Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica (Encyclopedia)

Old talk page: Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/archive

ATTENTION! This page's authors and editors don't go to your site to tell you that it sucks. Please return the favor.

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

		This article was nominated for deletion on February 13, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

2007

Old

The old talk page doesn't hardly apply now, does it? Well, get talking about the new one, why don'tcha. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow this article sucks

Ok I know I wanted a dramatica article but this is bullshit: "LOL ED WAS A NEWSPAPER FROM THE 1800S IN FRNACE WERE SOOOOOO FUNNY" Seriously congrats on proving ED's point in it's article about uncyc. -- CartoonDiablo

It sucks because ED sucks. Elassint 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a real opinion on this article. It's clever, but not all that funny to me. Oh well. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't really think of a way to apply more humor without ruining the subtlety and going all-out "FUCK ED SUCKSORZ" so... yeah. Excuuuuuuuuse, meeeeeeee. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... why not put up a few YouTube movies? ;) Frequent ED users will get it. Conniving 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout you actually start being funny? That might improve the page. -Chronus

Well, you must have some idea of what makes it "funnier" for you. Conniving 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the page when it linked to the goatse page. I found it an excellent contrast - the ED page about Uncyclopedia is painfully unsubtle, and by comparison the redirection is a much more clever, funny way to say "Fuck you" than actually having an article. In addition, unexpected redirection and links to goatse are both typical ED tricks, so it's humourous on another level as well.

Alternatively, you could drop that approach altogether and write in as a caricature of an ED article. But the way you're going at it now just isn't funny. 69.18.46.194 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to forget they exist. We seriously discussed not having any ED article for a long while due to our sites Vanity Policy not allowing non-notable individuals or websites. They should be grateful I suppose that someone took the time to write this article.... :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Parody rewrite all the way. How many articles do we have that include some variation on 'invented in the 18th century'? Random is not funny. And given the amount of times this lame joke has been used, it's not even random anymore. Aidos5 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice rewrite

I like how you said "Jew did the Boston Tea Party" :D - Anyways, it's great that we have a proper article now, and not just some shitty placeholder, which isn't actually that great. --thematrixeætsyou, the karate black belt (talk) (flames) 08:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a request on RadX's corner for a picture of Jews actually doing the Boston tea party, which I'll soon use here when it's made :) -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 11:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article fails really bad

Im going back to encyclopediadramatica.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.2.86 (talk • contribs)

You'll be sorely missed. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Oh, and the articles at ED pass standards as well. The talk page should be semi-locked to prevent ED trolls form editing.--Sir Manforman 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Locking a talk page is a bit too ridiculous, if not unethical. I disapprove. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm for locking the article, not the talk page. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Badly. Or well, depending on how you look at it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:45, 09 Sep 2007

I'm actually For for semi-locking the talk page as well. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for an article like this. I like it. It still needs to be improved, though. Maybe someone should add something about ED's connection to 4chan and it's memes? --M.W. 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. But I am not for semi-locking the talk page, AAA!. If opinions wished to be expressed, they may be expressed by anyone on the talk page. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Chinchilla. Don't lock the talk-page. --YeOldeLuke 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better -EDUser:Adjective Noun 86.16.173.154 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Really.

We could do much better, in my opinion. :/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.207.88 (talk • contribs)

blah! says, you. :P You and your "lulz". Anyways, this article is pretty good. :-)

Ah, good sir, you seem to be mistaking me for a user of the Dramatic Encyclopedia, which I am not. I just think we could be a little more clever than this, that's all. If we're going to make an article about ED, it had better be really good.

I actually don't understand how this is funny. It's just attempting to look more civilized that ED by comparing it to the American revolution and other crap. This article is epic fail. No lulz or even an lol in sight. :/ --69.65.219.94 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually considering the theoretical HAET HAET HAT, this is far more interesting. --Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lack of lulz is due to us being highly anti-lulz. I believe that either Sophia or Oscar Wilde declared the lulz to be a deadly sin, therefore, we must refrain from using the lulz. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 21:34, September 15, 2007

Also, it just sounds stupid. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously though, if this is right under the actual ED site on Google then whoever wrote this could have atleast made an article better then the DDR article(which is also terrible by the way). 76.11.16.110 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A little clarification, please?

