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is really a notable fact. It's no more of an issue than it is on wikipedia. Any website that users can edit, post messageds to, or have any sort of interaction with is bound to see spam and trolling like this. --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia is better than Wikipedia

I just don't get it-- Wikipedia has no point! It isn't funny at all! --Clorox 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) --YEAH! Jack Cain

Yeah!--203.28.159.135 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ur RIGHT!!!! Wikipedia ist teh g3yz0rz! I wanna maek Wikipeda funneee. Hooo ist wit meee????////--COOLEST GUY IN TEH FRIKKIN UNIVERSE!!!1111 0535436 Octember 2007 OMG, duh!! Jncyc10p3[)i4 pwnz 73h VVu|21D

Banned

I got banned from uncyclopedia.Richardkselby 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y? whaddya do? I'll look into it .... try the IRC chan, there's a link to an instructional video on the main page ^_^ --Nerd42 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[minutes later] Dude, you don't have an account there lol, try registering B4 u complain about being banned. You couldn't have had an account there that was deleted because that would show up in the deletion log and I don't see it there. --Nerd42 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Way out of date

Much of this article is grossly out of date. Many of the interwiki links are to low quality uncyclopedia articles or fads that have been aggressively fought into submission by admins (Kanye and Ballmer quotes). Many of the "common themes" are not common themes, but rather themes that appear in one or two articles, at most. Incidentally, the admins tend to put a great deal of effort into curbing the spread of the crap this article seems to be suggesting is the standard fare for Uncyclopedia; you people might do well to read Uncyclopedia's policy on How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. --Gwax 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment well you guys allow advertisment to popular sites but not to unpopular sites

Source

My source, Grace Note? Only the great Oscar Wilde! “Let's get retarded!” --Oscar Wilde on Wikipedia Von Steuben 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parody

Uncyclopedia […] is a parody of Wikipedia, though Uncyclopedia claims the reverse <- does it mean that Uncyclopedia claims that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia? ;) --Moala 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly. And Uncyclopedia claims that "Wikipedia claims the reverse", i.e. that Wikipedia "claims" that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. - Sikon 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia "claims" that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, and that it claims that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, when Wikipedia claims that - *head explodes* --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Is this spoof notable enough for an encycopedia entry?--JK the unwise 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been added, per reference in 2 print newspapers. --130.245.249.228 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL are we talking about the same Uncyclopedia? One of the most popular wikis on WikiCities that has been slashdotted multiple times? --Nerd42 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection

Does Uncyclopedia have any affilation at all to the Wikimedia foundation? Things are very simalar between the 2 sites. The Republican 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Peanuts" article

I hate the Charlie Brown article on this site. Wouldn't the Schulz family be angry if they found out this site glorifies Charlie Brown as a murderer? He isn't that at all. He's nice, sweet, and gentle (although he does occasionally get depressed) . . . any comments? Janet6

Charlie Brown is a fictional character, it's not like he is related to the Schulz family. I think they'd might be angry if the site "glorified" Schulz himself as a murderer. --Revolución (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an old discussion, but as the writer of Charlie Brown, I think I should point out that what you've said is exactly the point of the article. It portrays him as the complete opposite of what he really is, and that's where the (attempted) humor comes from.--Teiladnam 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you made a famous cartoon character, wouldn't your family be pissed if someone screwed with your work in such a way? Especially after you're dead? How about phrasing it that way? Yeah, sure, we get it, it's supposed to be funny. But they're saying this stuff just for the hell of it...and this kind of humor really can be insulting to particular groups...it's just not meant directed at certain people, that's all.

Such is the nature of parody and free speech.DevanJedi 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should just ignore that page(some articles are just off the line...)who would be that ignorant to believe in that article anyways? --MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Uncyclopedia banned form Google?

