Talk:Roger Federer

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Revert war

I've been trying to remove IP-added content from this article, because it doesn't fit in with what is already written. The article I've written attempts to belittle Federer's achievements and jealously claims that he is not that great. Therefore, jokes saying that he has tennis-playing superpowers go completely against what is already there and that's why I want to remove it. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is usually funnier than nonsense The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Exactly. That's why it's funnier to write about his real achievements from the point of view of someone who dislikes him out of jealousy, rather than falsely claim he has superpowers. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Style of Play was pretty funny. Nice work. 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

edit Revert war Part II

I have been undoing edits recently, mocking Tim Henman and "Pete Sampras fanboys". The entire concept of the article is that the dramatised author jeaously claims that Federer isn't that great, when obviously he is one of the best tennis players ever, if not the best. Therefore, it is completely out of character for the author to mock "Pete Sampras fanboys" and the edit got reverted. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

edit Sections on Roger's crying and his record Against Roddick

hello friends. I ve added two new sections on Roger's insane crying at the Australian Open 2009 ceremony and his equally insane record against Andy Roddick. Look to me like fertile material for parody. Dungsniffer 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

edit Update

I have a new paragraph for the "Becoming the best" section, but I don't want to edit it without your permission. So judge my text and feel free to use it if you find it worth.

Continuing the existing paragraph...:

But that was only the beginning of Federer's remarkable crying career, the result of which is that he established himself as arguably the greatest crybaby of all time. He went on to cry after almost all his Grand Slam title matches - count them: 15. In addition to all this, he lately got to the habit of crying after the rare lost finals as well: a canny way to put psychological pressure on future opponents.
As for his continuous success on court: he gets lucky. You need immense luck to win even one single match against an opponent who moves, runs, hits the ball, and wants to win that bloody match. And then there are those lines. The court misteriously gets smaller when you try to hit them, and the line judges are more than happy to call the ball out. Let alone the umpire. But somehow all these factors have yielded to Federer for more than half a decade: they probably all developed a crush on his haircut. Let us not forget about the heroic reluctance of the Coupe des Mousquetaires: eventually Federer shattered its resistance though in 2009. He wanted them all, the greedy goose. And he broke the record of Pete Sampras in Wimbledon in front of the man himself: how irritatingly fitting. We have one hope though: he may only be an illusionist. But then again one cannot deny he has talent. Vicious circle.

Pmckl 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

edit Nonsense and opposites

See the second section of Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, the site's main writing guide. It is a common misconception among new uncyclopedians that what would be funny on Wikipedia will also be funny on Uncyclopedia. If you write on Wikipedia that Barack Obama is a dustman or Elizabeth II is the Queen of Madagascar it may be funny, but that is because Wikipedia is meant to be a serious site and there's a chance someone might believe you. On a site where the pages aren't meant to be taken seriously, you're not getting away with anything by avoiding the censors. What you write has to stand up on its own.

The Uncyclopedia article on Roger Federer is intended as a satire on sports fans who automatically dislike players who win a lot and then make ridiculous arguments to prove they are overrated. It has an overriding theme and doesn't just use a scattergun approach of randomness.

What you write on uncyclopedia doesn't have to be true, but often the best articles have a grounding in fact. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  20:15, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

I notice that only tennis player articles are more or less the copies from Wikipedia which is not funny at all, just boring and thus it violates the guideline you are talking about. Please spend some time to read Uncyclopedia:About#This_is_a_statement.2C_one_which_is_possibly_even_true. I don't see even a trace of your theory on how articles should not contain false information but to be encyclopedic and correct articles with a slightly funny tone as you suggest. And on Wikipedia adding false information is not funny as you also say in your theory but it's called vandalism and is grounds for a quick block. But as I said, only tennis articles seem to be suffering from this issue, all other articles are funny.--Roarrr 14:45, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't link you to the about page. That's more a less a run through of Uncyclopedia's in jokes in a sort of mission statement form. The writing guide is Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. Let's quote it.
“The truth is usually funnier than nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth... Perhaps two-thirds of the articles are random nonsense. Little to nothing distinguishes them. Patent nonsense can be hilarious, it may get a laugh the first time, but it quickly gets dull. If someone types in "Frodo Baggins", the article should have more to do with Frodo Baggins than if they typed in "Dinosaur". They want to read a humorous slant on Frodo Baggins, not an article on a Dutch mink farmer with laser-beam eyes.”
If you think the tennis articles look similar, that's because most of them are written by me. They have also been featured. Rafael Nadal and Sania Mirza were both voted into the top ten articles of 2008, the latter of which won the poo lit surprise writing competition. I don't particularly want to flaunt my successes, but I've been writing for this site for four years. People find my writing funny. If you don't, then that's your problem. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  18:33, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately your version of this article is all but funny as it is just a regular biography. The rule itself is not an issue, it is that you could have made it funny but instead you've made an article that is largely not funny at all. It's just a regular biography, Federer won this many titles, he was the No1 for that many weeks, he has this or that playing style etc. with a just slightly more relaxed tone when compared to any official biography - however relaxed and funny are not synonyms.--Roarrr 12:10, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty funny article. For instance, the heavenly light that appears when he picks up a racket. That's not something you'd see in any regular biography. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:17, 13 August 2010

