From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia.
This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.

Article policies
See here for discussion concerning the pre-colonized version of this article. To read "The Colonization Saga", see here.

Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia

Wikinfo[edit source] allows anything, unlike Wikipedia. EDIT 08:01, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

The page has been blanked[edit source]

The page has been blanked, and is now a one-liner that reads "Wikipedia is a much classier organization than this garbage you call a wiki" An administrator by the name of user:Roman Dog Bird has blanked the page and then protected it from further editing. I am now going to contact them and attempt to have him unlock the page and restore the original article. Rustyfence 00:08, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Mutually blocked IP addresses[edit source]

How many IP addresses are blocked by both WP and Uncyclopedia? Have come across one - possibly the same 'persistent nuisance(s)' on both. Jackiespeel 16:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

In portuguese, this article is one of the bests too.[edit source]

Put in Interwikis. 21:03, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh No it's not![edit source]

RE: "Reliability Wikipedia has been known to be very reliable, with random facts about sex and cities strewn about everywhere."*

  • No it isn't, it is in fact a large dish of anchovies that currently resembles a 16k ram box attached to a zx81 sinclair computing object.

It's only true facts are 0000 and 0010, due to modern computing being mainly along the lines of 74 versions of Bill Gates doing the can-can with a strawberry and one pear shaped heap of numbers called if-Iphone-you-will-you-finally-leave-me-alone-again.00.tar.gz, and a determined terrorist penguin intent on coding the secrets of your bunt into C+and- (which sounds like [goto line 1 or maybe don't goto line 1; #don't blame me blame Richard Stallman] the effiency of this labourious old encyclopedia has slowed to nought that can be good for the perpetuation of stir fried cannibals. Yes. They did in fact eat Dick Van Dyke's left ear just before writing that the north pole is situated at 0000110101. And since everybody of school age or above knows that the north pole is in fact a diabetic in Stalingrad, and that sheep are out to take over the world, there is no way at all that Wikipedia could ever be considered reliable. Misinformed! Yes. A cut'n'paste of the entirety of apekind unknowledge sure, but certainly not as reliable as Uncyclopedia, ham sandwiches, or small rubber vibrating things when it comes to discerning the truth about certain situations and so called facts.

  • signed by a complete and utter liar currently living in bobistan west hampshire, the african state of oh lord my penguin you are so big. My nose is small and I am made of wood.
This is a classic! A fucking randomness classic! VFD! FreddIs Great In Bedd 22px-Flag_of_Egypt.png 18px-Foxicon.png 17:14 • Wednesday, 24-03-2010

/* this is bad news */[edit source]

  1. View source

My WP history[edit source]

I was and still am a sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia because they are stupid. They won't block my range so now I will make more socks. GEORGIEGIBBONS 20:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm behaving for 6 months so I can return. GEORGIEGIBBONS 20:19, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Their new look[edit source]

You may have noticed Wikipedia are SO vain, they gave themselves a new look this week. Should we consider sending up their new look on the Wikipedia article? Brichards85 23:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Locked Page[edit source]

Just out of curiosity, wot's up with the locked page? Does Uncyclopedia have taboos against funny things? Thanks for any illumination the illuminati can expose on this question.

Cheers, --Samuel Clemens 17:10, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected from edits by IPs and new users because those edits tend to consist of random crap rather than witty humour. Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotYPotM WotM 17:26, 13 March 2011
Random? You call the biggest joke of the English language for the last four hundred years random? Did you ever even see Taming of the Shrew? I thought not. From what I can tell, you jokers don't even have an entry on it. And yet you go around censoring things about the guy who wrote it (sure, he wasn't as fast then as he's been with Wikipedia, but even then he had some talent). But even you must know about the Ice Cream Kid award. I'm not going to give you my ip. I know what you people do with things like that. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clemens (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, I was just plainly answering your question. If I said Knitwitted's edits were random, it might be because William Shakespeare doesn't have a terrible lot to do with Wikipedia. And if you want to start an article on Shakespeare plays or whatever, you're free to do so. Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotYPotM WotM 18:44, 13 March 2011
The sad thing is, some of your fellow editors seem to be starting to figure out how witty it was. But you seem to be afraid to laugh at yourself long enough to reconsider the dimensions on which "witty humour" could operate. You missed the punchline the first time around and so you won't let yourself hear the aftershocks. I've been laughing all afternoon at things some other editors have been saying. You said: "those edits tend to consist of random crap rather than witty humour." You weren't being funny when you wrote "random crap." You were being dull.--Samuel Clemens 20:27, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

:([edit source]

This page was alot funnier a year or two ago. Its too bloated. Jsut because you can add stuff doesnt mean you should. too bad

Their only bits of "humor"[edit source]

Grrr! My eraser continues to wear down as you make those unconstructive changes. Your edits appear to constitute naughtiness and have been erased. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks!

