Talk:Euroipods

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

"Featured!"

~ Rcmurphy on Euroipods

Contents 1 Comment 2 Protect? 3 Talk Page 4 Rationale 5 Joke? 5.1 Things that are funny to me 6 THIS IS NOT FUNNY 7 lol another subheading 8 Why Euroipods is funny: 9 euroipods (video game) 10 A Resolution. 11 CapItols? 12 GUYS! ENOUGH WITH THE DRAMA, you're making ED envious. 13 So why was it featured? 14 That fight image is awesome 15 Look, here's my point for why it shouldn't have been featured 16 Hey... 17 Moral of the Story 18 Has ED started an article on this yet? 19 It is fargin war! 20 I see the article has been "improved" by Nintendorulez 21 Testimonials... 22 I just thought of something. 23 This is what, the FIFTH time you feautured this damned thing??!?! 24 Nominate for featured? 24.1 Wikipedia has an article about euroipods, but soon won't 25 People are missing the point 26 Ripped Off 27 ATTN: Emperor 28 An excerpt by Flameviper12 05:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 29 l'empereur n'a pas des vêtements 30 Euroipods is the worst 31 Would someone please remove the reference to me already? 31.1 Compromise 32 What the hell is this crap? 33 This has turned out to be a lot more vicious than I expected 34 A is NOT "money"?! 35 Testimonials . . . . . dot 36 Happy one year anniversary Euroipods! 37 This is the 9th longest page on all of Uncyclopedia 38 If you liked this article... 39 New Image? 40 Sweet Jesus! Euroipods is no more! 41 History 42 Dead-horse-beating time! 43 Right now, I wish this weren't protected 44 and? 45 Sucker Ninjastar 46 Help? 47 Euroipods SuckRocks! 48 Finally, definitive proof EuroIpods is funnie 49 SPAM!! 50 Yay... 51 Puppies are cute 52 This isn't fair 53 I First Found it Stupid, but I'm Slowly Growing a Liking to it... 54 what could be the correct 55 Can you believe it? 56 You're missing part of the picture. 57 Hmm...

[edit] Comment

This page makes all of the jesii cry. --47Monkey MUN HMRFRA s7fc | Talk 05:25, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. WTF? Feature? AAAAA! --Poofers 06:43, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Check the original version to get the idea. Typos in the article shouldn't be fixed! --Ruubio 07:05, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The sheer audacity of having this deletable peice-of-crap as a featured article makes it worthy of being a featured article. Bravo!--Putz 07:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This crap ain't the top quality crap I'm used to see in the front page. I quote: "WFT?". --212.147.119.42 13:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I guess the yay and nay voting system for Features really is an ignorable policy. Always surprising me, Uncyclopedia. --Isra1337 13:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Can I vote here for deletion? Can I? Huh? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Tag it if you dare mate, but you're on your own with this one.  :) -- T. (talk) 19:00, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is really a complicated joke involving featuring complete crap... --Chronarion 18:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

WTF; this is awful. I mean, I've written crap, but I don't try to get it on the front page. Mindspillage 20:16, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I get the joke but it's very, very Lame... I mean like "Why wouldn't they let the stinkbug into the movie? HE HAD ONLY ONE SCENT AND IT WASN'T ENOUGH!" more lame than that lame. Bleek II 20:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There was no joke int he article. It's pure, unadulterated genius as it originally was, and not the crappy hack that someone made it into--Sir Flammable KUN 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Too stupid to be featured. --Clorox MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 21:41, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Maybe YOU'RE too stupid to be featured. Ever think about that? Huh? Huh? Yeah punk! Yeah, this is getting old. I waiting for RC to put a new one up.--Sir Flammable KUN 21:44, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

...Okay... you mean my user page? --Bleachie talc 21:49, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protect?

Why protect something like this one-liner? Shouldn't it be moved to Undictionary or something? --Clorox MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 21:46, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There's humor here and you're missing it.--Sir Flammable KUN 21:50, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any humor either. Explain the joke to me. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:55, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

EUROIPODS! Anidnmeno

[edit] Talk Page

Keep this piece of crap just for the talk page... I love this talk page so much, it is my only friend and distraction. What would I do without it? Tell me what?? I cut my wrist today, should become a nice scar tomorrow. Pizza. Madretsma 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

Okay, so there seems to be some dissension as to whether Euroipods deserves to be the featured article. I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out answer: Yes. That is all, go back to work. --—rc (t) 23:56, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out reply to your answer:Go fuck yourself. That is all, go back to wanking. (This one-liner wrote by an unknown genious should be featured.--200.161.136.227 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

I just want to be loved! (;_;) --—rc (t) 01:13, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joke?

