Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 3

Uncyclopedia's history
Would Wikia be a decent source for Uncyclopedia's history? I don't mean policy stuff, I mean like, who founded it. That sentence remains uncited. I see no reason not to trust them on that. And I know "posts to wikis, forums etc. are not reliabel sources" but let's use common sense: it's not some dope with a keyboard writing up a page on some unmonitored wiki, it's a press release by Wikia Inc. staff. I'm going to go ahead and add it for now, but I'll watch this page. Milto LOL pia 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, it already is sourced. And with that link.  Still, leaving the thread up for discussion couldn't hurt.  Milto LOL pia 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is COI on this one, in that they host part of the Uncyclopedia set for commercial profit. They do not host the two-largest non-English Uncyclopedias, Ansaikuropedia and Desciclopédia. They have also been known to list just-plain-wrong info, such as claiming Jonathan Huang (user:Chronarion) as sole founder instead of highly-respected Uncyclopedia co-founder. This makes it marginally easier for them to absentmindedly claim that they have no idea why anyone sees anything wrong with Chron's selling the domain name (and his sacred Uncyclopedian birthright) in a backroom deal with Wikia. --66.102.80.239 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki section
Uncyclopedia currently reads like this:


 * The site uses MediaWiki software to mimic Wikipedia conventions, which itself is parodied with these following analogies: Uncyclomedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation), UnNews (Wikinews), Unquotable (Wikiquote), Undictionary (Wiktionary), UnBooks (WikiBooks), UnMeta (Meta-Wiki), UnSource (Wikisource), UnSpecies (Wikispecies), Uncycloversity (Wikiversity), and UnCommons / Uncyclomedia Commons (Wikimedia Commons). Image description pages are also branded under Uncyclomedia Commons, including a logo mirroring the Wikimedia Commons.


 * Uncyclopedia uses MediaWiki to imitate Wikipedia templates, such as its Wikipedia template (parodying Wikipedia sister project templates), and its Endspoiler template.

Egad! It's full of self-reference no one outside of Wikimedia cares about and is totally uncited. Oh, I know that there are links - but all they link to is the projects. There's no sources making comparisons, so that's original research. I'll leave it tagged for a couple days unless anyone replies here and then I'll blankify it. Milto LOL pia 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. Milto LOL pia 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this considerd to be a joke?
I don't see why this is considerd a joke it is kind of important since uncyclopedia doesn't really say it's a paradoy of wikipedia and there was some confusion on this talk page.--71.170.41.7 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because no one there honestly thinks that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. Milto LOL pia 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what? I can't tell if that is a mistyping or not, but they do. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops... I meant the other way around :-P No one there honestly thinks that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia.  Milto LOL pia 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * well untill we can verify that they don't honestly believe that i dont think we can speak for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robograndma (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * What a fucking moron. --80.6.146.72 10:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to pretend that I'm an idiot. An amusing and easy to pull off charade it is, but not one I want to perform in this case.  Milto LOL pia 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

...though it claims the reverse
I've got to say I have a fondness for this line, which appears to have been removed and replaced several times. Yeah I know it's only because it makes the joke on the mirror page work, but you can defend it for inclusion on this page. It is after all true. It is not, in itself a joke or humour, because Uncyc does claim the reverse. No-one is going to believe that Uncyclopedia is right where Wikipedia is wrong. Frankly, it's not doing any harm, so why not have it there? Tbone762 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a real "claim" though. That would be like writing a biography of me and saying I "claim to have over 9000 edits" because it says that I do on my userpage, or like saying the screenwriters for Anchorman "claim that women's brains are a third the size of men's".  It's not a serious claim, it's a joke.  No one who authored that page actually believes that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia.  Besides, there's no source for it.  The link put in by some guy went to an Uncyclopedia footnote, which was a link back to this article!  Which means the statement was sourcing itself.  Milto LOL pia 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've seen this in an article about Uncyclopedia, if I can find this article (news article) would anyone still be objected to re-adding the statement? tmopkisn tlka 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim isn't real. The Uncyclopedia editors don't really think that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, and it's unencycopedic to include that joke on the pretense that they do.  I just this above, read the part before "Besides, there's no source for it".  Milto LOL pia 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a longstanding injoke on the forums and such, plus it helps subtly illustrate Uncyclopedia's brand of humor. And when it comes to sites like this, it's not that big of a deal if the site itself is sourced for certain things. I mean, if we stuck exclusively to the stuff that third-party sources have mentioned about us, we'd have a stub discussing a handful of mediocre articles, and a so-called 'cyber-bullying menace'. It's not realistic. Plus, most of the stuff on the third party sources isn't accurate at all. It's not like we can't use first-party sources at all, ever. This is a sitiuation where it would do no harm, and would be the best source to use. It's not like there's any room for misinterpretation of the articles, and you'd get accurate information. You seem to really like attacking this article... --Nintendorulez talk 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rangeley banned him from the site last summer, for ED spamming. tmopkisn tlka
 * No, he banned me for uploading Squidwoman over a picture used in some news article about ED. Lol!  Milto LOL pia 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say... tmopkisn tlka
 * Read the logs of that picture, and look at the time of that picture. Beyond that, I'm not going to do your thinking for you.  Milto LOL pia 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, you vandalized the site and got banned for it. --Nintendorulez talk 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just dropping by to throw in my two cents on this matter.
 * WP:V states, in very clear terms, that the inclusion of information is dictated by verifiability, not truth. Miltopia seems to be working very hard on this article, working with verifiable info from 3rd party sources and bringing in some diversity (as the article, before he started working on it, was almost entirely constructed out of information from primary sources &mdash; some info bordering on OR &mdash; and is thus helping the article).
 * I am with Miltopia on this one, and I too feel that that particular joke is unencyclopedic, and doesn't benefit the article in any way. Does Uncyclopedia really think Wikipedia is a parody of Unc? Tongue in cheek humour tends to undermine articles. I'm of the opinion that including that line just to facilitate a joke is of no benefit... though if there's a compelling reason for inclusion, I'll happily change my views on this &mdash; for what my views are worth on this subject :P.
 * Cheers-from  K37  00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you guys are saying, and it makes sense. If it were found in a creditable 3rd party source would it be worthy of inclusion then? Tbone762 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most certainly I think, and I'd love for something to be found-from  K37  01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... searching time! Tbone762 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this? Seems to be a reasonably reliable source, award winning researcher and blogger for the Miami Herald-from  K37  02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one, seems even better as it doesn't quote exactly off Uncyc-from  K37  03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Treating it as a serious claim when it's not would be tongue-in-cheek humor on our part, and there's no place for that here. If someone wants to incorporate as an example of Uncyclopedia's humor in the main body, with a clear explanation that is is HUMOR and not a "claim", bear in mind that you're giving undue weight to a joke regarding Wikimedia.  It seems like there would be several better examples of "Uncyclopedia's humor".  Oh wait, there already are some in the article.  Milto LOL pia 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you frequented the forums or chat, you'd notice constant jokes about Wikipedia being a parody of Uncyc. It's a pretty signifigant injoke. --Nintendorulez talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I frequented it. So, does anyone who does not frequent the chats or forums say that?  If not, there's no third-party sources.  Besides, my point is there's all types of humor on Uncyc, and focusing on Wikimedia jokes when there are oodles of other topics would be undue weight and a self-reference.  Milto LOL pia 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not as though anyone is suggesting we focus on anything. There are third party sources stating "Uncyclopedia claims the reverse," which is a verifiable sort of thing. We arent trying to give this claim any credence, or judging its seriousness. K37 found a third party source which uses the language. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But you know it's not one, so sticking it in there like it is would be very unencyclopedic. Trying to find some loophole out of the fact that it's not a real claim is just trying to force Uncyclopedia's humor down the article's throat.  Milto LOL pia 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be very unencyclopedic to take the claim and use it as fact, but by stating it as a claim, it is encyclopedic. Its how we handle other statements, for instance when the information minister of Iraq claimed there were no troops in Baghdad, he probably knew he was wrong, but we nonetheless note that he claimed it. The truthfulness of the claim is a side issue. What matters is that the claim is made, and we have verifiable sources saying the claim is made. Its not a loophole, its how it works. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not when you, as an editor of Uncyclopedia, no it's false. It's an entirely different situation when the same people who edit the website regularly are saying it's anything but a joke. Milto LOL pia 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, he probably knew what he was saying was false, and afterwards you could probably strike up a good conversation with him about some of the better things he claimed. But just because they werent true, or because he didnt beleive them doesnt make them not something he claimed. We are not saying anyone honestly beleives it, we are merely stating the verifiable information from third party sources that the claim is made.
 * All your argument comes down to is "yea, but noone beleives it!" This doesnt mean it isnt claimed, and it isnt a reason to keep it out. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, including it as anything else but an example of Uncyclopedia's humor would be unethical, and that includes putting it in, leaving it's truthfulness. There's no way for us to know whether or not the info minister in Iraq knew whether or not that was false, even if it's your opinion, but Wikipedia editors know that this claim is false.  It's not even a "claim" as you are describing it, it's a joke, because the clai is not serious and is not meant to be taken seriously, which is another important difference between this situation and the Iraq guy.  The bottom line is, if you can't treat this article professionally than you should probably excuse yourself from it due to a conflict of interest.  Milto LOL pia 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont beleive you understand the concept here. Even if we had proof he knew he was wrong, from verifiable sources, which peered into his mind using some sort of yet to be invented technology, which removed all doubt, he still claimed it. A claim is an action, its not a state of mind. Were we to have a sentence saying "which beleives the reverse," thats entering the realm of whether one really thinks one way or another. But we arent doing that, we are stating "claims the reverse," which we have verifiable third party sources claiming. Rather than allege that I have a conflict of interest which prevents me from acting in good faith, it would be more useful if you simply participated in discussion and presented arguments. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about, "jokingly claims the reverse is true"? It's a lame joke, so let's not pretend it's a legitimate claim. And pointing out that it's a joke kills any humor the joke actually holds. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, though "though Uncyclopedia jokingly claims the reverse" sounds better. ~ Rangeley ( talk )

Non-introductory
This information is not really introductory, it's just one example of thousands of Uncyclopedia humor. I really don't see the need for it to be int he introduction. It should be in the main body, as that joke is not central to the site, it's just one joke on the page. Introductory material should be limited toa brief overview, not spamming one joke as tongue-in-cheek humor, awkwardly worded to skirt around the fact that it's a joke. Milto LOL pia 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this is a content decision. A great many people feel that it should be included, and that it adds to the introduction. We have gone over how it is indeed a claim that is made, and how it can be found on verifiable sources. I dont mind if the word "jokingly" is included, it doesnt have to be, but if thats what is wanted, thats fine. There isnt a rule that says it cant be included, so ultimately thats just your opinion that it shouldnt be there. I think it would be useful to get others views on this. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Though, I will add that adding "jokingly" without a source could be argued to be original research in the same vein that many other things have been labeled as such here. Unless we find a source which states the claim to be a joke, perhaps its best to leave "jokingly" out. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would we propogate a known untruth? There should be no ambiguity that the claim is even possibly true.  A source that doesn't say it's a joke is an unsatisfactory source then.  On a side note, all that article does is quote the article... doesn't seem very different from sourcing directly from the article itself.  The wording isn't even the same anymore.  I think it's safe to say that that source doesn't work, maybe the other one K37 found would be better.  Milto LOL pia 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the second part of the above paragraph of mine, the other source is better as it doesn't quote the source. Milto LOL pia 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We went over this before, actually. It would be un-encyclopedic to propagate a known falsity. Were we to make the Wikipedia article state its a "satirical parody of Uncyclopedia," using this as a source, that would be false. But there is nothing false about stating that "Uncylopedia claims the reverse," because the claim has been made. Again, a claim is an action, not a state of mind. Were we to say that "Uncyclopedia beleives the reverse," thats entering the realm of what people really think. But we havent entered that realm. We have verifiable sources stating that Uncyclopedia claims it, thus we are fully able to say it.
 * Also, there is nothing wrong with using sources that quote, as it is still not original research. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is when the quoted source is subject to change, like a wiki. A synopsis would be better IMO, but it's not that big a deal to me.  If you're going to insist on adding a falsity however, i"m going to hunt for a better source.  There has to be one that says it's a joke, it would be of detriment to the article's seriousness to treat it as anything else and I really don't see why you're pushing for it.  Milto LOL pia 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not a falsity - it does claim the reverse. If you can find a source which says it to be a joke, thats absolutely fine, but I am merely holding it to the same standard you have held everything else, including the word "satire." ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, so that's what this is about. Well, it seems absurd to me to treat something like it might not be a joke when you, a writer for the subject of teh article, know it isn't, but do what you will.  I still don't think it's introductory, for the reasons I've said above at the beginning of this subheader.  Milto LOL pia 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not really see it as absurd, and I dont really think you do either. The unnamed counterpart was not specified as stillwaters, even though you or I know thats what their screename was. Until it is sourced, I can agree with you that it should be left out. I only expect the same from you on this issue. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And you've got it. THe only issue I have at this point is whether or not it's introductory, for reasons I said at the top of this subheader.  Milto LOL pia 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the quote should stay on the article, even because all wikipedias with articles about their same-language Uncyclo have the "althrough they claim the reverse" quote. I can't see why this one can't follow the small joke, it's not like 5 words more would destroy the article or something like that. What do you think we vote for it? (It's just my opinion, please don't flame me x.x) - R a q u e l S a m a   &#9733; Talk &#9733;  20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It really is extremely unprofessional to promote the idea that it's a real "claim" when it's just a joke. It's not a particular relevant joke, and it's non-introductory, as I've said countless times with no reply still.  Wikipedia does not need to be following anyone's jokes.  There's no use for them in encyclopedia articles.  This is a very good reason why people who edit this website actively should not be editing the article about it.  Milto LOL pia 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki, nobody gets paid, so people only edit articles on subjects of their interest anyway. As an ED editor and someone whose articles where deleted from the site, you seem to be the one having conflicts of interest.--Rataube 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not something they are "interested in", this is a website in which they are regular contributors. And a conflict of interest for me would be if I were actually editing the ED article, not merely editing an encyclopedia on which that article was deleted.  ED has no part in this, so quit obsessing and stick to the topic.  Milto LOL pia 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant your articles deleted from uncyclopedia. Anyway, did you actually read WP:COI] or just assumed its content by what you know of the term "Conflict of Interests"? Read [[WP:COI, nothing to do with what's going on here, unless you could call Uncyclopedia an organization and ED its competitor, which I doubt very much.--Rataube 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Miltopia, why the backtrack? We came to an agreement above which seems to have been forgotten. Its cited, its in a reliable third party source. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we really didn't. You ignored concerns that it was non-introductory so you could spam your joke - not an "agreement" just because you ignore everything you disagree with.  Besides, I really don't think the joke has any place - it's an irrelevant self-reference and a misrepresentation that you are knowingly perpetuating.  The article treating it like it's serious to exploit the wackiness of the site is all fine and good, but we don't need to do that.  Unless this joke is somehow more relevant than the thousands of others included, including it, much less in the atmosphere of seriousness it is presented with in the article, is an unimportant self-reference.  At the very least, as I've said a million times that you keep avoiding, it is non-introductory and should not be so set off from the other examples of humor.  Milto LOL pia 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have sources stating they claim it, it is not a lie that we have verifiable sources stating this. Your opinion is noted, but its merely an opinion. We are following the rules in including it, you dont want it in the introduction, but your opinion doesnt trump everyone elses in this issue of wording, I am very sorry Miltopia. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, generally the best way to dismiss somehting is not to say "it's your opinion". I'm not doing the same to you.  If I did, we'd be in permanent stalemate... surely you can see that there has to be something more to this conversation?  Anyway, judging by the number of people also reverting the addition of the joke, including several people who do not write for the website, I'd say it's more than just my opinion.  Now, regarding the introductory issue: I've asked, directly, for your thoughts on it.  I dont' know how I can make it any more clearer, but I want to make sure it is absolutely apparent that I would like your opinion about whether the statement, assuming it belongs in the article, belongs in the introduction.  I think that would be a good starting point.  Milto LOL pia 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Miltopia, I think you missed my point. You originally argued that it couldnt be said because its a lie. But again, it is not false - they claim it, we have sources saying this, end of story.
 * Where we are now is that you do not beleive it to be introductory worthy, but I do, because we have sources stating that they claim it. It provides more to this article. I see a lot of content has been removed because it was unsourced, the introductory is very short in comparison to other articles. We have sourced info now, and its still not good enough? I honestly disagree with this premise, we arent out to make this article shorter, that isnt supposed to be anyones goal here. We are out to make it accurate with verifiable information from reliable sources.
 * I have not dismissed your view. Instead, I have noted that it has devolved from "this is propagating a known lie" into "I dont want it here." You have not made a convincing case, again, this is a matter of content, not a matter of something being unable to be put there. I already told you why I think it should be there, you have already said why you dont think it should be there. Lets see what others have to say. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say put it there couse of the many reasons alredy stated by Rangeley.--Rataube 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its slightly anal to remove "although it claims the reverse". Uncyclopedia DOES claim that.  There is no two ways about this statement.  It is claimed by Uncyclopedia that Wikipedia is a parody of it.  This is true.  So why remove it?  -  Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.172.192 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

On behalf of 142.166.32.238: "I aplogise for placing ',though Uncylopedia claims the reverse.' I did not have any Idea that there was a debate wether it should be present or not." --142.166.84.118 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stumbled back across this discussion after a long while... Ah the fun we had! Found another source for the quote by the way... The BBC no less! I see what Miltopia is saying about non-introductory... Maybe it belongs somewhere further down? But the disputed statement itself is definitely true. It's just that it reports someone else's lie. Like, without looking, I'm sure somewhere on Clinton's page there's a reference to him not having sexual relations with that woman, and that wouldn't be removed as a lie, because it's true that he said it. And it's true that Uncyclopedia says this 'claims the reverse' thingy. Even though it's a lie. See? Tbone762 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a lie though, it's a joke. There's a difference.  It would be like saying "in some presidential debate or other, President Bush claimed that Kerry's response made him want to scowl."  Only moreso, because Uncyclopedia is pure nonsense.  Besides, there's still no compelling reason why this is more notable a claim than any else.  Milto LOL pia 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * h2g2 isn't reliable - also, it appears that that entry was written possibly by an uncyc editor, Nerd42- K @  ng  i  e meep! 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the question is does Uncyclopedia "claim the reverse?" It turns out the answer is "yes." Wikipedia policy, however, prevents us from quoting Uncyclopedia's article on Wikipedia, since it's a primary source. So if we can find a secondary source that says Uncyclopedia claims the reverse, then it should go back in.
 * And one more thing. "...though Uncyclopedia claims the reverse" is not a joke. It's a true statement. Yes, it talks about a joke, but then again, this article is about a joke website. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarise. There was a harmless and amusing line of text. But some people with small penises and large bandwidths objected, and now it is gone. Lostsocks 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You fail at trolling. Nobody's commented on this in months. --MichaelLinnear 04:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trolling, I'm a registered user and contribute to many articles. That was " expressing mild frustration at baffling levels of uptightness " Though to be honest, If I were a troll, I would have considered someone writing a post especially to tell me I had failed a success. Lostsocks 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moar tags
I just put some more tags on the international version section, just thought I'd leave a note. Milto LOL pia 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Info on policy
Who cares about Uncycopedia's policy? The answer is "Wikimedians and Uncyclopedians", such as yourself. These are the only groups that care about policy that much for the most part, why is there info about managerial decisions and policy and rules, do you really think the general public cares about that? Or do they care about founding history and types of content and other encyclopedic information? Milto LOL pia 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem paragraph?
Look at this:


 * Self-reference is another common theme in Uncyclopedia articles. For example, the rot13 page is written in rot13,, the iPod article has the second letter of every word with "i" in it capitalized, the Mortal Kombat page replaces all 'c's with 'k's , and the Caps Lock page written in all caps. 

Self-reference? What does that mean? This isn't "self-reference", this is making a joke about something. Yet another paragraph that need to be blankifiticatified in my opinion. No sources calling the articles "self-references" (the sources link to the actual articles, not anything calling them self-referenced) and "self-referenced" is a very poor word indeed to describe this humor. I'm not even sure how to tag it, so I didn't. Milto LOL pia 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Uncyclomedia Foundation
Hmm, is Uncyclopedia a project of the Uncyclomedia Foundation, or is the Uncyclomedia Foundation a play on the Wikimedia Foundation? Let's assume it's the first; in that case, the cited source says that the Organization was founded in 1860. I'm not entirely sure that's correct, nor that citing it is in the interest of factual accuracy. Milto LOL pia 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm calling BOLD on this one, I took it out. Any objections/reverts, I'll be happy to discuss before re-removing.  Really though, having cited info about an organization that's a century and a half old owning Uncyclopedia is pretty ridiculous.  Milto LOL pia 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's primary source information, and it says it was founded in 1860. I don't think they would lie.  71.0.240.220 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that in 1860, there was an organization called the Uncyclomedia Foundation? Milto LOL pia 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are references to the Uncyclomedia Foundation as far back as November 2005, but the 1860 date appears to be based on the claim that Oscar Wilde is the founder (or one of the founders) of Uncyclopedia. Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills "Wilde" (October 16, 1854 – November 30, 1900) would have been a rather young lad at the time? --66.102.80.239 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of articles
Isn't there a way to make a bot update the "10 largest uncyclopedias" paragraph to update the numbers of articles automatically? All the numbers can be taken from this one page, so I guess it's a piece of cake for bot programmers - R a q u e l S a m a   &#9733; Talk &#9733;  22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a better question is, is it really that important? Let's just leave it on the order of 10,000 and 5000 and not worry about updating, it's not like it's an advertisement or anything.  Milto LOL pia 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that's the way it is now. I saw a diff from my last edits here where someone had changed it back, but I guess they got reverted.  Milto LOL pia 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Half of the section has been deleted. Maybe it just needed to be shorter, but the selection seems totally arbitrary.--Rataube 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * wow, the article really sucks now. You turned it back to stub status for what? I tought wikipedia purpose was to gather as many information as possible on something, and you just deleted all of it. If you want to cite only 2 or 3 foreign uncyclos I totally disagree, but I wont revert it, only sugest to at least cite the 4 bigest uncyclos, not random ones. - R a q u e l S a m a   &#9733; Talk &#9733;  20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirection to Uncyclopedia article
Why does a search for "AAAAA" on Wikipedia redirect to this article on Uncyclopedia? LeviathanMist 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because "AAAAAA" is a hilarious and original Uncyclopedia joke. Milto LOL pia 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That redirect should be deleted, IMO- K @  ng  i  e meep! 10:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PROD FTW!- K @  ng  i  e meep! 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source note
I'm questioning whether or not this is best, but it's such a clear fact: I sourced the statement that Uncyclopedia exists in Hebrew, Swedish and Portuguese with this link, it's a first-party source... not really sure about this. It seems ok though. Input plz. Milto LOL pia 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A wiki with it's own universe?
Does Uncyclopedia have it's own fictional universe? I personally think so because of fictional conflicts such as the "500-foot jesus vs mecha-hitler" battles, along with fictional events of the future. Flashn00b 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just a bunch of jokes. Milto LOL pia 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidate
I've nommed this for "good article" status here ^_^ Milto LOL pia 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is hilarious that Uncyclopedia is up for GA, but hey, it seems close to passing, although the lead section could provide more explanation and convey the structure better. tonsofpcs (Talk) 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia isn't owned by Wikipedia, is it?
I wasn't sure whether or not it was, but I surely hope not. The site is so NOT FUNNY and blatantly disrespectful to blacks and whites, in particular. I'm not the first to notice. The tasteless "humor" it condones speaks volumes of America's failure to take responsibility for it's values. Children observe these websites, for Christ's sake. Countless numbers of Uncyclopedia's articles are hurtful; furthermore, they are just asking for an uprising triggered by the immature comments that targeted groups might stumble upon...just as I did. I just wish there was some way to get rid of it for good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Uncyclopedia is fairly light satire...go to Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Wiki, and you'll see what I mean.
 * You can rest easy. It's actually owned by Wikia. &mdash; Michael Linnear   00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * God forbid we should allow satire to appear on screens in liberal democracies. Chrisfow 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was owned by wikipedia!!! and i thought wikia was a part of wikipedia!-hotspot
 * No, Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia and Wikia is run by many people with experience on Wikipedia. It's also co-founded by Jimbo and another high-profile Wikimedian.  So some of the same people, different company.  Milto LOL pia 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That cleared up everything for me thanks-hotspot

AAAAAAAAA!
There should be a section on the famous AAAAAAAAA! page. A•N•N•A  foxlove r  21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * if you are going to propose adding a section, you should probably wait for others to chime in before just doing it. I've reverted your addition since there's no need to highlight what you claim to be their "most famous page". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r  01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your contribution (which you've now re-inserted ) makes the uncited claim that this particular article is "one of the most popular". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say don't add it, as it could be POV (Some might say AAAAAAAAA! is the most famous page, but others might disagree). -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources in the article, some of the other content on Uncyclopedia is far more "famous" than AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! &mdash; Michael Linnear   02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Oscar Wilde? -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oscar Wilde is mentioned in this source, but last I checked he was already mentioned in the article. &mdash; Michael Linnear   02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should at least mention the following content: AAAAAAAAA!, Oscar Wilde, Kitten huffing, Grues, the blank Nihilism page, and the anti-Wikipedia content.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r  13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source saying any of those articles are famous? Btw, the article does mention that Uncyclopedia is a "satirical parody" of Wikipedia, i.e. it's critical (though I doubt its truth).  Milto LOL pia 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can tmopkisn tlka 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good, that will help this article progress a lot. &mdash; Michael Linnear   04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then someone add it into the article. AAAAAAAAA! is famous enough that it needs to be at least mentioned in Wikipedia. Also, the redirect page needs to be added back.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r   hello!  19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from re-creating a previously deleted redirect. Deletion review is over here. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation
Here's a Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Top 10 Articles of 2005 I think #1 of it's top ten articles of 2005 would enough to say that it's on of their most famous articles.--71.170.215.85 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the first article on Uncyclopedia?
Who created the first article on Uncyclopedia? Was it the founder? What is the most recent article (not stub) on this site?Coffsneeze 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my guess is that the first page created by a user on that site seems to be spade, which was made by Chronarion, the site's founder. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, this isn't a page for discussion of the subject of the article, it is for discussion of the article. Plz to keep on topic- K @  ng  i  e meep! 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't assume bad faith. Maybe Coffsneeze thought it might be relevant to the article. -- trlkly 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't Spade, I checked the history. Chronarion wasn't there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.234.78 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious statements only plz
The wisdom of adding joke claims into the article as though they are in any way serious is questionable, but there should absolutely not be any sort of indication that the jokes on Uncyclopedia represent the truth. There is zero possibility that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, if for no other reason than the fact that WP existed years before, so please don't introduce material into the article treating that silliness as "possibility". Milto LOL pia 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point, but apparently there is a significant minority whose opinion is (a) different and (b) published. Smylei 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said in my edit - stating that Uncyclopedia is a JOKING website and JOKINGLY call Wikipedia the copycat. --Edmundkh 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time: The current version states that it actually might be true. Nonsense.  Smylei, adding nonsense to articles is really bad form.  Milto LOL pia 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about you. Apart from uncyclopedia, there are plenty of people out there saying that wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. I do not count myself in, but I just find it interesting to provide all the published viewpoints. Smylei 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there? I was unaware of any others making that claim.  Who else says this?  Milto LOL pia 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find them by yourself if you search the net a bit using "parody of Uncyclopedia". They are mostly blogs. But current reference no. 1 supporting the claim that Uncyclopedia is a parody is also a blog (Elisabeth Donovan). Of course, I could never imagine how could an average chump make up a cogent opinion that wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. I think that most of them are being dishonest. You probably go a little bit further assuming that they are dishonest and malice-free, which can sometimes be classified as joking. But we are not allowed to do these logical conclusions here, since they would amount to original research. For example, Daniel Griliopoulos presents the wikipedia/uncyclopedia discussion and claims that Uncyclopedia wins "because it has better pictures". For me this is of course a blatant abuse of logic. But the real question here is not whether wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia, or opposite, but how vulnerable we are to media pressure. Prohibiting blogs is not a solution, I find Riverbend blog to be much better source of true information on Iraq than New York Times and BBC together. It is definitely very just of you to try to use "patent nonsense" hammer here, but go and try to root out reference-supported patent nonsense e.g. from Iraq page to see how impossible it is when you encounter stubborn revert warriors. In my opinion, there is no known mechanism to ensure encyclopedic cooperation of people whose primary intention is to distort information. In my opinion, a fat CS student from Stony Brooks came to a conclusion that no matter how smart or stupid rules you make for an online encyclopedia, the result will always be something away from truth. It is also my opinion that Wikipedia can be considered a parody of Uncyclopedia in this sense, because vulnerabilities render the Wikipedia information unreliable, which can be achieved more honestly by forfeiting or outright forbidding "factuality" at all. A surprise fact is that Uncyclopedia also has a rule that the closer the article is to truth, the better it is. So the question of whether Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia because it was launched later or Wikipedia parodies the eternal Search of Truth is not so nonsensical. I cannot find any reference that would explicity endorse the viewpoint as I wrote it here. Apparently, Searchers of Truth are lazy bastards. Am I being serious enough? Smylei 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, why would we include a statement supported only by dishonest sources exactly? I'm not following why you re-inserted the information.  Milto LOL pia 08:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it's an interesting fact that Uncyclopedia has that statement you know. I don't mean that Uncuyclopedia is telling the truth - it's b*** s***ing. But I find interesting that they accuse Wikipedia for copying them, so it would be nice to tell this here. --Edmundkh 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia makes thousands of interesting statements, what makes this particularly worthy of inclusion? Milto LOL pia 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the main motivation for this push for inclusion is, quite obviously, the "...claims the reverse" joke between the two articles. It isn't a particularly informative little tidbit, and it isn't particularly noteworthy, however. Wikipedia isn't a humour dump- K @  ng  i  e meep! 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, but Wikipedia is an Uncyclopedia parody. Why else would they register http://www.unicyclopedia.org as a domain? --66.102.80.239 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Task list
- Alex valavanis 09:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Change external links to references in History
 * Include one or two examples to illustrate the "Oscar Wilde" quotes in Content
 * Expand the content section as it is particularly weak. There should be a couple examples of popular articles (with citations for their popularity)
 * Citations should come after punctuation, with no space between.
 * The sentence "While most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site, there are perhaps just as many articles about Wikia and/or Wikipedia that just mention its name briefly." is poorly written - in particular, its meaning is unclear, it uses "just" twice and uses "and/or". Also, the word "perhaps" implies that it is unverifiable, so should possibly be removed.
 * Merge or expand one-sentence paragraph in Press coverage. If these articles really are notable, can you briefly summarize what they are about in the paragraph?
 * Expand and translate the unexplained acronym "SGAE" in in other languages
 * Extenal links -> references in in other languages
 * Citation needed for paragraph about the schoolgirl in Controversy
 * Controversy implies there is disagreement over the topic. Only one side of the argument is given.  Perhaps the section could be changed to Criticism.  Alternatively, I think it would be better to refer to a counter-argument concerning Uncyclopedia's policy on not naming individuals.
 * A section about the editing rules and guidelines within Uncyclopedia would be useful to better illustrate how it differs from traditional encyclopedias and wiki sites. It may be useful to contrast it with Wikipedia's rules.
 * Because of the guideline about not linking to external sites containing factually inaccurate information, a brief warning would be useful next to the links to uncyclopedia. I agree that it is important for the links to remain, but there's a chance someone could skip the article text and go straight to the link, thinking it was a real encyclopedia.
 * The article's stability is not satisfactory - there are many changes each day.
 * The lead section should be expanded a little to summarize the topics in the main text. See WP:LEAD
 * Uncyclopedia is under the Creative Commons share alike license. The images in this article don't have tags to reflect this.  At the moment they are tagged as being from copyright sources, without fair use rationale.
 * All right, let's make this featured.-- Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde
I'm not sure if Uncyclopedia's jokes have anything to do with this, but there was a sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus involving many Oscar Wilde misquotes. I don't know if this should be in the article or not.
 * If you can find a reference supporting this, then sure. Otherwise, it's probably Original research and should be left out. - Alex valavanis 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the sketch, but I'm not sure how much it relates to Uncyc's association with Wilde. – Riana talk 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You could state that the Flying Circus sketch inspired Uncyclopedia's tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde, as it's highly unlikely to be a coincidence. That is, unless the Monty Python sketch itself was inspired by society's tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde. Aaaantoine 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very likely coincidence as, as you said, society has a tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde. But even more so than that, it seems obvious that a massive satirical website may consciously and independently make the decision to intentionally misquote a person who is incredibly famous for their quotes. Either way, it's original research. Calgary 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Content
The Content section needs to be rewritten. Uncyclo is just a bunch fictional Oscar Wilde quotes--71.170.41.7 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What parts exactly do you think should be improved? Milto LOL pia 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The content section already suggests that uncyc uses repetitive Oscar Wilde misquotes everywhere - so where's the problem?- K @  ng  i  e meep!
 * Sorry what I meant was that the content section only said the repetitive Oscar Wilde quotes and nothing about the other content on uncyclopeida.Uncyclo isnot just a bunch of fictional Oscar Wilde quotes --71.170.41.7 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I would encourage you to find some sources that say otherwise, as all we have are sources that mention Oscar Wilde misquotes, so we can only include that- K @  ng  i  e meep!