What does Encyclopédie refer to? Conniving 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopédie was Europe's first fully compiled and organized encyclopedia, created by the real Denis Diderot and André le Breton. So I guess it refers mostly to itself. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 11:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So basically this is more of a parody of the Encyclopédie, than ED itself, or a reflection of how ED came to being, if it were during the 19th century. I get it. --WikiLeon 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My Kick-Ass Version

If you read their article about us, it apparently is supposed to parody our style, in a smart ass way. The only way we can truely retailiate is to lower our standards and parody them as well. Here is my unfinished article about them that is deliberate hateful flaming (even towards us, since ED hates everything). Of course by paroding them, I had no choice but to add factual information. But I plan to balance it out with made-up bull.

Just like a typical ED article, it's supposed to point out all their alleged flaws. It's brilliant!! But that's not even the best part. They can't really get mad, besides from hypocrisy, because I did it for the lulz. The great irony itself is priceless times 10!! Meanwhile, pages like this are reasons why they hate us to begin with. No offense TKF. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 08:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading it. We have a page on Chuck Norris. It was featured recently. Automatic fail. We're not a cyberbully. We're writers and comedians. I think the irony is that writing a respectable article about Uncyclopedia (much like what we have now) would go against what we would otherwise bash ED for. We win THAT way. Conniving 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware we have a featured Chuck Norris article. I was using that argument to point out how they always act as if anything to do with Chuck Norris automatically makes something unfunny. "Look, Uncyclopedia has several pages about Chuck Norris. If that doesn't prove how unfunny they are, I don't know what does." See? Same for other things they consider "old memes". I've seen it done time and time again. Of course, I understand where you're coming from on the cyber bullying. I realize that my page is most likely no more than a stoop to their level. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is that they can either continue their antics, or rewrite their article on us to fit the writing style that we used in writing an article about them. We won't rattle them to do it either or laugh at them for either not rewriting a new article (or writing it like this article for that matter). I understand you meant well... or not... but we as Uncyclopedians want to be remembered as a group that made the entire planet laugh on a multitude of subjects, all without being hurtful or biased. And if we can all agree to not go against it, especially for an article such as this, it's just one more step towards a job well done.

I guess one could say my feelings are summed up on the second part of the How I Got Here section on this page. Conniving 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want to be better than ED, we just have to not sound as absent minded as them. And that hate article will only just fuel their trolling. Sorry Kip, but I don't like it. *Ding* Next please! --AAA! (AAAA) 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered that on HTBFANJS it states that while point of views are encouraged, bias should not be a replacement for humor. Crap. I guess that closes the book on this one. Oh well, I'm still keeping it in userspace as literature. My work of art, if you will. But I did have good intentions on this one. I figured most ED users would read it and say "Lulz!" If anyone had a problem with it, then why do they read Encyclopedia Dramatica in the first place? -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've also taken into account that Uncyclopedians and various other online readers don't like pure flaming, or find it funny. Of course, everyone has their own humor. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 05:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if most of ED read the new article.... Conniving 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That template in your page made me laugh. It was done for the Lulz Lol. --RandomDie 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a xouple ways we can improve on thid article, maybe leave out the part with the Revolution, and the Jews', It's not very funny, really. :P Also, It's kind of tricky trying to think up a satirical article for a web page that's pretty stupid, and boring. I'll keep thinking about it. :) --Just!n 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not really much wrong with it. Conniving 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hehe, the pictures are funny. :P :) --Just!n 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Using their sense of humor to get back at them isn't the right way to approach it, though I don't quite think the current article is good enough. I can't rightly give a better way to make fun of them, but we should better establish that they're a sea of piss. Of course, they'll still think it's unfunny, they're not smart enough to think it is.

70.121.150.225 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already made up my mind that my version is unfit and it lowers standards. However, I'm going to keep it in userspace because it's still amusing. If anyone would like, they can add to it to make fun of them. : P -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it demands a complete rewrite. The format is set to match that of a Good Article on Wikipedia. If you have a good joke to add, add it. Be bold in editing pages.

And Kip... you ruined my edit for this? You said that twice before. I think 70.121.150.225 is talking about the version we have up already, not your namespace effort. Conniving 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, shite. Don't these IPs know how to created a subheading? Like this douchebags: == Insert title here == -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody cared when Just!n didn't make a new subheading. Conniving 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm an ED editor and I actually find this page kind of clever and smart

