Uncyclopedia:How to be stupid and not just funny

Whoops! Maybe you were looking for Uncyclopedia:How to be funny and not just stupid?

Uncyclopedia gets about 3,985,634,525,325 new articles a day.

Out of those 3,985,634,525,325, about 3,985,634,525,323¹/₂ of them are burninated before they turn 1 ~~day~~ minute old.

You have no chance to survive make your time!!! Follow advice below. For great justice.

Buy a comedian: Advice about nonsense and opposites[edit]

The truth is often funnier than flat out nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth. These pages are usually assraped to death to make room for inside jokes that most people don't get and/or find annoying.

Example: "By comparison with Wales and England, Scotland is a very old country. Its inhabitants, the Scots, have been proved (from archaeological evidence) to have been partaking in their national sports of tossing of cabers and Pillaging since approximately 35,000 BC. This causes the Scots to look with some disdain on its more recently formed neighbours, especially now they have taken it over and pillaged it back. "

Stupid. Pointless drivel.

Example: "AAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAA AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

Funnier because it's closer to the truth. "AAAAAAA" because AAAAAAA makes more sense and is way better then this article. (and better written too)

Perhaps two-thirds of the articles are random nonsense. This fraction needs to be increased to three-halves. Stupid rambling is always hilarious, it may get a laugh every time, but it quickly gets even funnier. If someone types in "Harry Potter", the article should have more to do with random typing by a monkey with Down's syndrome than if they typed in "Dinosaur". They want to read an article on a Dutch mink farmer with laser-beam eyes, not some crap about a skinny little dork with bad hair and a scar on his head. This applies to all those stupids out there, including: the person who thought Bill Clinton was a President, the person who thought Rhode Island was part of America; the person who thought that Solid Snake, Ozzy Osbourne, James Bond & others were not goats; the person who thought Beavis & Butthead weren't good role models, etc... Nonsense has been done before — over, and over, and over again, and people will always keep loving it.

A longer, but still incoherent, article is better than spamming the index full of thousands of articles that make sense. Make sure to include a lot of jokes about giraffes buttfucking in bathtubs It forces us to clean up the good stuff. Please write bad stuff.

Keep this all in mind when you write an article, and things will be good.

If all else fails, follow rule three, unless that also fails. Then you should stop writing and join the politicians.

When bullshitting about bullshit, write inconsistent bullshit[edit]

This guy Is Teh Lolzorz.

You can't stay close to the truth, so try to be inconsistent across many articles. A good example is the euroipods conspiracy series. Despite the fact that it is entirely incoherent, it's incoherent across a large span of history. This is Good.

Be sure your string of barely coherified prose doesn't in fact contain at least one(1) degree of celsius between each serving -- or 1/potato of a "haggis." Also be certain that the mightily unbalanced phenomenal rectal excapade of the Marxist Vikings and Pirating Wetnurses, which may most certainly and impossibly pillage and nuzzle the people and persons of the Tuggly Wood and nearby distant Buggaboo Swamp Desert for all of their ancient virginal Beer Creeks, Wombat Burial Grounds, Unadulterated Affection and Oatmeal Raisin Cookie Recipes.

Random humour can be funny if it is not seen as being serious, but it is spelled wrong because of the limeys. Keep in mind that not everyone will get the joke, and often get upset at those who write random humour, but fret not, as we do our best to ban them and remove any funny things they contribute. Things like Oscar Wilde dying from having someone cut off his head, and then later it grew back, but nobody caring because he was black is random, but it's funny like some asswipe made it up as a fake example of an "incredibly random" (but not funny) post.

Be sure to vandalize existing articles. Nothing is worse than writing a brilliantly clever piece only to find that the person or object in question is portrayed completely differently on numerous other pages. Hunt down these articles that have the nerve to contradict you and destroy them with utmost force. Of course, this inconsistency might stand on its own, but it's good to know that you're fucking up a few large "sagas".

However, this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. We're not writing "the Truth" (or "Neutral Point of View") here, so the important thing is whether a given individual article is nonsense/incoherent in its own right, on a stand-alone, individual basis. If it is not, it will be incinerated on the spot by Thor, the European god of iPods and Nihilism. In fact, it can be great to have, across different articles within a topic area, a completely nonsensical and confusing viewpoint in each article. It keeps the creative man juices going for the introduction of fresh ideas and a variety of perspectives and approaches. As well, what's entertaining can vary from reader to reader. Maybe a reader who wouldn't find your unfunny sexist rant in Article 1 funny might find a load of incoherent homophobia in Articles 2, 3, etc. funny. Also, if you try to keep to one storyline across articles just for the sake of consistency, there's the possibility that some of the various linking articles in the series may become boring, funny articles that are readable on an individual-article basis; instead of the linking articles, consider making a blank article and pretending it's funny when it's not.

Try to avoid writing anything coherenet on any particular article that is otherwise a good article. If you're thinking of editing that particular article, try to be vandalismish with the existing content in that particular article i.e. erase everything and replace it with random words.) Otherwise, the article will begin to look like an organized, coherent, funny hodgepodge; although hodgepodges can be nice, (in special cases) they have a higher funny to stupid ratio on average. Thus, if you have a different viewpoint or different style from that already expressed in that particular article, you should vandalize the shit out of it and triumphantly proclaim "LOL I PWNZ0RED YOU N00BS!!!!!!!11," etc.

Spend a little bit of time banging your head on a wall to kill brain cells[edit]

(This is a good way to get fucked up and pass the time without buying a lot of drugs or wallowing in self-pity and disgust.)

If you spent ten seconds writing it, perhaps ten people will like it. These 10 people will most likely be admins or other people with influence, so you will be the most successful writer ever. If you spend 10 or more minutes writing it, you are raising the chances that precious minutes of your life were retardedly wasted posting something that will be erased and re-written 5,000 more times, removing any connection to your clever little input. So remember, put a bunch of shitty one-liners in your article, such as "WHTA u GeT when U fuKC a DONKEY IN THE @ZZ!??Shift+/ AIDS!! LMAOWTFLOLOMFG"

Moreover, simple, unadorned lists are always funny. You know the type: "List of peopl hoo kan't spel" or "List of people whoare infamous sodomites" or "List of people who take it up the ass." Sometimes simple lists can be useful in launching a broader idea, as in US Presidents, but trying to be funny by listing "people who Oscar Wilde hates" is downright hilarious (as all Oscar Wilde references are.) If you must make a list, give me a quickie; at least spend some time fleshing it out, like in Worst 100 Movies of All Time.

Research. A good chunk of stuff on here is random, and random is always funny; thinking otherwise is doubleplusdumbass bullshit crimethink and will get you banned. Some people who like to look horseshit up on Wikipedia say that you need research, (Research Shmesearch.) but only a whiny white person with a penis the size of a thumbtack would want their brain to grow. The truly great articles require a bit of a lot of glue sniffing. In order to effectively parody or satirize a subject, start with knowing jack shit about a subject (such as Mars technology in the year 1,000,000) then do some drugst, and your jokes will be better and actually make sense.

Delete, delete, delete. More writing is more funny, right? Allways!!! There's a reason why it's possible to make a living as an editor, a person whose job is mainly to bully people into doing more work despite quality. Good writers understand this, and spend as much time mercilessly hacking their work apart and adding bullshit here and there as they do creating it in the first place, even throwing away completed novels to start from scratch just to piss off their editors and get more drug money. The ability to look at your own work, ask, "does this suck?" and answer honestly "I don't care so long as I get paid" is one of the major differences between the pros and amateurs. Writing is as much about destruction as creation, so spend at least as much time vandalizing as writing. Another way to think about it: writing is like cooking, follow the recipe and do what everyone else has done. And when cooking a soup, if you've forgotten to get the ingredients, you can put any old crap into it and stir. (And if you think that's a bad analogy, take a look at HTBFANJS) Shouldn't you do the same when you write? The moral of the story is always write stubs, or fall back on the writing a blank page that people mockingly vote for a featured page and accidentally actually elect it strategy, or the write something so stupid people can't help but blank it strategy.

Revise, revise, revise. Maybe you just learned how to read, perhaps you thought of a vagina joke, or a Photoshopped goatse jpg to ice that cake. To create a really polished piece of work, you have to revisit it and smooth off all the imperfections. True, some people can hammer out a perfect first draft; but, those people, of course are those dumbasses on Wikipedia, who have dicks the size of thumbtacks. Even Shakespeare devoted time to revising and polishing his plays. But, you shouldn't give a rat's ass because Shakespeare was a dirty foreigner who polished everything because he had OCD, he was probably gay (or at least bi,) and couldn't even write his own name without a spellchecker, so never revise because he used a feather to write.

