BUY A SHIRT!
The ED TShirt Shop is open for business! THE WINNER OF THE TSHIRT CONTEST IS UP FOR SALE IN THE STORE! GET THEM BEFORE THEY RUN OUT! Click here to shop.



Talk:Uncyclopedia

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Article

For some reason, attempts at making an Uncyclopedia article get deleted by the modz0rs. Any reason why? (I had one that was just a redirect to Unfunny)SuperTarzan 03:05, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, for this article, if you check the history, it went from a parody of uncyclopedia to a non-parody of a parody. --Unicyclepedia 20:15, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It didn't help that it was blanked by Aempirei, and a redirect to Unfunny is not an article. As Unicyclepedia suggested, there have really only been two versions of this article. Neither version is particularly funny. As evidenced by Category:Æ, Uncyclopedia contributers are much more interested in us than we are interested in them. --Jacknstock 21:32, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • That's because 75% of their articles are unfunny one-liners. The TOW model doesn't work when you want to build a database of funny, cause if you don't ban unfunny people, crap starts growing exponentially. ~ Krade 21:37, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I delete this article every time I'm logged on for the simple reason that a month or so ago a mod decision was taken to remove the article, and nobody has said to put one back up. --無 02:47, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, what was previously deleted is again gone. I have replaced the entire sad history with a simple, informative article. Gone is the complex, comma-happy sentence, the irrelevant criticism and equally irrelevant link. This is not a competition. --Jacknstock 03:19, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Can there be an article on this? uncyclopedia is gay and extremely unfunny, thus becoming noteworthy. Pinball 06:36, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)

  • There is an article on Uncyclopedia. I can't think how you missed it, considering you have edited its talk page. --Jacknstock 13:29, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)
  • If you mean a proper article, listing in intricate detail the ways it is shit, then probably not. The parody page is funnier. Anyone with half a brain can figure out the funny ironies held within. --Tap0k 06:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Protection

Approved by mods (or at least that no one should bother editing this article any further). It is also a prime target for Uncy-vandals. ~ Banaan 20:59, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • iawtc ~ Krade 21:01, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
At Uncyc, the ED article isn't protected. ...What do you have to say about that? Cejak 14:27, 9 January 2008 (CST)
YAYjek --Bizarrome 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We're calling you guys out.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#Why_don.27t_we_settle_this_debate_easily.3F

Flames have been flying, insults everywhere, but nobody seems to have actually proven any sort of point. Let's settle the debate of what is and isn't funny once and for all.

PS: Try putting some jokes in this article stub pseudo-stub. If someone were to submit a shitty one-liner like this to Uncyc, it would be deleted in an instant. --Nintendorulez 22:38, 12 Mar 2006 (UTC)

  1. Nobody cares.
  2. This is not a competition. --Jacknstock 01:13, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)
You guys know we're better, and won't admit it, clearly. Cowards. --Nintendorulez 20:12, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are "you guys" and who is "we"? Do you speak for all Uncyclopedia contributors? Is this an official spokesperson position? --Jacknstock 01:09, 14 Mar 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a competition? BTW, seriously... this article is shit. At least at UNCYCLOPEDIA, our articles making fun of other websites have thought put into them. Cejak 14:26, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Holy shit guise talk about srs business! This little "war" died out like a year ago right? Is it possible to make a topic lulzy when its about a site that was made in mockery of us in the first place? --Pink Foam? 03:23, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

Okay yeah I just checked Uncyclopedia out and it turns out its still shit (suprise!). Just picture ED but with a (God forbid) Lulzfilter. GG. --Pink Foam? 03:26, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

Why is this article protected?

Are you afraid that someone is going to tell the truth about Uncyclopedia (that it dominates your lame site forever)? -Weyoun 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • IIRC, it was a frequent target for spambots. You could always check the protection log if it means that much to you.--Hardvice 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "that it dominates your lame site forever"? even the way you guys write and make these witty remarks... Were you born and raised in Counter Strike? ED wins in not boasting about how great we supposedly are.. you on the other hand act like a bunch of teenagers coming in here claiming you're the best. Merely that fact says a great deal about the differences between these two sites. ~ Banaan 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • they're not teenagers, they're same eighty years old chinese men in panties that run wikipedia and go to uncy to say what they really think about the articles. it's not funny except for who writes the articles and laughs making funny noises and kinda jumping on the chair "god damnit i'm naughty i said 'fuck'" or have their revenge as in "take that leader of the croatian supreme court! i lied on wikipedia! you're NOT cool! NOT COOL! HERE YOU CANNOT TOUCH ME!'" (evil dement laugh) wow.