This has quite a bit more. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 13:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New Main Page

 * As of April 7, 2007 they have completely changed the layout of the main page, filling it with ad spots and the like, I think you should change the picture of the main page of Uncylopedia in the article to keep it up to date..it doesnt resemble the wikipedia main page anymore. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.121.241.149 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * It's a reskin. We make several of these a year, usually to celebrate some kind of event (real or otherwise). Don't panic, it'll all be back to normal tomorrow. -- Codeine 11:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to uncyclopedia.org and it was a fake Fox News page with some article on Oscar wide, but all the links were links to Uncyclopedia and the main page. It was in celebration of Easter becaue the article was one of Easter. This should be noted somewhere in this article. Randomfrenchie 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No thanks, not without a reliable source- K @  ng  i  e meep! 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a section about the reskinning of the main page, with a couple of links to past reskinnings.
 * There used to be one of those, and there is still an active archive on Uncyclopedia itself. tmopkisn tlka
 * here tmopkisn tlka 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

History
Restored history section, deleted by anon IPs. Is there any reason to remove the history? --h2g2bob 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was just page blanking vandalism. However one of those edits by an anon IP was a good one updating website information. I restored the information he added. &mdash; Michael Linnear   23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to all Uncyclopedias
It seems to me that posts to wikis in general are not considered reliable by Wikipedia, but those on a wiki like Uncyclopedia would be logically even more unreliable due to its non-serious content. So, my reasoning for pushing for the Wikia link and not the Uncyclopedia link is for that reason. Yeah, I know that wikia dot com is a wiki too, but it's one that is heavily policed by the Wikia Inc. staff and not just thrown together by any anonymous yahoo with an internet connection, which would negate the WP:RS concerns normally present for wikis. Additionally, the only Uncyclopedia projects the article discusses (and the only one it has sources mentioning) are the ones hosted by Wikia, so... yeah. Don't see much reasons to link to others for that reason as well, I could create an "Uncyclopedia" of my own on editthis.info and it would have no less reason to be mentioned on here than other non-Wikia ones. Anyway, that's my input regarding these reversions. Milto LOL pia 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many Uncyclopedias not hosted by Wikia are just as big as, if not bigger than, those hosted by Wikia. And I don't see any reason why including a link to a larger list of wikis, instead of the list linked to currently, would be detrimental to this article. Longer list = more accuracy, believe it or not. tmopkisn tlka
 * Ok, well, these Uncyclopedias not hosted by Wikia that are just as big as those that are, where are the sources for them? Where are they talked about at all?  And this "not seeing any reason" - do you have any comment on the various reasons I brought up, or are you just going to pretend I didn't say them?  Milto LOL pia 18:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources for the Wikia wikis? Where are they talked about - Wikia? Does the fact that Wikia has a page mentioning them make them any more notable than those that Wikia doesn't mention? As for your other reasons, I would argue that Uncyclopedia is just as heavily-policed as Wikia, and that its staff just as dedicated as the staff at Wikia (most of which, by the way, do very little to police Wikia's pages, and instead spend their time helping other wikis hosted by Wikia.) Now, if you were to go to editthis.info and create an Uncyclopedia in a (legitimate) language that did not yet have an Uncyclopedia, then I think it'd be important that this Uncyclopedia be mentioned as well. tmopkisn tlka 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried a quick Google test to search (by name) for each of four largest non-English Uncyclopedias... 144000 Google hits for アンサイクロペディア, 131000 for Desciclopédia, 107000 for Désencyclopédie and about 105000 for Nonsensopedia. Desciclopédia has had media coverage in its home country, and is (by Alexa rank) one of the 550 largest sites in Brazil. アンサイクロペディア is growing by more than twenty pages a day and will soon be the second-largest of all the Uncyclopedias. To comply with WP:NPOV, the only criterion for inclusion needs to be notability, not choice of one particular web hosting company over another. --66.102.80.239 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Neither アンサイクロペディア, nor Desciclopédia are hosted by Wikia. tmopkisn tlka
 * Still no sources for any of this info. First hand info is unreliable because blah blah blah we've been over this.  If there were info to be had on this other Uncyclopedias, it would be written about by credible writers and added into the article by someone not heavily involved in the website itself.  Milto LOL pia 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the Wikia-hosted Uncyclopedias have been written about by "credible writers" either, so I don't see why the fact that they're hosted on Wikia makes them any more notable than other Uncyclopedia - not hosted on Wikia - that get twice as many Google hits. Furthermore, I don't think my involvement on Uncyclopedia should have anything to do with this discussion. For if it does, than I suppose your involvement would need to be mentioned as well - and I'm sure you wouldn't like that. tmopkisn tlka
 * You're right, I'd hate for anyone here to know that I vandalized it once nearly a year ago and was later gossiped about on Uncyclopedia by anti-ED whiners blaming me for this very article being improved. Oh crap...
 * Anyway, my involvement is irrelevant since I have no interest in Uncyclopedia one way or another, hence there's no conflict of interest. And I'm not sure why you're saying there's no sources about Uncyclopedias hosted by Wikia when there are a dozen or so references in the article about the main English language Uncyclopedia, which is hosted by Wikia... which websites are those articles referring to then?  Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, because it seems like everything you say is just a big "NO U" without any regard for accuracy.  Maybe you could elaborate on which sources referenced in the article do not mention any Wikia-hosted Uncyclopedias so I can better catch your meaning.  Milto LOL pia 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, how is Wikia a neutral source? They're a for-profit hosting company with ads on 20 of the 37 language versions of Uncyclopedia. Evidently they have a vested interest in listing just the ones with their ads, excluding the others. Their listing Jonathan Huang as "founder" instead of as one of multiple founders is also factually and materially incorrect. And how does the Wikia-hosted English-language Uncyclopedia receiving media coverage make the Wikia-hosted Esparanto Uncyclopedia more notable than the non-Wikia Taiwanese Uncyclopedia? Many of the 20 Wikia-hosted Uncyclopedias are not notable in the media, with a few exceptions such as Inciclopedia and maybe dÉsencyclopédie. Go back to ED!