I found this out a couple of weeks ago and thought it was something temporary, but it does seem like they're banned from google. Did they get too high PageRank for a site that provides only false information? Obli (Talk) 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=uncyclopedia
Google's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://www.google.ca/search?q=uncyclopedia
MSN's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=uncyclopedia
Robotic dude 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their robots.txt file returns a 403 (access forbidden). Perhaps google doesn't like this assumes worst case? --AAAAAAAAA! 06:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a 403 error on robots.txt so that's probably not the problem. --gwax UN (say hi) 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They (almighty admins) had fixed the problem a few days after I posted about it on Uncyclopedia. I assure you, it was a 403 on March 5th (and probably had been for quite some time).--SirNuke 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found something that was EQUALLY suprising: If you have mozzila, and your home page is mozzilla-google, you can image search for something and GET IMAGES FROM UNCYCLOPEDIA! I don't know why 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Tingle

Keeping Neutrality for ED and UN

Adding Ed's Article on Uncyclopedia to be equal for vice-versa.

Main Page Holidays

I reverted the removal of this section by an anon. Does anyone think that it should be removed? Savidan 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it should be. Why have holidays up to advertise for Uncyclopedia? In that case I think ED's Hoildays/More Material should be put up. ~ 05:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • UN User above have stated " Try reading some of the best stuff: AAAAAAAAA! Which is included in the list of holidays.
  • Keep the list - what harm does it do? - Sikon 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small NPOV

"(considered one of the most gruesome and inconsiderate gestures possible there)" seems unnecessarily inflamitory -RyanEberhart 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have GOT to be kidding? This is an article about a (supposedly) satirical page! An article about this, no matter how sober, does well to give a taste of what they are talking about. The uncyclopedia is a bit of fun. Extrapolating part of it's style here, even if it's only 4 or 5 words, cannot be a bad thing. Kilbosh 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they even keep content

Seems like everytime I check the recent changes for their website, that idiot Splaka or one of the other administrators there has deleted almost every new entry that has been created. It's like they have an exclusive club or something. I wonder what they think about Asians? --166.102.104.7 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They delete pages that totally suck, which happen to be about 50% of new pages. Pages that suck, but have a chance for redemption get NRV'd. I guess the same thing applies to Wikipedia, except the deletion process is more tedious here, administrators can't just huff articles on sight. - Sikon 05:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncyclopedia is pretty pathetic, if you ask me. The admins often have no comedic talent or sense of literary humor. It's true that most of the huffed articles are bad and deserve to be shitcanned, but the administrators are as blind as those they are charged to "lead", and often create content that is just as poor in quality.
I think Uncyc. is doomed to fail. For Wikipedia, at least, there's some sense of what is true and NPOV and therefore base for consensus. Humor is a million times more subjective, and as one who has worked in comedy, I can vouch for the fact that the same joke can get roaring laughter among one audience and nothing among another. Czar Dragon 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'fail'. Uncyclopedia, or at least my understanding, has absolutely no goals, and therefore cannot fail. I won't deny that a majority of Uncyclopedia articles are worthless, but anyone who enjoys satire will find many good articles, particularly within the Best Of category. Wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia for anyone. Uncyclopedia only tries to be funny for those who find it funny.
Oh, and There is no cabal--SirNuke 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "best of" entries are often as poorly done as the more obscure articles. It's shoddy writing all around, and the administrators of the site zealously guard their garbage content while reverting the contribs of better (and, to be thorough, also some worse) writers. Czar Dragon 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins do indeed guard their garbage content as a dragon hoards his stashes. However, admins only revert vandalism. The major writer of an article is responsible for reverting additions or changes they don't like. And the best of sucks because too many cooks spoil the soup. I'd suggest checking out our UnNews, especially the audio portion. That's where it's going down. --Keitei (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, a better way to find good content than rifling through Best Of is to stalk a few of the particular writers you like. That's what I do. --Rcmurphy 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our goal is to delete more pages than are created. And have you read most of the content that is created? :] It's mostly about penises, and being gay, and sucking your mother's cock, and generally isn't in good taste.
Unfortunately, our article count keeps creeping up... as much as we try to stop it, :[. And yes, the admins have no sense of humor and blah blah blah. Think what you want, truth is boring. --Keitei (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, Uncyclopedia is funnier than you guys... I mean really. I came to wikipedia looking for humor, but man oh man.. it's been really hard to find. And don't even get me started on your April Fools Day plans... do really think that's clever, do you really think anyone outside of the wikipedian inner circle will find it funny? At Uncyclopedi it's about quality, we don't have 50,000 one-line stubs. --Tompkins
Damn, he's discovered our secret: we're the other white nationalist wiki. As is obvious from the name of our founder, Jonathan Huang - David Gerard 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how the keep period.