edit End Sentence in Opening Paragraph

I added the sentence on Federer's suit and bag he takes to Wimbledon each year. This is something he has been laughed at for numerous times elsewhere so the inclusion is justified. Also it fits in with the overall theme of what a user (Mickey) describes above: "the Uncyclopedia article on Roger Federer is intended as a satire on sports fans who automatically dislike players who win a lot and then make ridiculous arguments to prove they are overrated" - the fact that the sentence ignores he frequently wins Wimbledon and focuses on gold foil on a bag is what makes it ridiculous.

In addition it fits in with what the user Mickey has written above "What you write on uncyclopedia doesn't have to be true, but often the best articles have a grounding in fact" - he does have a crappy bag and does wear the suit (which is pictured right next to the sentence). We can debate whether it is funny or not, but that is a matter of opinion. I think it is funny others may not, fair enough, just as some may not find other pieces of the page funny. But what is fact and not opinion is that it fits in with the overall theme of the page outlined by the previously mentioned user, and it is true.

Also, it particularly fits in with the opening paragraph. The opening outlines Federer's achievements: X Grand Slams, Y weeks at no. 1 etc, so the fact the reader has been made aware of his achievements then goes on to hear about a criticism of his fashion sense makes it appear a paticularly pandantic insult. 'sall about the juxtaposition folks.

Finally, the fact that several news articles have been written about Federer's Wimbledon outfit means its a subject well known enough to justify an inclusion. See: and particularly this one... ... which states "There are few men who could sling a gold and white bag casually over their shoulders and not look daft — and he [Federer] is not one of them" and the "military-style jacket and the bizarre waistcoat are the kind of items better suited to the fancy dress box".

You don't have to tell me my own opinions on writing. I reverted your edit for a lack of subtlety. It's a completely different issue to what you're referring to. You might have got away with it if you hadn't called him a bender. You might as well have written "Federer's gay, lol". It was also blatantly tacked on to the end of the paragraph with little care for context or comedic pacing. I've compromised and moved your sentence, in toned down form, to somewhere later in the article. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:09, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly a very insecure individual mickey, unwilling to let anyone but you have their say on what is a public platform. If you are unwilling to let anyone else have their say then I suggest you remove your writing to your own private website. You consider yourself uncyclopedia's self-appointed guardian, whom is funnier than anyone else and who is the judge and jury of their contributions. No doubt you will refer to the recognition some of your articles have recieved (clearly this hasn't gone to your head), and in turn I will reply this article is not one of them. I will also argue having a page recognised by uncyclopedia is an achievement as grand as being voted Bromsgrove's least dangerous sex offender.

I have added... one, single, sentance. Yet , like a child who has had a single lego brick stolen you jealously guard your contributions and refuse to welcome a new contributor to this website. Quite frankly as you yourself said to another user above if you don't find my writing funny "then that's your problem", because it's staying. End. Of.

edit Admins monopoly

I have added true information on the opening paragraph and fan admins are removing it. please discuss it here so shall be reverted.

The problem is not about whether the stat you posted is true or not (although I would be intrigued to see the source. Seems an odd one, considering Nadal and Murray are the only two active players to have a winning record against him). It's about whether it adds anything to the humour of the article. The concept of the article is that it is written by someone who dislikes Roger Federer's success. There is a tendency for some sports fans to dislike players who dominate a sport. A lot of people hated Michael Schumacher in his prime, or Pete Sampras, or Man United when they were winning everything. Dominance is boring and so these fans try to pick apart flaws in the player's game. They choose to ignore their seven F1 World Titles, their seven Wimbledons, their seven premier league titles out of nine, their 17 grand slams. Because really, they're not actually that good.
The style of play section is the best example of how the article mocks this tendency to nitpick with the clearly brilliant. It's basically a rip-off of "What the Romans did for us". Apart from his forehand, his serve, his volleys and his backhand, Federer's game is rubbish. There's a subtext to the Federer bashing in this article, where it's clearly mocking itself. A lone Federer-bashing stat adds nothing to this. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  20:23, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
1st thing: Check roger federer's stats on wikipedia which has his atp records against top ten players- losing against most, and compare it to previous no 1. players. federer is the one who has the head-to head against top ten players of his time as the worst.
2nd thing. yes precisenly for the same reason, i dislike federer and added that point. calling him lucky etc.! 02:18, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is where I looked myself. I assumed your stat was based on his period as world number one, not on players he played a handful of times when he was young and had retired by the time he reached his prime. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  14:44, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools