Talk:Wikipedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 14:20, July 9, 2013 by 49.248.245.249 (talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Article policies
See here for discussion concerning the pre-colonized version of this article. To read "The Colonization Saga", see here.

Wikinfo

http://www.wikinfo.org allows anything, unlike Wikipedia. EDIT 08:01, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funnier than Uncyclopedia.

The page has been blanked

The page has been blanked, and is now a one-liner that reads "Wikipedia is a much classier organization than this garbage you call a wiki" An administrator by the name of user:Roman Dog Bird has blanked the page and then protected it from further editing. I am now going to contact them and attempt to have him unlock the page and restore the original article. Rustyfence 00:08, January 1, 2010 (UTC)


Mutually blocked IP addresses

How many IP addresses are blocked by both WP and Uncyclopedia? Have come across one - 82.198.250.5: possibly the same 'persistent nuisance(s)' on both. Jackiespeel 16:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

In portuguese, this article is one of the bests too.

Put in Interwikis. 201.15.188.180 21:03, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh No it's not!

RE: "Reliability Wikipedia has been known to be very reliable, with random facts about sex and cities strewn about everywhere."*

  • No it isn't, it is in fact a large dish of anchovies that currently resembles a 16k ram box attached to a zx81 sinclair computing object.

It's only true facts are 0000 and 0010, due to modern computing being mainly along the lines of 74 versions of Bill Gates doing the can-can with a strawberry and one pear shaped heap of numbers called if-Iphone-you-will-you-finally-leave-me-alone-again.00.tar.gz, and a determined terrorist penguin intent on coding the secrets of your bunt into C+and- (which sounds like [goto line 1 or maybe don't goto line 1; #don't blame me blame Richard Stallman] the effiency of this labourious old encyclopedia has slowed to nought that can be good for the perpetuation of stir fried cannibals. Yes. They did in fact eat Dick Van Dyke's left ear just before writing that the north pole is situated at 0000110101. And since everybody of school age or above knows that the north pole is in fact a diabetic in Stalingrad, and that sheep are out to take over the world, there is no way at all that Wikipedia could ever be considered reliable. Misinformed! Yes. A cut'n'paste of the entirety of apekind unknowledge sure, but certainly not as reliable as Uncyclopedia, ham sandwiches, or small rubber vibrating things when it comes to discerning the truth about certain situations and so called facts.

  • signed by a complete and utter liar currently living in bobistan west hampshire, the african state of oh lord my penguin you are so big. My nose is small and I am made of wood.
This is a classic! A fucking randomness classic! VFD! FreddCan Shredd 22px-Flag_of_Egypt.png 18px-Foxicon.png 17:14 • Wednesday, 24-03-2010

/* this is bad news */

  1. View source

My WP history

I was and still am a sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia because they are stupid. They won't block my range so now I will make more socks. GEORGIEGIBBONS 20:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm behaving for 6 months so I can return. GEORGIEGIBBONS 20:19, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Their new look

You may have noticed Wikipedia are SO vain, they gave themselves a new look this week. Should we consider sending up their new look on the Wikipedia article? Brichards85 23:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Locked Page

Just out of curiosity, wot's up with the locked page? Does Uncyclopedia have taboos against funny things? Thanks for any illumination the illuminati can expose on this question.

Cheers, --Samuel Clemens 17:10, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected from edits by IPs and new users because those edits tend to consist of random crap rather than witty humour. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:26, 13 March 2011
Random? You call the biggest joke of the English language for the last four hundred years random? Did you ever even see Taming of the Shrew? I thought not. From what I can tell, you jokers don't even have an entry on it. And yet you go around censoring things about the guy who wrote it (sure, he wasn't as fast then as he's been with Wikipedia, but even then he had some talent). But even you must know about the Ice Cream Kid award. I'm not going to give you my ip. I know what you people do with things like that. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Clemens (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, I was just plainly answering your question. If I said Knitwitted's edits were random, it might be because William Shakespeare doesn't have a terrible lot to do with Wikipedia. And if you want to start an article on Shakespeare plays or whatever, you're free to do so. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:44, 13 March 2011
The sad thing is, some of your fellow editors seem to be starting to figure out how witty it was. But you seem to be afraid to laugh at yourself long enough to reconsider the dimensions on which "witty humour" could operate. You missed the punchline the first time around and so you won't let yourself hear the aftershocks. I've been laughing all afternoon at things some other editors have been saying. You said: "those edits tend to consist of random crap rather than witty humour." You weren't being funny when you wrote "random crap." You were being dull.--Samuel Clemens 20:27, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

 :(

This page was alot funnier a year or two ago. Its too bloated. Jsut because you can add stuff doesnt mean you should. too bad

Their only bits of "humor"

Grrr! My eraser continues to wear down as you make those unconstructive changes. Your edits appear to constitute naughtiness and have been erased. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks!


Seriously, please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to mess up Wikipedia, we're going to have to take away the toys.

last year there lived a boy his name was nabeel jahan who could mess everything up and never clean it

Beware the Wikipedia Vegetable Puppets

This page should be read and thoroughly understood before anyone attempts to become involved with Wikipedia. Uncyclopedia makes its comedic content clear. Wikipedia, on the other hand, attempts to hide its slapstick behind a pretense of seriousness. For example, Wikipedia states that its Administrators “…are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.” (Yeah, right!) This may be uproariously funny to the administrators and others who have been around a while in the weird wacky world of wiki, but it comes at the expense of new would-be editors who are expected to actually believe this crap and end up getting gang-raped by a bunch of bullies & petty tyrants acting in collusion to enforce their own version of WP:NPOV (Never Permit Opposing Views). These groups of renegade admins and brown-nosing wanna-bees apparently fear that Wikipedia may actually gain credibility, and are determined to prevent such a catastrophe. Whenever someone dares to question their version of a subject, they band together to block or run off the offending upstart editor. They are known as ‘Vegetable Puppets’. They differ from Meat Puppets in that their heads contain only puréed peas and carrots in lieu of brains. Kermugin 00:06, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Missing material

Why doesn't the article mention what a great place for all things buttsex Wikipedia is? Nothing about plugs, or lube or even pierced trunk butt. I will not stay here long if these gaps are not rectified.--108.46.103.142 13:34, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Where ...

Has the hilarious section on their endless, ridiculous policies gone? --81.159.244.1 16:59, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we ????

Shouldn't we include something about Wikipedia being a tabloid-distortionist-encyclopedia which hopes to attract readership through sensationalism and offensive content. And the number of active eds on WP is considerably lower now. I understand that they have about 35,000 [1] active eds now, and at the rate they are going, we may soon actually overtake them in ed strength.JamesSomething 11:37, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Worse STILL

This site has more reliable information that Wikipedia. At least here, you already know it’s a joke- It’s not trying to pretend to be factual. A REDDSON

The only thing more tragic than systematic counterfactualism leading to misinformed naive readers is pervasive illiteracy that allows editors to misinterpret sources so wildly, and site visitors to accept untrustworthy constructs from hamfisted writers. --anon 03:14, July 30, 2012

wikipedia sucks

i hate wikipedia it always bolcks you frome editing and its alwas this metiralsientest (hoo sucks!) even if its not his article--71.64.204.48 12:05, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Amazing!

This is a brilliant article. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:37, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Damnation

I hate Wikipedia because it is a sort of bureaucracy or caste system. Uncyclopedia is far better, especially this article. It should be used to spread more anti-Wikipedia propaganda (in positive sense). Wikipedia stops IP users to edit visually and stops new users from voting, using AWB, etc. It is a lot Nation of Damnation.

Personal tools
projects