OK, every time I add the digital watches part on the whole part that is indeed an extract from the HG2G (while the digital watch part is part of that extract) some random IP person deletes it and gives no reason for this deletion. If you have a problem with me adding it, discuss it here. Otherwise, if you don't have a reason for deleting it, leave it alone. I'm readding it, I just started this discussion to prevent an edit war. R. Daneel Olivaw (Gaia - Foundation) 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop revert warring
These people have done very little except take out lots of the pictures and various seemingly random paragraphs. As the people making these changes are IPs (and also one now-banned user), I tend to assume bad faith on their part. What exactly do you find funnier about an article with random bits deleted, or are you just being awkward and wasting my time and hoping to get banned? -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I don't believe the taking out of pictures is funnier, in fact, if you actually read the comment on my edit, I said that the pictures were funny so please readd them.
- I also did think some of the stuff on your version was not as funny as the other version, so the "vandallike" attitude of taqking out some paragraphs was actually, in good faith, to only leave the funny bits on the article.
- I propose this solution: we revert back to the version before your revert, and you add the funniest bits from your version, including the pictures.
- And, about my "non-good faith" edits: what are you doing, if not revert warring? Don't try and play the good guy here, since you're as wropng as I am (and, I admit, both of us were wrong to war like that). Wasting your time? If you didn't want to waste your time, stop editing. That's how editing a wiki is, people will waste your time (or sometimes, you'll think they waste your time while it's actually productive). You're actually wasting my time as much as I'm wasting yours. Getting myself banned? For what reason, may I ask? I'm only being as disruptive as you are.
- So stop acting like you're the good uncyclopedian and I'm the vandal guy, because I am just giving opinions and editing. Listen to my opinions and we can come to some agreement. If not, I guess we'll just keep wasting each other's time. R. Daneel Olivaw (Gaia - Foundation) 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I just hit "random page" and landed on this for what seems like the 800th time. AAAAAA! --THE 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is my favorite page on UP... Human 22:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia is full of shit
"We pride ourselves in humor that can be understood and appreciated by most people, or at least a very large number of people." Right ... and how exactly do you determine whether a particular instance of self-perceived "humor" will be understood or appreciated by most people or at least a very large number of people? Magic? Psychic ability? Uncyclopedia is full of shit. --220.127.116.11 06:58, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
"homo sapiens" redirects to the "human" article, while the "homo sapien" (no "s") leads to a separate article
What gives? Perhaps this calls for a merge or a modification to the current redirections? --18.104.22.168 07:01, February 23, 2011 (UTC)