Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 1
 |
This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. |
UnNews
History: When the www...pedia.com family was born. The loving parents had two twin sons. One was a good, loving child named Wikipedia. Wikipedia had a brother named uncyclopedia. This brother was pure evil, he was known as wikipedia`s evil brother. The End.
- Sucks. What about the other ones, like Conservapedia and ED? ~// Lunaquois 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The definition of uncyclopedia short
IF you don't know what uncyclopedia is yet check recursion
The paradox of uncyclopedia
Wikipedia is sort of a criticism itself of the 'standard' reference industry/organizations. In creating this 'new alternative', however, wikipedia fell into many pitfalls and traps that were the very things it was criticising in the original. Uncyclopedia, in criticism of wikipedia, is sort of in the same boat. The more popular it gets, the more people it attracts, and the more garbage and waste fills it. This leads to complicated untransparent hierachies and social networks that do things like discuss endlessly over whether something is funny, or whether an article should be deleted. Even the height of 'absuridty' and 'satire' must have some standard, otherwise it is, simply, noise.
And I dont know where to put this, so here it is.
- Put it in the True Facts page, I think... :-) And then run, while you still can! -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I had always thought that if you type Uncyclopedia into Uncyclopedia it would cause a paradox, thats why i never tried it.... until now Turk brown 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
May I add that " I own this desert... erg encyclopedia bitches!!!!". --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.10.0.26 (talk • contribs)
"Uncyclopedia is a self-parody of Wikipedia critics" quote
“Uncyclopedia is a self-parody of Wikipedia critics.”
Unlike the scores of potty- and sex-related jokes on this site, this one's actually funny, so why does it keep getting deleted? SteveSims 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Make it Featured
If all the people working on this put effort in, this could be a featured article, just what we need from an article about the site we're on! I know I'm trying. ~ 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Religions list
I dunno, but maybe the list of religions should have its own article, complete with a couple of sentences explaining the beliefs, morals etc. of each along with links to their respective articles (should they have one). Just a thought: the list looks a little bit out of place in the article at the moment. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Reefer Desk - Use it | Converse 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
A proposal
I was reading the explanations and etymologies on this page and it seemed to me that the overall quality was bad, except for the "unus" - "encyclopedia" stuff, which seems perhaps average. I thing that Uncyc should go deeper and provide a trustworthy, kayfabe story on its own name. Just to show an example how this might work, I rewrote the page with realistic computer science BS, which might go as follows:
Uncyclopedia, sometimes shortened in speech as Uncyc (IPA /un.saik/, X-SAMPA [UHN-psych]) is an attempt to further increase the usefulness, factual accuracy and ultimately, truthfulness of the internet encyclopedic efforts. We here at Uncyclopedia are not claiming that our method is the greatest thing in the world, but we attempt to pay more attention to the scientific treatment of the mathematical graph structure inherent in any interlinked hypertext body, most importantly in minimization of the number of cycles in the document graph, and minimization of the impact of the remaining cycles on the comlexity of graph algorithms run on the database corpus.
While Wikipedia is currently the most widespread of the internet encyclopedic efforts, we in Uncyclopedia have been the ones who originally came up with the idea and always maintained technological edge over the greedy internet would-be-tycoons, who were able to win over supremacy by using unfair methods (see Invasion of Wikiland for full history), including making up things about any topic or subject, and claims that these blatant falsehoods are fact. We in Uncyclopedia strive to tell The Truth about everything, but we also believe that equal attention should be paid not only to the truthfulness of the contents, but also to the technology, in this case the mathematical structure of the network of hypertext documents. We believe that in the age when more and more accesses of the Internet contents is done by the machines themselves, the computational constraints imposed by the hypertext document network topology are becoming the crucial factor in the potential of various internet projects. It is well known that the fastest graph algorithms are the ones that run on trees. While we do not argue that it is possible to completely remove the cycles from the document network and thus convert it into the tree structure, we use several patented algorithms to decrease the number of cycles, increase their lenghts and and handle the overall graph connectivity, while keeping all nodes safely connected. Although our original idea and several initial patents concentrated mostly on handling cycles, today's Uncyclopedia is concerned with much higher number of issues than just cycles, and we work with equal fervor in all the algorithm fields offering possible increase in computational efficiency of the encyclopedia cyberstructure. Uncyclopedia today requires its authors to be not only the experts on the fields they write about, but also to know what's wrong with them, so that the underlying mathematical cyberstructure can be amended.
