Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 2

This is rude

your whole site is rude. here's some words to describe your site

rude horrible uggggg terrible immature disgusting offensive lame pointless unhumorous crappy idiot-based junk poop stupid

btw ur site was listed on pointlesssites.com.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyaTya (talk • contribs)

I should point out that that site also lists Falling Sand Game, which is the most awesome thing ever on the internet. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:27, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

This encyclopedia blows

Not once have I had a single laugh from this child-friendly, unfunny website. How old are you guys? 9? 10?

To the rest of the world you're just some nerds trying too hard at net-fame.

Thanks! - if you could write better articles maybe you could help us out and do better...--Sycamore (Talk) 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"The truth is usually funnier than nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth... Perhaps two-thirds of the articles are random nonsense. Little to nothing distinguishes them. Patent nonsense can be hilarious, it may get a laugh the first time, but it quickly gets dull."

This comes from our own writing guide. Congratulations, by recognising this fact you have completed the first step to being a good Uncyclopedian. The second step is thinking to yourself "I can do better than this". The third step is an elaborate initiation ceremony involving paddles and a naked midnight run through the woods. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"absolutely no coverage on relevant subjects of today make my brain cringe". Yea, why don't we have an entire project dedicated to current events or something. MrN  Fork you! 19:30, Feb 13

Hmmm. All i can say is Sonic the Hedgehog to the last edit on this page.--Romartus 11:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOOOO PORN!

This is a view that has sparked a substantial shift for the site from being a satirical site to redirecting its resources into pathetic racial slurs and Nazis, Gay jokes or references and preferably with a little Chuck Norris for good measure. This is compounded by the need for articles that appease a "softer consensus."

The removed edit above speaks so truely, but it seems Uncyclopedia admins are overprotective of gay people to repeatedly delete many of those real funny gay jokes or references. I don't hate nor dislike gays, gay people or homosexuals alike (included are Lesbians), but are we trying to be funny and controversial, but "funtroversial"? That should be a new internet meme I came up with just now, just like I came up with the term "funteresting".

shamefully illiterately marred grammar

"Wilde was always so fond of" should be "of which Wilde was always so fond"83.91.86.29 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Sycamore

I don't think I've ever come to this page, and I came today expecting some terrible meme-ridden mess. But this is fantastic. I know you wrote this a while back, but this is a belated, awesome job. Seriously. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia fails because

Comedy, like cooking, suffers from diminishing returns. The more people that edit an article, the less funny it becomes. The best articles on Uncyclopedia are those which are largely written by one, occasionally a very few, very funny editors. The rest of it is just terminally, eye-rollingly, head-bashingly unfunny. The internet is less funny simply due to the existence of the Uncyclopedia. This entire website could be obliterated but for maybe 20 or so genuinely funny bits. There should be a benchmark one has to pass before editing. A funny IQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs)

You are editing the wrong article. Try UN:W. MrN  Fork you! 21:06, Jul 4

TRVTH!!!!! -- Roman Dog Bird!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, but if people aren't allowed to have fun, why would anybody even write anything on this website? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

24.130.51.254 makes some interesting points. I am pretty sure that once the current crew grow tired or grow or grow old , Uncyclopedia will become an abandoned house full of vandalism until BB Wikia delete it. In the meantime 24.130.51.254 you should try your hand at writing here . This is after a forum for all , some or no talents but everyone can at least equally succeed or fail. So come off the wall, fence, spike or what ever you sitting on and join in . And you can work away all by yourself if you so chose or contribute a joke/idea in other articles you like..that way , who knows what will happen ? You may discover your Muse here...or not..but at least you had tried...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 13:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

AAAAA AAAAA AAA AAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAAA AA. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAA AAA AAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAA AA'A AAAAAA AAAAA AA. AAAAA AA AAAA AAAAA AAA! AAA AAAA. --AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA AA AA AA AAA A AAAAAAAA!

The current version of ths page

...is the best we've had in a long time. -- Hindleyite Converse 12:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship in Turkish Uncyclopedia

Editing Ataturk page in Turkish Uncyclopedia (Yansiklopedi) is forbidden for all users. What can we do?

What Crap

This site is officially the anus of the internet. And I thought Omegle was idiotic...damn.

Hope you brought heaps of scented toilet paper then. It's gonna get sticky. ~ 09:49, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

And, much like any other anus, it generally produces shit but every one in a while is hilarious. Especially after fourteen pints of Guinness and a vindaloo. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 18:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

However, poo is incredibly useful in the compost, and collecting it can be therapeutic. (ChickenWeeklyNews,December 25,1949)

Humor of Uncyclopedia

Put in a section of the page called "Humor of Uncyclopedia." Don't make it flattering, even if this wiki does have a comedic genius or two. I suggest we describe the wiki's humor as "An online Mad Magazine with a dash of Jon Stewart." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatblondguy (talk • contribs)

You do know that this is a "content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", right? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:59, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well how do I edit a page that doesn't have a tab that says "edit"? Now I feel silly and slightly self-conscious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatblondguy (talk • contribs)

Firstly sig your posts on talk pages with~~~~ Then wait 4 days from when you registered your account. Then you will be able to edit this page, and others like it... MrN  Fork you! 18:38, Mar 11

Facts

Too much facts in this article. Shouldnt it be a satire or something? 201.92.29.176 00:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Why pick on Irish men?

More like Scottish or Korean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamelHump (talk • contribs)

Sadly our founder Oscar Wilde was Irish. That and the Irish accent is the best for witty one liners. Also why pick on the Scots?;)--Sycamore (Talk) 08:20, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Nah-Nah

Uncyclopedia needs more Mexican stuff. I myself had to create the burritos page, not really, and f##k you.

This site is awesome. 202.146.15.12 10:10, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

 this is stupid only for imature predators like you

Humor is funny lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia&oldid=428055477 Dickheads, anonymous is winning + tiger blood = awesome

Just Had an Idea

I don't have an account on this wiki, but I just had a small idea I'm hoping one of you could add, 'cause I'm not gonna make an account just for this little thing. Maybe later on, but not now. Anyway, I had an idea for a quote at the top of the page:

"Uncyclopedia is [awesome and totally not] retarded." -[Anybody you Think would fit this quote]

Any takers? Any... people who bother to reply? 97.96.65.123 15:08, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Probably not ideal - one quote can be amusing... but more is less so.--Sycamore (Talk) 16:54, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe add it to some other page with no quotes (or one that could use more), replacing "Uncyclopedia" with whatever the topic may be? 97.96.65.123 14:22, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

They're not really the focus of the site and more than likely someone will just end up removing it at some point. Usually a quote/s is/are preferably added by the author of the entire article - not someone who came by, which understandably might be viewed as a bit off for someone who has put a lot of effort into a piece of work. The best thing is to write an article or try and collaborate with another writer to make something really cool. You'll need an account, some English skills and a sense of humour... Do you accept the challenge?:)--Sycamore (Talk) 20:41, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I dunno... I once wrote an article about Elbonia, but it got huffed in about 2 weeks. I don't think it was very good either, save for a few jokes that i thought were funny. I wish I was funnier. :/ 97.96.65.123 19:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Having an account is better for writing articles... I always start mine in my userspace meaning I can finish them - like this one User:Sycamore/Arvo Pärt, which would be huffed now, but might get good over time. If at first you don't succeed try, try again...--Sycamore (Talk) 20:54, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and then some of us could help with suggestions and mentor your sweet ass, and others will toss garbage at you hoping you will go away. But overall it's a pretty fun learning curve. And if you go this route, pick a name you wouldn't mind keeping and being proud of. Unlike user: I wank off on my mum's stomach Aleister 21:10 9-6-'11