Seriously, please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to mess up Wikipedia, we're going to have to take away the toys.

last year there lived a boy his name was nabeel jahan who could mess everything up and never clean it

Beware the Wikipedia Vegetable Puppets[edit source]

This page should be read and thoroughly understood before anyone attempts to become involved with Wikipedia. Uncyclopedia makes its comedic content clear. Wikipedia, on the other hand, attempts to hide its slapstick behind a pretense of seriousness. For example, Wikipedia states that its Administrators “…are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.” (Yeah, right!) This may be uproariously funny to the administrators and others who have been around a while in the weird wacky world of wiki, but it comes at the expense of new would-be editors who are expected to actually believe this crap and end up getting gang-raped by a bunch of bullies & petty tyrants acting in collusion to enforce their own version of WP:NPOV (Never Permit Opposing Views). These groups of renegade admins and brown-nosing wanna-bees apparently fear that Wikipedia may actually gain credibility, and are determined to prevent such a catastrophe. Whenever someone dares to question their version of a subject, they band together to block or run off the offending upstart editor. They are known as ‘Vegetable Puppets’. They differ from Meat Puppets in that their heads contain only puréed peas and carrots in lieu of brains. Kermugin 00:06, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Missing material[edit source]

Why doesn't the article mention what a great place for all things buttsex Wikipedia is? Nothing about plugs, or lube or even pierced trunk butt. I will not stay here long if these gaps are not rectified.-- 13:34, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Where ...[edit source]

Has the hilarious section on their endless, ridiculous policies gone? -- 16:59, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we ????[edit source]

Shouldn't we include something about Wikipedia being a tabloid-distortionist-encyclopedia which hopes to attract readership through sensationalism and offensive content. And the number of active eds on WP is considerably lower now. I understand that they have about 35,000 [1] active eds now, and at the rate they are going, we may soon actually overtake them in ed strength.JamesSomething 11:37, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Worse STILL[edit source]

This site has more reliable information that Wikipedia. At least here, you already know it’s a joke- It’s not trying to pretend to be factual. A REDDSON

The only thing more tragic than systematic counterfactualism leading to misinformed naive readers is pervasive illiteracy that allows editors to misinterpret sources so wildly, and site visitors to accept untrustworthy constructs from hamfisted writers. --anon 03:14, July 30, 2012

Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia. [edit source]

This article isn't true.

-- (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Graham87

It is true that Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia, but remember that this wiki is a joke. (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit[edit source]

Founded in 2001 to spread misinformation, but by 2007 its input became expanded to also spread disinformatiom.  Tom | Thomas.W talk Thomas.W (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Lel[edit source]

(This is my real-life best friend, BTW) --Rock-O-Jello (I'm listening...) 23:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I hate wikipedia[edit source]

I can’t edit a talk page with out my edits being Immmediately reverted - 2601:192:8701:B4C0:0:0:0:D14A (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the users there are total d'bags... --Rock-O-Jello (I'm listening...) 20:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is better than Wikia[edit source]

Wikipedia is better than Wikia Inc. Corp. Ltd. It doesn't have humor and is more serious, but lets face the the good parts: it has less advertising to date, the only advertising is the donating part and can you edit the page more than FANDOM which you have to be paid or have an account and use it in a way that meets the pigs 'terms and conditions', with Wikipedia as long as it is backed by source half the time there's no issues, besides the bots which there are more on FANDOM and people who will undo your edit if they don't find what you have added being 'funny', Wikipedia has a group decision where as FANDOM it's more of a 'who's ontop' decision to make. If one where to say to "but FANDOM is still cool"... No it isn't. 2A0B:F4C0:16C:13:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)