Etymology: The word "uncyclopedia" is a portmanteau of the words "uncycle" and and Encyclopædium, meaning simply an encyclopedia with decreased number and impact of cycles on computational tractability. Leading "un" in the Uncyclopedia name is sometimes interpreted as coming from the word Unus meaning one (actually an example of linguistic false friends) to give the expanded versions like The Only Encyclopedia, One Footed Tornado, or connection of the word with unicycles, either those of the graph theory or those of real world.
I got my rewrite reverted by somebody and I admit that rewriting the whole story of Uncyc should be agreed to by other users. But in its current shape, the page is really bland. It seems to me that uncyclo- connection with tree algorithms could be a great gimmick, similar to Google's and Yahoo's, just ask the computer scientists. Also the Wikipedia unjust takeover story should be put forward in more realistic way.
- The first two paragraphs are excellent, the etymology section could include all three definitions as possibilities, like the wikipedia article of religion. ~ 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
best website ever
I thinik tle admins are all Satan worshipers or chronic masterbaters or something. Someone neds to shut that site down befoer the mids of children are corrupted! Plz help me shut down uncyclopedia by never going thare again!
fuck you, yncylopedia! You SUCK! And you smell like BOOGERS
DIE DIE DIE DI EDIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
ASSHOLES
GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Uncyclopedia Sucks 04:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, if I want to masturbate on satan, that's my right. You can't stop me doing it, ever! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- HA HA HA YOU ARE FUNNY NOT MY TEACHER IS FUNNIER THAN YOU I BET YOU CANT EVEN SAY YOUR NAME WITHOUT SAYING SUMTHIN STUPID YOU FUCKIN FAGGOT NOW SHUT THE HELL UP!!!! QUEER!!!!! --Uncyclopedia Sucks 04:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y'know, this guy is right. Uncyclopedia does suck, and we do smell like boogers. I'm headed down to Hell right now - hopefully I can beat the rush! Anyone want any souvenirs from down there? They have those really cool "Chronic Masterbater" T-shirts in stock in the gift shop, supposedly. c • > • cunwapquc? 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- YOU ARE AS FUNNY AS MY CLASSMATE BRIAN WHO THINKS IT IS COOL TO FART IN CLASS I BET YOU AN DBRIAN ARE GAY LOVERS OR SOMETHING HOW ABOUT YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO JUMP OUT THE WINDOW INTO THE STREET YOU GODDMAN FUCKIN QUEER??~!? U AN GARY CAN ALSO GO FUCK! I HEARD YOU HAD HERPES SIMPLEX 50! THAT AINT A POKEMON LEVEL EITHER JACK!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! FUCK! --Uncyclopedia Sucks 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what, it's not cool to fart in class now? Oh, how times change! I could jump out the window, but I'm on the ground floor so it probably wouldn't accomplish much. I would love a chronic masturbater T-shirt. And perhaps some kind of inflatable satan sex toy, if that's not too much to ask? That would be so cool. I'll have to find this DBRIAN, he sounds cool too. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think Gary and Dbrian would both be a little surprised to learn that I had Herpes Simplex 50, especially since I've just injected them both with a lethal dose of sodium pentathol! And how did you know my front door was painted shut? Wait a minute, you're that guy from Wikipedia, aren't you? c • > • cunwapquc? 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, UNCYCLOPEDIA SUCKS!!!!! SHUT IT DOWN< SHUT IT DOWN< SHUT IT DOWN!!!
Caps lock is cruise control for cool, but you still have to steer. Also, what's wrong with masturbating to Satan? --Mathew Williams 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, mister Uncyclopedia sucks, NOBODY CARES —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljawa (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- You suck and nobody cares about you either. --Sir Starnestommy
(Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 04:17, September 22, 2007
LOL!
