Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 1

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

Note: This archive is incomplete and substantially broken.

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)

Yes, but on uncyclopedia the articles are funny on purpose. --Isra1337 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Yes, because every Mediawiki/humor site is a copy of ED. --Rcmurphy 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Uncyclopedia is awesome and I'm not just saying that because I have sysops there --insertwackynamehere 02:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, Uncyclopedia is far less funny that ED, that is why it has substantially more contributors and eight times as many articles as ED, thank you for enlightening the world Pindle.--Killer Panda
No offense to ED, but I actually never found it that entertaining. A lot of it is inside jokes that I don't get. I won't say it sucks, because that would be rude and just plain crazy, just not easy to understand. Uncyc I crack up at. Maybe it's because ED focuses more on Internet Culture and Uncyc parodies nearly everything. They are two different kinds of encyclopedias. AAAAAAAAA! 03:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] HA! Take that, morons. Whats your argument about that? --{Kaizer 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncycopedia's mostly just random things strewn together in stream of consciousness writing with little creativity. Nothing wrong with that, if you enjoy MadLibs. "<Famous person> was born in <absurd year> by his/her parents, <absurd persons, places, or things>. He/She fought in the <anachronistic war> and killed <x number> of <aliens or animals>. He/she currently lives on <pick a planet other than earth>, and died in <2006 + x years>." The Steve Ballmer and J.D. Salinger articles, however, are still amusing. BJAODN > Uncyclopedia. Roffler 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and ED is all internet slang, porn, and slander slewn together with no stream at all, and usually consisting of absolutely no creativity, intellect, or signs of life. "<Unknown MySpace User> was <synonym for sex> <absurd number> of times, by his/her parents, siblings, and <anything with a pulse>. He/she has <STD> and killed <x number> of <synonym for homosexual, Jewish Person, African American, or other group of people>. He/she currently spends <pick a number of hours, above 12> hours a day having cybersex, and will get laid in <3006 + x years>." None of the articles on ED are funny, and most just make me sad to be alive. Everything > ED. tmopkisn tlka 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


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)

It is a potato. --AlexMW 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a puzzle potato, in fact. Zombiebaron 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
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
It doesn't matter, it's all lopsided and squashed, that is what is important!! --JimmyT 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was a deflated Wikipedia logo. --67.85.134.46 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is partially the idea. A squashed, deformed, Wikipedia logo. And a potato fits right. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ($.25) 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but unfortunately, Uncyc isn't joking when they say they're not a democracy. Voting there is a joke, the admins decide everything. I think it would be cool to start over with a new parody project with similar principles in it's operation to wikipedia, but similar content to Uncyclopedia except for some kind of "Make fun, not debate" kind of policy to counter the Lame Blogness of alot of Uncyc articles. Oh, and get rid of the profanity.
I've pretty much gotten banned there for getting on some admins nerves. They say I have to write a full article that they like in order to get back on, which I might do and then again might not. Good thing on WP you can write OR just edit, but to be a good Uncyclopedian you have to do both. --Nerd42 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, crazy admins, sounds like a place I know... ; ) Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like the entire internet itself --Nerd42 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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.

Quit whining about whether or not this site is funny. 70.20.207.161 11:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is a place for a better kind of humor. I feel that alot of the people commenting would rather see an episode of Beavis and Butthead, then to go out and watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I'm not criticizing anyone's intellect or intelligence, but I just think people need to keep an open mind about these things. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it, I'm sure everyone else will understand. But please don't criticize something that alot of individuals put alot of work into. Now you'll probably call me an "Uncyclopedian Pussy" or something, but I'll do my best to ignore you. tmopkisn tlka 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)

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


"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.

  • This article is on Wikipedia, and it's confined by Wikipedia policies. If you want fun, edit their article about Wikipedia. - Sikon 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


HEH

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

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)
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)
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)

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: [2] Rbarreira 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 [3]. 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)

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)


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 [4] and then this [5] hmmmmmmm.--ElvisThePrince 12:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Two million hits per month is hardly non notable. Source:[6] --70.107.137.102 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • 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)

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)

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)


Interwiki Links

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)

  • Of course it would probably affect the readability somewhat therefore perhpa the solution is to make all interwiki links obviouse in context --ElvisThePrince 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)

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)
  • 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)

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)


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)

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)
  • cough cough* - not true --Nerd42 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm half-Jewish and I'm a sysop on uncyc :P --insertwackynamehere 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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)


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)

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

The point of Wikipedia is to give facts and info and that's why it's not funny. Please, people, it has a meaning in this universe.


Banned

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

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)
[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)


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)

  • Yes, the Wikipedia main page picture needs to be updated... --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)


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)

  • 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)
  • 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)


Notability?