However, most of Uncyclopedia remains unfunny in my opinion. Why should I choose watered-down, tame humour on Uncyclopedia when I could get it like it is on Encyclopedia Dramatica?--89.240.241.224 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well answering this begs me to ask what humo(u)r is. What makes it defined, and what makes it watered down in your opinion? :) Conniving 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I thought we were about to be praised from an outsider. Instead we got the traditional "Uncyclopedia is unfunny; ED is better". Makes me feel nostalgic. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Kip. Conniving 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. We have a few good writers on Uncyc that make great articles. But we also have noobs, vandals, and IPs who flood our site with crap. And that's why most of it is unfunny. Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not try this article? ;) Conniving 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not disable anonymous editing then?-Mudkip 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was discussed higher on this page. Funny how this guy hasn't responded. Whatever. Conniving 01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I like Uncyclopedia better. :-) MUCH more funny, In-My-Opinion, than Encyclopedia Dramatica. But, yes, getting rid of "anonymous" editing would help, A LOT! --Just!n 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was an anon for about three months or so before signing up. Even then, I preferred to edit anonymously. :( Conniving 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If people still don't get it...

I believe the whole plot of this article was that ED was once full of intellectuals, had a cult following, were close pals with the upper class, and (despite all this) it still degenerated into a place where people's writing is completely screwed over. Conniving 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Retroactively drawing a far-fetched parallel between the fall of an old newspaper and a wiki that deliberately aims to take the piss out of any given subject in the most offensive manner possible doesn't seem to, um, work. Why does the premise of this article need justification more than any other arbitrary article if it is nothing more than another page on this wiki?-Mudkip 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it can stop us from trying. :) Conniving 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's funnier if you have to explain it.
  • I suggest you sign your name with four tildes next time. (~) I didn't have to explain it, but I just wonder if people were clever enough to notice the subtle complements and insults. Conniving 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is very subtle, in the true ED style. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wha..? Explaining a joke nips it at the bud!-Mudkip 00:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but who would come to the talk page before reading the article? I thought of this, Mudkip. :) Conniving 03:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The same sort of crowd that whip their pistols out of their holsters at the very utterance of the letters "E" and "D" in that order. Which, incidentally, covers more than half of uncyc's readership.Not that I'm trying to offend, btw-Mudkip 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• I wonder what the circumstances behind that are? I heard something about a huge fight from one of the pages here, but I can't remember where that page is or the specific things involved. We know you're not trying to. Conniving 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, really. Being an ED sysop (and of course siding with ED), I was told and have always thought that uncyclopedia wanted to start some sort of "we are teh funnier than you lolz" contest ages ago - and the talkpage for the Uncyclopedia article on ED seems to indicate this - and ED was like "lol wtf r u talking about". I have little idea of the other circumstances that may have provoked the lasting, well, I won't say mutual, hatred, seeing I wasn't editing on either site back then-Mudkip 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was on this page, but apparently not. Hmm. Well, they are wikis competing for the same ideal (humo(u)r). I can imagine a rivalry, what with both sides trying to reach that goal in different paths. Trolls claiming to hail from either side usually leave a stain on what they identify with. I mean, a vandal gets banned, no big deal. But if they claim to come from a certain site, the recovering party would look to the site and its supporters with distrust. People blame what that person likes. Not just in pathetic wiki fights, but in themes like juvenile criminals. Who gets the blame? Things they like, perhaps some controversial celebrity (group) or violent video game. I won't bother suggesting any reasons for Uncyc and ED users distrusting each other (they may vary more than people think), but changing people's minds about each other may take a bit of work. Possible though.

Just a theory. I feel like I went overboard typing all this (and possibly off-subject), but that's my pitiful attempt at covering up the fact that I have NO IDEA why Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica don't get along. Well, I have my ideas, but like I said, I might not be representing both sides accurately. Conniving 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never thought that there really should be any sort of rivalry, or why one cares about the other at all, because as Girlvinyl (the founder of ED) has said on numerous occasions, the two wikis have completely different purposes. I suppose that generalizing the userbase of wiki X or wiki Y is inevitable, just as it is in real life - like, say, if person X listens to black metal, they're gonna burn churches. It's all garnered through negative experiences that serve to solidify that stereotype, but whatever. I don't think either userbase is interested in building some sort of indifference, rather than lampooning eachother-Mudkip 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, someone must be getting a laugh out of the whole thing. *shrugs* I guess that even if the ones laughing were only the people fighting, it will continue. Conniving 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of Encyclopedia Dramatica until now

I checked a few pages mostly regarding countries and found they were utter jingoistic tripe rather than funny. I don’t really like either websites page on Tony Blair, or George Bush but dramaticas were just a total barrel of cum, frankly. Are the sex ads and T-shirt promos supposed to be ironic, or is it that they’re cashing in on the obviously teenaged contributors? I also find the supposed slights at this websites style hilarious if they’re going to pass off shite like “They’re a fag” or “Teh Gayz” repeatedly in their pages. If the best they can do is feature articles like Holocaust Porn (mostly youtube videos and pictures, probably by other people) I don’t think anyone need be worried, (How daring, The Holocaust… and porn).

