Difference between revisions of "Uncyclopedia talk:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid"

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Being funny)
(I request an addenum to this.: new section)
Line 328: Line 328:
Ive been perusing the administrators contributions. Im not finding any funny ones.  That sucks. Oh well, i quit.
Ive been perusing the administrators contributions. Im not finding any funny ones.  That sucks. Oh well, i quit.
:Bye, [[UN:N|we'll miss you]]. - {{User:TheLedBalloon/sig}}  <small><small>19:39, Mar 4</small></small>
:Bye, [[UN:N|we'll miss you]]. - {{User:TheLedBalloon/sig}}  <small><small>19:39, Mar 4</small></small>
== I request an addenum to this. ==
I want to classify Rickrolling as a "stagnant joke."  The internet types ruined the greatness that was Rick Astley. --{{User:Crazyswordsman/sig}} 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:12, 31 March 2008

“People say funny and stupid things. But mostly stupid.”
~ Oscar Wilde on Uncylopedia: How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid



These examples are not particularly good, I find myself laughing at the immature one (although perhaps this is due to the context of the article) rather than the more developed one. I propose to make the stupid one less funny, or the more intelligent one more funny; after all, claiming Erik Estrada was aborted is pretty damn funny; saying he was actually a highway patrolman is not - it's a simple clash of controversy versus creativity --Olipro Icons-flag-gb.png (Harass) 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can thank Izwalito for this page being protected. Please add your suggestions for funny guidelines here. --Chronarion 15:29, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Another rule should be "Keep some connection to the truth". Inconsistency has its limits, because most things are expected to remain within the same general domain as its real-life counterpart. For example, Oprah is still a person, and entries mentioning her without knowing anything else will assume she is a person. Suppose I decided to make Bill Cosby an ocean liner. That might be funny but it would make nonsense out of anyone who wrote an article assuming Bill Cosby was a person. I bring this up to point out that sticking to the truth in at least a general and vague sense will make linking to the article less of a problem. --George guy 15:52, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Before I write an article, I like to do a search for the article to see if anybody has mentioned it before, and if so, try to conform to what's already been written. For example, if article X says that person Y comes from country Z, mention that when you write your article on country Z. It gives the site as a whole a sense of cohesiveness, and makes it look less like a bunch of random gibberish some people threw together. --UnholySauce 16:10, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Well, yes, but I was referring to a more general level of detail. If Z is in real life a South American country, passing references to Z, linked or not, will probably depend on the idea that Z is at the very least a place, so it could make for complications if the article on Z declares that it's a breeed of goat.--George guy 16:19, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

a picture is worth a thousand words. Vitamins is an example of a slightly funny image. George W. Bush is funny. Nostradamus is friggin hilarious. having a good image with a funny caption can really make an article a riot, as well as get people glancing over articles to chuckle and read further. more reads = more edits = better uncyclopedia. --Metaphysical 16:29, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here... my thing was a general statement, not a direct response to what George Guy said. He responded as if I was contradicting his post, which I wasn't trying to do. --UnholySauce 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

oh trust me, we all think you were. and we're judging you for it. big time. don't worry -- i'll pray for your eternal soul, as it'll burn in internet hell for ever and ever (which is a long time)........ don't worry 'bout it. :) --Metaphysical 19:53, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

About Not everyone on the planet is male.: since when uncyclopedia must be politically correct?? It is not male fault that small number of woman read, edit and add articles. --MaDeR 10:30, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Women don't read because they feel alienated by the type of humour on Uncyclopedia, as would any reasonable person. --poorsodI crave recognition 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i call upon articles like Years of incredible solitude at the hands of our giant ape overlords who like human breast milk in their coffee and The Epoch of Great Chewing that follows a Non-discernable Pattern based on String Theory and Molar Infections - This stuff is utter nonsensical ravings. Not funny.