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

  • I can assure you, there are many sites less notable than this which have valid Wikipedia entries. - Sikon 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Notability has been added, per reference in 2 print newspapers. --130.245.249.228 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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)


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)

  • Very remote affiliation, as it's a sister project of Wikicities, hosted by Wikia. However, it's not a Wikimedia sister project. - Sikon 05:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a second cousin project. --ElvisThePrince 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


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)
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)
Well, you could always rewrite the page to something funnier, right? Notably there's the chance of an edit war, especially on a humor wiki, but that's the idea of a wiki, no? Edit what seems to be bad. There is a fine line between edit and censorship though. --Chronarion 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right, Janet6. Charlie Brown is nice, sweet and gentle. However thanks to parody and fairuse, we've made him something completly different for humorous purposes. Hooray for unadultered humor and free speech! --insertwackynamehere 01:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

im not sure if the fact that they have google adsense on pages matters does it? they have failed to adhere to it's [programe policies] for example above the ad they have put lunch money as opposed to what the rules state;- shhould be "sponsered links" Jamie-planetx 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Keeping Neutrality for ED and UN

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

Why mention ED here or Uncyc on the ED article? The two sites are unrelated, and the feud between the two is not noteworthy. --Nintendorulez talk 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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)

  • 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)


Small NPOV

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

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)

  • It can be and it is. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. - Sikon 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok first people complain that uncyc is unfunny because they probably read a stupid vanity/slander 1 liner that utilized the word "fag" 15 times in one sentence. Then they bitch that we delete that. Uncyc is big. Sorry to say that most new stuff is stupid aformentioned one-liners. We DONT like stupid crap and we DO try to delete it and you cant complain both ways. --insertwackynamehere 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


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)

  • 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)


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)

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)
I find the site rather disturbing.--Andeee 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"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)

I hate how mean and cruel some articles can be, and I can think they can be just as funny without heaps of swear words and sex stuff. -Kinsey

  • it's true there is some of that if you koin our cause you can get rid of that. Jamhaw 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not.

Swear words? Sex stuff? You don't usually find the best articles by veiwing the list of NRV's--{Kaizer 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


why

is this page so dull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.192.43 (talk • contribs) 06:34 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Uncyclopedia. You're on Wikipedia, which deals with factual and encyclopaedic articles. :) — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 08:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Such as the fact that Uncyclopedia sucks? --166.102.104.26 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not a fact, it's your opinion. The two are completely different. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


KITTEN HUFFING IS SICK

"Kitten huffing" is a very sick and twisted article. Whoever wrote that is a very cruel person and needs to see somebody. What if a young child reads that page and gets scarred for life? The creators of Uncyclopedia must love killing animals. And talking about how girls are stupid.

Uh, yeah, ok... 84.65.218.55 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I find other articles funny, but not that one. I love kittens.


It's called a joke. Ever heard of one? Also, it's just your opinion as to whether Uncyc is funny. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. Nobody cares whether or not you find this site funny. --Nintendorulez talk 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Censorship

Well, I think, many Uncyclopedia's articles is under hard censorship and are often deleted. Try, for example, search for Lara Croft or Intel. Is it pressure of big companies/brand holders? Sorry for bad English. (yunix@mail.ru) 62.148.131.66 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we just see a LOT of badly written articles. At least 90% of newly created articles get deleted. The wiki has a standard of quality to maintain. --Nintendorulez talk 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as 90%, I think it's more around 2/3. tmopkisn tlka 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


NPOV

Doesn't seem to me that this article is NPOV. The writer seems a bit bitter about Uncyclopedia. 87.80.104.5 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How so? I'm an Uncyc admin and I think the WP article represents Uncyclopedia...well...somewhat accurately, at least. --Rcmurphy 00:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


U

Uncyclopedia sucks! This is what is says about 9/11

(removed)

THEY HAVE NO SHAME!! NOR TTHEY HAVE NO RESPECT


and this is what is says about the Holocaust:

(removed)

I hope the writers of these two articles will DIE and ROT in Heck!

It's called a JOKE. Jay. Oh. Kay. Ee. Say it out loud. It's not serious! IT'S HUMOR! JOKES! FUNNY! Don't take it seriously. And finally, this is not a place for you to talk about your opinions on the site. Nobody cares what you think about this site. Oh, and don't copy/paste an entire fucking article here. It's unnecessary. --Nintendorulez talk 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Nin, please remember where you are. This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia, and as such, I refer you to the contents of WP:CIVIL. Whilst the opinion of the poster above may be percieved as overblown and reactionary, your aggressive and profane responses throughout this entire talk page are not really justified. This is not Talk:Euroipods, nor are you responsible for defending Uncyclopedia. Codeine 08:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Right... *mutters under own breath* Anyway, people need to read my message at the top of the page. Why is it that this talk page attracts so many illiterates who think Wikipedia is the appropriate place to whine about how they were offended by our humor, and botch the English language while doing it? Should I bring this up over at the VD, see if we can get some people to patrol this page and try to explain that Wikipedia is not a soapbox? --Nintendorulez talk 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Why the heck is everyone having this argument here about a page that is meant to be an informative and objective facts encyclopedia? Why don't all who have a problem with Uncyclopedia please go complain to their administrators. It's like asking why there is a goatse page on Wikipedia on moral tastes grounds. Anyone who does have a problem should be quiet anyway, as they're not really going to change things. --BarryC 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Please stop shouting, I've removed your shouting and your use of "shut up" because they're both incivil. Incivility isn't going to help get your point across. Further, Uncyclopedia is not facts-based, it is a parody. Please read the parody link so that you know what the word means. — nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 07:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe he meant that Wikipedia's page on Uncyc is meant to be informative and objective fact, and not a place to air complaints about Uncyclopedia itself. Rcmurphy 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This is not a soapbox. --Nintendorulez talk 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Is Uncyclopedia down?

Whenever I try to go to Uncyclopedia it says page can not be displayed. Anyone having the same problem? Ric36 00:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It went down for a bit last night. Poor, poor server... --Nintendorulez talk 19:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Main Page for the 15th or 16th

A couple of days ago there was a Yahoo-spoof main page. Could someone drag that up for our list? -Litefantastic 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 


Here you go: http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=766177 --69.69.160.63 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Not funny and I question their ethics

For far too long I have sat by and watched Uncyclopedia allow racist or stereotypical remarks on their site. My question is if they are trying to go for humor why are they allowing such things to occur? Uncyclopedia administrators surely must realize that there is a difference between being funny and being stupid. At this point I do not believe they could be funny if they raped a clown at knifepoint.

Humor is relative. Nobody who writes Uncyclopedia actually believes what they write. And most of the stupid articles are speedied anyway. AAAAAAAAA! 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and there are guidlines on how to be funny and not just stupid. Many of the people who write articles that are just stupid are either IP addresses, vandals, people who didn't read the guidlines at the bottom of every edit box or are users that don't get it. Rape isn't funny on Uncyc, althoug it's present a lot in the Encyclopædia Dramatica, which is far more disgusting compares to Uncyc.--Signor 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not. --{Kaizer 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead a question my ethics, I dont give a shit. As an administrator at Uncyc I know I do my best, with all the other admins, to keep crap off the wiki. I consider myself an ethical person, and completly NOT racist, in fact I don't even believe race exists as anything more than a social construct (but thats beside the point). I personally don't agree with racist humor and if something is stupid and racist it gets deleted for being as such. Some stuff is kind of funny, and plays off of race, like plenty a comedy show (cough SNL, Mad TV, Dave Chappelle cough). And even then there is some stuff I dont like, but still fits quality standards, so I just ignore it. --insertwackynamehere 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Blocked from Uncyclopedia

My IP was blocked for blanking UnNews. I have went to the Wikipedia-Uncyclopedia war and become a hero!(Maybe I'll become an UnSysop one day. Think at what I could do then.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know there is no official war. But there will be when you read Uncyclopedia's Wikipedia article.-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. Yes I actually got blocked for vandalism on Uncyclopedia!-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw, they're all a bunch of fucking assholes anyway. The only reason Uncyclopedia exists in the first place is to give people with low self-esteem an outlet to vent their frustrations. That site wouldn't exist if not for people like Jimbo Wales and places like Wikipedia. Why, I wouldn't hesitate to say that without Jimbo Wales, Uncyclopedia would be nothing more than a pornography site where 3/4 of its users were undercover members of law enforcement agencies. --O I C U R M T 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing it again!!!--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no war, official or not. Uncyc is more of a complementary to WP than a rival. You aren't a hero, you are a vandal. - Sikon 14:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If Uncyclopedia is a compliment to Wikipedia, I'd hate to see what an insult was! --O I C U R M T 05:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Guys, Vandalism of a Wiki is Vandalism. Uncyclopedia is a Parody. It's like the Mad Magazine of Wikis. So, no. There is no war. You aren't a hero, you're just a Vandal.-Sgore 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
To use that comparison is an insult ot Mad Magazine. Not only is Mad Magazine funnier than Uncyclopedia, it makes better toilet paper, too. --166.102.104.63 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... read the note at the top of the page, everyone. --Nintendorulez talk 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. didn't notice that, thanks.-Sgore 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparantly the problem with this talk page is that too many people aren't reading the top of the page quotes by Nintendorulez. If there is a way to make text bigger than those two explanations at the top should be bolded and noted.--Signor 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

GOSH I HATE IT WHEN MY SISTER HACKS ME!!!--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC) SHE JUST NOW TOLD ME!!! I AM OFF TO CHANGE MY PASSWORD!!!

erm, yes okay, how does this relate to....anything at all.--Signor 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

She hacked me and did all that! Sometimes I think she is meaner than Vader himself.GangstaEB 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean I have to stop having sex with her? --166.102.104.25 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Controversy

Would it be okay if we added a Controversy section? Cause you know... KinseyLOL 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We have to in order to make this WP:NPOV. AAAAAAAAA! 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


uncyclopedia's wikipedia template has changed

note: the wikipedia logo of uncyclopedia's wikipedia template has changed to the bouncy wiki logo Frosty 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Calm Yourselves

I read much of this talk page, and it occured to me that a lot of you are angered over Uncyclopedia. Whether you are or not is none of my business. However, the talk page of the Wikipedia article is not the place to voice your opinions of Uncyclopedia. If you have a bone to pick, at least have the courage to pick it at the actual Uncyclopedia site.

On another note, no mention of the Insert Title Here page on Uncyclopedia? I'm sure it should go under page examples. If you don't think much of it, then don't add it. But please consider putting it there.

Arrg...its so hard to link to it! Im pretty much a noob at linking. If you want to add it, you'll hafta search for it.

Its titled [Insert Title Here]

Yes. It WAS featured, after all. AAAAAAAAA! 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Common themes

There seems to be too many examples of the self-reference, so I might remove them unless there are any objections. So, are there any (objections, that is)? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No? Ok then. I'll remove some of the less notable ones. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit whining about whether or not this site is funny.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Humor is subjective, and Uncyc has lots of articles by lots of authors. Not all of them are funny, not all of them suck. People seem to be awfully upset when they read one or two articles and don't find them funny. But regardless, this talk page is not for whining about whether or not Uncyc is funny. This is for stuff related to this wikipedia article about the site. Whether or not this article is funny is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not the place to voice them. Thank you, have a nice day, and shut the fuck up. --Nintendorulez talk 19:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Also, you might want to read more than two or three articles before judging the site. Remember, it is a wiki, collaboratively written by many different authors. What one person thinks is funny might not be that funny to someone else. You'll find articles use various different blends of humor and style, because they were written by different people. Nobody is going to find 100% of the articles funny, but at the same time I can guarantee that if you keep looking, you'll find at least one article that you'll love. And keep in mind, if you don't think the site is that funny, you can write a funny one. It's a wiki. So don't whine that it's not funny. You can easily make it funny by pitching in and writing something. --Nintendorulez talk 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How did nobody catch this vandal edit where some ass went and messed with what I said? --Nintendorulez talk 13:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


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)
...did I just get compared to jack thompson? --Chronarion 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well played, Mr. Bond. --Savethemooses 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like someone's got a case of reasons to become an athiest! --205.146.140.253 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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.. :)

Its called "Satire" and it is the use of sarcasm or irony to expose human folly (read the wikipedia article) some people may find it offensive because of it parodies things that are too serious. In reality, however, it is pointing out the particular human folly of that subject. Take, for example, the Adventures of Hucklebury Finn, it uses the word N****r serveral times throughout. Mark Twain used this as a way to show the harshness of racism in the south. Yet some people wanted it banned from schools because it had the N-Word in it. Would you ban such an inflential peice of writing from a school simply because it has offensive words in it, I hope not.

In addition to this argument, I will say that Uncyclopedia is in no way affiliated with Wikipedia. We felt like making the world a better place by either pointing out human folly or just making people laugh. However, There are still some articles that are evil, imo --{Kaizer 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, (and I direct this to the creator of the section "Saddened), are an idiot. Uncyclopedia is a wiki. If someone makes a Wikipedia article that follows: "LOL GAY SHIT FUCK BITCH PISS JEW" are you gonna go compare Jimbo to Jack Thompson? On top of which Jack Thompson would probably hate Uncyc anyway. Whatever article you read reflects the views of the author and only the author and if it was pure hate, that means it lacks humor, which means we'd probably delete it. In fact we are crusading against cyberbullying and crap and the like right now, because so many stupid kids come in posting "lol susie q and johnny x sample are so faggy" and we cant keep up with that kind of stuff. Do you think that us Uncyc admins particularly enjoy sorting through the endless amounts of muck that gets shit out of the bowels of angsty preteens onto our site? No, we don't. (Well we do take pleasure in deleting them, but sure as hell not cleaing up when its so much that it becomes a chore). Get a grip. Its the internet, if you want hate go to Godhatesfags.com or Stormfront.org not Uncyclopedia. --insertwackynamehere 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad someone here took the time to read more than one article, and realize that due to our many, many authors, different styles of humor will be found here and nobody is bound to like every article. --Nintendorulez talk 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sue them

Jimbo Wales should sue Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikpedia. NOT vice versa (After all, Wikipedia was founded BEFORE Uncyclopedia)

Micoolio101 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101

I don't even think Jimbo cares. Uncyclopedia is a parody, and thus everything it says is untrue. It acknowledges that. If you take something on Uncyc literally, then take two and call me in the morning. Besides, if Jimbo did sue us, we'd just have to disclose this. AAAAAAAAA! 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! That would give Uncyclopedia tons of publicity! --Teiladnam 02:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We should get together and get a class action suit filed! I mean who would have thought that a simple joke would be able to get posted on the internet of all things, and on a humorous parody site, no less! What is this world coming to? --insertwackynamehere 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do believe I've read somewhere that Jimbo finds Uncyc very funny. --Nintendorulez talk 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales suing Uncyclopedia might not make any sense... according to uncyclopedia:Forum:Announcement: Wikia & Uncyclopedia, one of the founders of the Uncyclopedia site inexplicably sold the domain name out from under the site with no prior consultation with the community. To none other than Jimbo Wales. If http://pir.org/Search/WhoIsSearchResults.aspx?txtWhoIsSearch=uncyclopedia lists Jimbo Wales as *being* the Uncyclopedia, he can't very well sue himself, can he? 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ikkepedia

I have a theory about the origin of the term "ikkepedia", but is there a link to a page that explains the name? Also, when I googled ikkepedia, I got only a handful of hits. Anyone know why that is the case? Andjam 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Google has banned Uncyclopedia, sorta, any real hits is quite a surprise then.--Signor 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ikkepedia name is a slight modification on the Wikipedia name and is used only for the Norwegian-language version of the project. That and its relatively recent vintage may explain the limited number of search hits. --66.102.74.4 04:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales loves Uncyclopedia

