User talk:Naughytned/Encyclop*dia Dramatica

For a site that started hundreds of years before ours, its quite amazeing to see that it too has 1 thousand + users. --Nytrospawn 14:21, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

And most Uncyclopedians aren't assholes. *ultra-biased bi trans furry* --Just Tenn. You were expecting Sophia? 15:10, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

But most ED-sysops obviously are, so they've managed better in that single aspect...

And there I was thinking Uncyclopedia was all about politically incorrect non-information. --ettlz 22:10, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It's true it should probably have {{factual}} added to it, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.--Elvis 23:48, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

There's been a response. I predict a war. The United Wikis Security Council must convene. --ettlz 16:30, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Just don't step on any blue suede shoes? --Carlb 21:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Now this article is what I call internet pwnage--Nytrospawn 00:48, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Unfolds chair*

• grabs popcorn*

Now this is what I call generating good drama.

--Sunsneezer 04:35, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Andrew Lloyd Webber to pen the musical. --ettlz 12:37, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

After all half the work is already done for him which is they way he likes it's isn't it? --Sir Elvis KUN | Petition 14:15, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This article is hilarious now. --Savethemooses 16:51, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I barely escaped ED with my life! It's almost as eye-rapingly bad as Arfenhouse.--Emmzee 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You think that's bad, you should see their article on Goatse. It has the hello.jpg image and the other 40. And I'm not even going to comment on Lemonparty --AAA! (AAAA) 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

zomg

I've just read this article and several others.. and it's amazing how you guys lack any sign of intelligence and are completely uncapable of constructing a cynical, sardonic phrase or caption... Most of these articles would probably be flushed down the craptoilet at ED... It's laughable that you think you're funnier than ED, using strong thoughtful words to verbally slay down any e-nemy like 'omg they are faggots'.. Reading this article rather hurts my brain than my feelings. You guys are so clueless I'm really not gonna write anymore... ~ Banaan 20:30, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

From ED featured article: Nikola Tesla

The original mad scientist. Nik is best known for being an attention whore, an uber-1337 h4x0r, and a filthy illegal immigrant. He was born during the Renaissance in 1984, his father a pedophilic priest and his mother a high school dropout. He moved to America to avoid the wrath of Serbia's fierce tigers. Here he met Thomas Edison, with whom he worked with to enslave the world. The two eventually settled into a gay relationship, but were torn apart when Tom stole Nik's invention, modern anal.

Holy shit, he's right. I don't know these: "You" "are" "a" "douchebag" "troll," "motherfucker." Go home and play in your fantasy world of Livejournal and INTARDRAMA.--Sir Flammable KUN 15:04, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

--—rc (t) 23:45, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I bet that contained at least 5 words you've never heard about. ~ Banaan 13:09, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You mean like "h4x0r"? I must admit I've never used the term "e-nemy" either, so you've got me there. --—rc (t) 16:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, ED is meant to catalog and harbor internet humour including so-called netspeak, we have the ethnical right to use these kind of words. ~ Banaan 17:31, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I will not try to stop you from using those words. --—rc (t) 19:48, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ethnical? Hmm, Id say Strategery or Trustigious are better words. But whatever. Its very well known that we are better than ED anyway.--Nytrospawn 18:18, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You even think it's funny to make up words on your own now? check your facts plz.. By the way it's also very unfunny to act like your socrates incarnate (funny-wise) and cover up your shallow e-defense with grammatical/lingual expertise. ~ Banaan 16:35, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Read your second post and then your fourth one. Do you see any hypocrisy at all? I don't know why I'm even bothering to write this. I'm sure you have Livejournals to obsess over, so let's quit wasting each other's time. --—rc (t) 00:40, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that, now it's your turn to take a peak at your second post and then your fourth. ~ Banaan 09:44, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I am very confused by the mortals of this situation. I'm not sure if that's ethnical. Plz give me your e-defense on this topick.--Sir Flammable KUN 14:56, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Are you in for some flaming? :) ~ Banaan 21:07, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

