From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Before anyone starts flamewars or goes and writes how offended they were at this article, read this, this, this, and this.|
|This article was nominated for deletion on December 5, 2007.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
So ya, tihs wuz liek reritten and stuf and its gud now.-Ljlego
- NO WAI IT SUX U SUXTehLebdALLoON!!1 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- STIKING LIBERAL SKUM! I WILL HAXXOR YOU NOOB ASS! MOAR DILDOS
Before: funny but tl;dnr and a tendency to fill up with crap. After: funny! excellent satire. Verdict: GG. 188.8.131.52 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
edit Uncyclopedia on Conservapedia
Apparently, the new article of "Uncyclopedia" AND its talk page are fully locked. I think this deserves a mention on the page. Along with the fact that it seems as if all the articles there are locked. Rfts 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, nearly EVERY ARTICLE on that whore of a website is locked.--CannabisUser94 23:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
edit Conservapedia on Uncyclopedia
Conservapedia has an article which completely dumps on our high and righteous Uncyclopedia. They discredit our facts, deny our humor, and claim us to be a liberal-biased and anti-christian site because of our parodies on creationism. They have spread their lies about us for far too long! If it is a WAR that Conservapedia wants, it is a WAR they shall recieve! They shall pay for their downright treachery!
-Lord Captain Commander, Keezfocer User:Keezfocer
edit Holy Crap!
edit Nice job
I'm glad to see that this article ended up looking as fantastic as it does. Congrats on the feature.
edit Seriously, NICE JOB =
This is probably the single funniest UNCYC article I've ever read. Whoever wrote that bit about bacon needs his own webcomic. I was going to put some crap about "using a patented process of weasel words and creative editing Conservapedia represents the truth by defining the truth" perhaps spread out over many sentences and featuring bunk citations like CP does, but every time I tried to figure something out, it just made the page weaker. Seriously, best article ever. 184.108.40.206 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is hilarious, and mostly because it is true. I got banned for 'liberal edits' when editing in truths about homosexuality. Ah Conservatives, so ridiculous...
That website SUCKS! WOW! It's less trustworthy that uncyclopedia, because THEY don't tell you right out that they're lying to you!
- SUPER AGREEMENT!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the ultimate research paper to hand in if you're either squarely in the region of acing or failing a class would cite Uncyc and Conservapedia as sources. Someday...someday... *stares into the distance with a faraway gleam in his eyes* - 22:23, Mar 14
edit Wow, nice
I had the grim misfortune of running across the idiots at conservapedia, and I have to say, this article is brillient. An outragously long username, created for the single purpose of testing just how long usernames can get before the poor creator getting banned by an overzealous admin, much to the dismay and anguish of the account creator 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
edit Wiki under alien attack
The main page of Conservapedia has a rotating image of the United States flag and the Conservapedia logo. I think it looks a bit silly. I don’t know what Americans think. If the British flag were used that way I’d think they were insulting my country. Anyway I thought it looks a bit like an alien spaceship so I put that in the text.Proxima Centauri 08:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alien ship? A very strange one at that. 220.127.116.11 08:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, something like that doesn't really fit with the page's theme of taking their ridiculous beliefs and amplifying it tenfold. Besides, not everyone visits the site on a regular basis and would pick up on that, and to many it might just seem like randomness. I know I can only stay on the site for a few minutes before I start to feel sick to my stomach. I see what you're trying to do and all, but for this article, it just doesn't fit. - 14:43, Apr 13
edit I can't join Conservapedia
I can't join Conservapedia. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've join'd Conservepedia, although I had to remove the "Ur, Mad God" part from my name. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 00:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...That's cool.
Why did you remove the quote I put on top of the page? 18.104.22.168 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- My guess is that it sucked. Let me go look. Oh yeah, it did. Most articles try to keep quotes to a minimum, and just adding a quote to a page isn't necessarily an improvement. There are plenty of ways for you to improve an article other than just adding quotes. Might I suggest the mighty HTBFANJS as your summer reading assignment? @ 16:00 Aug 14
i was banned from conservapedia (fucking right wing propaganda site).
Likewise. Within two minutes, mark you. AND I avoided the use of phrases like "biased", "cargo cult" or "painfully stupid".
- How not to be blocked:
- 1. Have an IP in amerika (other IPs are terrorists)
- 2. Make your first posts lengthy, otherwise you're not making useful contributions
- 3. don't make a first post, new users can't be trusted
- 4. just be stupid and not funny
- 4. make articles that already exist under another name (i.e. AIDS / Gay Disease / Disease and homosexuality / the gay plague)
- 5. complain about reverts, make sure to mention things like Jesus --Teelbal
- Have another ISP, or head over to the public library computers, but a few trained admins. can track down your location or region. Be very careful if you don't even troll in Conservapedia, just to post your POVs and any real pieces of evidence to be verifiably sourced. Conservapedia is the most biased thing out there since FOX News. + PotatoSmut 19:06, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
edit I NEED HELP PLEASE
As you know, Ive been banned from conservafuckingpedia before I could write an article. Can someone help me by adding the sexual harrassment charges of clarence thomas to their so-called "truthful" version, meaning a big chunk of fucking lies.???? clarence thomas page?
nevermind i can change it myself, if you were going to help me, then thank you =)
- ...That's nice... - 02:05, Aug 28
Andrew Schlafley loves penis. The world deserves to know.
- He's gay? Heresy! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, don't comment about Margaret Sanger's past on promoting her racist views and eugenics to weed out retarded babies from being born, they will ban you over it and dub it "Liberal Vandalism". They already discussed Sanger was a racist, then did a spin on her and stated she actually helped blacks in the 1930's, had a 2nd (Jewish) husband to both spoke out against the Nazis, and was testing out her birth control program in mostly Catholic land of Puerto Rico.+PotatoSmut 19:08, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
edit Conservepeida branded a "hate site"
Well...if it isn't the evil Liberal Democrat socialist-communist atheists from wikipedia are at it again. They called our site a "hate site" in the same realm we don't fit in, like the neo-Nazi and white supremacists' web sites. We the non-stereotypical but typical right-wing Conservative Republicans don't like racism, sexism, classism and we actually don't hate gay people but it's no secret we often don't like homosexuality. Conservatives are made up of all races, genders, classes and even the "Log Cabin" Republicans are openly gay but anti-gay rights agenda conservatives. What about Colin Powell? Ann Coulter? Condoleezza Rice? She's black and female although we admire her huge contributions to the Conservative movement! Liberals obsess over the race, gender and whatever differences of people the same way a Klan member or race-baiter does to cause an argument and point the finger at us like "WE'RE THE BIGOTS". To oppose affirmative action guidelines that demand ONE minority applicant regardless of the applicant's job qualifications, to question the importance of stay-at-home moms to raise their own children and to promote Americanization of newcomers who arrived LEGALLY not undocumented as the breach of immigration law...is not "hate speech". Indeed most of us don't like abortion (but supports a women's right to get the pill in privacy of her home), don't believe in the theory of human evolution (but we like intelligent design on a spiritual force may been involved) and finally, not into the idea of global warming (but the world's climate changes over eons including modern times) doesn't make us hateful uneducated morons. Btw, we're not all religious nuts either. Conservatives are more devoted to our religious beliefs, but we don't wish for a theocracy. Like if I'm not for divorce, never eat pork or against the utterance of profanity, that's fine. But I'm totally aware most people accept divorce, will consume pork and may use the word "hell"...therefore I won't push for legal prohibition of divorce, pork products and ones' speech. + "NeoCon"
- Nobody cares, thank you very much. And this is not Wikipedia, in case you haven't worked it out yet. The 888th Avatar 06:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- (Late) April Fools! It was just a joke. I hope this entry wasn't spamming/trolling/off topic, whatever breach of netiquette. Oh well. I love the article! Just a parody of conservepedia for what it stands for. + PotatoSmut 06:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
edit Wow, nice article
I laughed my ass off. Nice work --22.214.171.124 17:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, parody? Spoof? No, Uncyclopeida makes the shit site look like what it is. MORE 'communist and socialist and liberal' than Wikipedia (which it is attempting to not be like at all). Seriously go TRY to help build Conservapedia... they will delete your pages and block you, and the deleted page says it was deleted becuase of "Mockery of the site"... ok how is Final Fantasy mocking Conservapedia?! On top of that, most of their pages are protected so tight, it is easier to sneak a 50mi x 50mi case of Bibles into China! And, Conservapedia excersises policies not unlike what a 'christian' Hitler would do. They need to be taken of the internet, they are 'worse' by their definition than the 'evil' wikipedia satan. BULLSHIT people! Conservapedia is BULLSHIT! and Bullshit needs to be put in a trashcan and dumped before it stinks up the world. my opinion, of course. 126.96.36.199 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
edit Anti-Coservapedia petition i found!