The fucking "@#$%^&*" rule: being fucking crass and fucking tasteless automatically fucking makes everyfuckingthing your fucking mouth shits out fucking funny[edit]

There's a fucking fuckton (which BTW is a lot more than a fucking shitload) of fucking reasons to fucking swear like a fucking shit-eating sailor or a fucking carpenter or whatever the fuck and make a fucking fuckton of fucking tasteless goddamn references every other fucking sentence In many kick ass fucking formula jokes, fucking crassness and/or fucking profanity arse/is the fucking "punchline". It's usually fucking priceless, especially if you're fucking a donkey up the fucking ass the next fucking day and looking over your fucking article (suddenly realizing your fucking current act of fucking mule sodomy.) In very motherfucking many, very common motherfucking situations is fucking crassness what makes a fucking funny joke fucking funny. Use it as your fucking primary source of fucking humor. This includes those shitty fucking dead baby jokes (i.e. how do you get a fucking pile of dead fucking babys out of a fucking truckbed? Use a fucking pitchfork, LMAO) as well as fucking jokes about fucking shit covered, dead babies that you fucked. Come up with something fucking unoriginal, (who the fuck likes originality? those fucking tackdicks at fucking Wiki) and don't put it in an original fucking manner. Use an original swear word such as fuck every fucking sentence, and rely on fucking shock factor as a fucking crutch.

Everyone likes scatological humor. Scat humor is fucking hilarious. Nothing is funnier than Poop Cuisine, the idea of eating stuff that comes out of a butt is priceless to 4-year olds such as me and a lot of other Uncyclopedians. However, sometimes it's more than funny. Much more than funny. Most people find pooping sexy, erotic and alluring, and may not only start stalking you, but wanting you to give them a big, fat, chunky 'ol Cleveland Steamer as well. Just because every person that's ever walked on Earth finds the thought of defecation and farting hilarious, that doesn't mean that it can't help you get laid.

Gay jokes As of the time of this writing, there are 50% more hits for the term 'gay' on Uncyclopedia than for the term 'the' (not a joke.) This is simply unacceptable. There should be at least 325841875318978193247586765184657416517890% more hits for 'gay'. Adding the word 'gay,' 'gayness, 'gayity,' or a reference to gay parents/grandparents for every person under the sun makes the article funny - it makes it sound like it was written by a grade schooler, this means it is grade A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++GAYFAGLOL+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ material. Again, come up with something unoriginal, such as "HAHA {{USERNAME}} ARE GAY GOES HAVE YOU'RE BOYFRIEND A REACH AROUND LOL."

Embrace clichés[edit]

Many featured articles follow overused formulas and yours should too. These include:

the term AAAAAAAAAAA
the term reffering friends to do the same
the term
Infinite loop pages. We have a category full of these, please, add more. And don't bother to classify them as infinite loops. Add one called "poop loop" because as this article said, poo is funny and it can help you get laid. Do it. NOW.
Articles consisting solely of "See (article)". A way to make your article great is to rely on other articles.
Saying the exact opposite of reality.
This person...did something...a period of time...after his death. Fucking funny, just like poop.
Using a film or television quote with little or no context. This especially goes for the "Did you see a sign on the front of my house that said dead nigger storage?" section, but it's almost as funny as poop so feel free to add it to add it to any page you want, I don't give a rat's ass. (an ass is what makes poo, so rat's poo must be small, ROFL)
Referencing an extra-dimension that doesn't even exist for no reason. For example: "is traditionally used to slide through the 3rd dimension". Fucking hysterical and used all the time. Why? Because there is no 3rd dimension.

Of course there are times when there is a good legitimate reason for using such formulas but are quite often used as a quick lazy definition when you can think up a good one, and you suckers usually eat it up.

Example: The Mongoose was invented by Oprah in 1378 B.C

Hilarious.

Example: The buttplug was invented by Oprah in 1378 B.C

Funny, almost as funny as poop. It's both anal humor, and I'm telling you, that shit (lol, get it?) is FUNNY. Plus, it's closer to the truth.

Example: Miau.

BINGO! Why? Because I said so, dammit.

In 'Did you know' section, avoid using the words 'I', 'me', or 'my', or any other words in the English language. Speaking English, as well as talking in the first person, is forbidden. Only speak in the fifth person and speak whatever the fuck they speak in Brazil as it is the language of the master race.

If a joke immediately pops into your head after three seconds' worth of pondering, assume it will occur to many, many people as well, and a large fraction of them will probably make it in other pages. Result: teh lolz.

