From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 69: Line 69:
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.
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.
== none ==
i have a user account but i was bloked as soon as it was created

Revision as of 03:03, June 20, 2007

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Personal tools