I think perhaps all the debate would be settled if somebody would explain the joke here, if any. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:40, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This may explain the joke: MISTA T SAYS "CLICK HERE, SUCKA" If that doesn't do the trick, you should watch some Ed Wood movies. --Putz 07:58, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's scarcely-meaningful pretentious bullshit. Gotcha. --Carlos the Mean 13:51, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I still don't find this article funny. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:10, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

To quote Einstein the Mean "This shit is crap" I didn't say that Einstein did, how this got onto the frontpage noone knows. --Mr Gridenko 01:30, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I was a skeptic as to weather or not this should actually be a featured article, at least at first. It pales in comparission to "J.D. Salinger", "AAAAAAAAA!", and "Redundancy" (and "Redundancy" for that matter). I however, though not compleatly, changed my mind after reading the article submitted by Putz above. Although I'm not quite sure if theres some deeper joke here, I do belive that it's "Featured Article" material. Lets all just agree that somthing new isin't always bad, and sometimes somthing new is gooder then somthing old. I only hope that no one tries to replicate it.--MrJimmy 05:32, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Making an article like this a featured article was damn funny this time. Doing it again would be just plain stupid. --Putz 22:58, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't funny, it as shit. Nothing about this article is funny in any way, shape or form. It's just a one-liner about freeipods under a different name. Normally this stuff gets QVFD'd in an instant. And to make matters worse the article has been locked to prevent people from making it funny. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:27, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It IS funny (please note that, if nothing else, the fact that I bolded and uppercased the word "is" makes Euroipods funny), but quite obviously not everyone will think that. Since some (Nintendorulez) have yet to stop argueing about it however, I will provide the joke behind Euroipods; it is as follows: Euroipods, when boiled down, isin't funny at all, but that, in essence, is what makes it funny (enough commas?). This artcle has a ban however, if anyone gets the bright idea that posting anymore true "one liners," it will cease to be funny and just be annoying.--MrJimmy 04:25, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That... doesn't make sense... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:00, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just really quick I just wanted to note that I JUST NOW got the double negitive in the article... boy am I stupid...--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:56, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that's funny about Euroipods is the fact that this:

Euroipods
A website giving away free ipods in return for
a) money b) reffering freinds to do the same 

managed to inspire a talk page almost as good as Tourette's Syndrome's.--Putz 08:34, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Tourette's Syndrome's talk page had a purpose, the people in there were really trying to argue for somthing that could be considered "just." We're just in here deciding if giving away free iPods in Europe, over the internet, is funny if you put it in encyclopedia form.--MrJimmy 16:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Okay guys, here's the deal. I want you to compile a list of things you think are funny and then those will be the rules by which I choose featured articles. Here is a empty, pre-formatted list for you.

[edit] Things that are funny to me

1.Not Euroipods, which makes me very confused and upset
2.
3.
4.
5.

Please sign your name so that I know who to laugh at. --—rc (t) 02:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

1. Not Euroipods, which makes me confused and very upset.

2. Things that have a joke.

3. AAA AAAAAAAAA, AAAAA AAAAA AA AAAAAAAA AAA AAAA AAAAA.

Seriously, explain the joke here. It just looks like a crappy page that failed to get QVFD'd.

--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:45, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

*Points and laughs --—rc (t) 05:04, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

1. Euroipods, which makes me confused and very upset.

2. Everything else in the featured article page.

3. Mostly every other article ont he Uncyclopedia (With the exeption of any of the ones I wrote)--MrJimmy 04:31, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

*Points and laughs --—rc (t) 05:04, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wait. Actually, that list is okay. --—rc (t) 05:18, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You like me? You really like me?--MrJimmy 16:26, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

1. Not Euroipods, which makes me confused but strangely horny.

2. Nipple Clamps.

3. Beating French people.

4. Hamsters

--AOL Vandal

1. Not Euroipods, because it is sad and lame.

2. Euroipods fans who are equally sad and lame.

--Emmzee 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS NOT FUNNY

-Akanin

Jesus, dinosaurs, dell dude. It's old news. Perhaps you should've read the discussion page before starting a whole new subheading. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So Delete the sub-heading, instead of feeding his stupidity...--MrJimmy 04:13, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lol another subheading

Because I can. --—rc (t) 04:20, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I can't.*Cuts wrists* :'(--MrJimmy 04:35, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Euroipods is funny:

It was getting to crouded up there so I have moved down here to finally break down every possible joke within the article, specifically so that Nintendrulez will go away.

• Reason 1: As was provided above, this article is funny because it is not funny. It may seem absurd but it is the truth. See also this article from the prestigous University of Binghamton: [1]
• Reason 2: If you will notice (although you'd have to be as slow as me not to notice) the fact that in the first line of the article it states: "A website giving away free ipods..." Now note the second line, sub-devision a, it states "money," as in they charge for their "free iPods."
• Reason 3:...
• Reason 4:Profit or Prophet
• Reason 5: The talk page.