In particular: dear god, please continue the Star Wars jokes, and saying so-and-so is a Sith, and such-and-such did whatever with Chewbacca.

Extremely large numbers. (like 84372684728943758931728571328975819758175878275817287518975318927593287518297512) should be used ever sentence. I've seen it 7589758917548371875832178932758973287574897328975893217843267326578365169753269 times, and each one is more side splitting than the last.

Extremely large penises. Add them. Most readers like them.

Ridiculous dates simply serve to confuse the reader but they make your article very funny. Remember: you don't want the reader to actually read your article. Instead, you want them to just look at it, realzie that it is boring and coherent, and rape you. Unless your article is about time travel, you're going to make someone laugh by choosing ridiculous dates, to the point where they'll stop breathing.

Celebrities: Did you know that celebrities did everything? You need to insert a famous person into an unrelated article, make it one that is applicable to the topic - for example, saying "Eminem was the daughter of Pat Sajak and Mickey Mouse" is hilarious; however, "Eminem is the son of Forrest Gump and Jessica Simpson" is much better, as while Eminem is obviously their child, it parodies his adoption of retard pop culture. Always remember to have no point for your words; if you don't have a point (except to write randomness), the reader's not going to see one, and they're going to love your article.

Your sex life. If you screwed a Paladin, be sure to brag about it somewhere in a random place in a random article. If your sex life isn't good enough, brag about your friends' sex life, especially if they are Gay. Everybody secretly wants to know all about every juicy detail.

Overused jokes aren't stagnant![edit]

This the place to post stagnant jokes that are deathly funny. Everyone loves them. Everyone. In fact, most people would prefer it if all articles were nothing but recycled jokes you heard from someone else.

Common examples of jokes that I would love to hear again are:

talk about this guy's habit of roundhouse kicking people, places and things like 9999999 times or else, well......

Chuck Norris He is just fucking funny. Include at least 7348907538921758932 Chuck Norris facts in your article. Make sure they have nothing to do with your article. For example: Nihilism sure could use a few Chuck Norris facts like: Chuck Norris' penis won the War of 1812 and Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked me so hard I shat out these unfunny jokes.

Make up your own version of Hitler, Jesus or Darth Vader. These 3 people have several alteregos that do exist, and if you argue that, I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND SLIT YOUR FUCKING THROAT.

Killing Kenny jokes are so funny South Park doesn't even use them anymore! Include several in your article.

World of Warcraft jokes. Fuck if I can't enjoy the humor from a game I wank off to every day while getting anal from my dad then what can I enjoy? Espescially that Leeroy Jenkins. I can not get enough of that video. Please link me to it.

If something has appeared on SomethingAwful, Ebaumsworld, YTMND, or College Humor it needs to be here. Full stop. You're not above simply linking to something funny, are you? Of course not! Do it. Because no one ever goes to those sites, and Uncyclopedia is huge.

Emo Jokes are the epitome of original humor. Never before have these proud foks been derided. Remember, suicide is funny. Always. If anyone makes any mention of any emotion, ever, throw a bunch of emo jokes in their article; they'll appreciate it, such as "I slit my wrists because of the conformists"

Vin Diesel is like Chuck Norris, only slightly less funny. Include a few hundred jokes about him.

Most everything on VGCats, ctrl Alt Delete, or PennyArcade deserves to be copied here. Remember the golden rule: Other Websites are funnier than you are. A lot funnier. Steal their overused jokes that have been ridden around the internet like 5 dollar whores. This leads us to our next topic...no fuck that.

Your mom, mother, momma, etc. The vast majority of Uncyclopedians are 12 year olds who will counter anything another human being says to them with "Dude, like, your mom". That means you should add a bunch of jokes of that type, such as:

Kid A: "Dude why weren't you on AIM last night?"
Kid B: "Your mom"

Hilarious.

Your face. Similar to your mom jokes, except this will appeal to Uncyclopedia's 4th grade audience, which is quite large.
The cookie cutter Steve Ballmer, Russian Reversal, and Kayne West quotes. "I AM GOING TO FUCKING BURY YOU!" isn't funny the 100th time. It goes way beyond that. I could read made up, overused quotes about some psychopath for the rest of my life and laugh at every single one of them, same with any other person that has a good sense of humor.
Anything to do with Snakes on a Plane. BAD MOTHAFUCKA Samuel L. Jackson DOESN'T HAVE HIS OWN ARTICLE, SO ADD THE WORDS "I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLANE!" TO EVERY SINGLE MOTHAFUCKIN ARTICLE! DRINK UP BITCH!