I suggest someone add this

With a topic of "Proof Uncyclopedia Is Lame" and have this link as proof. (they have lots of chuck norris articles) Samsara 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chuck norris is lame. I concur-TDK 10:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A gigantic, "Who cares"? --Tap0k 06:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Oscar Wilde

If someone could stick a quote by him saying, "They worship me in a fucking creepy way," or something to that effect, that'd be funny. Have you ever been there? Every single frickin' page HAS to have an Oscar Wilde quote. --BriarRose 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For your information, We do not worship Oscar Wilde. We just quote him a lot, and make up shit too, because Oscar Wilde owns all. I admit, Chuck Norris is, as you would put it, an "old meme", and that not all Uncyclopedia users are up to a standard of humor that I would like. Memes? What is a meme? It happens to be a metaphor for cultural evolution that Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawson put way out of context. Yet your site seems to be all about cataloguing internet memes. That and snarking out at every group of people on the internet, including us. Let me put it in a way you'll understand: If you insult everybody, nobody is your friend. AND GOATSE IS OVERUSED NOW< DAMMIT!!!! ITS AN OLD MEME YOU ASSCLOWN SHITFUCKER MOTHERCUNTING TWAT BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!! I browse through Uncyclopedia and laugh at least occaisionally. I browse through Ecyclop*dia Dramatica and am sickened by your obsessive hatred for everybody. -Weyoun 01:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • TL;DR. BTW, I hate you. --Jacknstock 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • BTW, there is no competition between Uncyclopedia and ED. The two wikis exist for completely different purposes. For example, unlike Uncyclopedia, ED is not primarily intended to be humorous. It is intended to be an organized catalog of drama, memes, e-pals and other interesting happenings on the Internets. There is room on the Internets for both wikis. --Jacknstock 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You might want to remove this from the welcome statement that is given to every new member: 2. "Be internets funny. ED is a repository for internet humor. While everything is tangentially related to teh interwebs, we'd like to keep specifically on topic." --Retard
        • Most people have sufficient literacy to read that in context. --Jacknstock 03:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You bloodshit gutterfucks blocked me for expressing my right to free speech!!! I wasn't even saying that Encyclop*dia Dramatica sucked, or that Uncyclopedia is better. It's just that your subject matter is inherently flawed, and snarking out at everyone makes you no friends. Although I do appreciate the compliment to aspies. -Weyoun 47 03:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If you really think the right to free speech has anything to do with this, you are profoundly retarded. --Jacknstock 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bloodshit gutterfucks.--Thecodeisred 02:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S WRONG ON ENCYCLOP*DIA DRAMATICA!!!!! At Uncyclopedia we'd at least warn a person that they're doing something to get banned for, and then do it. And it wouldn't be for something like what Weyoun did, no, we reserve bannage for worse shit than that. Oh, and Uncyclopedia's humor could hardly be called "dry", "tepid", or "aspieish". At least allow us to edit the truth into your article. Oh and don't insult Oscar Wilde again. -Morlock 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Your opinion is not truth.
  2. As I said before, I don't want a potentially destructive rivalry to develop between these two wikis. That is why we do not want WikiEdit Drama over this article, and why we don't want to engage in a foolish argument with Uncyclopederasts - hence the banning of trolls. If you like Uncyclopedia and don't like Encyclopedia Dramatica, why not just edit articles at Uncyclopedia and stay away from ED? Nobody is forcing you to come here.
  3. Oscar Wilde was a gay pedophile, a sexual predator who raped under-age boys. If he was alive today, he'd be a registered sex offender. He'd also be convicted and go to prison, just as he was in his day. In fact, he'd probably spend more time in prison these days than he did then. Raping boys just because they are vulnerable, poor and of lower status is not cool. Oscar Wilde was not cool. --Jacknstock 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That rewrite

Is pretty fucking funny. Though it may attract vandals and shit from there-Ket 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • They can only make it funnier.. ~ Banaan 09:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This article already emits more funny in a second than the whole of Uncyclopedia does in a week-Ket 09:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose it makes it a shame that ED only gets one viable edit a day that isn't reverting vandalism, or destroying something that may once have had humour potential. --Lugiatm (Uncyc) 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So why are you here again?--WKD 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • To show us the error of our ways, apparently. I don't know about you, but I feel deeply regretful. --Bastardman 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
            • The remorse is too much to bear. I must take up religion.--WKD 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Religion for everyone! --Sheneequa 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo on Uncyclopedia

This link [1] says Mr King Shit Jimbo Wales visits Uncyclopedia. If that isn’t an endorsement to how unfunny that site is, I don’t know what is. ~ CATS 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Anyone noticed

how horribly shit Uncy-users are at insulting and supposedly "pwning" ED? Just looking at their incoherent whiny rambling just makes me wanna eat my soul and die very very slowly.. ~ Banaan 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Currently owning Uncyclopedia and their unfunny ways.--Zen444 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, you just fagged up the article. --Sheneequa • Talk 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I still feel proud. >: (
    • Uncyclopedia pwn themselves with the same repetitive jokes and boring puns. ~ CATS 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uck, their page on æ is awful. I suppose it was made to hurt our feelings. --I r noob 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Its not bad considering it was deleted last thursday, but definately complete shit. Whoever wrote that is a moron who just doesn't get it. --Einsidler 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unc made their ED page a redirect to "Goa Tse". I guess they have thrown in the towel-Ket Refill/lol 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • I saw it gone then it was back. I later saw they had a VFD. Samsara 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Shit is a noun, shithead. Lysdexia 10:24, 4 December 2007 (CST)

STFU

Encyclopædia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia have different types of humour. Both have different opinions about humour. So we should just stop arguing and leave each sites to be how they are. If anyone is going to try and come up with an anywhere near reasonable argument that ED is 100% better than Uncyc in every way or vice-versa, then let them argue. ~ Ghelæ 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • We didn't delete the article about them.--Zen444 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your point is? And as for the creation of the userpage, I don't think that ED and Uncyc can coexist, I think they should get out of each others way. There's a difference. ~ Ghelæ 16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ooh, next attack: "Will probably spam the shit out of ED once he realises he's not funny and should go away and has yet to contribute to the lulz." That's not wht I'm here. I came... well, I've already explained it. ~ Ghelæ 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • STFU, Uncyclopedia had a TL;DR article about ED long before we had anything more than a pointless stub, and you know why? Coz we don't give a shit about Jimbo's unfunny-nest; kthxbi --Einsidler 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Your point is? ~ Ghelæ 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No, seriously, your point is what? Or do you not have a point and the only way you can argue is flaming and using hopelessly outnumbered opinions? ~ Ghelæ 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who showed up and started demanding that people engage in your "argument" on your terms. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, pal. Also, you're trite and boring. Goodbye. --Neurophyre 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

sigh... {[fuckyou}}penis --Einsidler 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • So that's the case then. You can oly argue via flaming and similar forms of fallacy. ~ Ghelæ 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

{[fuckyou}}

  • Yep, that's conclusive. If your last resort in an argument is to add templates all over the place then... ~ Ghelæ 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Who the fuck are you? Get your head out of your ass and contribute instead of trolling, or I will personally ban your Uncyclopedia-loving ass here and now. That is the mood I'm in-Ket Refill/lol 05:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr, could we not use that template on random people? Ghelae: ED makes fun of the entire internet, your site is a popular one and one that's made fun of. We don't hold a rivalry (by we I mean most of us). --Sheneequa • Talk 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good to know, but I was actually talking to both Encyc Dramaticans and the uncyclopedians who say that either site is better than the other. But I'm leaving now. ~ Ghelæ 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hah, ED does not even have a BENSON, which can be both a curse and a blessing. Make it worth my while and I might grace you with some of my article writing skills because I am yet another Andy Kaufman type genius who is also insane. Honest, or I'm not a Pirate Ninja from 4096AD named Orion Blastar. Orion Blastar 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone commenting in this page

is a stupid cunt, and that's just the way it is. ~ Banaan 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nifty template

Will/Should I be banned if I copy a nifty template Uncyclopedia has? I'm leaning towards yes, but I'm not sure. Discuss. Miltopia 06:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect?