Please avoid:
  • Turning the title of articles into whole sentences
  • Making the article complete gibberish that you wrote on an orange peel during an acid trip
  • Encouraging more of the same by putting brackets [[ ]] around random long phrases.

thank you and good night. --Metaphysical 20:39, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Unprotected. --Chronarion 23:19, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Suggestion: Quoting funny things is unfunny

I can't believe people put in Monty Python quotes verbatim. Or Douglas Adams quotes verbatim. Or tired old jokes they happen to know on a topic. It's bad enough finding yourself down the pub with such people, where at least it isn't written down.

  • Quoting Monty Python is not funny.
  • Quoting Douglas Adams is not funny.
  • Quoting Spinal Tap is not funny.
  • Quoting Chuck Norris facts are not funny.
  • Quoting any other comedians or comic writers is not funny.
  • Quoting old jokes is a worthless waste of wiki western-digital disk storage. Whereas the uncyclopedia itself is a worthy waste of wiki western-digital disk storage.
  • Starting from Monty Python and riffing on it is not funny, unless it would work without the Monty Python. In which case take it away. The monty python part, I mean.
  • Same for Douglas Adams and any other comic writer.

Can that be put any more bluntly? Instruction creep is of course bad, and comes from the fallacy that people read instructions at all. But they do serve as guidelines for those with the flamethrowers. - David Gerard 21:30, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Need further help on being funny?

Just click here to witness comedic genius in action.



--Savethemooses 20:18, 27 May 2005 (EDT)

An Encyclopedia Gone Bad

On the issue of staying close to reality, I think articles should try and sound, moslty, like they are from an actual encyclopedia. Stuff like chatty, informal commentry is found in Wikipedia, but it still looks unprofessional, like anybody wrote it (which they did, obviously). This should be like a real Encylcopedia, gone bad. One where the writers were lazy and used 1920's definitions of evolution, one with un-pc racist attitudes (parodies, not actual racism), stuff like that. See here: Chickens

And it's been said a thousand times, but what is funny about rambling, divergent stories about how Tom Cruise invented Mongoose in 1933? It's just gibberish. Can we just delete all gibberish unless there is a reason for it? I say screw being polite to people who write it. Comedy is at stake here people! Let's write some jokes.


Yeah, I have the same problem. I think that it should read like an uncontrolled wikipedia, just without trolls. Basicly the truth, but exagerated into absurdity by bias, halfthrought ideas and apparently written mostly by people with only a basic idea of what they are writing about. Lord-z 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice rules for writing humor.

It'd be nice if the retard Something Awful writers followed these rules too. Maybe that and if Lowtax pulled his head out of his capitalist ass the site might be occasionally funny again. -- 08:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Something Awful is they think if telling a joke once is funny, then telling it 1000 times will make it 1000 times as funny (instead of just, y'know, repetitive). I understand it's easier for them to parrot stuff other goons say rather than showing some creativity and making up their own material, but it's still pretty lame and really drags down the quality of the site. —Mad Anthony Wayne 09:14, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this stuff.

*The truth is often funnier than flat out nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth. 
:*Example: "Erik Estrada is an intergalactic poo warrior who was aborted by his mother during the third week of pregnancy."  
::Stupid. Pointless drivel. 
:*Example: "Erik Estrada is an American (possibly Costa Rican) television actor.  Known for a succesful career in the California Highway Patrol following his retirement from the television business." 
::Funnier because it's closer to the truth. "CHiPS" was a real TV show. Blending fact with fiction, or blurring that line makes for better comedy. Now, mind you, this is not a particularly hilarious line, but you get the idea. 
*Note: Even funnier because Eric Estrada now appears on british television as a celebrity. 

