Forum:ED for feature

Forums: Index > Village Dump > ED for feature

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6434 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

ED's understanding of the word "humour" - the more offensive the better.

Can we feature ED's page on us? FreeMorpheme 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No. We've already featured Uncyclopedia is the worst. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try, it is a great article. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bludy tribute. Plus it is the only funny article ever to roam ED's DB. I'd be tempted to call it ironic but , alas, alike Alanis I seem to be unable to use that word within proper context so i'll just call it superaffentitengeil. - Vosnul 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show that both of our sites think the same of each other... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how thinking how ED uses raw blatant vularity as a substitute for humour compaired to Uncyc's ..... well .. ehh... sophisticated vulgar humour is in any way the same . - Vosnul 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we were gonna do a reskin once, but chron didn't want one. I doubt he'd like featuring the article either...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I move that we continue to follow the blanket policy of "If we ignore other wiki's eventually they will all go away." --The Zombiebaron 00:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this article however does show how we are better people than the people at ED, I mean, comparing Uncyclopedia users to Terry Schiavo, do they have any sort of decency! Though over all, the article is hilarious, I guess ED is only funny when they are talking about Uncyclopedia. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

..what..the..fuck..ED stole my template! as you can see here --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, lets not feature that. Infact, QVFDing ED would be a MUCH better idea. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out the pic - I made it yesterday as part of my userpage experiment (which failed miserably as there was simply no viable way to replace Sophia with the new pic). If you guys want to do a ED reskin, it might help. -- Colonel Swordman 13:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now listen in. There is no point in attempting to do this kinda thing when both the founder AND the chief bureaucrat say NO. I already tried. If you wanta have a look, it's located here. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I say completely delete it and act like it doesnt exist. Sortof like the cabal. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's not featured, as my work IP will probably block the main page for "Pornography" (just like every page under ED's namespace.) Wouldn't want to ruin our rep, now would we? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

naughty naughty, work is called work for a reason, you dont get paid to piss about and look at ED, Foreshame!.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm not looking at ED (hence the reference to it being blocked.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven. still means you tried though.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. He might of accidentaly clicked a link which he didn't realise goes to ED. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are up to 4200 pages...sure that's nothing compared to our 150,019,509, but if the rest of their pages are as good as their page on us...aw screw it, I can't finish this...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An ED parody

There ought to be something that could be done with http://daemonica.org - but what it's desperately missing is a parody of DeadJournal, the web blog for whiny suicidal emo teens. That and someone to drive around in a Waahmbulance, run people over and put them out of their misery once and for all. Oh well.. --Carlb 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feature the crap out of that. Or else, have the ED article redirect there instead of UN:CVP, Goatse, or even my suggestion of Talk:Euroipods. Crazyswordsman 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In unrelated news

ED has proven to me that they're jealous of us. Read their Grue article. It proves to me that they're not funny so they just take a jab at us that doesn't work. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they just think Uncyclopedia is unfunny typically. Not enough shock images and whatnot. AlexJohnc3 ^Complain F@H Fx2 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Which shows they have no sense of humor. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think things would be a lot more pleasant if we stopped this mutual emnity between us and ED? I mean, we're just different types of humour ultimately, and while we prefer our kind we can accept that their main criticism of us (i.e. that we have one shitload of random superfluous articles which even an entire foest fire year wouldn't get rid of) is valid, can't we?... No, just me? Okay, I'll get back to work... --Sir Jam 08:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried that once. My eyes still bear the scar tissue. -- 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why neither us or Wikipedia has a proper article for ED? Seems somewhat stupid that they have an article on us but not vice versa... --KWild 05:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that an uncyc admin wrote the main part of their article on us... Not sure though. Any confirmations? -- 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no article about ED as Wikipedians voted to delete it at least a couple of times. Situation here is mostly a spillover of that on the main WP, with repeated deletions (by ED contributors) of basic info such as the site's owner name. Our original article was this, created as a placeholder after one of our admins had created a set of two templates: one there linking to same-topic articles here, one here linking back. The article about Uncyc there was originally a copy of the one about ED here, with everything reversed by user:Elvis. All created long before any sign of any rivalry or conflict. All before ED pulled the links to uncyc as "spam" and made some bizarre claims to Wikia (under the US DMCA) that the "ED has an article on (pagename)" template here infringed their copyright and logo. Ancient history... --66.102.73.165 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)