Several people (including myself) have made some pretty unfunny edits to this and people keep having to revert. Considering this is one of very few pages that is like, ideal the way it is and is unlikely to go through substantial changes or updates (since it's an imitation and not a documentation), maybe it should protected again and people just discuss edits on the talk page? Any thoughts? Miltopia 07:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't like long-term protection, but if others agree, I'm fine with it-Ket--Talk to me 07:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh, scrap it then, I don't really like long-term protection either come to think of it. Probably best to just revert if needed, Uncyclopedia edits are going to be checked by Recentchanges people anyway, it'll pop up at them. I say be generous with reverts though, but that's jsut me. Generous as in revert a lot. Miltopia 07:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know what you mean. Thats why its in my watchlist-Ket--Talk to me 08:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Bull soup from 2007? Did someone miss that? Slimem88 23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Main page?

Is this main page-able?-Ket--Talk to me 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • i don't know, it's very "in-joke", even if it is one of our best articles. You kinda have to have background info on Uncyclopedia. Miltopia 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Protection?

Being vandalised by Aspies. Maybe it should be protected, at least while its main page?--Abort, retry, fail 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly what I was thinking. Surprised it took them this long. Blocked two and their IPs, but I would imagine there are more. Tfo 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. --ßî®Ø 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck is this shit?

  • Your mother. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!--Razor Ramon 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Without an Oscar Wilde page on ED, I feel a great disturbance in the force. --Point59 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This. war. is. very. pointless. for. heaven's. sakes.

Why is there a war between ED and UP? It is pointless. UP has realised that (or at least something along the lines of that) and removed their ED article. I do not support either UP or ED, I am a member of both, and I am simply one of the spectators going WTF?!?! Anger2headshot 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh nice

  • I love you guys. Uncyclopedia was just too.. random to be funny. ED is at least consistent without that strange "Oscar Wilde" crap going on. Ahanix1989
    • Yeah, ED is funnier because whoring out unoriginal Gaian made 4chan memes is so much funnier KIKES LOL SHOOP DESU —The preceding comment was added by Tim Buckley, who is too much of a fucking retard to sign his or her own posts. IT'S 4 TILDES (~), NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
      • If your god Oscar Wilde was alive today, he'd be in prison for sexually abusing teenage boys. Now that is truly a good site icon. ~~~~ ( ! | ?| * ) 16:44, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
      • That's hilarious because it's fucking true. Chronus Valtiel 18:46, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

Consistency note

Rainbow blinkies are not an Uncyclopedism. --Imphreeeee 04:53, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I hate it there

As a former Uncyclopedian (I'm never going to tell you my real user there), I think it is the gayest piece of shit ever. The fact that they ban people for linking to Goatse, and the fact that nothing makes you laugh out loud and the fact that there administrators are such jackasses, I am going to try it here. Hope this place is better, more reasonable, not telling people what's funny and what's not, and I hope they don't have dumb vanity-policies as they do at Uncylopedia. I hope this place is better.--George W. Bush 12:46, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

So why the heck did you start by creating an unfunny article called Fisher Price, about some dump Uncyclopedia in-joke? Lurk moar, and internet relevance. Aghar 13:51, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
I did that to make fun of that piece of shit on Uncyclopedia.--George W. Bush 14:57, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

well...

look, guys, uncyc,(or unfun) has redirected our article to goa tse, the least we could do is atleast add a bit of humor, or delete this article all together, this falls well short of humor, or any ED standards. I'm not sure why, but this little "war" thats been going on between the two is moronic, sure, it all boils down to the fact that we're both the two main parody wikis, and thusly, there is a great sense of competetiveness between the the two, but we could atleast try and be civil, I mean, sure once and a while an Idiot from UN is going to blank a few pages and vandalise the AE article, and we can't deny that a Moron from right here at home is going to do the same, but we can try to do something or other... I'm not sure-wait...yeah that thing I said before, yeah... Yo... 15:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