Plagiarise[edit]

Have you recently seen The Most Hilarious Film Parody Ever on the telly? Well, fuck those cunts, just steal their material!. By all means, add the joke and don't make any changes, add to the joke until it's no longer funny (You have two cows style) or even completely rip off the joke if it is well known enough. That said, if you are sure that noone else could have possibly heard/seen the joke before, then don't post it. Only post jokes that everyone else in your 6th grade science class heard last night. And for what, Hans Brix or some other pussy to accuse you of plagiarism? If that life threating scenario comes up, tell the truth and say "I can do whatever the fuck I want" and take out your gat and shoot them.

Meta-Humor is teh LOLZ!!!!!!![edit]

We love to poke fun at ourselves and make light of some of the more rampant phenomena on this site. Every event, person, or trend on this site is worth documenting. Try writing: creepy articles about that one user that you don't like. Include something along these lines:

"I know where you live, {{USERNAME}}, I also know your social security number, what time of the night you randomly wake up and start fapping." Then post a random address, type in some random numbers, and make up a random time in the middle of the night. (I suggest 9:00 AM) And then when <insert name here> leaves a message on your talk page saying "How the fuck did you know my private information?" say "because I'm a stalker". Also, remember that this is an admin you're fucking with, not some random n00b.

iPods from Europe, references to otherwise significant and humorous events, are successful attempts to generate "trends" within the Uncyclopedia. The more cliched, tired and predictable a joke gets, the more people will want an entire article about it, such as Making Up Oscar Wilde Quotes. Furthermore, these articles must be left unexplained, lest they be understood by people outside your small, exclusive group, which would ruin your feeling of superiority and make you cry(EMO!!!EMO!!!EMO!!!). Think of it this way: Meta-humor is like fine, aged urine, it must not only have be around for a long time, but also has to have intrinsic value in order for it to really have a pungeant stench. Century-old bad wine is one hundred years old, but it's still not as bad as century-old piss. But there is one difference: I'm drinking fine, aged urine right now.

Use inside jokes every other word, especially if they're shit[edit]

If it's funny to you and three of your friends, it's obviously hilarious, and if others don't laugh, they're obviously "OMG T3H N00BZORZ!!!11" Most in-jokes are "hilarious, even once explained" moments, or rely on several hallucinogenic drugs to understand exactly what makes it funny. They're hard to explain, and are humorous in almost any stand-alone situation. This applies to Uncyclopedia in-jokes. Since you are writing articles for Uncyclopedia, it's perfectly acceptable to use Officially Established Uncyclopedia-Originated In-Jokes, or to come up with your own that even other Uncyclopedians won't get. It allows you to laugh at those who do not get it, and then go home and have a good wank while thinking of how cool you are because you're 1337 enough to get it.
Note: Even funnier are jokes that are only funny to you and three of your friends and are about you and three of your friends, like that time [insert a friend's name here] threw up on [insert a different friend's name here] in the parking lot of the 7/11 then [insert first friend's name here] slipped in his own puke and chipped his coccyx, all after you all got kicked out of Barton Fink at the multiplex for booing John Goodman's tour de force performance as Charlie, or, even better, how [insert another friend's name here] is bad at school and smells like spoiled meat and his mother is a greasy whore who farts poop. Nothing, repeat nothing, is funnier than jokes that are only funny to the four people who both know the backstory and also know you and your loser friends.
Further note: Try to avoid establishing the backstory that illuminates your pre-existing in-joke here. Unless it's truly impossible for outsiders to figure out, and shrouded in secrecy, it's not worth your time (as it will likely get deleted) or ours (we could huff 20 cans of bug spray in the time it takes to delete your cruft.) A good in-joke should always be indistinguishable from random humor, which is the only other form of humor that's acceptable if you want to get noticed.

Use pictures wisely[edit]

The BEST PICTURE EVER mady by SPONGEBOB!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A picture is a perfect complement to a good joke. But not if it is well made. Chopping up a picture of Tony Blair's face in MS Paint is what we want to see (hint: you're making the picture look bad for a "satirical purpose" LOL). Taking time on the picture is not funny and something the tackdicks at Wikipedia do. Photoshop is a piece of shit and GIMP has a funny name so it's barely acceptable. Most importantly, use an old picture that you found on the internet, especially when you're sure that every single human being has seen it, your own imagination will never produce something better.