:D - Banaan, you're still writing here even though you promised to shut up in the first post already :) So, why on earth did you not? 194.86.94.11 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job responding to a comment that was written almost a year ago. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Main Page Views: 509535 ED Main Page Views: 219855

I think over a quarter of a million people would beg to differ, Banal. --Savethemooses 00:59, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• As with everything in media nowadays, the site with the lowest level will eventually get the most views, because there are simply more naive badly educated 13 year old boys who would laugh at your standard mediocre jokes, contrary to ED's somewhat more deep texts (yes of course there are also banal jokes on ED, but it's in the spirit of drama-emulation). ~ Banaan 09:44, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Deep texts? Yeah, and Police Academy is a classic masterpiece of a film. If making fun of random LiveJournal users by saying "OMG liek iluvkittens20 is so dum LOLOL" or some such shit is deep, then I'd want to be as shallow as possible. --Savethemooses 14:19, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get this idea? Do you have a statistician lodged in your anal cavity? Perhaps a historian lives in your colon? 'Lo and behold! A game of Trivial Pursuit: Internet Trends as Studied in The Scope of Hits as they Vary with Relation to Site Content Edition has found itself wedged in your appendix!--Sir Flammable KUN 14:49, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Omg that is some unfunny text-shitting while using almost difficult words :O btw it's appendix vermiformis. ~ Banaan 21:07, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"btw it's appendix vermiformis". Wow. You really are as anal as you make out, huh? -- Codeine (5R,6S)-7,8-didehydro-4,5-epoxy- 3-methoxy-N-methylmorphinan-6-ol from England the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 00:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to overtop me with difficult words which you know by heart? (prolly cuntpasted it anyway)... I can do that... 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphemine, Kometet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, 4-Phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (psilocybine), Soyuz Soviet Sostialistidichi Respublik, ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmbt... Sodium Penthatol C11 H17 N2 O2 S Na.. see, it's easy... ~ Banaan 10:28, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hear that strange whistling noise? That was my point hurtling over your head at near-lightspeed. Come on Banal, I know you're working under a handicap here, but do try and keep up, eh? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 22:29, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

:D - I don't get he's still just around. Maybe he's trying to catch us by surprise by being plain pathetic... Sigs

Now I know this is a wind up. Who is this? Chron? Flam? Hmmm. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 14:21, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Since he knows how to start a fire, I would have bet Flammable, but after reading his comments in IRC I'm starting to believe this guy may actually be for real. What is this world coming to? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:53, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Its going to hell thats what. Hell, nothing on ED is funny. And we've been in the Boston Herald, The UK Guardian, and New York Times. I bet the only thing ED's been in is some emo-suicide losers livejournal.--Nytrospawn 16:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show stole our War on Terra idea --Nytrospawn 16:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Now about the abbreviations. It's "Komitet", not "Kometet" (committee), and it's not "Soyuz Soviet Sostialistidichi Respublik", but "Soyuz Sovetskih Sotsialisticheskih Respublik". - Guest 06:02, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• In english translations the e is often used, therefore it's confusing at times.. And the second I only knew by pronunciation.. ~ 84.29.79.30 20:29, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Here's the deal

While I think humour is something objective that can be "thaught", it's still obvious that it's about the sort of person for what kind of humour you like.. in other terms.. ED thinks Uncy sucks, and vice versa... Still there's an extra dimension to the internets, namely.. that it's serious business... Just look at the above, it's not top notch drama, but still quite some comments for somebody talking shit about your site... If any of you guys would start flaming/arguing/whatever on an ED talk page, no one would give a shit, and you would probably be blocked before you could hit recent changes... And that says a lot, to me that is. Anyway, I'll stop comment whoring here... well I think so... As Horatius once said; "Dare to be wise", and refrain from commenting to this post... rather add pictures or something... ~ Banaan 10:36, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Heres the deal. Get ED into the New York Times, or shut the fuck up. --Nytrospawn 16:15, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at ED for the first time today. I didn't find it funny. I didn't even see an attempt to be funny. Am I missing something? It seems like ED is the emo version of uncyclopedia. --Paulgb 02:37, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

