Talk:Uncyclopedia in popular culture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncyclopedia in popular culture 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

I like how the first paragraph only mentions the page's three main contributors. If it mentioned something about Uncyclopedia's uncanny ability to tell when you need to put an apostrophe in the word "its" and when you don't, I would add myself. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! :) User:Wehpudicabok/sig 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:] Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried to read the article for Pee Review, but for some reason the page keeps blanking in IE7. I'll see the page load in the window and then it just shows a blank page. No other Uncyclopedia page is doing that. I'm not sure how to fix, and I don't want to mess about with someone else's hardwork. Perhaps I'm missing something, is that part of the humor? Peace. --Kenvalyi 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the same thing. I'll look into it. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem fixed. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Pretty much a collaboration between Cap'n Ben, myself, and Mhaille, a parody on Wikipedia in popular culture. Let me/us know what you think. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Silly stuff! I like the humor. There are in-jokes but most of the humor is accessible to anyone who has fallen from righteousness and into the Intarweb culture.
Concept:	8	Good idea. Revisionist history with relevance.
Prose and formatting:	8	Well-written. Well, it should be with you three in charge.
Images:	8	Excellent images. Funny in their own right, and appropriate to the content. You know what we need, though? Some good fonts that really look like handwriting. Is that Comic Sans in the Peanuts speech bubbles? It works, but we need better.
Miscellaneous:	9	I really want this to succeed. I very much like self-satirical humor, pointed cultural revisionism, and mildly deconstructionist articles. This is all five of those things. Five? Oh wait, those are my ghost fingers. I mean three.
Final Score:	41
Reviewer:	----OEJ 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)