I was editing the wikipedia article for uncyclopedia and it had an editing note that said this:
<!-- NOTE:You are a dosh bag and you did your mom yesterday and sucked hear boobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! == Ownage ass wiki== Best fucking Wiki ever...... : ''''Strongly Agreed'''' LOL! After all, human jokes/puns totally own logic/war/hate/etc/politics/whatever and, yes, even philosphy, I even quoted Uncyclopedia in one of my papers for school and the teacher didn't even notice ! Uncyclopedia was such an awesome idea. To whoever made this page/had this idea/stole this idea/Shigeru Miyamato... uh anyway... I still think Uncyclopedia deserves more attention, because it's probably the biggest pack sarcasm ever seen by mankind. (besides. I think Aristotle was the guy who had the first idea about making an uncyclopedia) Dang... even the names bares some intelligence... hard to make a joke about uncyclopedia... [[User:Ap2000|Ap2000]] 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC) == O_o == Someone put some crap in place of the article. Unfortunately, I not knowing how to properly revert the article, got a fucked up version up. =| [http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&oldid=1386782 Today's semi-blanking] was actually very funny - "Someone Intelligent" wasn't quite intelligent enough to learn how to use a quote template properly! HATE HATE HAT! --[[User_talk:Strange but untrue|Strange but untrue]] 13:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ==suggustion== i know this is a joke site but i think you need to be alittle serious with this subject because, after all, it is your website, or are you letting wikipedia do that for you (not trying to be a smartass or funny,)i'm just saying also, this my sound stupid from where i'm standing but i don't like the way encyclopedia dramatica is trashing you and you don't do anything, by now you should konw that they don't care on whos toes they step on and i thing it's fair play to make fun of them, i mean if you can take the time to make a john goodman joke i'm sure you do this, after all they made a totally stupid section about this site :Sorry, Encyclopedia Who? Wiki-what? I think you may have confused this for some other Internet - we're the only site on this one. --{{User:Strange but untrue/sig}} 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) :Ignoring them is both more dignified and more productive. {{user:Rcmurphy/sig}} 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ::Dignity? Productiveness? I think you have me confused with someone else Rc... :) --{{User:Strange but untrue/sig}} 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) == Thanks 4 the Vote!! (You -> 8==========>) == {{thx4vote|VFP|AmericanBastard}} ==Semiprotection== Hurrah for Hinoa! That is all. --{{User:Strange but untrue/sig}} 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ==A cry for help!== Ladies and gentlemen of uncyclopedia, a fellow on wikipedia has been posing as yours truly and running amok. I propose a vandalism act on his page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weregerbil, If we can band together, we can take down this menace. ::I'll help you! In the meantime, join me in my Anti-Wiki battle! --[[User:Someguy 44|Someguy 44]] 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) == Let's start a war! == Between Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica, that is! I'm an editor at Wikipedia, and I've been a lurker of Uncyclopedia for a long time now, and I must say, there's a lot of funny stuff here. I like the "Weapons that don't exist, but should" article in particular. Don't take that suicide pill just yet, I'm was just getting to the point! I also decided to check out Encyclopedia Dramatica, and it sucks. It looks like some kind of Frankenstein of Uncyclopedia and /b/. Way too much pornogparahy and cynical, hateful bullshit. Nothing wrong with a little porno, but I don't see how gallons of semen can make something funny (there are rare exceptions, of course). They don't know a thing about real humour. Apparentely, they don't have a "Be Funny And Not Just Stupid" policy like Uncyclopedia, and they even have the gall to refer to Uncyclopedia as "Unfunnypedia". So here is my suggestion: We should have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica that explains what kind of /b/tards paradise it is, and the fact that the number of editors there with a good sense of humour is somewhere in the area of -9,000. Currently the "Encyclopia Dramatica" article links to Goatse, which is funny, but a seperate article would be better. Uncyclopedia is vastly superior, and an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica would reflect this. --[[User:Mathew Williams|Mathew Williams]] 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :Anyone looking to start a "war" between ED and us will be banned from the site. End of. We don't care what they say about us, however we do care about making our site funny. We don't need conflict with some other site for that. -- {{User:Mhaille/sig}} It was just a suggestion, I wasn't really all that serious about it. More like I was looking for people who were. Oh well, I suppose we can find more productive ways to spend our energy. Seriously though, ED is not funny. Unless you're talking about Erectile Dysfunction. --[[User:Mathew Williams|Mathew Williams]] 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :"ED in 'Not Funny' Shocker!" In other breaking news, Pope discovered to be Catholic! Turn to page four for our exclusive photos of bears in the woods (and you'll ''never'' guess what they're doing). -- {{User:Codeine/sig}} 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you for keeping me informed. Also, the sky is blue, sex makes babies, Jesus dies, paper comes from trees, and we should free Hat. But wait! There's more! Call in the next 15 minutes and receive a second box of "mystery goo" absolutely free! Side effects include: Saugage fingers, bloated dick, projectile diarrhea, mental retardation (which I am clearly suffering from), exploding ovaries, blurred vision, constipation, uncontollable sexual arousal towards 80 year-old women, Parkison's disease, tourette syndrome, and leprosy. --[[User:Mathew Williams|Mathew Williams]] 08:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :Don't mind us, Mr Wikipedian. The subject of people hating ED is somewhat of a sore point around here. I don't know why really, because most people don't take ED-hating seriously any more. --{{User:Strange but untrue/sig}} 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I am a frequent 4chan user, (mostly /u/ and /e/) and I sometimes go to /b/ for some laughs because it's impossible to take anyone seriously there. I am offended by ED for some reason, though. Maybe I'm offended by the fact that /b/tards (which I'm pretty sure are the main contributers) think they deserve a wiki to smear their crap all over my moniter. It belongs in /b/, at least their posts come and go over there. Some things just shouldn't be allowed to spread. Uncyclopedia's saving grace is it's [[Uncyclopedia:How_To_Be_Funny_And_Not_Just_Stupid]] policy, which has allowed it to grow into a pretty decent place. I see no such policy in ED, they just don't understand real humour. .... I don't why I just noticed, but despite it's many flaws, ED is a decent image dump for memes. Huh. --[[User:Mathew Williams|Mathew Williams]] 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC) == interwiki == Add [[it:Nonciclopedia:About]] --{{unsigned|151.75.244.46}} == Cant lie == You cant lie in this page cuz each lie would be the truth (for uncyclopedia is one big FAT lie) about uncyclopedia and every truth would be well... the truth. Kinda stupid cuz lie IS uncyclopdia and if there is a article with out lies it wouldnt be uncyclopedia --{{unsigned|84.108.16.48}} :Technically, this site isn't just one big lie. Some of the stuff here is truthful. --{{User:Starnestommy/sig2}} <small>07:21, September 30, 2007</small> == Undiscovered??? == Uncyclopedia was listed in PC Magazine's "Top 100 Undiscovered Sites" (page 80 of the November 6, 2007 issue) in the Info, Reference, and Search section. The description goes as follows: ::''If the stress of worrying whether a Wikipedia article is factual and accurate is getting you down, take a break and check out Uncyclopedia; it promises to be content-free. It's easy to lose a few hours laughing at the nonsense presented with a straight face here. You could even "learn" a few "facts"; for instance, did you know that a shark, while atop an elephant, is considered the deadliest animal ever? If anyone questions you, just tell them you read it on the Internet.'' In the bottom-left corner of the page there's also a screenshot of the Uncyclopedia Main Page with the caption "UNCYCLOPEDIA - Lose a few hours laughing at nonsense presented with a straight face." Should we take offence and flame PC Magazine for calling us undiscovered? Should we flame them anyway for calling our content nonsense? Or should we be happy that we were recognized? And, should we add our recognition to the article? It'd be adding facts, which is borderline blasphemy. [[User:Gangsterls|Gangsterls]] 04:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ==Interwikis (2)== The interwikis are now: :[[:en:Uncyclopedia]] <-> [[:es:Inciclopedia]] <-> [[:pt:Desciclopedia]], etc... In other language wikis exists [[Uncyclopedia]] article as well as its own name, it's better change the above interwikis to the same title one: :[[:en:Uncyclopedia]] <-> [[:es:Uncyclopedia]] <-> [[:pt:Uncyclopedia]], etc... At least this articles exists in the following wikis: <nowiki>[[cs:Uncyclopedia]] [[fr:Uncyclopedia]] [[it:Uncyclopedia]] [[es:Uncyclopedia]] [[pl:Uncyclopedia]] [[pt:Uncyclopedia]] Chixpy at es: (ChixpyBot is down because a internet connection problem, that sometime causes editions like this which truncates the article. Sorry, for my bad japanese)
--85.49.205.127 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The bouncy Uncyclopedia logo
I think that shouldn't be there behind the normal Uncyclopedia logo. I think it would look better if it would be here. --Crea(te)dit 15:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for add interwiki
mega shock!!!
Wiki is turning everyone against us: [1] go to that link and click on talk!
uncyclopedia is banned in mainland China
I had to get here using TOR, congrats!
Noncyclopedia.
Noncyclopedia - The nonsense encyclopedia.
Sounds better than this shit. ~// Lunaquois 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)