Whoever wrote the examples got them backwards. "Intergalactic Poo Warrior" is actually much closer to the truth than "television actor" is.--Emily2531 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked the first one much better. Mostly because I don't see any sort of joke at all in the second one. --Nintendorulez 01:16, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with a Nintendo fan, but as you mis-spelt "rulez", I'll make an exception: do you think that if you "don't see any sort of joke at all" that means it's not funny, or does it moreso reflect on yourself? (oh, by the way, great Kevin Bacon reference) --Joachim22 06:26, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I anonymously agree with Joachim. The unexpected is funnier than the expected. Unexpected truth is funnier than gibberish, since you start to expect more gibberish. Cruel truth better still. The funniest stuff is cruel, unexpected, and true.

Like when John Bird jumps out at you with a dead baby in his mouth. --poorsodI crave recognition 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Required Reading

I think every person who has a desire to write for Uncyclopedia should have to read this article in its entirity before they're allowed to create anything or make any changes to other people's genuinely funny articles. They should then be quizzed at length on its contents. I think a lot of people have just spent so much time watching Family Guy reruns and flash cartoons from Newgrounds that they've forgotten what real humor looks like (take that!). -- User:

As long as it's entertaining, I'm happy. --Nerd42 01:33, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Having said that, Family Guy succeeds in being funny because of the clear definition of its own boundaries. UC does not have these, so we shouldn't try to be Family Guy. We're not.--poorsodI crave recognition 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Message

First of all, I would like to say that I agree partially with User: People are not funny if they have the same sense of humor as Family Guy (Gosh what a stupid show!) and Newgrounds flashes. I do not think that this is a good guide to writing funny articles.

Objection 1: The truth is not mostly funnier than fiction. I mean, the example they gave? WTF, mate?

Objection 2: These guys are hypocrites. The Oscar Wilde thing is definetely a cliche. And it's an unfunny one too.

Objection 3: I quote, ""Eminem is the son of Dr. Dre and Queen Latifa" is much better".

This is not funny! It had an interesting point to it, but that doesn't make it funny.(The alternative is not funny either, to agree.)

Objection 4: I quote again, "Creationism is the idea that God was so bored out of his mind he spent 6 days creating everything on our planet, and for good measure put in several jokes to fool us into believing it must have taken him much longer."

This is stupid. It is a repeated joke about God. Another point about cliches.

Objection 5: A picture does not have to be altered to be funny. A funny caption under a normal picture can be funny. The caption can even be normal and seem funny with the picture.

I hope you take my advice. Feel free to message me, Anonymuos8.

My oppinion is: fart. -keke^_^

(I disagree with it all -- 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC) )

Blanking Articles = Stupid

I would like to say that blanking articles is just stupid and is still considered Vandalism, even at a place where you are allowed to be funny. Also, do not blank entire articles only to add >700 KB of crap like "Ima Tumor Ima Tumor Ima Tumor", "I LIKE DP! I LIKE DP!" or "WACKA! WACKA! WACKA!". It may be funny to YOU but this is to be funny to at least the majority of people who read these articles, and many times you are blanking several other funny jokes. Please do not do this, as you will get banned.

Also, never ever ever ever EVER quote Chuck Norris facts. Just because the Horde in WoW worship Chuck Norris and wish to do naughty things to him doesn't mean those fact are actually funny anymore. They cause intelligent people to groan in pain and are so old they're as funny as blanking articles.

Um, what are the chances anyone who's likely to do this sort of thing is going to read these sorts of instructions, anyway? --BruceR 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero. Think of this as more of an Obituary Page, rather than a "how not to die" page. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 11/13 21:32


Has anyone made an article containing all the things the HTBFANJS article tells us not to do? As in everything? I would do it, but it would take too long.

Well, DUH! Check out the How To Be Stupid And Not Just Funny articoil!!!1

I cant think of who to attribute the quote on the "free will" page to

God/Forrest Gump/George W. Bush/Someone else/Who Who Who?--Mrasdfghjkl 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Hey buddy; I like the gibberish! well... as long as its not too out there.

Question when translating

Hi. I translated HTBFANS into Japanese Uncyclopedia.[1] ...However, I can't understand the following line.

