From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 04:16, February 16, 2011 by Roman Dog Bird (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on May 3, 2008.
The result of the discussion was Keep.

If you don't find this funny, you should know that this article is written like the liner notes for OK Computer. Any questions? Chairman of the Soviet Republicks (Keep Talking) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The old article can still be found at Radiohead (movie). YouFang 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

edit Not funny

I fucking hate Radiohead more than you can imagine, but wow this is just lame guys. Try to make the lyrics funny and insulting; right now it just looks forced and tries too hard. I'll see if I can fix them, but really guys? Weird Al would have done better.-- 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guy who created this is a Radiohead fan. Seeig that you hate them so much (and are probably an ignorant fuck who can only listen to one genre) it will be mst likely that you would erase all humour and make a stupid tirade saying "they suck" or homophic crap like "Gaydiohead". This page is right, you are an ignorant phillisite.

No, it just isn't funny, and neither are the examples attempting to ridicule me that you put up. Also, way to make baseless claims. The idea was probably good and all in his mind, but the thing written out (i.e. the lyrics) just downright retarded.

edit Hurtful?

It's a good page, but I imagine most of the people reading this are Radiohead fans. They might find it hurtful. Most Radiohead fans are pretty hardcore, and might go sulk (get it?) if you say something mean about Thom and co.

edit Response

I'm a Radiohead fan too. As an insider, I know their failings best. If other fans don't like it, I invite them to blog about it.YouFang 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

edit Response-To-Response

Yeah, good point. I imagine most Radiohead fans have blogs anyways...

edit Response-To-Response-To-Oh-Ya-Know!

C'mon, I'm also a diehard Radiohead fan and I find this page hysterical! Anyone who's not in on the joke or doesn't know the tunes to the songs won't find it funny. Or maybe they ARE just too sensitive. I don't know, let the page be. But the Radiohead Movie article is way funnier. -- 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

edit Response-to-Response-To-Response-To-Oh-Ya-Know!

True all hail to the Radiohead movie!

edit Response-To-Response... I give up

Yeah, I'm a pretty massive Radiohead fan; and this is pretty funny. People have their opinions - personally, I reckon all their music is awesome, including the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions. I haven't read the movie article, I'll do it now. The Boney King Of Nowhere 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

edit Response-To-Whatever

The Radiohead movie article is a lot better than this one. Random bashing, while it can be humorous, just isn't half as interesting. I say change it back. Solarion 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

edit Response-to-That-Stuff

The bashing is not random. It is perceptive.

Let me tell you what "random" is: a simplistic name dropping article that is basically a list of Radiohead songs arranged into an unfunny movie plot. Yes, I am describing Radiohead (movie). I moved Radiohead (movie) because it wasn't good enough. Simply listing Radiohead songs does not equal funny.

Because I know my tastes are not the be-all and end-all of humour, I kept it around. If you like reading stuff like that, you're welcome to go to that page and enjoy it. In the meantime, I'll be keeping this article where it is. Perhaps, if you are such a big fan of the Radiohead (movie) article, you could copy and paste it into Encyclopedia Dramatica. Throw in a few random pornographic images and it'll be a hit. YouFang 19:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

edit A Welcome Addition

Thank you, thank you, user! You've made my day with your addition to the article on Radiohead's newest album. I love it when users actually make positive, thoughtful, funny change to articles. If you are reading this, o anonymous one, please consider getting a user account going and writing more articles! YouFang 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is literally win. On so many levels. Bovvered 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

edit This is funny, but it could be improved

Maybe have an article for the individual songs parodied? Radiohead's page could be so much funnier, if it was done normally, the way ost pages are. Each song could then have its own page. Just a suggestion. The Boney King Of Nowhere 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

edit Inconsistent

How come the Radiohead article is so nasty when Muse's article is 'OMG MUSE ARE TEH BEST BAND EVAR!!!!1!'. It makes no sense. Especially since Radiohead are much better (and more original)

It's because the Muse article is a piece of random crap with no comic angle. I'm going to put it up for deletion. YouFang 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

edit Truce to YouFang

Truce, k? sry, good page, my bad edits. Chairman of the Soviet Republicks (Keep Talking) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Truce accepted. By and large, the reason I was reverting you was to be true to the source material. As you may have noticed, the article is written like the liner notes for OK Computer. It may seem anal to revert an edit where you removed an "x" or whatever it was, but I still want to remain faithful. You have to understand that I guard my articles zealously. Unless I find an edit truly funny, I undo it. Why? Because many semi-funny edits in a row equals randomness. I have had an article of mine put of for deletion because I didn't police the edits and the article became a piece of shit. So by all means, please contribute to this article, but make the edits hilarious and put a lot of work into them. YouFang 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

edit delete

i deleted the last song lyrics, because the satire fails. It doesn't make sense, it's stupid to try to make fun of them on a subject of greed. Replace it. It was about how they ripped people off concerning money, but that doesn't make any sense. It's like making fun of Blagojevich for being a nice person. Try their complicated lyrics or Thom Yorke's hippieness to make fun of instead.

I reverted your edit for this reason: That song was one of the only contributions by people other than me that didn't TOTALLY SUCK. I feel attached to it because somebody else put love into it. If you want to write a different song about In Rainbows, be my guest. Don't just delete stuff. YouFang 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

edit Good article, man

Just what I wanted to see when I searched Radiohead. --SoIwastolazytolearnGermanic.jpg-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

edit Radiohead Are NOT Wankers OR Miserable gits

I always try to delete those categorys but someone always changes them back

Perhaps they are not Wankers, nor are they Miserable gits. However, Uncyclopedia is a humour website, not a truth website. On it, we make things called "jokes". Jokes are things that are not necessarily true and clash with reality in a way that, in humans, causes an involuntary response called "laughter".
However, sometimes jokes hurt people's feelings, when they or something they like is represented in a way think is unfair. This, I believe, is what has happened to you. I am not going to let you change Radiohead because you want to defend Radiohead from mean ol' Uncyclopedia. Perhaps there's a wiki out there for making people feel better about themselves that you could edit instead. YouFang 18:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I don't have any problem with the lyrics though that's very well done. But the album titles could be way better they all just say faliure apart form Parachutes which is a Coldplay album and one that say 'syntax error'. All the other pages about Radiohead are far more creative like 'Anal Sex Synonym' (2007) on Thom Yorke's page. Al Least Radiohead are not on the list of 'Musicians Who Suck So Monumentally That It Really, Truly Amazes Me That The Earth And Any Surrounding Planets And Quite Possibly A Good Bit Of The Afterlife Have Not Yet Been Swallowed Entirely' 'coz that's for REALLY SHITTY bands like Linkin Park.

edit So, this is what passes as funny here at uncyclopedia???

Christ, I could do so much better, but is it really worth the effort. I've never contributed, but I'm positive that if I did, my efforts would surely be deleted and that wouldn't be because I lack in humour or have a predilection for obscenity. More likely, from judging an ever larger number of articles here, its because contributors and editors have no idea what funny is. Wiki humour may be impossible as humour cannot be generated via democratic vote and dialectic (hehe). Just imagine all those overpaid writers for that sorry excuse of a comedy show called SNL attemtping to 'find humour" by sitting in on a focus group!! Doesn't work!! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireplug (talk • contribs)

I second this. Uncyclopedia is the worst. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 07:11 Oct 26 2009
Discussion moved to Fireplug's talk page...YouFang 19:17, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

edit I think their pretty cool.

I mean, creep was a good song. they aren't as good as greenday, but I think pablo honey was a pretty cool album. They never quite produced something on the same level as American idiot. 03:44, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

--Roman Dog Bird 04:15, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools