From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Conservapedia and Vandalism

We should try and get a user account on conservapedia, multiple accounts if possible, post the details up here and organise a mass vandalism day.

JUST FOR YOU INFO .... IT NOW FREAKIN' WORKS (im there as DrDaniel trying to improve the quality and style of this site XD )

I can't create an account for some reason. Huh. Hanumizzle 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. It seems like I was going to spam them, copy-pasting all the articles in wiki-markup from wikipedia to consevapedia... it bugs me when extreme right-wingers do stuff like that! Hell, I'M a christian and I don't want these people trying to be an example of what all christians are like... Because we're not like them! I guess it's a job for the hackers now... Good luck!MichaelHenley 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
WOOHOO! This is from its main Page: Account creation has been re-enabled until 11:00 PM EST tonight! Log in and let us know if you suceeded here... see what i did to Rome on Conservapedia and compare it with Wikipedia's article! MichaelHenley 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same problem. I guess we didn't pass the anal exam...

I thought some of shit I've written was nuts. That place scares the fuck out of me. Quick. Hold me Jesus! --Kenvalyi 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that account creation is disabled there. Ironic, on a site that is of course promoting creationism...

They probably got flooded by Trolls. I'm talking about Quenta Silmarillion-severity Troll floods. -- Hanumizzle 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, you know what isn't funny? Vandalizing wikis. I don't know if Conservapedia is a joke or for real or what. However, please extend the courtesy of not vandalizing that you express here to them. Thanks, —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for troublemake it double? 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but psychotic wingtards are far less funny still than vandalizing wikis. Therefore, vandalizing Conservapedia in particular is relatively funny. Truth be told, I'm not even THAT interested in defacing the site, because these fucking cunts are already floundering as it is. Look at their article on Copernicus: ... and I quote:
However, the reaction was negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy. To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.
WHAAAAT????!!!!!????? O.o O.O o.O Hanumizzle 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to be technical, Copernicus's theory isn't 100% true... the orbits of the planets are elliptical, not circular as he claimed. Perhaps they meant that, and were exaggerating it to make him look bad. You can always give them the benefit of the doubt. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it, given the tone of most of their other articles. The last statement in the article suggests complete rejection of the theory...never underestimate the stupidity of Conservapedians. --Hanumizzle 09:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You think that's funny, take a look at their article on John Scopes. It's the funniest article on any Wikipedia-parody I've yet read, especially because it's serious. The talk page gets quite funny, too. 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I haves me a conservapedia account, created when they let their guard down. If you have "contributions" that are witty, misinformational and won't get me banned, drop 'em on my talk page. Captain Carcass 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Conservapedia is real, I assure you. I created an article describing the Weekly Standard as a "conservative" newsmagazine, and I got bitched out because the Standard is "neoconservative," which is an important distinction over there. Captain Carcass 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Never underestimate the stupidty of vandals; they always get caught.

Just added a lil' somethin' based on their "warning" tag. ~Billy bo bo

Wow. That place actually exists! That is more biased than Fox News! Wow. Patius 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

lol @ me bein a lil creative =) 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That was dumb. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys...

I don't like them either. But for crying out loud, don't troll them. That's giving them attention, however negative it may be, and that's kinda the opposite of the intent (making it vanish). —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for troublemake it double? 01:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You think you can make Conservapedia vanish? Did Nero make Christianity vanish when he persecuted its followers? Huh? Now get that stupid idea out of your head. No matter how hard you try, it won't go away because GOD WILL BRING IT BACK! Beezwax 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
God won't bring it back because God is dead. --General Insineratehymn 04:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's dead to you because you are still in your sin, you filthy atheists! 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Omg I think my diaper's full of shit again. Call the president, I need someone to smooth out my bottom.

I have to say, I like the way the article begins, no matter how much attention it's giving those god fearing sodimites (Sorry if that's misspelled) Judging by the overall awesomeness of the not-so-much tongue in cheek humor, I think this may be one of the most amusing and accurate articles I've ever seen on Uncyclopedia, and it's definately worth preserving. Kudos to whoever made this, seriously. But like I said, there's no need to hold back just because you don't want to draw attention to the online hitler youth brigade, this is just a joke website, it's not like they can seriously say Uncyclopedia has a liberal bias, of course it does, it's full of smart people...Don't sweat it, let them have their attention, it's gonna get out anyway.-- 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)justaguy

Section headings

Heard about "Conservapedia" on BBC Radio 4 a couple of weeks back - the Today programme had one of its founders on, and also interviewed someone on behalf of Wikipedia. The Conservapedia guy on there sounded quite reasonable, actually - though obviously his problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's biased, but that its biases don't suit him.

Then, a couple of days later I saw an article in a free newspaper about it, illustrated by an article presenting "creation science" as factual and non-controversial, and I got the idea.

As to this particular article here - surely, if the first section is headed "Genesis", the remainder of the article ought to have sections titled "Exodus", "Numbers", Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc....? PaulHammond 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia humour

Genuine entry "secondary consumers eat primary consumers."

Click on "random page" often enough and you come across "actual rude words"/minor inappropriate terms, or examples of genuine more-than-bias.

And it claims that the US supported Fidel Castro - see [[1]].

CONSERVATIONISTS SUCK THE COCK!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heinkel (talk • contribs)


Well guys, according to Conservapedia's page on Liberals "Liberals usually have a Liberal bias." Good thing you can trust Conservapedia to get their facts straight! --Ben-yay! 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

“Liberals may have a liberal bias”
~ Cpt. Obvious on Liberalism

And, while we're at it:

“Conservatives may have a conservative bias”
~ Cpt. Obvious on Conservatives

Hmmmm....deep insight. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:08, Jan 15

Conservatives may have conservative bias? Nonono, that's utter bullshit. The word "bias" has the implication of being a bad thing. But Conservative POV is not evil, it's pious, if not holy. It should be something along the lines of "Conservatives base their information mainly on the bible, and are therefore always right."
Speaking of Conservapedia, I find it funny how they try to explain human reproduction "without explicit mention of genitalia or sexual acts". [2]Gnome Icons-balloon.pngSpacerIcons-bomb.pngSpacerIcons-flag-ch …MUN F@H 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny answers

Did you get any funy answers in the disscussions os conservapedia articles? i was watching the article about guns, and it said that machineguns used indirect fire, and i said they were wrong, and then some guy said "JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!" lol The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's widely believed that Jesus Christ is Lord of indirect fire. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to tell you this (actually I love to), but you are the lord of assholes and stupidity. Your education came from mindless blobs of crap at some stupid assenine "university" who croaked like frogs and pooped all over everything. You know nothing. Beezwax 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Strange, that same logic about "lord of assholes and stupidity" applies more directly to you. --General Insineratehymn 04:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Compared to what applies directly to you, that's really a compliment. 03:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston Herald

...mentioned Uncyclopedia in an article about Conservapedia. SN W | T 15:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Some suy blocked me for being a Liberal, and making Liberal comments on talk pages on Conservapedia. I laughed my ass off. He even told me to shut up. They are such aggresive primates.

I'm glad. You're such an asshole I'd like to rip your face off. Beezwax 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In all actuality, your comments on someone else being an asshole more directly applies to you. --General Insineratehymn 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You're just bringing up a stupid "you too!" argument. If conservatives do that, they are shut up. If liberals do that, they are encouraged. 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
YAAAARRRG! I hate Conservatives! They're such suckers and buckers and assholes and buttheads and poopfaces and everything bad to INFINITY! I HATE THEM AND WANT TO WRING ALL THEIR FILTHY NECKS!!! KILL THEM! KILL THEM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Caveman 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


i have a user account but i was bloked as soon as it was created

Awww, poor baby. Probably because you were planning on vandalizing the site. Get your ass off of there. Beezwax 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Awright, now let's be nice, shall we? 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
God hates you, just like he hates Simon and Garfunkel


You know what this article does? It makes you libbies look even more stupid. As if you could be even more brainless and empty-headed than you already are... I don't care if you think Conservapedia is parody, that's the best you can do. All you can manage are a string of assenine personal attacks which have no merit. You have skimmed over Conservapedia just for quotes you dipweeds can take out of context to make yourselves look smarter, when it does the opposite! Go stick your brainless slob heads into a tub of liquid nitrogen and maybe you'll be a little smarter when you come out. Reality has a right-wing bias; assholes and the demon-possessed have a left-wing bias. Left-wing comes from Satan. Beezwax 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Beezwax,
Chill the fuck out.
Hugs and kisses, Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? You must be high on something, because REALITY HAS JUST AS MUCH OF A RIGHT-WING BIAS AS IT DOES A LEFT-WING BIAS. I believe that if you do not evaluate things from every point of view, your view on reality is skewed, and therefore, null. Your bias to the right-wing means nothing if it is based upon blind obedience to a faith that encourages shunning those who choose not to accept it. However, you radical right-wing conservatives are all the same: you all have your minds closed to all except other right-wing ideas. If you choose to be close-minded, it is you that is the true idiot. True geniuses have always left their minds open to new ideas, not anchored to old ones, like you. --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 04:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, "Luke, you're going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on Al Gore's point of view." 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
AAARRGG! YOU ASSENINE BUTTHEAD! Al gore is the bestest and goodest man ever!! how Dare YOU coll him nams!!!!! IDYIT!! Caveman 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just love how Conservatives always accuse Liberals of being the exact things that Conservatives, themselves are. If you tell the same lies over and over, people begin to believe them. It's really an ingenious strategy. Oh yeah, and BTW mr. Waxxy man, I can't believe you actually said "The demon Possessed," I am dumbfounded at how Conservatives' brains work, all they seem to do is operate on fear, and lies. Cheers, have fun being afraid to move without asking God for permission the rest of your life.  ;) THE MAN 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just love how Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being the exact same things that Liberals, themselves are. If you tell the same lies over and over, people begin to believe them. It's really an ingenious strategy. Oh yeah, and BTW mr. THE MAN, I can't believe you actually said "the same things that Conservatives, themselves are". That is what YOU, Yourselves are! I am dumbfounded at how Liberals' brains work, all they seem to do is operate on hate, fear and BS. Cheers, have fun in the anarchist society that you so long for! :p - Beezwax
Strange, I thought we banned you. We don't want your radical fundamentalism here. --General Insineratehymn 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow ""Waxxy man"", that was some of the most random shit I've ever read, you obviously crave attention or have some kind of Arrested development, that was childish even for a Conservative. BTW, to continue what you started on my talk page: Liberals are so much funnier than Republicans. About three slightly famous Conservative comedians exist right now. One of them's a washed up Marine who had a few too many donuts (but he's pretty funny), the other is so boring I fell asleep watching him once, and the other, just isn't funny. At all. Cheers, have fun being banned, and I will have fun in my anarchist society. THE MAN 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Beezwax, you're so ridiculously funny thinking you have enough guts or knowledge to step out of the sheltered children's playpen and dive into the exciting and informing world of liberal debate. Go back to your badly homeschooled buddies and continue arguing about whether gays should be gassed or burned, but don't fight anyone here. If all else fails and you contiue to bitch and moan, I will personally bury you in a sea of debate worse than your hero Bushwacker buried our civil liberties. Go away, idiot, just leave, you have no idea how good I am at screwing with people like you.-- 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Justaguy


Good job blending reality and fiction, I actually had to go to the conservapedia site to make sure the quote on Australia wasn't actually true... 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hack it

It deserves to be hacked or DOS attacked! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)

MS-DOS? That's just cruel. Who remembers command-line interface anymore? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean Denial of service attacked Ajuk 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Has no one hacked this site yet?
Real 31331 |-|@><0|5 5 use MS-TRES. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 07/8 04:58

Ajuk, you deserve a medal for being brave enough to say such an honorable, noble thing in the face of the evil conservatives! Yes, they deserve to be hacked and hacked and chopped and cut and sliced and diced and pureeed! 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Worth a Mention?

I'm not good at understanding whats a good example, and what's not. So... 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Crap that was in the actual article, but belongs here

Note: This stuff was inserted in front of the main section. I can't understand why no one else before me removed it. The only changes I made were in correcting the format. Humble Acolyte of Humor, Radioactive afikomen 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's article on Conservapedia makes me sick. All it is is just a bunch of libbies from Wikipedia making absolute mockery of everything true. It's ridiculous! They say it's from a bunch of "misguided, sheltered children". I think Uncyclopedia is from a bunch of fifth-graders from the ghetto of Chicago who have had no parenting or true guidance plenty of unbiased, first-rate education from Satan the greatest minds on earth. As evidenced by the immaturity, foul language and crude topics ScorpionVote for Pedro 08:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Infact, why don't we just add this to the article: "Uncyclopedia takes a clear stand against all conservative and Christian values. Anything from the right side of the political spectrum is hated and reviled on Uncyclopedia." ScorpionCENSORED 10:57, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
We should categorically state that they are against God, not just our deeply held values. What they are doing is basically blasphemy and will not go unpunished. DVanian 20:08, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
That's rather generous, if you ask me. ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:34, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Uncyclopedia editors! Go ahead and post away! ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:35, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I was being sarcastic! ScorpionVote for Pedro 10:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Awwww, now it's not funny anymore. - Scorpion

"Greatest Conservative Songs and Movies"

I'm not kidding, these guys have lists of what they perceive as clean, wholesome movies and songs with supposed conservative messages. Since "Michael Moore Hates America" is one of the most laughably hypocritical movies ever made (long story short, it's the same kind of movie that the director is criticizing Moore for), and any band injecting conservatism into its songs in order to get played on the radio *COUGH*Creed*COUGH* is automatically "teh suck!!!111omne", they go looking for double meanings in films/songs with no immediately obvious political bias. Any song or movie that mentions Jesus is automatically added, in case it wasn't obvious.

A sample from their songs page ([3]):

"16. "Stand By Your Man," by Tammy Wynette. Don't expect liberals to like that one!"

Being a misguided, Canadian, 14-going-on-15 left-winger, I don't really understand this statement. Is it insinuating that libbies LOOOOOOOOOVE marrying women (or men, depending on gender or sexual preference) for five minutes and divorcing them?

If that's true, I have two words: Britney Spears.

Now, the top item from their movies page ([4]), which is a rather odd choice.

"1. The first Spider-Man (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made."

I don't care how hard they try to hide their obvious bias with the word "assumed". They're isn't a single thing relating to politics in Spider-Man, last time I checked. If I want political comics, I attempt to struggle through Christopher Reeve's eye-rollingly self-righteous performance in Superman IV. Anyone who's seen the movie knows what I mean.

Although I must admit, I regularly visit the site for a laugh, looking to find just how biased they can be. The likely winner of "Most Biased and Reality-Hating Article" is their article on Joseph McCarthy. Check it out. [5]

Basically, we have the long, tough and immensely entertaining story of a man who orchestrated one of the most idiotic phases in American history (next to the disgustingly patriotic and one-sided "Automobile Wars" in the 80's) reduced to an abridged version of Ann Coulter's book Treason. Their article on McCarthyism isn't much better, either. [6]

This article is the only article I've spotted on the entire site that contains a criticism section, and it is so biased it makes Bill O'Reilly's Malmedy massacre mixup (lol alliteration) sound perfectly honest and spin-free.

Anyway, this is me rambling. I'm new here, and I needed somewhere to vent.--I Am An Amusing Wapanese Buffoon 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, and I also need somewhere to vent, but nobody wants me to vent since I'm just a stupid, obnoxious, gunservative biased idiot.

funny complaints

The following is from conservapedia's talk page on

What's even funnier is the proper term for conservative beliefs is "conservatism", not "conservativism". But hey, am I expecting literacy from conservatives? *smacks head*--I Am An Amusing Wapanese Buffoon 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That "ghetto" comment is particularily enlightening...sort of like this from Baptists for Brownback, where one of the reasons the Obama Barack, listed as "Barack Obama Hussein Bin Laden" (!?), is "probably going to hell" is that he "Carries the curse of Ham". Sigh. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What's so funny about my comments that you have to monitor me and post every contribution I make to every talk page? Talk about Big Brother! - Scorpion
P.S. I removed everything you posted. Anything more you post can and will be used against you in court of law! And your parents need to beat you more - Scorpion
But you may certainly post my letter! 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
But you can remove the bullcrap you put in. That is not what I wrote, and whether or not you think that's what it means is irrelevant. Get it out! I don't need Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly to adopt me, I have no idea who this Pat Robertson guy is, and I don't think science lies! You think science lies! But how on earth can you defend abortion? It's like trying to defend Ed Gein or something! You're just proving just how much you want the human race to dwindle away by supporting murder of innocent babies. I didn't say gays aren't people, but they are making bad choices and certainly such open-minded, intelligent people like you (ha ha, sarcasm) can respect that!!! The earth wasn't made in seven days, it was made in six. - Scorpion
Chill. You're famous. By "famous" I mean "the three people that have this page on their watchlist have a vague idea of who you are". Isn't semantics fun? Weee! If you want us to take you seriously don't say that the Earth was made in six days. It was clearly a union job, overseen by a committee. As such it will be $150M overbudget and is due to be completed in 2017, just in time for them to tear it up to put in a sewer line. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Only ten more years till completion? I thought it would be longer than that! Damn slackers!--I Am An Amusing Wapanese Buffoon 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Your comments contribute significantly to the parodic power of the page by providing a real-life, interactive and hilariously accurate example of the matter in question. Although to be honest, I don't believe simply insulting you is terrifically funny or effective.

2) Are you trying to imply that from the instant the sperm permeates the egg's membrane and fuses its genetic material, the resulting cell cluster is considered equivalent to a fully-functional human being, awarded the rights of one, and that ending its growth is tantamount to murder? Evidently you are, but perhaps now you can see why some people can defend abortion.

3) Lol, bible sciencez 22:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Or not... ah well. The oath is neat. We can save the rest for the discussion page. 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the moment the egg is fertilized it's a human. You think it's okay to murder a human? That's why you hate conservatives so much, because they want justice for criminals. You all want criminals to run free, killing and robbing wherever they want. Furthermore, why should we take you seriously? Half of you don't take any time to spell things correctly or put in proper punctuation. Typical liberals. 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you read the "this, this, this and this" at the top of the page. -- 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish I could quit you, Scorpion. The moment the egg is fertilized, it's a fertilized egg. While I'm no fan of abortion, the life of the mother comes before the continued existence of the fetus. Ideally, there would be no need for abortion. Unfortunately, there are diseases that God gives fetuses that make some of them go bad, and put the mom-to-be in danger (necessitating an abortion to, y'know, save a person's life). Unfortunately, there are people (I'm not pointing fingers) who want to kill sex-ed programs and restrict or eliminate access to contraception. People, unfortunately, will still fuck. People are like that, what with the fucking and all. They're like bunnies. This lack of sex-ed, lack of contraception and abundance of fucking leads to the pressure for the very thing that you so detest: abortion!
The death penalty isn't justice. At its best, it's revenge. At its worst, it's murder. Or, if it's the 1920s, it's moiduh!.
Lastly, "Half of you don't take any time to spell things correctly or put in proper punctuation." is mediocre English. Don't go around pointing out the mote in someone else's eye when there's a plank in yours, jackass. Someone famous said that. Jesus, probably. I, however, added the bit at the end. The art of good storytelling is embellishment. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey...Scorpion deleted this, so here it is