  • Okay ED brother who we have always looked up to who has written many a valiant article, I am your proxy. --Sheneequa • Talk 16:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Still, although there is no reason beyond humor to use sarcasm, it is good to see some on this page, which brings to the opinion, expressed by many (In my mind) that we could atleast try and add some sarcasm, or humor, rather than an article of Noobese, while reflecting their language, it is a peice of crap , I mean, come on, we can TRY to insert some humor. Yo... 19:55, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Uncyclopedia should be definitley deleted and I think we're more civil than UN is. According to there article, 12 year olds invading the internet, we're all dumb kids, which is a fucking lie. There's a lot of adults here, including me.--George W. Bush 15:33, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I've got nothing personal against Uncyclopedia, but it's a part of the Internet like every other article here (and it is horribly unfunny) so why shouldn't there be a page on it? --Lobo 08:31, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Also, I think the article is reasonably amusing as it is. It's a pretty apt parody. --Lobo 08:33, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Look, all I'm saying is that we could at leastmake this FUNNY, I mean, insert some sarcasm, use some maintenance, actualy add HUMOR, it's a peice of crap as it is, and if its a parody of uncyc, it could at least be made more Parodyish. Yo... 22:07, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

TimeCube

I strongly disagree with the removal of the timecube section of the article. I think it's hilarious and the subtly inserted references to Uncyc make it relevant. --Neurophyre 19:31, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

  • The point of the page is to make fun of their writing style and that's a theme that is consistent throughout the article with the exception of that section which is why I removed it. --Sheneequa • Talk 01:54, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
    • Plus it's not like it's original content that was removed, we can still lulz at it at JEWS DID WTC. --Sheneequa • Talk 01:54, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
      • Not entirely. The "cubeless god, unfunny god" bit is what tied it all together. meh. (For anyone coming to this discussion late, it's preserved in the history here.) --Neurophyre 00:29, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
        • It doesn't fit in with the article because Timecube is actually funny, whereas Uncyclopedia is lame. --Blargh 00:58, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't believe people still haven't realized this is satire

How is it that a teeming mass of rather smart people can fail to realize that Uncyclopedia and ED are completely different niches in the first place? ED for the most part satirizes the internet, and UC usually just satirizes current events and history. There is no longer a reason for people in either camp to hate each other, and most of us have realized. The little gang of nubsacs that continue to fail to understand that this article is parody and satire in its entirety are truly lulzworthy. MaulMachine 11:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Why do you hate freedom? John Dublin 03:02, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
ASD Uncyclopedia is just crap end of debate --NI 12:15, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

wtf?

im seeing lots of people getting called retards for insulting this page, but it was like a year ago... as it stands right now this pages joke:word count is over 9000, unless im missing some sort of inside joke here

maybe i have to read sum uncyclopedia to get it? --Void 17:59, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

Alternative UN page on ED

Don't like Uncyclopedia's current lulz-less page about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Not biting and sarcastic enough? Behold! I have my version to save the day. It's written as a style-parody of ED, thus full of irony. I haven't finished it just yet, but it will be great. FYI: I did it for the lulz. --NOT Kip the Dip 21:11, 10 October 2007 (CDT)

  • You call Jameth a faggot but your article on faggot is about some musical instrument? then you add a footnote to that sentence saying "unlike the usual use of the term 'faggot' this man is indeed a homosexual". WHAT KIND OF SHIT IS THIS?? Yeaok 03:14, 14 November 2007 (CST)
    • I'm so sorry. I'm so used to writing like an intelligent human being, it's really hard to dumb down to make it great parody. NOT Kip the Dip 20:23, 20 November 2007 (CST)
 
“ 		 
Great parody doesn't equate to inane articles with no factual basis and moronic quotes rehashed and recycled in every article. Soz dude.
  		„
 

—Oscar Wilde, on Uncyclopedia's interpretation of "parody"

-Sluttycat 23:16, 20 November 2007 (CST)
  • Oh, and I suppose calling all Band/Tv show/etc. X fans faggots or niggers constitutes as good satire? NOT Kip the Dip 07:50, 21 November 2007 (CST)
    • It doesn't matter, because 99% of band and TV show articles will probably end up deleted due to not having anything to do with ED's goal. This is an example of a good ED article about a band, music genre and so on because it isn't full of shitty non sequiturs and clueless plays on the subject matter (LOL SETH PUTNAM), and most importantly stays on topic with lots of internet relevance-Sluttycat 18:25, 21 November 2007 (CST)
Look, Uncyclopedia isn't totally composed of stupid quotes on the top of pages, there's plenty of good comedy there, like 667:Neighbor of the Beast, Kitten Huffing, Age of Umpires, and Grass in the Mist. The two sites can't even be compared; Uncyclopedia aims to be a more general parody of wikipedia, whereas ED focuses on internet meme related humor. --Mmm 15:09, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Sheer perfection