Be sure your string of barely coherent prose does in fact contain at least one(1) degree of celsius between each serving — or 1/6 of a "Kevin Bacon.")

What's meaning of it? Is it a pure nonsense writing? Or, a double meaning in English peculiarity? Does the word "degree" contain other meaning than the temperature? (I can't understand though I read the article Kevin Bacon.) Please teach me, if the sentence has meanings other than meaningless. --Kasuga 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mostly meaningless, but also a bad pun (and "degree" has many meanings in english). It is sort of like trying to explan "Urusei Yatsura" to an english speaker. To explain: 1/6th of a "Kevin Bacon" is a degree (see wikipedia:Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon). No need to translate it, make up a funnier pun. --Splaka 05:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Finally, I came to understand it. It's certainly hard to explain in Japanese. --Kasuga 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord... you're trying to translate humor into another language? Good luck. The general rule when translating humor is, as Splarka said, simply to come up with a funny pun in the language you're translating to. This is especially true with complex puns like the one you mentioned above. I'm sure this is after the fact and isn't of much use to you, but can be used as a guideline just in case you decide to translate anything else from en.Uncyclopedia.  :) --<<Bradmonogram.png>> 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Monkeys

If you have to explain why it's funny, or isn't funny, then it's not funny? Kapish? See, I am talking about being funny, and it's not funny. Just give the 1,000,000 monkeys their typewriters and see what happens. What happen? You see you, you like; you like, you buy!! Just stupid is funny

See above for a perfect example of being stupid and just not funny.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one tiny comment

Being silly about serious things is not funny, but being serious about silly things is. --Thematrixeatsyou 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What like: "Rape isn't funny, unless you're raping a clown?" Rinky Stingpiece 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(antimetaboles are a tidy way of sounding wise, but are clearly logically fallacious, e.g.: if it's funny it must be true; if it's true, it must be funny - so why aren't I laughing?)

We should list cliches to avoid

Or is there another page for doing that? (in which case, we should link to it) And when I say "cliches to avoid" I mean, subjects that have been beated to death. (like the russian reversal) --Nerd42Talk 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - including cliches like "beaten to death"? (even the word "cliche" is a cliche) Rinky Stingpiece 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect it please

Not everyone is old and admin, and I'd like to add some bits. Lysdexia 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

just a note

in the "The "@#$%^&*" Rule" section, it states that you don't ned to swear like a Marine Drill Sergeant... yet there are no 'drill sergeants' in the Marine Corps. they're called 'drill instructors.' just fyi.


To behonest, you're lucky we managed to spell "marine" properly.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
All of these are sergeants.

I don't get this

I often look around uncyclopedia when I have some spare time, as it something to do. I came across this article the other day, and I didn't get it. Its as if it telling me what I should find funny, and the things I should do to make everyone else think what I say is funny. Thats just stupid. How funny an article is depends of whos reading it, and its there opinion what is funny. Before I laugh at something, I don't think hmmmmm, actually, that isn't funny at all as that sarcasm is far to blunt, and not at all subtle. The article even goes as simply calling something I found amusing not humerous. WTF. Maybe I'm looking to deep into this, and this article is a really a terrible joke itself, sorry for waisting your time if so.

This article is designed to be a guide to maximize humor for the audience that Uncyclopedia is aimed at. This article actually have very useful tips for this purpose. The fact that you found one of the jokes funny that it says is not doesn't mean the article is wrong, necessarily, but that that particular kind of joke is generally not found funny here, and so it should not be included if writing an article (as others here will not find it funny). It's true that humor is a very subjective thing, but it must be geared toward your audience, and Uncyclopedia is generally geared toward an audience that's very broad but generally more educated than the average internet user. Or maybe more pretentious, the two seem to go hand in hand. Anyway, it's intended to help save you from being eaten alive by editors and your ego torn to shreds if you decide to write something.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretentious! Well, I never! /me puts glass of brandy on table, extinguishes pipe, and storms out. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I say! I didn't see you there, good chap! Accept my sincerest apologies! Is the foxhunt still on?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


Add a link to the Three word article in Wilde's quote.