I couldn't believe i found this! EVRYBODY SIGN IT! I plan on signing as soon as i can, so you all sign too! Get rid of COnservapedia!
again the URL:
188.8.131.52 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Online petitions rarely change anything. Besides, if we got rid of conservapedia, what sites would we make fun of? - 21:24, Apr 29
edit Why we chose to be god-hating sodomites
according to Conservapedia, conservatives base their ideas on reason. luckily for us liberals, they can help us learn why we're doomed to burn in hell.http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F
by the way, i cannot get enough of that website. does anyone know how i can make an account there?
- who? 10:01 October 2
I'm a Conservative, and I love Uncyclopedia. --184.108.40.206 20:58, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
edit Play it straight
Wouldn't it be the funniest if this article just basically said that Conservapedia was exactly what it purports to be?
edit Go On.. Vandalise It
why doesnt everyone all vandalise it all at the exact same time, they wont know whats going on, just go nuts, they cant ban hundresds of people at once.
- Why vandalize Conservapedia? It's funny enough as it is. -- 02:43, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
- because it will make it ten times funnier...
- To quote my good buddy Al: I don't think so, Tim. - 04:28, Nov 18
See the back histories on Milton Keynes and Falafel: and the Dalek reference since expunged, now mentioned on the WP Conservapedia article talkpage. 23:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
edit Christian Conservative
I am a Christian Conservative, and I LOVE Uncyclopedia! Those people at Conservapedia are right when they say that Wikipedia is incorrect. However, they are all wrong when they say that Uncyclopedia has a Liberal Bias. In fact, Uncyclopedia makes fun of liberals about as much as they do conservatives. --220.127.116.11 20:57, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
No they are not right when they say Wikipedia is incorrect. I didnt except less from a Christian Conservative.
edit Joining Conservapedia
Anybody know how to join? they seem to have taken that off there website. I wants to mess up their stuff using an onion router.--Nobby Nobbs 01:13, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
I tryed to join but my IP had already been blocked even though I had NEVER been on the site before. I live in Scotland though so maybe they just automatically block all non- Americans. Anyone else have this problem? Captain redneck 11:41, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it said something like "You have been banned. Reason: User from United Kingdom: Athiest troll capital". Lmao.18.104.22.168 15:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
edit Conservapedia lacks even misinfo
I looked through the site, and about 84% of their main articles would be considered stubs on other wikis, which is kinda pathetic.
edit PLEASE READ
I don't want to alarm anybody, but I think this article may be slightly biased against Conservapedia! --Dean42bean 01:50, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
edit Conservapedia on men
'Men are more interested in sports than women.' Jackiespeel 18:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
edit Conservapedia on women
They believe in gender differences, but failed to explain why women are better suited than men in household chores? Oh yea, the Bible is not a reliable source for information on any online encyclopedia, thank you. + 22.214.171.124 13:52, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
edit Something You Can Add (Stupid Conservapedia Bans)
I'm highly religious (Judaic), but I think Conservapedia is a load of BS. However, I went on there and politely asked why they were so biased. I got perma-banned for being a "godless liberal clone". I'm religious and even I got banned!
You should add a section about Conservapedia's tendency to do stupid bans.
--126.96.36.199 14:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- You got lucky. I created an account using my name and within two minutes of the account creation and before I could make an edit I got a five year ban on the account and on my IP with the reason of bye. Pup • Talkies • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 23:47, Jun 3 2010 UTC
edit Liberal Vandalism bans
The most common way to get BANT on the Conservapedia site is to add some "Liberal vandalism" like the differences of racial and ethnic groups. WTF??? To explain poverty gaps of minorities in America is not liberal vandalism, nor it is "racist" and these neo-cons go around saying they don't believe in Affirmative Action, but one individuals' own merit is the key to success. Well yeah, dude...if they feel race should never be an issue in hiring for employment in the government or federal/state-funded public service jobs (i.e. the DMV), they can be just like the liberal Democrats and they too preserved white privilege.+ 188.8.131.52 13:55, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
We know. Since this is the most valid talk page section to paste it, i'm going to show you a piece of vandalism by an awesome parodist on Conservapedia. This material was found on the page "Moronic vandalism by the 'Tolerant'" (Tolerance is evil and must be wiped from the earth!)