 * Evidently there's plenty of media coverage for non-English (and non-Wikia) Uncyclopédia projects, but evidently the articles themselves are not in English. A search for Desciclopédia leads to places like Brazilian newspaper site O Globo. Fine if you speak Brazilian (pt-br), but it seems that the authors of the English-language Wikipedia article on Uncyclopedia are linking primarily to English-language media as sources? --66.102.80.239 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikia's info is only used in article for some background history. True, it's their business to make Uncyclopedia look better, but their page isn't being used to assess the site, so it's all good.  As for the confusion over the founder - we have to go with what the sources say.  That's just the way it is.  Milto LOL pia 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've stopped using your words to progress your point and our now simply refuting minor claims that have very little to do with what we're trying to talk about here. It's very obvious to me that Wikia Uncyclopedias are no more notable than those not hosted by Wikia, and I'm sure it's fairly obvious to you as well. However, your extreme stubbornness, and your outright contempt for Uncyclopedia (You've vandalized the sight at least four times, the last of which you moved my talk page there to "Though Uncyclopedia claims the reverse" ) have prevented you in agreeing with what you know to be the truth. If I'm not mistaken, this is conflict of interest, and I think I speak for the majority of us on this talk page when I say that I'd appreciate it if you would please stop editing this article. tmopkisn tlka
 * It's too bad that off-site problems and feuds are being brought to Wikipedia, but Miltopia's edits to the article have been greatly beneficial. If anything an administrator at a site would have a greater conflict of interest, than someone who has vandalized it once or twice (I mean who hasn't?) For now I put both links into the External link section, as a compromise, until things are sorted out on the talk page, as there is nothing in the external link policy that forbids either of them. &mdash; Michael Linnear   00:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, tompkins, if you have a personal issue, you need to hash it out on Uncyclopedia or ED or something, leave it off the talk page. And it looks like you got hit with my insane internet stalker and would-be troublemaker trying to drum up drama.  Lawl!  I thihnk it's been made clear that I have no interest to be conflicted, so I'll leave it at that.  Milto LOL pia 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are editing this article disruptively through many repetitive, pointless removals of information, then the talk page is exactly one of the places where this should be discussed. --205.150.76.28 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimonster
Why is the Wikipedia Monster deleted whenever I put it on here? Darth Skynyrd 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, but there's a few policies and guidelines that might answer your question. I'd recommend reading WP:NOR, WP:V AND WP:NOTE, just to get a feeling for what's generally ok and what isn't on WP- K  @  ng  i  e meep! 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See also WP:SELF, a guideline on avoiding self-reference. It may be a part of why multiple editors have determined that the image is not particularly relevant to the article.  Milto LOL pia 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Uncyclopedia is a whacked up website! Filled with stupid and inappriotitate stuff. I can't stand it! Runewiki  777  21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. While Wikipedia is not a forum, I would like to know if there were any specific articles or anything that made you have such a negative opinion of it. I am a fan of and regular contributor to it, and want to know how we can improve. Ab e g92 contribs 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikis
Isn't this redundant to Category:Wiki communities? I'm not sure what the practice is for parent categorization. Milto LOL pia 03:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be, but since categories seem to be used for aid in searching and organization, it seems fine to leave both. They certainly could qualify for a merge though, as they cover the exact same subjects, by definition, pretty much all Wikis are community based. &mdash; Michael Linnear   04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've kinda thought "Wiki communities" was a dubious category in general. I wonder who gets to say which are communities and which aren't?  Maybe it should be deleted entirely.  Milto LOL pia 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wiki communities" might be one of those self referential and wikicentric things, much like people trying to make articles avout Willy on Wheels. In the greater scheme of things, the world does not revolve around WP, and what may seem famous here is actually utterly unimportant. As such a deletion could be warranted. &mdash;  Michael Linnear   00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Locked?
Why can't I edit this page, I've been on wikipedia for almost a year, it just doesn't make sense --Uncle J 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you were logged in? It's only semi-protected and I can edit it just fine. &mdash; Michael Linnear   23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

POV
THe criticism section should at least include uncyclopedia's policy of no bullying. Robograndma 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * post at the bottom of the page next time XD 71.34.103.198 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)