For instance I’m a huge Peter cook fan and found the page here mostly hilarious, but I doubt you’d ever get that sort of page there on Bill Hicks, in fact. As much as I love Hicks what you get is a sycophantic load of shit. Is there something I'm missing? We Are Devo 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ED is to Uncyclopedia as Police Academy is to Carry On Films. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Isn't it more like ED is to Uncyclopedia as Slashdot is to The Onion or something like that. 67.159.47.202 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Mhaille likes to whore his articles. Also, he's British. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 10:49, Feb. 1, 2008

What???

ED?? We have an article on ED?? Why didn't anybody tell me?! Why wasn't I informed?! Anyway, this is... kind of weird. It's like the Oxford English Dictionary having an entry on Merriam Webster's... except written by chimps... or something... Feebas factor 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Conniving 00:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

UM...yar

What? <3 .talk.work.?pedia.$A_{ward}^{waits}$

It seems like the little critic attempted to deliver a facepalm, but forgot to <par> himself. My TBS book of "IS IT FUNNY?!" says that that failure is, inandofitself, worthy of a facepalm as well.

Here it is, but without so much failure attached. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 12:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ED article

tl;dr i.e. damn, this article is REALLY BORING. Thank you.--24.6.42.35 06:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You must have some idea what makes it less "boring". Conniving 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous IP. Let's all go watch Family Guy. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet you're here. Please prove me wrong by NEVER reading this message. Conniving 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Anyway, that was supposed to be a joke. Sorry about that. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The ED's article on Uncyclopedia is crap, our article on the ED is crap. In fact, Uncyclopedia and the ED are both just big piles of crap with some funny trapped inside, it's just the ED's funny has an afro, rapes mudkips and thinks Jews did 9/11. —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet you care about both of them. Please prove me wrong by NEVER reading this message. Conniving 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And Uncyclopedia's funny has a 9/11, rapes afros, and thinks all mudkips are Jews. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Now let this crap rest. --—Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 13:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is bothering you to come here. Conniving 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This fails really bad

As an Ediot this is some of the worst fail I've seen. It's comparable to such epic fails such as an hero or lulz in hell trollfags. Not even the pools in habbo have this much aids.

U cum bak wen u lern 2 tock, ok? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:02, Dec 28 2007

2008

My Opinion

ED user here, so maybe using the title "My Opinion" was pointless, since I'm sure you guys don't care. Anyway, I'd just like to say that this article is not funny. I'll admit that ED can suck, too, primarily cause most of the other EDitors don't know comedy from their own asses. Yes, it is too often used as a burn book for unfunny 10 year olds to write articles consisting of nothing but swear words and memes that they know nothing about. But we're not all retarded. And as much as I can sometimes hate the morons that edit Encyclopedia Dramatica, I have to say that this site is shit in comparison. The constant insults towards Uncyclopedia found on ED are not out of competition or jealousy, but because this site is painfully unfunny. You all fail at being funny in every way. Just look at this article as an example (or use the random article button). The ED article (parody) of Uncyclopedia is perfectly representative of this site. And what the fuck do you guys do? Write a long, boring, pointless waste of random garbage about an 18th century newspaper. It's not clever or funny, it's stupid. Pages like this are the reason for the insults. Anyway, for what it's worth, I thought user Kip the Dip's parody was actually pretty good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Account (talk • contribs) 22:03, January 29, 2008

Jee thanks. : ) But yeah, everyone here has a stereotypical view of ED, and vice-versa. Meawhile, a lot of times we do fail at being funny. We're just in denial. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 22:20, Jan. 29, 2008

I have a question: if you don't find the site funny, why read an article and make a long post on its talk page? Why not, oh, I dunno, not visit the site? I don't like ED, so guess what? I don't go to it! I know this may be a novel achievement for some, but I for one find it to be effective at saving both my time and and my attention span. I don't go to the Uncyc page on ED and say that your site sucks. Why are you here? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:27, Jan 29