Uncyclopedia's article on Conservapedia makes me sick. All it is is just a bunch of libbies from Wikipedia making absolute mockery of everything true. It's ridiculous! They say it's from a bunch of "misguided, sheltered children". I think Uncyclopedia is from a bunch of fifth-graders from the ghetto of Chicago who have had no parenting or true guidance plenty of unbiased, first-rate education from Satan the greatest minds on earth. As evidenced by the immaturity, foul language and crude topics ScorpionVote for Pedro 08:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Infact, why don't we just add this to the article: "Uncyclopedia takes a clear stand against all conservative and Christian values. Anything from the right side of the political spectrum is hated and reviled on Uncyclopedia." ScorpionCENSORED 10:57, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
We should categorically state that they are against God, not just our deeply held values. What they are doing is basically blasphemy and will not go unpunished. DVanian 20:08, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
That's rather generous, if you ask me. ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:34, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Uncyclopedia editors! Go ahead and post away! ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:35, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I was being sarcastic! ScorpionVote for Pedro 10:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Eljawa 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedia article in Conservapedia

Everybody i went for curiosity to Conservapedia, and i searched Uncyclopedia in it and i found an very very very stupid article check it out if you want to, but i have to warn you its friggin stupid and look at how it ends "At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism."

LOL i think they are a bit over stressed out over there, i mean come on do you really agree with that?? - Keysniper

Yoink! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is friggin stupid. And yes, you do hate creationism and Christians, and aim to destroy Conservativism. Why else would you post such hateful material? 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hateful? I don't "hate" creationism, nor do I "hate" conservatives. I do "dislike" people who want to replace evolution in public schools with "God did it", and sex-ed with the the opposite of that. Suck it up, monkeyboy. If God did it, he's working at a level way beyond Genesis. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL, geez loosen up, will ya? -- 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll loosen up when you damn-well give me back my goddamn bong, IP! And clean it out good this time. Last time you borrowed it, you gave it back all clogged with resin. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I vandalised Conservapedia under this account just today. It makes me laugh the concept, how a small-christian group thinks they can take on better versions of Wiki such as us. It's worse than Simple English Wikipedia, and that's impossible. Now, I'm not saying Conservatives/Christians are bad, and everybody is entitled to there opinion, but the negativity of that encyclopedia irritates me, the concept really scares me, and there are severeal other religous groups that are better to join. Fuck Conservapedia--Sir Manforman CUN 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey! How is Simple English Wikipedia bad? It's a hell of alot better than uncyclopedia, for sure. -- 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be a vandal. Or, to put it another way, don't be a vandal. While it is easier to destroy than to create, it's not better to destroy, generally. Vandalism is stupid. Therefore, you are stupid. Stupid. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't do it anymore, I just don't like it there and I think they have a bunch of nonsense there--Sir Manforman CUN 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bad site, for the most part. Freedom of speech cuts both ways, friend. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
lol it's a terrible site. I got blocked-indefinitely-for saying an American television show wasn't popular. Maybe creating two accounts also had something to do with it. -- 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


When I first encountered Conservapedia, I thought it was frickin' retarded.

Then, after returning several times, reading the floundering articles and the riotous talk pages, I realized it was frickin' hilarious.

Then, after some time, consideration and attention to the various talk page discussions, I finally realized it was frickin' terrifying.

Seriously. Andy answers most every objection in a calm and entirely sincere manner, the objector in question is quickly banned, and the rest of the site goes about its business believing it has protected such wikipedia-superior articles as the twisted montrosity and monstrously ironic article that is deceit. I have never seen the truth so thoroughly raped.

Feebas factor 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are wrong, sir! Only the left is bad! Conservatives, that is to say Christian Conservatives, are creating a culture of life. They don't lie, unlike them goldang librils. Sure, Bush's policies are turning our fine nation into a police state, but that only matters if you've done something wrong. Or if you've got one of them towels on yer head. Or, if you're brown. Or swarthy.
More to the point, the page to which you refer is totally true! Jesus said so! Piltdown man proves that evolution is wrong, because a single fraud makes all of Darwinianismistics a fraud! Fraud! Science keeps changing, but the bible is just as true now as it ever was! God didn't write the Old Testermint for Moses just to have it change when new "evidence" was discovered, no!
Only Democrats lie, cheat and steal. The right, as good Christians, never do these things...and if they do, they aren't True Christians™ anyways! When real Christians fuck other people, they only do it to their opposite sex married partner, and neither of them enjoy it! Sure, Bush kills Iraqis, steals from the poor, ignores brown people and the like, but Clinton got a blowjob! A blowjob!
If you read the Bible, you'd know the truth! Like me! Remember, one day you'll stand in front of God's throne and have to answer for your crimes, like thinking about boobies and not enterpreting the Bible literally! Woo! Jesus is coming back real soon! Wooo! I was repeatedly dropped on my head as a small child! Wiii! Condoms cause AIDS! Wuuu! Etc!
Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
...Their attitude has nothing to do with being conservative, or Christian. I went there to tell them their article on Uncyclopedia was inaccurate, and was banned within 48 hours for "endless discussion." There are people like this on all sides of the spectrum who simply do not want to have to defend their views, political or otherwise as was the case here, so they make or go to sites where they can simply ban people who disagree. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Rangeley, I agree with you. Not only the Conservapedia article is inaccurate, they. The fact that they banned you for a year, boy talk about harsh, the ban should have been say, 48 hours, maybe to cool down.
They quoted "Rangeley, you've made 25 edits here and not one of them has any substantive value. That violates our rules. Presented with a shocking entry on uncyclopedia about Jerry Falwell, you won't even apologize for it. Instead, you deny responsibility even though you are a Sysop at uncyclopedia."
As far as I can tell, you were simply trying to express his opinions and in fact, the edits were in good faith trying to improve the accuracy of the Uncyclopedia article.
I think is peculiar that people would ban people for "disagreeing." Now, I don't practice religion of any kind, so don't take the statement might be wrong, but I'd think that would be against the Christian value to ban people for disagreeing.
Conservapedia needs to understand we are a comedy site, they can't be paranoid, we are not out to get them, we are here for humor, nothing else. In fact, the events are twisted, Uncyclopedia does not have a rant article about Conservapedia, Conservapedia has a rant article about Uncyclopedia.
--Sir Manforman CUN 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's clear from your comments on that talkpage that you aren't a real conservative, nor a True Christian™. I base this entirely on the fact that nowhere in your comments did you reference Also, you "...participate in a project (uncyclopedia) that is dominated by liberal hatred of Christianity and conservatives." a comment made by none other than Aschlafly! Plus, he points out that you " tacitly approve offensive entry about Jerry Falwell."! Damnation! The Rev Falwell was exactly like Jesus, but mean and an asshole.
Next you'll be adding your crazy, not-rightwing enough, quasi-liberal viewpoint to their wiki by editing their page on Molybdenum! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, their tendency for banning people who only contribute to talk pages is annoying, and just an easy way of preventing liberals from making any contributions whatsoever. We would never ban people for that reason. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cs1987, and for Moodus, yes I'm not conservative, and I try not to offend people in my UnNews "political" articles, which I write. Take for example, my article UnNews:Alberto Gonzales claims he doesn't recall saying "I may have created confusion", which one user didn't like my some of my lines. At first, a user didn't like my lines, and than removed them, and I didn't find the edits constructive. I reverted them, and than he reverted it, saying in the "edit summary", see discussion. We had a long discussion on the article's talk page, and than we reached a verdict, while I didn't delete the whole paragraph, I made modifications. I try not to offend people. I registered an account at Conservapedia, and I commented there.--Sir Manforman CUN 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Look how long your comment lasted before being reverted. Lovely. Go freedom of speech. Woo! /me waves little US flag. Oh, you swore. They have a thing about cursing, dagnabit. The death penalty, they're fine with, but say "shitty" and they go all twitchy, goldern'd it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you saw it. Congrationlations. I wonder how soon I will banned--Sir Manforman CUN 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even realize I was banned till I checked my block log, as I didn't get on Conservapedia until after the block expired. When I said "shitty", it was towards the bad articles at Uncyclopedia--Sir Manforman CUN 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason I want it to be clear here that their banning of me has nothing to do with them being conservative, is because when outsiders from other sites come here, we have to give them a clear picture of what this site is. If someone from Conservapedia comes here and calls this site anti-conservative, the reaction shouldnt be "oh yea, well conservatives are wrong!" (as an earlier discussion went above,) but that this site isnt anti-conservatism. Thats the message I gave there, and it should be our response to people who come here in the future. Launching into a political tirade against Conservatives will enforce their false idea that this is a liberal site. If "Liberalpedia" members come here calling us "anti-liberalism," dont initiate a political debate, explain to them that, again, the site has no stance and is open to, and has articles of all perspectives. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to go off topic, but you mentioned Liberalpedia. I don't know what to call Liberalpedia, but I think Liberealpedia was created to "flame" Conservapedia. I have read several articles there, and most of there articles are "jokes" and rants. Just look at there Conservapedia] article. None of there information is verifiable.--Sir Manforman CUN 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Liberalpedia is indeed a parody of Conservapedia (I recall seeing a pastafarian wiki out there too). There is RationalWiki out there which is more along the lines of debunking various stupidity and pointing out funny (both in the 'ha ha' and the 'oh my god, they are serious') things at Conservapedia. --Shagie 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
They decided to ban me for being a "parodist" of all things, just because I wanted to round out some articles a bit. Of course after I was banned the sysop decided to then comment on what I was talking about on the talk pages. Of course what he said was generalized nonsense but then again the "banned user tells no tales" so I'm sure he feels happy and safe to know I can't argue back.

--Deep 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


This article is one of the most serious and well-written ones on all of Uncyclopedia. Parts of it actually present a cohesive argument of why Conservapedia sucks. Doesn't that kind of violate the whole idea of Uncyclopedia? -- 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth is funnier than anything you could make up. In those cases, I say write the truth. 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I laughed for hours from reading Conservapedia. Of course at first I thought it was just a really good parody site, but Wikipedia set me straight on that point. I'm thinking about adding a section on atheists to this article but honestly I can't think of anything funnier to do than copy and paste. That and I'm having problems coming up with enough synonyms for "evil". --Deep 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was funny at first, but the scary thing is that the quotes on this page are only just exaggerations. They have just blocked me for linking from their bias page to their main page... SMI 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirming what we already know

Found this on a bullshit patrol, made me laugh anyway

Cpedia fraud

--Llama attack 05:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A challenge

100 points for anyone who can insert a link to 29+ evidences for macroevolution into an article namespace Conservapedia article. I doubt many of them would be able to understand it, but the brighter ones will probably know that it's 'bad'. 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, IP. Your irreverence will, no doubt, get us all killed. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Can someone make an image for the 'new' conservapedia. Something like a fern or tree etc logo with the words 'Conservapedia', 'Saving the creation'. To go in the section towards the bottom where Shitflea converts to conservationism. 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Just so everyone knows, I plan to replace this article, as it's gotten long and kinda rant-y. There's a rewrite in progress here, if you want to check it out, or even contribute. Please try to read the new version with an open mind, and voice any opinions right here. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:06, Mar 6

Personal tools