My Uncyc stuff alone has been published in four more newspapers than all of ED. Unless the Boston Herald has some "Lulz" section I don't know about. --Savethemooses 13:04, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Calm Down, Calm Down</scouse> This is probably going to get me branded a limp wristed liberal type but I still think some of ED is quite amusing, likewise some of Uncyclopedia is crap. That being said a lot of the "humour" on ED is just unfunniliy aggressive of the OMG your so ghey variety and this probably would have made me laugh when I was 13 too (note: There are pages here like that too but it seems that ED actively encourages it whereas here it is discouraged or even subverted), I also get the impression that a lot of the actions with regard to Uncyclopedia from ED'ers are due to some sort of weird wiki penis envy and it's pretty obvious why, the stats have already been quoted but remember that ED started before Uncyclopedia, given the similarity between the sites (which is there if people like it or not), they have had to watch as Uncyclopedia has grown at a rate of knots whilst ED has withered on the vine (in all likelihood there are users here who may have gone to ED instead if the Young Whippersnapper hadn't arrived) which can't be very fun. As to why Uncyclopedia has been so much more successful I don't really know (perhaps there are actually less 13 year olds on the net than it seems, sorry that was a cheap shot), although I'm sure everyone has their theories. When it comes down to it the whole ED vs. Uncyclopedia thing really isn't an issue anymore, the relative size difference just makes them an irrelevance (bearing in mind we have more new articles in a fortnight than they have had since starting). (sorry that rant came out slightly more aggressive and condescending than I had intended)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:19, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves Uncyclopedia and hates ED. The moment Unc hit the radar, people like me went "THIS IS SO GREAT" and pushed it frantically. Unc is where Wikipedia contributors go to let off steam; ED is where Internet trolls go to one-up one another - David Gerard 13:43, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly why Uncyclopedia is at the same time so popular and unfunny. Because it's ED for Wikipedians who have lost all their sense of humor while being all "The Internets are serious business" on WP. --Gayus 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I just stumbled across this article, and, after having dealt and still dealing with seriously annoying ED trolls at Wikipedia, just want to say thank you guys for making me laugh so hard. Keep up the great work! --Just some Wikipedian.

Why'd you redirect ED to Goatse? The crap site about ED kind of managed to convey the point imho. --sigs

Meh. They deserved it. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we settle this debate easily?

Here's an idea: We're currently voting on our Top 10 best articles. Have your ED users do the same. Then, the 20 articles will be presented to a fair and impartial jury (perhaps one that has never heard of either website would be best) (or Chron looks at ED and whoever runs ED looks at Uncyc's (or if anyone else has a better idea for a jury, so be it)). We could then either count the number of times each jury member laughs, or have them rate the articles on a scale of one to ten and see who gets the higher score.

On the other hand, Uncyclopedia probably does have the self-confidence to simply ignore ED's feeble tries to appear equal in any aspect. The gap is obvious by statistics alone. --sigs

Honestly, we can squabble and flame and compare vocabularies and compare users to immature kids and... all day, but it'll get us nowhere. An actual contest to see which site is funnier should settle this debate fairly, and I'll bet money that Uncyc will win. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - a Superbowl of Wiki Comedy and like most Superbowls this would probably be a blowout! But I doubt if the EDsters would ever participate in a fair competition. The only challenges they've ever been willing to partake of are ones where their lawyers are involved. Plus, deep down they know that their stuff is not that funny. Of course, they'd make excuses like Banal did above about their humor being too sophisticated for the uncultured masses.--Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, i'm not an active ED or Uncyclopedia member or anything, but when I compare ED to you guys, I just find ED to be much more amusing. Uncyclopedia tries too hard to be funny. --218.101.80.95 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't making any excuse except that they "aren't interested" and that it "isn't a competetion". To be fair, I agree. Neither site is funnier than the other, because both sites are interested in different types of humour.

ED is more interested in shock humour - there's a special joy that only a Fifty Hitler Post can provide - you'll have to try it yourself one day to fully understand. There's a special "lulz" when you subject some unwitting soul to a picture of a man ripping his anus open. Again, it's not funny unless you're the troll who is performing it. It requires a special person to understand this humour.

Uncyclopedia, on the other hand, is more interested in the good-natured nonsensical humour. What could be better than a good-natured kitten huffing, for instance? Name a more ingenious theory than Murphy's law application for antigravitatory cats.

In short, ED and Uncyclopedia provide different types of humour. A "Superbowl of Wiki Comedy" between them is comparing apples to oranges. The sites aren't the same thing, and can't truly be pitted against one another. --Blu Aardvark 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pah. You call "shock humor" simply putting goatse on your wiki and going "OH HAY LOOK ITS GOATSE HAHAHAHA LULZ LULZ WE'RE SO FUNNY"? In order to be funny, shock requires a lot of planning. You have to find an appropriate victim, such as a soccer mom or AOL user. Then gain their trust, then send them a funny link. Then they click, and BOOM! [A shock image that is more original and less overdone than goatse]! Then you watch them yell at you for a while while you eat popcorn. Also, it's not apples to oranges at all. It's humor to humor. So unless you cowards are interested in truly settling this, I suggest you quit claiming to be better than us. You're not, you guys are pathetic losers. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

When did I claim that Encyclopedia Dramatica was better than Uncyclopedia? I said nothing of the sort. I simply stated that one is not funnier than the other, because they are interested in different types of humor. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Encyclopedia Dramatica is different than Uncyclopedia. An attempt to "settle this" would be an attempt to state that they were trying to be the same. They aren't. There are different types of humor, and people are amused by different things. Your Encyclopedia Dramatica regulars are interested in homoerotic and shock humour. Uncyclopedia is interested in a different kind of humour. You can't just take one and say, "which is funnier". That's like saying, "which tastes better, the apple or the orange"? You can claim to be "comparing taste", but really, you are comparing people's opinions, which differ greatly. Some people find ED's humour to be funnier, and some people (most people, probably) find it to be in bad taste.

Also, I'm not a regular to either Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia. I'm relatively nuetral - my contributions there consist of reverting trolls, vandalism, and spam, and of categorizing articles. That's because I'm a RecentChangesJunkie. I've done some minor contributions to an article there that I've had an invested interest in, but for the most part, I just watch Special:Recentchanges. I do the same here on occasion, but I'm not quite as interested, because I don't have an invested interest in this project. I simply like to read your articles from time to time, but I prefer to avoid editing them. --08:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the site hits would speak for themselves. Personally, I haven't really been amused by anything on ED, which seems to me to be trying way too hard to be amusing; or not trying at all. Uncyc, on the other hand, is providing stupid answers to intelligent questions, and i like the irony of that. Not to mention, we of uncyc are far, far sexier. --epynephrin 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just my opinion. I've read a lot of Uncyc articles and I never really laugh. :( --218.101.69.61 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems we may be looking at the wrong articles of each others' sites, which is why I'm suggesting we compare our very best to your very best. Maybe you've just been hitting RandomPage, and haven't seen the cream of the crop, and maybe the same goes for us. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Our penises are bigger.

