Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: It is a potato. --AlexMW 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a puzzle potato, in fact. Zombiebaron 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, it's all lopsided and squashed, that is what is important!! --JimmyT 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is partially the idea. A squashed, deformed, Wikipedia logo. And a potato fits right. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The logo, it's not a Potato

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: "Content"

message: ""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  and then this  hmmmmmmm.--ElvisThePrince 12:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trimming the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External or Not? 

message: 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 Article Name to simply Uncyclopedia:Article (where it's obviouse that it refers to an interwiki). --ElvisThePrince 16:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DreamGuy, again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Referrals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *cough cough* - not true --Nerd42 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm half-Jewish and I'm a sysop on uncyc :P --insertwackynamehere 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 talk 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For example, occasionally people blank entire pages, insert advertising statements, or add messages that promote certain agendas, such as spreading [[anti-Semitic]] remarks. 

message: I just don't get it-- Wikipedia has no point!  It isn't funny at all!  --Clorox 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah!--203.28.159.135 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia is better than Wikipedia 

message: I got banned from uncyclopedia.Richardkselby 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: [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)
thread_title: Banned

message: 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)
thread_title: Way out of date

message: 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)
thread_title: Source

message: 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)
thread_title: Parody

message: Is this spoof notable enough for an encycopedia entry?--JK the unwise 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability has been added, per reference in 2 print newspapers. --130.245.249.228 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Connection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Such is the nature of parody and free speech.DevanJedi 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Peanuts" article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping Neutrality for ED and UN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main Page Holidays 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: I dont see how the keep period.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I find the site rather disturbing.--Andeee 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This site is F**ked Up!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Such as the fact that Uncyclopedia sucks? --166.102.104.26 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a fact, it's your opinion. The two are completely different. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why

message: "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)
thread_title:  KITTEN HUFFING IS SICK 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I wouldn't go as far as 90%, I think it's more around 2/3. tmopkisn tlka 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Exactly. This is not a soapbox. --Nintendorulez talk 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: <nowiki>U</nowiki>

message: 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)
replies: text: It went down for a bit last night. Poor, poor server... --Nintendorulez talk 19:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Uncyclopedia down? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Main Page for the 15th or 16th

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not funny and I question their ethics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm doing it again!!!--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sigh... read the note at the top of the page, everyone. --Nintendorulez talk 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. didn't notice that, thanks.-Sgore 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: Would it be okay if we added a Controversy section? Cause you know... KinseyLOL 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to in order to make this WP:NPOV. AAAAAAAAA! 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calm Yourselves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Uncyclopedia#Common themes|Common themes]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quit whining about whether or not this site is funny.

message: 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)
replies: text: ...did I just get compared to jack thompson? --Chronarion 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well played, Mr. Bond. --Savethemooses 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like someone's got a case of reasons to become an athiest! --205.146.140.253 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Saddened 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Great idea! That would give Uncyclopedia tons of publicity! --Teiladnam 02:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Actually, I do believe I've read somewhere that Jimbo finds Uncyc very funny. --Nintendorulez talk 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sue them

message: 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)
replies: text: Google has banned Uncyclopedia, sorta, any real hits is quite a surprise then.--Signor 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ikkepedia 

message: "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.
: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)
thread_title: Jimbo Wales loves Uncyclopedia

message: 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
**it is not funny or cool to link to our version of a topic, Supreme Court of the United States, not Supreme Court; we don't interwiki to Wikipedia in Uncyclopedia articles, don't do it here
*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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: Email him. --Keitei (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh please help 

message: 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)
thread_title: First sentence

message: 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: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Apart from that internal and external links are a different shade of blue... ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I never noticed that. Interesting, you've got good eyes! :-) Peter S. 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External/Internal Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a bad joke in first sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: Approved? when did that happen, and where is the certificate?--ElvisThePrince 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of Humor

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm just saying that it wasn't designed with Wikiquote in mind. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Still, Making up Oscar Wilde Quotes was the X-factor, if you will. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Unquotable really a parody of Wikiquote? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It used to be.--Rataube 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we even have Chuck Norrisisms on Uncyclopedia?  Inserting them is a bannable offense. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Chuck Norris has been around for years. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kitten Huffing

message: 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)
replies: text: I am. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am. --Nintendorulez talk 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am. Invisible Queen 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I probably am. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Autistic/Asperger's humor?