This article is as funny as Uncyclopedia. I think it's perfect. Richard Dreyfuss 21:28, 10 October 2007 (CDT)

Yep. Oscar Wilde and other model citizens would be proud. Chronus Valtiel 04:33, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

What the fuck

You're two parodies of Wikipedia, competing against each other and flaming each other for what? To be the funnier parody of Wikipedia? Seriously, what the fuck?

  • Yes, that's it. You've discovered it. Congrats, gg sir or ma'am. Uhavecancer 03:06, 3 November 2007 (CDT)
  • Wanna see a neat logical proof?
You're a moron
=>Who cares about this shit.
QED, end of thread.
(We've nothing to do with uncyc, they're just angsty kids who like to lampoon us)-Ketthe KangaJewSodomy plz 05:35, 3 November 2007 (CDT)
  • Uncyclopedia is not precisely a parody of Wikipedia, or anything else's, for that matter. See Wikimedia Foundation, and illuminate yourself. Besides, Uncyclopedia is not funny. Never will be. Richard Dreyfuss 20:47, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Quick Q.

Am I the only one who thinks moving Uncyclopedia to Unfunnypedia was a stupid idea? I am too lazy to elaborate-Sluttycat 18:40, 11 November 2007 (CST)

crap subject matter is crap

add documentation!!! that place fills me with horror it's more disturbing than the disgruntled disturbing upyachka, infact upyachka doesn't come anywhere near in that she's not some TOW subsidiary spanning a global chain of "humorous" (LOL) websites where people get banned for posting links to goatse and the article on faggots is about some gay musical instrument. it must be documented! Yeaok 03:31, 14 November 2007 (CST)

What do you think of the last section, "why ED > Uncy", that I added?

I think it's good having that at the end, after the deliberately shitty parodying of Uncyclopedia's style (which is shit).--ByAppointmentTo 11:33, 21 December 2007 (CST)

This Talk Page

Funnier than the article, itself. The article's good, though.--Endedrural 16:20, 29 January 2008 (CST)Endedrural

Seconded. --Iamamun 16:15, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

fail detected

Featured_article_candidates/Uncyclopedia, get ready to taste the aspie tears if this fails. --lateral |talk| 22:40, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Virginia Tech Massacre

What turned me and many users away from Uncyclopedia was their determination not to satirize the VTech Massacre out of political correctness. Any way do add this to the article in a funny way? (jm4847 05:12, 25 February 2008 (CST))

They already have one.

[2]--Game over 08:26, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Zionist pigs!

Srsly guys, I think that mossad have agents trying to subvert people by trying to be funny over there, check out their articles on Israel and Jews et cetera, their REALLY tame and pull almost no genuinely funny jokes at all, just the kinda shit you would (at most) go "oh yeah...huh" at rather than "ZOMFGLULZ!12". Maybe highlighting the "Uncyclojewdaea" problem would be a good tactic in this article. Andronicus 22:39, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

  • Uncyclopedia seems to think there's this epic war between itself and ED when ED just looks at it as just another unfunny butthole in the ocean of buttholes that is the internets. Looking at the current article on ED over there reads as if we killed their dog or something. The best way to snub Uncyclopedia is to keep this article the way it is. Gawd I'm ghey <333 Phelot 21:28, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
  • Moar like encyclopedia stupid amirite? Anyways, just for curiosity, on the Uncyclopedia logo it's written (in hebrew)איןציקופדיה did you mean "no encyclopedia" or something? :P --Thespammer 17:14, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
  • Lawl hebrew!1 איןציקופדיה is WIN, someone stick it in the article in big MASSIVE, GLORIUS CAPS FONT!!11 plz. Andronicus 05:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Uncyclopedia: Some loser's thoughts

I like how the closest thing they have to a funny article is their one on ED, and then they did a follow up (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/HowTo:Write_an_article_for_Encyclopedia_Dramatica) which ruins their 1 article winning streak.

I heartily approve of this article for it's accurate impression of their attempt at humour. Way to go ED.