Collectively, that's true... but that's because WE don't run off any girls that try to edit our site. :)--<<>> 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, who are you even talking to? Your "witty repartee" was in response to a comment that was added by an anonymous user that appears to be an Uncyclopedia regular (looking at his other contributions). --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh fate! Oh fortune! That your arrows would always fly true and fall mine enemies and spare my allies! What a cursed beast is pride; which, in between feasting on the flesh of its prey, turns on its like and thus wounds itself! ... er, what I mean to say is, oops. (I still say our collective penises are smaller than those at ED :p )--<<>> 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY ALL!

Why don't we stop the whining and have ourselves one of those good old fuck-parties in an abandoned pool filled with boiling puke!! ~ Banaan 23:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ew. No. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See.... this is what I'm talking about. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, ED proves our point for us. We could just remain completely silent, and win this debate. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Uncyc's sarcasm detector is apparently broken. --TheEvilBlueberryCouncil 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

once again, you're BOTH unfunny CRAP. uncy it's stupid 'cause looks too much like wikipedia you know, at least in those major articles like jews and this stuff you can't mess up with, there are LOTS of things you see someone who LIKES the stuff just run and wrote it with some poor jokes but being gentle before someone could attack and humilliate the beloved shit. you're so unfunny that you got around 1 thousand different articles about hitler, an old old target that everbody hates so you can just write any shit and it will be fun like he's a faggot stupid biééééééetch (wow that's really funny) or other stupid things like micheal moore or "your mother" (wow that's new) and that's what people punch all day. ED it's just TOO agressive with everything and everyone with that stupid admin and LJ shit and in a few seconds you read pretty much everything because it seems that shit just got 5 articles and they're all linked all the time, right sometimes they "got teh lulz" but all in all it's just another virtual close-minded stupid bully bitches based on sex and the same old hitler biéééétch and stupid poles and jesus and in the ass and american political scene and frenchs and your mother. do you know what's funny? anarchopedia.org, because it's fucking hipocrit stupid nonsense and ape-minded that you just got to laugh til pee your paints just 'cause the domain exists. they'd win the context and then cry themselves to sleep. come'on i got a NPOV 'cause i've felt insulted and bored at both. so trust me kids, stop fighting over it 'cause none of you got the best slice of cake. make a rule that whoever makes fun of a clique will be shot. you made me type all this, bastards. --- some non-mainstream country unregistered retard - 4/10

Wha???? Is there an actual sentence anywhere in that rambling diatribe? Well, you're right in one respect, and that is that ED sucks. But hey, anybody can figure that out. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just like to remind the readers. If you are under 18, a descent person, and a christian, don't go to this wiki site. I accidently stumbled on to it. Believe me, it's not a place for children or descent people.--Jtaylor1 08:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that Funny