• So I could express my opinion and then hear people rant and cry about it. I'm also bored and trying to put off doing Bio homework. But I actually don't come here. I've been here before and have read several articles because I come across them occasionally, but I rarely visit the site. I've never once found anything on here funny. And yes, I know that everyone has different tastes in humor. That's fine, but this site still sucks ass.--Account 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Account
  • Then I don't see why you'll be needing this account anymore. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I don't go to ED to rant about shit; I go there to fix spelling errors and add the occasional category or internal link. I've made it blatant and known on ED that I've written this page but, quite frankly, no one gives a shit because 95 percent of the site has come to the intelligent realization that there's essentially no connection between ED and Uncyc except vaguely in concept. If you're looking to stir up drama, you've failed. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "So I could express my opinion and hear people rant and cry about it." Oh, so instead of a nice passer-by trying to help us be funnier, you're a troll. I take back what I said about us wrongly having a stereotypical view of ED. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 23:35, Jan. 29, 2008

What Makes it Unfunny?

I think I know why ED users come on here and freak out when they read this article.

• The word "faggotry" isn't used 8,000 times
• There isn't a single meme on here
• Some words in here are WAY too big for a 10 year old's vocabulary
• The word "faggotry" isn't used 8,000 times
• Not a single mudkip!
• No youtube videos
• It's filled with irony
• The word "faggotry" isn't used 8,000 times

I just feel that if we add all that stuff I said above, ED users will be happy that the article is no longer unfunny, but just plain lame. No wait, now I'm wrongfully stereotyping ED, too! :o --The St0DaD * 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Freak out?--McCann 02:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent Album. I, myself, am a big fan of Zappa's older works, too. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article?--McCann 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionswithonlyonewordthatdon'treallymeananything? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:05, Feb 1

OrDOthey? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

...Orly? --The St0DaD * 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moar Moar! Lamers galore! --McCann 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Uncyclopedia is unfunny...

But after looking at the source of evil, encyclopaedia dramatica, I think that Uncyclopedia is much more civilized, doesn't abuse memes, and isn't full of pedos. User:83.31.34.56 21:16, February 9, 2008

Shit. I should go to ED. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you should. It's where you belong. Unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, Uncyclopedia has some content that is humorous. There is maybe a sentence or two humorous content on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the rest is nonsense and attacks. --Joshuaissac 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I only checked out ED after reading this article, and it made me love Uncyclopedia even more -- this place is genuinely funny; ED just made me cringe :\ MinxieLoli 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once in a while, ED actually make me laugh. But most, if not all, of such moment is because the article is collection of internet meme that I found funny by itself. While I wish they won't get shut down (I actually got some non-mainstream images there, no it is not porn), I still love this place more. Hey, we may be unfunny at time, but at least we try to be funny. And when we insult someone for laugh, we known it's lame attemp. Ace Attacker 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2009

LMAO

You guys will love this, the stupid dumbasses have the whole site shut down to beg for donations. So far they have a jaw-dropping 31 donations and need $5,000 total.FinalWish 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I actually feel sad, their Lolicon article is much more ehh..graphicial than ours. Ace Attacker 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There looks to be plenty of material to flesh it out in Category:Hentai if you want... Ty 19:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

2010

Disambiguation page

Maybe I missed some discussion, but can Encyclopedia Dramatica link to the disambiguation page? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 05:32 Jan 20 2010

NO! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:37, 20 January 2010

OH OK. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 07:40 Jan 20 2010

Actually, I don't mind either way. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:21, 20 January 2010

2012

So, after reading several complaints on this talk page, I want to ask what makes it particularly funny? There's no wit involved. How does it qualify as being funny, if it's only imposing as a motif for belligerence? Not funny (talk) 07:41, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

2024

LOLLZERS YOU FAGETS SUCK GAY COCK HARDER THAN A CYBERNETIC GEORGE MICHAEL VACUUM CLEANER ANDROID IN A CHICKEN COOP AT CARNIVAL!!!!!! HAHAHA!!!! LULLZ I AM H@XXORZING UR B0XX3N AND I HAEV ALL YOU FAGETS DOX OMG OMG OMG CLICK HERE 4 DOX ON ZOMBIEFAGET AND XAMRALCOFAGET AND EMCFAGET AND SOCKFAGET!!!! U R AL LAME FAILFAGET JEWFAGS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA— actually, I do find this page to be quite erudite and rather civilised, and this fact fiercely stings the two tiny neural bundles that compose the organ that most scientists laughingly refer to as my "brain". However, I do confess, to my moderate confusion, that I cannot parse a single true laugh from any of these cryptic glyphs which you claim convey humor. I say, old chaps, what gives? —Sir Pierce D. Organ, O.B.E., at 16 hours and 09 minutes past midnight, on this, the 21 day of December, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and 24