Done. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a "Hypocrasy"?

A Much Needed Tag

The {{N-F}} Template now employs the [humor needed] tag. Use it and live. -- [citations needed] 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "humor"?

I've heard of humour, but what is "humor"? Is it like humus as opposed to houmous? Houmous being a thing you can eat; and humus being necessary for growing the houmous bushes? I.e.: humus precipitates earthy lips; whereas houmous precipitates girthy hips... ergo: if humour... never mind.

I don't see how that surreal line about Eric Estrada is less funny that the boring example that follows it. Promsan 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is humour?

When you say: "...is it like humus as opposed to houmous?..." Did you mean humous? Or is this like humor as opposed to humour? --Az MAH 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Humour vs Humus

surely it's obvious, if you want "humor", get an american to write it; if you want it to be funny get british people to write it.

seriously... do a survey of articles... which are the top 100 funniest articles... that's the best guide, not some jive ass robotic instructions on "hu-mOrrr" from Yankistanis. Rinky Stingpiece 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Being an American, I am obviously unfunny, and will stop writing at once. Good day, sirs. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:47, Aug 20, 2007

Erik Estrada issue

Well, I seem to be under the impression that nobody likes the first Estrada tip. So, instead of what's there, how about, "Erik Estrada is an American (possibly Costa Rican) television actor, known for a successful career in the California Highway Patrol following his retirement from the prostitution industry." Just a thought, was hoping to satire Hollywood a bit. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:52, Aug 20, 2007

It's not funny though...

Can somebody list "[something] was invented by George Bush / Oliver Letwin in 1768/1329 to [something] the [something else]" as completely and utterly stagnant?

It wasn't funny the first time I read it, despite this page suggesting that people always use this structure.

Seriously, it's not. Not even close.

It's listed under the "cliché" section as "not funny" already. I don't see where the page suggests that this is a good thing to use.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 13:25 Aug 28, 2007


I like toilet humour! :(

Toilet humor can be funny. But, it must be very well executed to be funny for any significant number of people. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:07, Sep 22

Changed the examples

Let me know what you think. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Real people's names

Why are real people's names are stupid and not funny? --Gangstah fo shizzle 22px-Flag of Australia.pngMUNTalkContributionsArticleForum 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers should be changed

Instead of "Uncyclopedia gets over 300 new articles a day" it should be Over 9000. There should also be a 1337 reference somewhere. -- Kip > Talk Works Sophia Commander of the Order USA! 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Fucking. Way. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Haha, whatever you say, ZeldaFan... P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:46, Sep 27

Also, we need to take out the reference to Chuck Norris not being funny, because Chuck pwns and is hilarious in everyway. -- Kip > Talk Works Sophia Commander of the Order USA! 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New tip for humo(u)r?

I was thinking about this page, and then back to my first featured article. I thought that, since irony fueled that page, couldn't it be useful for others? Maybe it needs a bullet in the "Some basic techniques of humor writing" section. However, I really can't think of much to say about irony (oh the irony?) and I'd feel like a pretentious jerk linking to my own page oh HTBFANJS. Any suggestions? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:53, Sep 29

I was thinking a while ago that this needed some type of irony section in this factory of slave-forced humo(u)r techniques, but some stuff in here sort of help you with it if you think about it, like misdirection. That's like irony, is it not? --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose irony is a type of misdirection, or maybe the other way around, but I would like to see a section on irony specifically. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:01, Oct 13

Humor vs Humour resoloution

my suggestion to the humor vs humour issue: use a regexp to represent it:


easy as that ^_^


Is the article too random? I think not.

Grease (English: derived from the inexplicable substances in John Travolta's hair)

Grease = fatty or oily matter in general; lubricant. As you know, Travolta played in the movie Grease.

is a musical devoted to the rainbow flag and especially designet for the LGBT community of the world!