I didn't find this article that funny. What the hell? I couldn't understand anything in it. The article is crap. Someone needs to go in there and write something that's *funny* and mocks ED, not something *stupid* that tries to mock ED. --68.98.160.92 19:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this page is terrible now. —rc (t) 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This page is the shittiest that UC has. It should be cut down to a simple Oscar quote, some mockage, and a comment about how goatese is the main form of humor.--68.98.160.92 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's not. In order to be funny, it requires an unsuspecting victim, who must be a Goatse virgin, a set up, and perfect timing with the trap. And an original way of springing it on people. Just going HAY LOOK GUTSE LULZLULZLULZ is NOT funny. --User:Nintendorulez 23:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of half the point. I read and contribute some to both, and neither of the cyclopedia's articles about each other is very funny. But this...This is just stupid. If you did make a bit about how the funniest thing to them is goatese, then that's funny. If you put a bunch of templates, along with the crappiest formatting I've seen in a loong time, then that's just making yourselves look stupid. --68.100.227.134 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole point behind this is to try and "emulate" the style of ED? The Uncyclopeia article over at ED is constantly deleted and locked, looks like the sort of thing the victims of their trolling would do when said victim has been - to use an EDism - thoroughly pwned (and that's coming from someone who edits an ED article every now and again) One thing I will say is I prefer Banaan's pleas for peace, even if I do see them as uncharacteristic of what I thought ED stood for - that is chronicling and giving out "drama" - to the long-winded dribblings justifying how superior Uncyclopedia is to ED --GeoNorth 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the ED Uncyclopedia article has only been changed once since last October. I think it has to do with the fact that ED (perhaps due to the fact that it is smaller and more obscure) tends to care less about Uncyclopedia than Uncyclopedia cares about ED. This is further evidenced by Nintendorulez's earlier attempt to start a "humor contest" between the two sites, which was ignored by ED, as well as the frequent vandalisms that ED receives from Uncyclopedia users (as recently as May 19, courtesy of Flameviper12). As has been stated repeatedly, ED and Uncyclopedia are very different sites that were created for different reasons so it is pointless to try comparing them. If you want to prove that you're all "much more mature" than the teenagers at ED, then start by actually acting mature and not having so many "we're better than you" arguments. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not assume that the actions of individual users of Uncyclopedia are indicitive of this site as a whole. I've seen ED twice, and didn't really see the humour, so never returned. Its clear that some ex-users of ED have some kind of an axe to grind, and as long as the comments are actually funny they can post them here. For my money the ED article is unfunny crap, and I'd love to just delete it, but for some reason a few people actually like it. With regards to vandals on ED, that is up to ED to deal with, as dealing with vandals on Uncyclopedia is up to the site Admins here. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Okay, I agree with you on the vandalism ordeal, which is an unfortunate (but inevitable) matter that should just be dealt with by the respective sites' admins rather than here.

The thing about this article is that it does actually have the potential to be a funny parody of ED (I'll admit that many of the criticisms of ED are at least somewhat true). Right now, it is pretty much just an outright mockery of the site, along with lots of graffiti and a few potshots at the whole DMCA ordeal. This tone of writing isn't even that typical of Uncyclopedia, feeling more like that of Encyclopedia Of Stupid. I think this article would work better as an over-the-top parody of ED's writing style (kind of like the Uncyclopedia is the worst article) with numerous inclusions of LJ users, excessive usage of ED in-jokes ("in the ass," "16-year-old girl," "at least 100 years ago," "I did it for the lulz," etc.), copious amounts of hatred directed against furries and pedophiles, and insane criticism of EVERYTHING as an "old meme." I might rewrite it this way one day (though it will probably just get reverted). --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 12:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well as someone who's just been LOL B& from ED, I could bitch about it but I don't see the point. Nintendorulez' laughable humour contest proposition was ignored largely because everyone else remembered that neither site is really important enough for that to actually happen, as for vandalism, well that is just pathetic: editing articles is one thing (even if those edits are reverted) but blanking them with a stupid LOL UNCYCLOPEDIA RULES ED SUXORZ LOLOLOL does Uncyclopedia a disservice. The DMCA thing I don't know that much about but on the face of it seems a copout on the part of ED (and did ED a disservice citing again that on the receiving end of drama is not something they're too comfortable with) The big shame about this particular page is that it looks very much like the spiteful ramblings of those who've just been LOL B& from ED rather than an article written by Uncyclopedia regulars, it's likely that the luminaries involved didn't even visit Uncyclopedia until they got banne from ED.

A subtle observation

If you EDs are really as disinterested in some of the things that you say you are, how did you gather such a large amount of information? You seem to know a lot about Emos, and as for the much maligned article on Furries, well I never knew what "Yiff" was until I read your supposed "Piece de la resistance". I don't mind Anti-Christian humour, especially not funny things. I do mind just Anti-Christianity for no reason with no merit. And as for your excessive use of porn and variety of "in-jokes" which take ages to reasearch and even then are hard to understand, well, that just sums it up. And honestly, why the hell did you copyright "æ" and decide it is your logo? And then get stroppy when we or wikipedia feature it, despite the fact you use the wikipedia logo? In conclusion, I feel that your website is utter tripe. It's obviously an aquired taste, or else you have some very strange tastebuds. Oh, and your inversion joke is such a satircal masterpiece. You obviously don't appreciate Surrealist humour that most of the internet your wiki decided to discuss is based upon. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.154.33 (talk • contribs) I wasn't aware I could sign comment anonymously.--80.42.144.56 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP has a point... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) – Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.154.33 (talk • contribs)

"Oh, and your inversion joke is such a satircal masterpiece. You obviously don't appreciate Surrealist humour that most of the internet your wiki decided to discuss is based upon." I'm sorry. I didn't realize that half-baked ripoffs of Yakov Smirnoff jokes are considered "surrealist humor" nowadays. I guess I just haven't acquired the taste yet. Also, stop being an anonymous coward and sign your comments like everyone else. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 08:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I could sign comments anonymously. And besides, every humour site has its bad points - I believe even some Dramaticans find the 7/11 jokes stupid.

Humor is RELATIVE, people

ED and Uncyc aren't nearly CLOSE to the same thing. ED's humor mostly stems from Internet and LJ culture, whil Uncyc just tries to find ways to satarize people, events, and Wikis. While you may prefer one form of humor or another, that doesn't mean you should go around criticizing people's tastes. What's funny to one person may not be funny to another. Everyone has their opinions. Crazyswordsman 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, another good point. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Can we get a rewrite of this article? It isn't really funny as much as just personal attacks. Their article on Uncyclopedia is currently much funnier as it's an actual parody. This is just a bunch of omg ed is immature and we're so much better than them.

Go the fuck back to your little hole called Encyclopaedia Dramatica, you tard. --Witty Guy bitch at me 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He's sort of right, at least about our article. It's terrible. —rc (t) 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That coming from you RC? What are your parameters for a good article? 'Cause I don't think Euroipods fit them... --Witty Guy bitch at me 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Euroipods fits every conceivable criterion for a good article. It's succinct, it's witty, it's hilarious. I also like Hans Blix. —rc (t) 01:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Go the fuck back to your little hold called Encyclopaedia Dramatica, you tard? Wow, aren't we tough on the internet.

It's tougher to sign your comments, isn't it, 71.112.0.243? --Witty Guy bitch at me 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This thing does need a rewrite. Their article on us did suck until a few days ago. Crazyswordsman 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, toughtalking an anon for not signing his comments. You must feel real tough. 71.112.0.243 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason...

Talk:Euroipods would fit well as a self-reference to this. Crazyswordsman 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has become an attack page.

Anti-ED Wikipedians have turned this from an Uncyclopedia article to basically a bad ED article. It's our job to make fun of and hate ED, but not to attack it. If we do, we're no different than ED and Wikipedia. Crazyswordsman 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to mark this down as non-notable and delete the bugger. There's no humour here, which MUST be the primary purpose of any Uncyclopedia article. Aside from this article and the occasional individual who mentions ED, I think many people will never have actually heard of it. I'd been here for six months and was already an Admin before I first heard anything about ED, and I'd like to consider myself fairly web-savvy. Delete this garbage. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

It's VFD Time! Your right, it isn't funny. And should be deleted. For -- SonicChao ^Babbel!_Contribs 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should take the lead of wikipedia, which has deleted ED's article no less than three times already. Non-notable useless fan/hater-cruft. The only reason to hang on to it is because there's a story behind some of the content. However, without knowing the story, this is worse than a random Andy Kaufman joke where he plays it on the whole world and only three people actually understand why it's funny. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm willing to slap {{VPV}}, assuming it still exists, on it and call that the article. Who's with me? —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For god's sake delete this crap!

Screw VFD... I'm voting right here.--<<>> 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

Delete--<<>> 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Rewrite. -anon, who can't vote but it's still my opinion.