Finally, since it's protected, I'd like to suggest (thought I can see why this'd get shot down) adding a "Trolling Uncyclopedia" section. Misterjew 00:16, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

You know, not all Uncyclopedians hate ED

I'm an active user on Uncyclopedia, and I think both sites are about the same on an entertainment scale. ED just uses a different brand of humor, and was made for a different purpose. I may be one of a kind, but I just wanted to remind you that you have at least one friend over there. Ye Olde Luke 17:41, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

  • I think most people realize that they are two very different wikis and humor sites. They're really too dissimilar to compare. I still like ED much more (obviously), but it's not like there's an actual competition or anything. Uncyc does its thing, and we do ours. Still, it is nice to hear that not everyone is ready to wage war at a moment's notice. ~ Endedrural (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2009 (CDT)
  • Yeah. I must admit, I do like the article they have written about Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's funny and original - and I mean the "French Encyclopedia" version, not really anything else they've said about ED. Most of their content, though, is depressingly crap and unfunny and it immediately wants to make me turn back here.--ByAppointmentTo 09:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I think it has been stated a thousand times on this talk page that nobody cares about Uncyc on here and that ED doesn't care what Uncyc thinks about ED. There's no way of comparing them, there's no way of drawing a parallel between them and associating one with the other makes no sense. Why do there seem to be so many threads on this talk page about ED vs. Uncyc anyway? I suppose thanks for the support or whatever too-Ketthe KangaJewSodomy plz 10:14, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
  • In the immortal words of Enid (from Ghost World): "This is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." I remember my first visit to UP... it was beyond belief. --Richard S. DreyfussWAT 20:30, 29 May 2008 (CDT)

"Offensive" material in Uncyclopedia

If you check the TOW article about Uncyclopedia, even Uncy was enough to get some small-minded people butthurt for its 'offensiveness', lawl. People apparently wanted the site taken down. See the 'criticism' section.--To / Appointment / By 04:33, 16 June 2008 (CDT)


Uncyclopedia Raid

pls ban me --Thespammer 18:17, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

Uncyclopedia depresses the hell outta me

I dunno what it is with that site, but it's just depressing as fuck. They actually have a few decent articles, but for the most part it sucks so fucking hard.

It's no wonder ED gets more traffic. Put it this way - what's more interesting to non-asspies - drama or nonsense? I rest my case.--OhLawdIsDatSum 19:01, 9 July 2008 (CDT)
The thing is that some of Uncyclopedia's content is kinda like some of the poorest quality, unfunny articles on ED. And to think that ED has any similarity to such a depressing site is depressing in itself.--OhLawdIsDatSum 08:23, 10 July 2008 (CDT)
And there are a few Uncyclopedia articles that kind of mirror ED articles - for example, article (compare with uncyclopedia) and you (compare with uncyclopedia). Now that is depressing.--OhLawdIsDatSum 08:25, 10 July 2008 (CDT)
I think what's worse is how they actually think, that their banal drivel is clever and witty. (Solarius 11:24, 10 July 2008 (CDT))


I HATE UNCYCLOPEDIA!

Uncyclopedia pisses me off! It makes me want to vandalize the fuck out of their website.Sick Fuck 22:30, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

What's the point? There's nothing on there worth vandalizing, and nobody gives a shit about them. Just ignore their faggotry like the rest of the internets. Chunkmunky 03:46, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

Why would you want to vandalize them? They've already vandalized themselves. Leave them as the festering pile of embarassment they currently are. --1337onidas 16:36, 20 November 2008 (CST)

I hate the users... eckspeshully the ED Users who sound like them. Acai Blast 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Truth

It all makes sense.
It all makes sense.
Uncyclopedia trying to out parody ED in the style of ED. Apparently ED is some sort of hate site.
Uncyclopedia trying to out parody ED in the style of ED. Apparently ED is some sort of hate site.

Yeah right

"This repetitive reversal joke format needs moar article! You can help by adding moar article!" WTF is this still doing there? The freaking article is protected! Ἐ 22:54, 14 September 2008 (CDT)

Drama time!

There is epic drama going on at Uncyclopedia. The fags sold out to Wikia and now their domain name has been changed from uncyclopedia.org to uncyclopedia.wikia.com and there are retarded ads everywhere. Ripe for vandalism as well as drama-tracking.