This doesn't come from nowhere. My gay friends love the musical, and some have even played roles in it.

The show's score celebrates 50's rock and roll as well as do-wop-a-doodle-doo and other contemporary doodle-doo's.

This is derived from Wikipedia: The show's score celebrates '50s rock and roll as well as doo-wop and other contemporary styles.

Particularly appreciated is the part in the musical where Roger and Jan sings about the subtle art of mooning.

From Wikipedia: The kids take their newfangled portable radios for a rock and roll picnic in the park and plan how they'll pair off at the upcoming school dance, while Roger shares his love for Jan and his favorite hobby ("Mooning").

So, will you reconsider? Chrisglie 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna talk to User:Thekillerfroggy, he's the one that deleted it. You prolly won't find much help here. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:07, Jan 22

comment on humor and level of text

Attention! this comment is not funny. please feel free to hurl volleys of invective which display your ironic and above-it-all wit.

for people who claim "being tasteless or crass is not automatically funny," you people sure do have a lot of obscene humor. why are there so many jokes about genitals? for instance the israel article says that israel is run by a lesbian who gets orders from a penis. what, i don't get it? I get it. it's funny to say genital are running countries, buiding cities, etc etc. why is that funny? it seems to make it a bit hard to add humor here, since you;'re catering to the lowest common denominator, and anyone who tries to add any topical humor, parody, genuine satire, etc, will be immediately and roundly castigated, reverted, etc, for not being funny, with it or provcative enough.

You know, humor is serious business, and can actually convey a hell of a lot of insight and content. Just look at The Onion. But for people doing an entire encyclopedia of humor, some people here seem determined to undermine the ability of others to use humor to accomplish or illuminate anything. --Sm8900 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I agree with almost everything you say. The goal of the site is to be full of wit, satire, and general comedic insanity. I assure you, the people writing random genitalia jokes about Israel are not the same people that wrote this page. However, this is the Content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so every day there are IPs adding lame crap to pages which weren't that good in the first place. If you want, you can always Rewrite a bad page, and turn it into a good page, or feel free to start your own new page. I guarantee that if your words are humorous and the page is better than what was there, it will be left alone (Excepting, of course, n00blets and anonymous IPs that may add crap, thinking they are funny, or trying to revert back to the old versions. They usually are trying to make a page funnier, but they can easily be reverted using the page's history.).
If you want to read something that's a cut above the rest, there's always the main page, or VFH (where you can vote for the ones you really like). The pages there are usually a bit funnier than the riff-raff you can find in Special:Random. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:30, Oct 26

I'd like to think we get the balance right for all tastes, though I can more than understand your opinion humour is very subjective and often things such as culture, language, intelligence levels, etc, will produce an interesting mix in comedic taste. There's plenty of humour here that I would say isn't to my taste, but I would defend its right to be here. Thankfully, for the most part, the articles that reach our VFH Featured Section are usually of a much better quality than a lot of the dross that you can find. Not every article is going to be to our own unique taste though....if you don't like something you can always move on to another article (we have loads) or try to add something to improve it. That's the beauty of the Wiki... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

ok. thanks for your replies. I don't have much more to add, but I did want to drop in here to let you know i did read this, and to say i do appreciate your replies on this. it's good to be able to discuss this. thanks so much. glad we can have some discussion about the overall direction of where this is headed. this is turning into a significant literary work with much potential, and I'm glad there are some who are willing to think about actual directions to develop this in, and where we can go with it. thannks for your input. look forward to further ideas and discussions. thanks. --Sm8900 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Being funny

Ive been perusing the administrators contributions. Im not finding any funny ones. That sucks. Oh well, i quit.

Bye, we'll miss you. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:39, Mar 4

I request an addenum to this.

I want to classify Rickrolling as a "stagnant joke." The internet types ruined the greatness that was Rick Astley. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)