Libel/Slander

Libel = written, slander = spoken. Kthxbai. 71.112.141.236 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Things wrong with article

Jameth practically cofounded the site, acting like you guys have high IQs is retarded, the hazing process sounds like it was written by someone who got banned, schmuckythecat has barely edited in months, both uncyclopedia and ED have ads, ED no longer has the pixel ads banner, they have more than 34 categories, libel vs. slander, and it can be seen as just as bad as the first article. Time for a rewrite or deletion.

Fine, the pixel thing will be taken out, since it just got changed today. However, it's not retarded to act like we have high IQs. I will change the 34 categories to 44, which is the current number of categories, K? As though it really mattered.

• Who cares about schmuckythecat's inactivity?

• Uncyclopdia's number of ads is far fewer than ED's; I'll make sure to add that instead.

• ED's page on Uncyclopedia slanders Uncyclopedia, so we're just returning the favor.

• The hazing process wasn't written by somebody who got banned, nor does it sound like it.

--emc! ╬ 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is libel for one, also, people like Crazyswordsman and rcmurphy don't seem to think the ED article on Uncyclopedia is libel. Both ED and UNC have ads in pretty much the same place, ED does not have banners or pop-ups or ads in different locations (except where they are relative to the toolbox). And yes, it does sound like you were someone who got banned. And re: SchmuckyTheCat: why make fun of someone who never edits and act like he's one of the kingpins? Fix thoe problems listed and the article might not get deleted. -Anon

And yes, acting like you have high IQs is retarded, unless when used in a joking tone, but you seem to use it in a more serious tone.

Uhm... Despite having removed the direct link to goatse on ED, I think the article is quite sad. I'm not critisizing the writing (nor am I praising it), I'm just not amused by the contents. It's obviously based on truths, but instead of being more rediculous, it's just waaay more pathetic than any fiction can describe. I say delete it all over again... --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 00:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know EMC has tried to save this and turn it into something worthwhile, but I still don't really think its that funny. It we are going to have an ED article it better be a topknotch Uncyclopedia style article, not just another example of one of theirs. I say lets delete and have done with it. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I think the ED article on Uncyclopedia mocks UNC quite well without using ad hominem attacks. UNC could probably do something similar.

Yes, well, quite frankly, dear, we don't really care what you think. That's why we're here, and you're over there. --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Omg slander. 71.112.141.236 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks a bit better now.

But I still think we should put the title back as it was in the older version. That was the one funny part of the old version. Crazyswordsman 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Goatse?

Like I said, it's better to redirect to Talk:Euroipods, since that would basically be a self reference (ED=one giant flamewar). Crazyswordsman 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. See what I wrote at the top of this comment, and look at a user's reply by creating my userpage. Flaming or being so stupid that they can't tell the difference between different concepts I don't know, but probably both. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now found out that their arguments are almost entirely flaming. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

They're now trying to spam my pages with their "fuckyou" template. So yeah, "#redirect talk:euroipods" is the way to go. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame us for the actions of a few users who aren't even sysops. Sheneequa 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)\

IMO, We should redirect this article to Arfenhouse. That article is very similar to your average ED article.--Admiral06 05:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shut Down ED

Due to some of the insanely obscene articles as of late, a website has started devoted to shutting ED and their unfunny shit. www.shutdowned.org to voice your opinions and ideas on how to it can be done. Posting people's personal real life drama, mocking the dead, and the absolutely tasteless misinformation have gone too far. --linuxguru 06:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lulz. --Blu Aardvark 06:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • IAWTC. It's a website, people. It's crude, it's often vulgar, and more importantly, it's funny. You don't control the internet. ED isn't doing anything illegal, and if you think they're libelling you, sue them (by whom I mean the person who made that particular edit). Otherwise, just don't visit. --Spoom 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha

Wikipedia deleted their page on ED, and protected it. I think that site's going to be shut down sooner or later. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep waiting. 65.102.35.249 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'm thinking of uploading an image to this article, but I'm not sure what to do. The image is at here . --» >UF|TLK|▋» 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)