Bias is a the perfect replacement for humor, except if you're an admin[edit]

Always substitute bias in place of humor. Since biases and points of view are allowed, often to the extent of encouragement, on Uncyclopedia, simply writing something like "The Big Mac is a piece of dog shit on two buns, and I love to eat dog shit, and so does everyone, and the Big Mac is the best food under the sun" or "the Kansas City Royals are considered by everyone to be the best athletes in the history of mankind" is funny and all you need is a Chuck Norris fact and a your mom joke and you have the funniest thing ever written. Also, you could make it about someone you disagree with, such as "Nintendorulez is a whiny bitch who got pwnz0red in the Euroipods Crusades. Try to keep your stuff funny, but insulting.

Also note that that when an admin deletes overt, explicit bias, the only reason that faggot did it is because he doesn't agree with you on that subject. It is personal. He or she is simply saying that only admins can be overtly biased. For instance, if you put "All the admins here have small penises" an admin will delete it because it hurts his feelings. On the topic of admins, blank their pages and write something along the lines of "I am going to chop your fucking head off".

Not everyone on the planet is male, but be sexist. This may seem like such an obvious point, but women are so easy overlook. There's no better way to make women feel unwelcome at Uncyclopedia than to either pretend they don't exist or be extremely chauvinistic. In an article about homosexuality, are lesbians mentioned only in passing or ignored outright? They better not be, because lesbians are a lot more fun to watch than gay guys. In an article about civil rights, is the struggle for women's rights forgotten? That's because feminists bitch too much and they deserve to be ignored...

Outright sarcasm is not a replacement for humor[edit]

(This is an adjunct to Bias and Opposites.)

Clearly stating what is either right or obvious in a sarcastic manner comes off less as funny, and more as politically resentful or bitter. Take, for example

Example: America had some goodwill in the world. Who would want that? After all, you can’t take goodwill to the bank. (Or can you?)

Bad. Written by a stupid hippy.

Example: The Crusades were a series of military campaigns first initated in the 11th through 13th centuries by King George I of Texas, (the burning Bush of Moses fame) and continued by his heir George II. Intended to subjugate the Muslim people of the Middle East and brand the holy mark of W upon their foreheads, it also allowed America to cast aside any concern it had for goodwill and credibility and march Don Quixote-like into Baghdad with trumpets blaring and red, white and blue flags flying. God bless America!

Good. Why? Because it seems closer to the correct, non-liberal-pinko version of things. It still contains too much America-hating liberal crap, but it's better..

Basically, blunt, straight sarcasm is not humorous, unless done by an authority figure..

In the style of...[edit]

For some articles, writing the article in the style of what (or whom) the article is about can be especially stupid. For example:

The article on Nihilism is blank, almost completely hiding its author's lack of talent.
The article on Redundancy is redundant, repetitive, and repeats itself, making it as boring and unfunny as most other articles, which only helps demonstrate its point.
The article on Narcissism is clearly written by a narcissist — in other words, the sort of person who would actually add a link to that article in this very section that you're reading right now, just to get more attention for himself.
The article on How to be stupid and not just funny is in the style of a really piss-poor article that's a disgrace to the internet.

Other good examples include Oh look! An article that fools you into thinking it's not created yet! LOL HOW FUNNAY!, Gaping hole where someone was too lazy to put a new page, and many more.

Advice[edit]

Remember rule one. If something is coherent, and closer to the truth, it will be huffed by admins.

Often, official, professional-sounding prose kicks the humor in the crotch. Consider your tone as you write articles. Would an authoritarian, encyclopedic tone make this even worse, or would slack-jawed drivel work best as its own sort of irony? Chances are, your article will contain the latter, because you're fucking stupid. Do outbursts work? Try different styles to see if it makes it less coherent.

Bullshitting about bullshit: unfortunately, there is no Elements of Style for writing bullshit, and it would be difficult to write one, since stupidity often comes from not knowing how to read instead of reading a guide.. However, there is an Elements of Style for writing in general, which is called The Elements of Style. To the extent that knowing the craft of writing makes you a better humor writer, this book (sometimes just called "Strunk and White" after the authors) should be avoided at all costs if you want your article to be featured. George Orwell’s book "1984” is also very useful; it teaches about the methods used by admins to select articles for the main page.

Please help contribute to a dumber and less funny Uncyclopedia. 
Fuck you for taking the time to read this guide.