" * RodWeathers, a vandal posing as a conservative, wrote an essay threatening to undermine and damage Conservapedia. The best quote* follow(s):
....But what if a mischievous user, instead of linking images of Hitler and inserting silly insults, poisoned Conservapedia's articles? What if such a user inserted illusory facts into articles, quoted books never written by men never born, and cited fantastical statistics from studies never conducted? Imagine the glee such a person would feel at seeing Conservapedia's administrators using those very same statistics to refute sane individuals making reasonable arguments. "
I think that pretty much sums conservapedia up. 184.108.40.206 16:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps create 'logic traps', identify argument plotholes (One of the ten commandments - Thou Shalt Not Kill - and anti-gun control; the Bible has nothing against lesbians, S-M, foot-fetishists, dominatrices etc, only agin gays), 'ghastly puns' (see joke books aimed at 10-15 year olds for examples) etc.
edit Is Conservapedia fit for young persons?
The main page has reference to homosexuality #and# abortion.
The wiki spreads alarm and despondency.
Even its server tends to give up on it.
edit I`ve just got blocked
I decided to create an account, but got blocked after a minute. It took me an hour to realised that someone else had been using my IP address a year ago trolling this website. This is the funny is part: how long they were blocked for:
"Start of block: 00:50, 2 April 2009
Expiry of block: infinite
Intended blockee: 220.127.116.11/16 "
God, this site is so funny. They have no clue what censorship is. They believe that it is anything that liberal try to cover up. They are forgetting that they are censoring as well. 18.104.22.168 06:26, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- They permabanned an IP range? Fail. --
06:28, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- One day there won`t be anymore IP address... ever... that will be able to create an account. However, that might be what they want. I`m suprised no one has hacked into the site yet. Locking all the admins out of the site would be funny. Someone needs to trash the place. 22.214.171.124 04:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
"Probably the most condemning argument which can be made against Nirvana is that their music fails to be morally uplifting." So true... 126.96.36.199 05:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. In "Something in the way" it says It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings which has a distinct moral which has a direct correlation to Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.. In comparison however the new testament starts with the book of Matthew and the genealogy of Christ, which obviously is morally unsound, as it says in Timothy 1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies". If it says it in the Bible, and the Bible is the inspired word of God, then it's directly from the mouth of God and must be right. So where it goes on and on with all the begatting in the Bible - which is of course the inspired word of God - it directly contravenes the Bible - which is the word of God. Pup • Talkies • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Saturday, 10:33, Aug 21 2010 UTC
edit Conservapedia reads like Uncyclopedia
Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether one is reading Conservapedia or Uncyclopedia without peeking at the URL. Methinks this deserves mention. - Hagledesperado 22:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
That you are correct, have you read the article about liberals on Conservapedia?--Obamao 18:35, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
edit My mom
Is a liberal. I want to FUCKING KILL HER!!! GRAAAARGH!!!! LIBERAALLL!!! --Scofield 13:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though our dear Aschlafly has an account here! But he hasn't created a user page, nor has anybody posted on his talk page, nor has he ever edited this site, nor is he blocked. Like, WTF?? --Scofield 14:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
How about it? 188.8.131.52 01:18, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Cute idea, but the spork works really well, and is more accessible to a larger audience. Pup 04:24 13 Feb '12
edit Heh heh heh
- Conservative Christians have an issue apples. Something about a snake in a garden? Pup 03:44 29 Feb '12
- like this although part of that had to be undone due to stuffing up functionality. Pup 01:14 06 Mar '12
edit Fox News
Conservapedia thinks Fox News is "liberal". Please delete it from the article.--184.108.40.206 16:59, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
- What? --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:57, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Anon is not talking about anything in the article but possibly something in real life. Enough conservatives indeed think that Fox News has "gone soft" that one guy at
townhall.comlast week compared the Obama administration to the Putin administration, where oligarchs are left free to make money with the understanding that they don't level serious criticism at the government. Anon needs to be told that this website is not here to portray any of the above realistically, and may in fact state the opposite if it happens to be funnier. 22:19 30-Dec-13
- Anon is not talking about anything in the article but possibly something in real life. Enough conservatives indeed think that Fox News has "gone soft" that one guy at