"Wales also admits to being a regular at Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia of misinformation that parodies Wikipedia." From Vanity Fair magazine, August 2006, "Favorite Websites of the Niche and Famous -- Wikipedia’s Papa’s Picks," by Jessica Flint.[7]

Wow, that's awesome. I've seen the name Jimbo Wales there often, but I wasn't sure if it was the real deal. Cool. --Nintendorulez talk 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Rewrite

I've just posted a rewrite of this here article. Reasons for this were many, such as the article being kitschy, promotional, and plain wrong in places. This is what I did:

  • updated the statements on policy
    • many of them advocated things which piss us off (vandalism is welcome, articles are fictional, etc)
  • fixed the very, very, very poor attempts at Cite.php and added cites
  • removed the free-for-all "list your favorite article!" section
    • I tried to condense it, and as a result, it needs a copyedit
  • removed all the interwiki links
  • removed the section about google
    • for one, it's been resolved, they're not "banning us" anymore
    • for two, NOBODY CARES (factoid: I wrote that)
  • some other stuff

This is what needs to be done:

  • removal of about half the content stuff
  • find the rest of the papers which uncyc has been in (romania, NZ, etc)
  • a controversy section (which I should have written within the next day or two)
  • a section on policy?
  • REMOVE THE CRUFT

By what authority do I do this? Way more edits than you have. The article linking to Uncyc every other word is unprofessional and makes us look bad. The point is not to get people to go there. I'm actually involved in actual promotion of Uncyclopedia (official stuff, et al), but I would never even consider doing it at Wikipedia. So please, make this concise and informative.
And to the Wikipedians, sorry about my rant. And to the Uncyclopedians, be fscking neutral. --Keitei, who will pwn your sorry behinds if you aren't 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some of the stuff about templates, like "this page has the wrong title because computers are trying to take over the earth", should go. That template is somewhat deprecated as current practice is to use the HTML absolute-position codes to overwrite the offending {{title]}. Also, perhaps ED should be removed from the controversy section (and its 'arch-nemesis' rôle relegated to being just another running joke) as Encyclopædia Dramatica simply isn't notable enough to merit inclusion alongside the regular printed media coverage of Uncyclopedia. Other than tracking down real-world media to build a 'vertical file' of Uncyclopedia-related news articles, most of what needs to be done seems to be not the addition of material (policy? *yawn*) but the removal of every bit of pointless trivia that doesn't add anything useful to the page. You are on the right track and the page certainly does look better than it did a day ago, thanks. --66.102.74.4 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm no WP expert, but I would consider concentrating more on external sources rather than information simply from Uncyclopedia. --Hindleyite 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this rewrite. The last version had stuff in it that we had Chuck Norris jokes. Last I checked, Chuck Norris jokes are banworthy on uncyc. Also, the sentence that we do Internet memes is false. That's ED's job. We're better than that. Crazyswordsman 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a message for everyone who hates Uncyclopedia.

Here's a tip: Click the big red X at the corner of the screen when at Uncyclopedia. AMAZING! The website has magically disappeared, and you no longer have to complain about it. --Nintendorulez talk 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to give you a Ninjastar now. You're my personal saviour. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This was the guy who hung around Encyclopedia Dramatica bitching about stuff. But since this comment is from today I'll assume he's changed. 71.112.141.236 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
He was only offering constructive criticism on articles like Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit, Fisher Price, and Euroipods over how they could be improved. But the admins shut him down for reasons I don't want to get into. Crazyswordsman 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I still like Nin... tmopkisn tlka 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone except RC "Euroipods" Murphy does. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that site though, and both this and that site are good as well. 24.188.203.181 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

All sites are considered good to their users (apart from vandals). Otherwise they wouldn't be used. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a big red X. Clearly you are insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.134.122 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
While on Wikipedia, please try to remember to sign your posts on talk pages, and avoid making personal attacks, whether or not they are meant to be taken seriously. Confusing Manifestation 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What ^ said, and you're probably using a different computer. Try searching for any "X" on the top of your screen. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please help

I dont know where to put this but I want to contact an admin named Mhaille, but I cant in Uncyclopedia because I was banned. How do i contact him??? And tell him I'm sorry.

Seeming as this is the talk page about the article, this message is inappropiete (however that's spellt, it's early in the morning and I can't be bothered to spell properly). However, if you tell me your username on Uncyc then maybe I can help. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Email him. --Keitei (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

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

It reads "Uncyclopedia, "the content-free[2] Its license and domain name remained unchanged. On July 10, 2006 the uncyclopedia.org domain was switched in ownership from founder Chronarion to Wikia, Inc." I'd change it, but I have no idea what it's supposed to say. PrometheusX303 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


External/Internal Links

This is getting to be a pretty big part of the edits on the page - should links to Uncylopedia pages be wikilinked like this: [[Uncyclopedia:Some page]], or made external links like this: [http://uncyclopedia.org/Some_page Some page]?

In my opinion, the policy of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references says that articles shouldn't have links to non-article spaces such as Wikipedia:, User: etc., and this extends to Uncyclopedia: links even though that "space" isn't on the wikipedia.org domain, for the same reason - other sites which mirror WP won't process these as links, so the article will not link properly. Is there anyone who disagrees with this interpretation? If not, then can we stick a comment in the article or something to stop people bouncing these links back and forth? Confusing Manifestation 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It was like that, but someone changed it to external links instead on interwiki links. However, I can't be bothered to find out who it was. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I like interwiki links, as they can help users find info on subjects they won't find here. Although for Uncyc it seems less important since Uncyc is satire. Crazyswordsman 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem linking to the Uncyclopedia articles, my question is whether we should be formatting the links as proper external links or using square brackets. Confusing Manifestation 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should make the external links to all those Uncyclopedia normal external links. They are currently "plain" links so they look like they link to another internal wikipedia page instead of an external link, which makes navigating more difficult (people quickly scanning the page looking for the external links automatically disregard them). Anybody against me making the change? Peter S. 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
At least on the skin (or whatever) I'm using, the interwiki links look just like external links except for the small image at the end. So I don't see the problem. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's funny. I meant the links in the table in the section In_other_languages - do those links show up as external links for you? Because they show up as internal links for me. And I think it's those links that should be made look like external links. Peter S. 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To be blunt, yes. To not be blunt and expand on it, they look the same as external links except they don't have the image at the side. They're the same colour as external links too. Basically, what I typed beforehand. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope you do realize that the only visible difference between internal and external links is indeed that very "image at the side". Anyway, I've made the change now. :-) Cheers, Peter S. 13:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Apart from that internal and external links are a different shade of blue... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I never noticed that. Interesting, you've got good eyes! :-) Peter S. 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My point being that, as interwiki links have the same colour as external links, and external links have a different colour to internal links, then it is still easy to tell the difference between internal and interwiki links, therefore the change from interwiki to external was more-or-less unneeded. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Apprently there is no interlink (or i just do not know) to Uncyclomedia at wikia, so it is not yet possible to convert all of them to interlink. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad joke in first sentence

Few days ago I made the frist sentence sound parrell to the uncyclopedia entry on wikipedia. So it sounded like this:----It's "first" not frist

Uncyclopedia is a satirical parody of Wikipedia, though Uncyclopedia claims the reverse(and correctly claims that wikipedia claims the reverse, and so on and so 4th)

The last part of the sentence might be unncerry but I think making them sound parrel can make this article have some humor(not a bad joke). I don't see too much of a problem with it.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedia Wikipedia entry was based off of this one. Since it was written, this article has been rewritten and for good reason. This is not the place for jokes, Uncyc is the parody, not Wikipedia. --Keitei (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Humor

Since Uncyclopedia is a wikipedia-approved parody of itself, shouldn't it be mentioned how this detracts from the humor? Or at least add a criticism section. 205.222.248.25 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Approved? when did that happen, and where is the certificate?--ElvisThePrince 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I fully realise that most of the people here are uncyclopedia editors so of course you will be quite nationalistic about your site however still here on wikipedia we do things differently:

  • It is not good practice to flatly revert things. You are supposed to work to improve what is said, not flatly remove it.
  • We value fair and balanced articles- that is they show both POV. It is quite clear just from this discussion page not everyone agrees uncyclopedia is the best thing since sliced bread.

What I say about uncyclopedia vfd most new articles is 100% true, one of the reverters was quite stupidly epitomising the rule himself on articles I created(/resurrected) there to prove the point. I have tried to compromise and toned down what was said however you are behaving like this is uncyclopedia and just flatly reverting.--Josquius 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What is there to improve when the claims made, that its not editable by everyone, and that regardless of quality most articles are deleted? Both of these claims are entirely false. Rather than keep adding them and complaining when they get removed, perhaps you should improve what you are saying and use facts/sources. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If you'd check I didn't mention regardless of quality last time (however that is still true). The thing about sources is by the very nature of the 'crime' the evidence is removed. At uncyclopedia it is standard practice to remove anything that is not a 100% complete article, its really not a 'open to anyone' thing like wikipedia.

And sources- ah always with the sources, how predictable. There's nothing more annoying then people ranting about sources. As you are well aware uncyclopedia is a minor site and so all 'sources' would be solely in the site itself- and since this is about deleted articles you will not find many of them. For sources though...Oh well go look at the most recent articles at uncyclopedia, you will find 99% of them do have deletion notices, also pops up in a few people's discussion--Josquius 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

99% is way too high. You're just sore because stubs get tagged at uncyclopedia. There is a reason for this, and if you read the pages on the site about the project and how to contribute, you would understand why this is. Unlike wikipedia, where someone might come along and add factual content to a one-line stub at some point in the future, at uncyclopedia, since there is no fact in humor, just ends up with a lot of junk if the stubs are not removed should they not be completed. It's the nature of the beast and well-documented. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no such policy at Uncyclopedia, no matter what crack you're smoking. Whether it actually happens is up to a reliable source from a third party, not Wikipedians. Until there are sources that can reasonably prove that Uncyclopedia does these things, they are mere speculation and don't belong in the article.
Additionally, Wikipedia does do this; ever heard of {{prod}}? --Keitei (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also note that it is original research and cannot be proven in any way. There's no way to calculate 99%, no way to prove 100% go to VFD (they don't, this is just outrageous), nor any other claim in the section in dispute. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

About 3 from every 4 Many new entries get deleted. That's true. The quality standards are high and most newcomers don't reach them on the first attemps, also true. Some of them get pissed, also true. And yes, lenght is usually part of the quality requirements for a pseudo-enciclopedic article. However uncyclopedia is indeed open to anyone. It's open to any person which is not the same than being open to any entry. Wikipedia isn't open to any entry either, otherwise uncyclopedia wouldn't exist. So if you want to write that uncyclopedia's high quality standards pisses people off, well, go ahead, but don't say the site isn't open, couse that's a straight lie. You may also want to point that others consider the quality standards to be the key of uncyc's succes, and some users insist there are not enough deletions. However, being that this is an article on such a "minor site", the whole issue doesn't deserve more than a single sentence or no sentence at all.--Rataube 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed open to practically any entry. Its deletion policy is a lot fairer and short articles are perfectly acceptable- for a short article is better then nothing. The only time articles get deleted outright is if they are a blatant troll/other idiocy. Considering that half of the discussion about uncyclopedia you find on internet forums on here is people saying they don't like it I'd say criticism deserves quite a big place in the article. It seems far more then 3 out of every 4 deleted to me, I once had a go at uncyclopedia and only one of my articles survived and it wasn't really my best written one at all- it was however my longest containing a lot of unfunny blabbering. Whatever ends up happening stop removing NPOV tags. The NPOV violation isn't in removing my attempt at a criticism section- its the original reason that I did attempt to create such a section. --Josquius 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable source. --Keitei (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag because I couldn't find anything in the article or on the talk page to warrant it. Until I'm actually provided with a reason for assuming that this article as it stands is of disputable neutrality, I really don't see why I or anyone else should not remove NPOV tags. EldKatt (Talk) 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The new section had a distinct POV. Forum postings are POVs of various persons; they are not facts by any stretch of the imagination. Stick to the facts, don't make up percentages. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Josquius, this is all quite silly. Firstly, you seem to be basing this entirely on your own experiences, and you have explictly stated that you have written articles that were deleted — Bias, perhaps? As Keitei says, criticism needs to come from specific, third-party, reliable sources, none of which you have offered.

Also, you are getting your facts wrong on several points. "3 out of 4" is a metric that you just, uh, made up, so it's meaningless in as much as Wikipedia is concerned. Additionally, speaking as a Wikipedia administrator who has deleted quite a few articles, I can say that your statements about Wikipedia's deletion policy are, to be frank, utter nonsense.

Now, please, feel free to continue discussion here, but note that unless you provide citations for the material you wish to add to the article, it will be removed.--SB | T 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean: I think you are getting mixed up here. It was someone else who came up with 3 out of 4. And my view on wikipedia's deletion policy is perfectly true. Go look around the site, you will find many very short incomplete articles just saying the likes of 'Marshborough is a town in western Shropshire' And no, it is not based entirely on my own experiences, look above you and you will see quite a few people don't like uncyclopedia, so many the discussion topic has a disclaimer. Bias: Probally. However since some of the people here are mods and the like at uncyclopedia its fair to say that is also bias. The way to make a NPOV aritlce is to merge the bias. It's really being quite childish to flatly revert attempts to improve the article by attempting to add a minor section with the other POV. If criticism needs to come from a specific source: as I said that is really dishonourable play however as your kind sticks to such things a quick look around brings:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiebaron/archive1#Eh.3F - he says it himself. He puts the deletion tags on all not 100% complete articles

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#NRV - some seem to make a game of it

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#Author_of_Rosyth_school-student -as you can see the talk pages of these people are full of it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/142615 - On a different note of criticism 'Not all the humor works. Some of it is vulgar, sophomoric and mean, and much of it is senseless. It is the Internet, after all.'