Thats true, but we have articles other than 'the truth of gayness' and 'pee preview'. We have articles like pee and gay that are truthful. But I dont have anything against uncyclopedia, I'm just a litter mad at their irrelevant way of running things. Though I think most of the content their sucks. Though I had some fun there at one time, and yes, I agree, their Dynasty Warriors article is pretty funny;). I think I'll stay here For a bit. I want to tell what I know to the world, instead of making up excuses to be funny. We have a funny few here too, and I think that that we are all 'wikicities' in a way, we should stop this "hating each other stuff". Just like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia dont like each other, but they dont make fun, or write bad things about one another, they learn to deal with it. But if we dont, then so be it, Just dont forget about the thing that really matters, a free encyclopedia, and a noncyclopedia. If we keep them that way, that will be good enough. Whopper 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - how come Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are intolerant? And why should they be? All the three major Wikicities - Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia - seemed to be on rather good terms last time I checked. - Sikon 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site is F**ked Up!!

wow,, this site is racist and talks about stuff in really horrible ways! they even make fun of their selves?!

I think whoever made it is (Personal attack removed)

its cool to make a little stupid joke but this!

damn,,, --Muhaidib 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's satire, what's so racist about it? Personally I think some of their pages are hilarious, despite many of them being kind of dumb and pointless. –Tifego(t)08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the site rather disturbing.--Andeee 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"they even make fun of their selves?!"

Heh heh, I love how somehow making fun of "their selves" is just so shocking, even more so than how it's supposedly "racist". May I direct you to satire, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek, wherein you can enlighten yourself and not be so... well, oversensitve --Savethemooses 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddened

I read an Uncyclopedia article and it almost made me cry, because I realised that whoever wrote it must have a lot of hate in their heart to think of things like that. I don't think it's funny, and if you do, I guess you're entitled to your own opinion, but so am I, and I think it's twisted. I'm sure there are better tings to do with the Internet. And copying a site that does such a service like Wikipedia, or 'parody', if you are offended by 'copy', just makes it sicker. I don't know what the point of writing this is, I just feel saddened... the world will be a better place when twisted people like Jonathos Huang and Jack Thompson decide to end their miserable existances.

"whoever wrote it must have a lot of hate in their heart"
...
"the world will be a better place when twisted people like Jonathos Huang and Jack Thompson decide to end their miserable existances."(sic).
Whichever Uncyclopedia article it was you read, seems like a far more appropriate one would have been Pot vs. Kettle. -- Codeine 14:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well played, Mr. Bond. --Savethemooses 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like someone's got a case of reasons to become an athiest! --205.146.140.253 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the person who wrote the article originally - I'm lost in HTML - well, thanks you guys who replied to this and showed me that everything deserves a second look. I guess any site with millions of authors is bound to have different sites. And thankyou to whoever directed me to the 'reasons to become an athiest' - I liked it. I guess this whole thing is proof that you shouldn't be allowed near any discussion sections when you are upset.. :)

First sentence

The first sentence of this article does not read very well. I know its the article on uncyclopedia but still....

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uncyclopedia&oldid=48076268"