Yeah, and then some of us just add comments that repeat someone, so they can get some attention, you cheap skanky ho...;)--Sycamore (Talk) 07:01, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, if I make an account, I can make an article on my userspace, and if enough people like it, I can turn it into a real, full-fledged article? I think that could come in handy. I'll think about it... 97.96.65.123 23:36, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's pretty easy once you get the idea that having a go is really what we're all about... hope to see you around:)--Sycamore (Talk) 17:53, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someday... :) 97.96.65.123 01:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

UNCYCLOPEDIA

THIS SHIT IS SO FUCKING STUPID THE CREATOR OF THIS MUST HAVE BEEN DROPPED ON HIS HEAD, HIT WITH A BRICK AND LOST HIS VIRGINITY TO A GAY GUY WHEN HE WAS 6 YEARS OLD! HE MAKES OSAMA BIN LADIN AND MITZI SEEM LIKE COOL PEOPLE BITCH

Your mocking of the afflicted only makes me feel pity for you, that's despite me having a bashed in mongo head and an anus resembling a map of Japan.--Sycamore (Talk) 16:52, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Is A Huge Punch In The Balls

WHY!!! WHY!!! YOU UNCYCLOPEDIA SUCKS!!! YOU ARE AN HUGE PUNCH IN THE BALLS!!! YOU DARE SAY THAT WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!!!! UNCYCLOPEDIA IS AN TURD BALL UNCYCLOPEDIA IS CREATED BY NO LIVES UNCYCLOPEDIA IS A TROLL'S VIEW TO EVERYONE Swearing is not ok! Kids come here to! Uncyclopedia sucks!!

Once again I can only agree with your erudite prognosis.--Sycamore (Talk) 18:45, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Just Kidding! :)

Good-bye

I am sorry to say this but I will be taking an unofficial leave of absence from Uncyclopedia. I will stop editing for good health, and I will start when I am finished writing this post. My return will be March 20, 2012, but until then,

Peace!

Sincerely, Alex Devens 14:30, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

May 2012 VFD and rewrite

Hey Spike the changes you made just were not at all right, I mean mentioning more Uncyclopedians directly and adding lists is hardly an improvement. Also some of the references just seemed totally out of place and unfunny.--Sycamore (Talk) 17:52, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 17:54 28 May 2012

Actually some collaboration to make this one better would be an idea - it's pretty close to being feature worthy:)--Sycamore (Talk) 17:56, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually even understand why this hasn't been featured before... Seems pretty good to me. But... Well, it's my opinion... OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 17:59 28 May 2012

A total revert of my work was not warranted. Structuring two alternatives as a list is hardly listcruft. Chronarion was already mentioned; I added him a second time, then thought it would be better to mix it up. Either name is essentially a placeholder, an owner of a throw-away quote, and it isn't necessary to name any specific Uncyclopedians.

However, my version--after the first section, "History"--had the point of mentioning actual aspects of Uncyclopedia as though giving a course in business, and with reference to actual businesses that have failed or are failing. Forgive me for saying it, but the prior editing used every meme in the book to claim to be discussing Uncyclopedia without relating to it in the least. Humor about something is better, in my opinion, than humor disconnected from anything.

PS--Perhaps better to be blunt about it. You focus on two specific but utterly incidental parts of my edit, but your thesis is the serious but vague charge that it is "just...not at all right....just...totally out of place...." When you then offer collaboration (by increment from your version), I take it the real problem is that I hadn't noticed you in the History and asked your permission first. The prior version had evolved into memecruft and that is why someone took it to VFD in the first place.

No. Please ignore all of the above. I don't like your article concept, and think my article concept is worth trying; but my last edit didn't take it there but took it right down the middle. In fact, this now calls for another article focusing entirely on the corporate analogy. I will take my beach towel and move down the shore. Meanwhile, Cat the Colourful, if you would like drama, it would be more appropriate for you to dip some girl's pigtails in an inkwell instead. Spıke Ѧ 20:54 28-May-12

Perhaps you simply want to write an article about Uncyclopedia as a corporate analogy and not about Uncyclopedia as it is and importantly as it was? Your idea sounds good and your working on it now... There is an unhealthy desire from contributors to be less stewards of the grand narrative of Uncyclopedia and more (quite troublingly) "Editor in Chief". This is whereby there's a desire to kill off humour that appeals to a certain branch and to as it were, narrow the food chain of our contributions. The fact is that Oscar Wilde, quotes, memes, templasexualism and so forth were defining aspects of this site until 2008/9 and since while they have remained present, have been diminishing... as have the readership and problematically actual contributors = Not people who sing along in VFD, ya know, people who write articles and contribute.

I think this articles concept based around the history of the site and done through the faux-history of the memes and tell-tale dramas notable pages is something that celebrates the site for what it essentially is – a joke site of silly stuff, not a highbrow social commentary site – such elements thrive here on the basis of readership, participation and the good will of the less gifted. No re-write pleases everybody, but this one, in a less updated state did well on VFH, has had a few complements and the dislike seems largely confined to small number who simply wish to, in a Frank Sinatra idiom, do it their way.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:59, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Spike... You did understand I was joking about the fighting? Of course I don't want drama, drama is unnecessary and drama needs to be DESTROYED. And I don't want drama. But this article is really good, if I say that, I don't believe I caused any drama? If I did, please forgive me, that wasn't what I meant. And I'm aware of girls anyway... They'll kill me... OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 05:12 30 May 2012

Hey

Oh. Uh Oh....--114.79.57.197 07:23, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia really is terrible. It's definitely not funny at all and anybody who tries to install humor into it gets their shit deleted by unfunny douchenipples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.48.73.212 (talk • contribs)

Too many cooks...

The funniest articles have the fewest editors. The concept of a comedic satirical wiki has the inherent uphill struggle that is "very few people are funny, but absolutely anyone can edit". If you were to put a Mitch Hedberg routine through the edit meatgrinder, you'd be left with incomprehensible cruft - which is what just about anything on Uncyclopedia is. -24.130.65.122 05:41, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Probably very true. If you look at the 'Random Feature' selection (articles that get the front page treatment), very often those are the work of one writer or perhaps a couple or so. Other editors may add material to improve it as the article goes along. The line 'absolutely anyone can edit' is true but only if that edit improves an article. Very often that stuff will be reverted and if it is straightforward vandalism/idiocy, the user responsible will be banned for a duration of time - depending on the severity of the attack (especially if it involves more than one article). --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:29, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

It is true; the funniest articles have an "owner" who puts the article on his watchlist and repairs anonymous vandalism. Nevertheless, allowing Anon to edit is one way of recruiting new users, as is allowing Anon to contribute criticism that lacks any positive recommendation, as you have. When we find incomprehensible cruft, we nominate it for deletion; and if you would care to pick a user name and stick around, you can help do so, a process that improves the wiki just as much as writing funny new articles, which most of us wind up dabbling in as well. Spıke Ѧ 11:56 28-Jul-13

The thing is, I am a big comedy fan and I have seen nothing remotely funny about your website. I have visited it at least two or three times and have not had so much as a chortle or a snicker. This website appears to consist of nothing but geeky internet references that normal people cannot understand, the sort of ignorant, 'casual' racism that has clouded many a crap pub and a ridiculous degree of infantile homophobia which most boys will have grown out of by the time they are old enough to vaguely understand and respect other people and slip out of their acne-ridden solipsistic casing. It's quite sad and pathetic. I find it more depressing than funny. Pete Beale (talk) 01:27, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. By the way, this does NOT mean copy and pasting part of an unfunny Wikipedia article into our articles. That will be reverted for certain. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:23, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using your user name. Current management of the site also dislikes all the alternatives to comedy that you list above, and we are slowly working to replace them with funnier material. I suggest that if you acquaint yourself with some of our good authors, and follow some links from their user pages rather than using Special:Random, you might find articles some of which you would prefer. However, your contributions overnight, which are as Simsilikesims describes them above, and which DSA510 indeed reverted--like your contributions two years ago--lead me to believe your criticism of Uncyclopedia is not authentic but manufactured in support of some preconceived notion or vendetta. Spıke Ѧ 12:06 29-Jul-13