So quite a bit out there, mostly on uncyclopedia itself. And I have no idea where to look--Josquius 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Making any conclusion based on the primary sources you cite is original research at its most obvious. You need to find some reliable secondary sources for the particular criticism you want to write about; not merely primary evidence to base your own criticism on. That's just the way it is. EldKatt (Talk) 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Josquius: Neither of the user talk pages linked to is that of an administrator. NRV isn't VFD, it's the uncyclopedia equivalent of a prod for content that is amazingly incomplete and it exists to aid in both transforming cruft articles into full articles with the ancillary purpose of removing failed cruft articles from the site. Interestingly, a good percentage of NRV'd articles survive because the writer completes the article. Some very good stuff that isn't complete is given a 30-day prod to make sure nobody deletes it too hastily (sadly, even these scare some users). Really poor articles with no hope whatsoever are placed on QVFD and are promptly deleted, while VFD gets the stuff that isn't funny but somehow fell between the cracks. All this could have been gleaned from reading elsewhere, too, so I've wasted a lot of time trying to distill it down for you. Honestly, I don't think anyone at wikipedia cares how the process works at uncyclopedia. Ericj 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, since we're taking sources from uncyclopedia itself now, I'd like to not that only 11 of the 50 new articles currently listed as New pages have any sort of deletion notice on them. 11/50 is roughly 1/5, I think we can agree on that. 1/5 is not 99%, 1/5 is not "most", 1/5 is not 3/4 (as someone else suggested), 1/5 is 1/5. This number may fluctuate depending on the time of day and the quality of the articles, but even then I doubt it'd come close to 51% (the percent needed to state that "most of the articles have deletion tags"). I'd also like to point out that at Uncyclopedia we use humor, and I believe that most of what was said on those two users' talk pages was just that. Besides, Ghelae is insane and we don't delete half of the stuff he tags :) tmopkisn tlka 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Tmopkisn, the new articles list doesn't include those alredy huffed. But I take the 3/4 guess back. The point is that even if uncyc do delete plenty of articles, it's still open to any person.--Rataube 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I was leaving that part out :) tmopkisn tlka 23:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mention articles that are deleted on sight or through QVFD, you'd see similar deletions to wikipedia, and these really shouldn't be counted as marks against uncyclopedia. Only things that totally fail some rule or are a worthless one-liners are deleted on sight. The two that are still on uncyclopedia and have become inside jokes were saved from deletion by admins that wanted to show what not to do. See Euroipods and Fisher Price for examples (Euroipods was modified later (people poking fun at it), but you can see the original in the history. Fisher Price is the original with a link to the "retrospective" - the admins and users poking fun at this particular "article"). So, the deletions really don't apply as it's similar to here in most cases. Ericj 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Josquius: that last link you provided is exactly the reason WHY we delete stuff. We don't want to appear mean, vulgar, sophmoric and/or nonsensical unless its in a funny way. The stuff we delete is what GIVE uncyc a bad name to some people. And for the record, a stub on Wikipedia that may contain some fact and could be useful is a lot different than a stub on a humor website because generally something without much content isnt very funny, and humor, not knowledge is the goal. Like most analogies, yours was bad. --insertwackynamehere 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Typically short stuff is more often funny then long stuff. Hence one liners et all.--Josquius 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Please stop editing the infobox to say "Commercial: No". This is inaccurate; Wikia is a for-profit corporation with paid staff, outside investors to whom to answer and the wiki itself is covered with commercial advertising on every page. Whether it's made a profit yet is irrelevant; the fact that the domain owners operate it with the intention of making a profit is sufficient to place it in the "commercial" realm. As such, "Commercial: No" is false - please stop adding it here. Thanks. --carlb 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • But Uncyc itself operates under a CC-NC license! - Sikon 07:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia is hosted by Wikia but is, itself, independant and not for profit. --gwax UN (say hi) 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just a question of it being "hosted by Wikia" anymore; Wikia bought the domain name out from under the project in a backroom deal in July and has stated an intention to trademark the word "Uncyclopedia". The intention is indeed purely commercial.

Bias

I added an important unbiased label because this article looks down on uncyclopedia. --Ehburrus 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article through again, I can fairly safely say that I have no idea what you are talking about. In short, I'm disputing your NPOV dispute tag. I think it's quite well written. —Hinoa 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Unquotable really a parody of Wikiquote?

To my knowledge it was created more as a shrine to fake Oscar Wilde quotes after they were maliciously placed into articles (remember, it was originally called "Making up Quotes"). Sir Crazyswordsman 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why it can't be a shrine to Oscar AND a parody of wikiquote at the same time (duh, duh, derr!!)--ElvisThePrince 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it wasn't designed with Wikiquote in mind. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure it was. "Hey, we all hate these retarded quotes... you know, Wikipedia does, too... they sent theirs off to Wikiquote... that's not a half bad idea!" --Keitei, who can't ensure the complete veracity of that statement, but believes it to be very similar to what happened 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Still, Making up Oscar Wilde Quotes was the X-factor, if you will. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kitten Huffing

Why does the kitten huffing article redirect here, but then there is no mention of it in the article, The only notable example mentioned is about Oscar Wilde, no kitten huffing, no Chuck Norrisms.I like Radiohead 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It used to be.--Rataube 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would we even have Chuck Norrisisms on Uncyclopedia? Inserting them is a bannable offense. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant how Uncyclopedia heavily influenced the Chuck Norrism culture, well at least I thought it did. I like Radiohead 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Chuck Norris has been around for years. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Autistic/Asperger's humor?

My younger brother being low-functioning autistic, I used to do a lot of work with autistic children (both low- and high- functioning) in the community. After perusing the Uncyclopedia site for a while, its peculiar type of "humor" reminded me of what I used to see from children suffering from Asperger's. I was wondering, mostly out of curiosity, are Uncyclopedia's editors primarily Autistic or Aspies? Anonymous 57 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am. --Nintendorulez talk 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am. Invisible Queen 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I probably am. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have several learning disabilities and severe emotional problems, but extensive psychological testing has not shown signs of autism or Asperger's ... so far. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm Spartacus. Although honestly, I'd say you could find pretty much every brand of humor around on Uncyc. It's a wiki, so there's all sorts of contributors. Pretty much every genre of humor is covered, though we try to weed out the infamous "OMG TIHS GUY I KNO IZ GAY LOLOLO" style. --Nintendorulez talk 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive_1&oldid=1123115576"