...The fuck?

Untill someone gave me a link the other day leading to Uncyclopedia, I thought this whole time it was just a nickname for Wikipedia or some shit... God, the articles at Uncyclopedia are so unfunny you could wish for a delete button for the entire site itself. I just came here to see what ED has to say about it... looks about right to me. Radley 02:37, 29 October 2008 (CDT)

I lol'd

It's flame wars like this that are the reason I love ED. We have so much fucking drama it's crazy. - Image:Shin chan small.gif The Conan Y SO SRS? Image:Shin chan small 2.gif 16:33, 23 November 2008 (CST)

add this please

"Uncyclopedia, which is short for "Unfunny Encyclopedia..."
k thanks --lorem3k

About my love for uncyc

I believe that it is more thought out. Most of the stuff here is shock garbage. However, I do think a lesser writer could thrive here and thats one of the things I like about it. So I use both.Leo Trotsky 18:58, 19 January 2009 (CST)

One good thing about Uncyclopedia…

is that one doesn't feel like one has to make sense. In other words, it's a great place to post some weird bullshit. There are some true, true asshats there (namely, Roman Dog Bird and Sockpuppet of an Unregistered user) who should be kicked off the Internetses forever. But ED is perhaps the most stable of all the unwikis. I think.—ZotDudot7 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Exactly. I know an Uncyclopedian at school, and he perfectly fits ED's definition of a UP user. He's annoying, loud, unfunny, laughs at unfunny jokes, weird, immature and above all, random as hell. He's also around fourteen years old and reminds me of another UP user. From what he told me, this one guy that sits in front of him in class constantly tells him to shut up and stop babbling about Maddona. - Image:LuigiBike.gif Ms. NHMAMA MIA! Image:LuigiBike.gif 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: And he's also an aspie. :( - Image:LuigiBike.gif Ms. NHMAMA MIA! Image:LuigiBike.gif 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

to add this template somewhere:
For those without comedic tastes, the experts at Uncyclopedia have an article about themselves.

Piilu 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? ­- From the lulzdeck, this is Your Captain Speaking *Ding!* 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • maybe because most of the articles have it over there?

Piilu 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Why not. Add away. ­- From the lulzdeck, this is Your Captain Speaking *Ding!*
    • the article is protected Piilu 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh. I didn't see that. ­- From the lulzdeck, this is Your Captain Speaking *Ding!* 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Oh wow these guys fail hard

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(Website)

They pretty much copied EVERYTHING from ED including "For those without comedic tastes, the so-called-experts at Wikipedia have an article about" , the banners and stuff like "shit nobody cares about. " Jesus chris guise, talking about being original, you must be very jealous of ED. Sorry but i just had to say this, if users from that site are reading this. YOU ALL FAIL , HARD. --Uncle jeezy666

Don't mind me...

Just enjoying the specticle.

I'll just leve this here. Asscrackers2 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Uncyclopedia vandals FTW.JPG

Oh My

I always thought ED was just being mean with the whole "unfunny" thing, but they really aren't all that funny. A bit of it'll make me snicker or giggle, but it's all pure shit compared to ED. See their article on Death Note, for example. WHERE THE HELL DO THEY COME UP WITH THIS? Shinigami42 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ED cares more about Uncyc than Uncyc does about ED

Neither ED, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anything like the name of your wiki appears in their top 1000 linked to pages. However, in YOUR special:mostlinked, Unfunny is #49, and Uncyclopedia is #404. So... why do you people talk about Uncyc so much? Forestforthetrees 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and you guys have Template:Shit. Why do you hate UN so much? They have as much funny as you guys do. Forestforthetrees
Who gives a shit? It is a running fucking joke. Neither of us actually care at all about the other one. --zaigertalkplx 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
O_O wow, that was... uncalled for... Forestforthetrees 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You are uncalled for, now shut the fuck up before I beat your e-face to a fucking pulp with my banhammer. Either contribute something useful or GTFO --zaigertalkplx 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I was going to write stuff but, uh... nevermind... (is this how you people talk to new users???) Forestforthetrees 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, just the fucktards who come in and complain as their first edits. --zaigertalkplx 19:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Talk:Uncyclopedia"
Personal tools
Link to this