(There must be other reasons, sombody else put one in.)----MrJimmy Journal talk 18:20, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I added Reason 3 and 4 in becuase I was feeling stupid. Hoepyou don't mind --Sir Flammable KUN 18:28, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. That livened it up a little, I added the "Prophet" onto the reason 4.--MrJimmy Journal talk 00:57, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the original was "a) completing offers," not "a) money." Someone changed it somewhere along this crazy, crazy ride. --—rc (t) 04:25, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

An intresting tidbit, I guess I missed it while researching the history.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:46, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So that's one "joke" in it's entirity, and it's a lame one. Not funny, not frontpage material. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:23, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just rest assured that your only one unimportant person on the internet, and while you may be able to gather an army of people like you, I will always be here to fight them off. And it is too funny!--MrJimmy Journal talk 00:57, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If there's a joke, than what is it? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:40, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Your still pushing this? Your still asking what the joke is after I've provided it in many different, not to mention redundant, forms? Your presistant...--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:43, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's not a joke if it's not funny. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 02:23, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

*Picks it up again* It's not funny, to you. I, and many others think it is HIL-arious.*Drops yet again*--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:32, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Let's solve this by giving you the reason we give people who whine about fair bans: "Because we felt like it." It's silly, stupid, unexpected. Just let it go. -.-' --Sir Flammable KUN 01:42, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

kk *Lets go*--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:43, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Added by jerk IP user:213.121.151.134:

• Reason 5:Everyone likes the logical fallacy of having a page that 'is funny because it isn't funny'. Or do we. It's like that time white became black because it wasn't black at the time. It's like me calling you stupid if EVERYONE KNOWS you're smart. Now you can logically suck my phallus.

[edit] euroipods (video game)

It needs to be made. --Savethemooses 00:11, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It could be a fighting game, where people battle it out to see if Euroipods is really funny.----MrJimmy Journal talk 01:01, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Genius! --Carlos the Mean 06:07, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That would be funny, but then we would have to keep this page....

Done.

[edit] A Resolution.

Naaaa na na na na na na, na na Katamari Damaci!--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:49, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like I'm pushing it or somthing, but I think I wrote some pretty funny comentary stuff in my journal about all this. Also has anyone ever made a Talk:Talk:"Article here" page?--MrJimmy Journal talk 20:03, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've made Talk:Talk:Main Page, but I think it's been deleted. Note that the tab link to the main article is red, despite Talk:Main Page clearly existing. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made Talk:Talk:Euroipods, and Splaka reverted it, and removed my post here saying I made it. Go figure. --User:Nintendorulez 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't feel like surgically removing all your links to it, because I don't care enough to. I just rolled you back. The reason it is annoying is because it triggers as an orphaned talk page (which it is, and in most cases, those should not exist for main article space). So, stop making them, kthx. --Splaka 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was linked to on this page when I made it, so wouldn't that mean it's not orphaned? I though orphaned pages means nothing links to them. --User:Nintendorulez 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned in the sense of having no article to go with it (eg, you go to the page, and the [article] link is red). --Splaka 05:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CapItols?

In the advertIsement (See the top), they capItolIze the letter "i" in iPods, Europe Is WeIrd.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:38, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

'Tis a Marketing Technique....it works because your brain recognises that there shouldn't be a capital letter in the middle of the word, making it stand out more. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

EURIKA!--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:45, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GUYS! ENOUGH WITH THE DRAMA, you're making ED envious.

It was a joke. Jay Oh Kay Ee. Joke. Let it be. You're all beating it to death over the one day it was up. --Chronarion 05:20, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I found this in the dictionary : Joke n funny activity or story.

Notice it says funny. So it wasn't really a joke, now was it?

Dammit, I wanted to bring up the fact that it's not a joke. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:09, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is a joke, if anything, it in combonation with it's talk page make it a joke.--MrJimmy Journal talk 21:32, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to put the word "funny" in the definition in both bold AND italics in order for you to see it? Fine, I will

[edit] So why was it featured?

Sorry to bring this all up again, but how can you possibly say the reason was "because we like it" if it was voted strongly against on VFH? Surely that demonstrates that we don't actually like it at all? I mean, what is the point of VFH if not to gauge what we like? And surely this talk page proves that most of us don't like it too... --Carlos the Mean 01:07, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to thwart your continuing this arguement Carl, but quite abviously, "we" does not include you. "We" includes everyone who liked it, and there were people who liked it. So it is written and so it shall be featured.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:51, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Amen! However, as the complaining has gained shrillness and lost humor (and I figure I've already "won," anyway), I won't be reverting changes to Euroipods anymore. That's right, if someone wants to expand Euroipods, go ahead. Now Nintendorulez can stop paying for psychiatric therapy and maybe buy a brain sense of humor with the extra money. "It's not a joke. It's not a joke. It's not a joke I'm so upset IT'S NOT A JOKE!" --—rc (t) 06:36, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So you mean we can fuck it up all we want now? This'll be fun...

Good. Once this becomes a decent article, we can put this whole thing behind us and pretend it was decent when it was first featured. Then it will no longer be a disgrace to Uncyclopedia. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My point is that we does include me, and everybody in Uncyclopedia, hence the voting. If you just said that 'we' always includes the people that like it, then everything on VFH should automatically be featured... but the point is, Uncyclopedia (or at least VFH) is democratic and this was outvoted as a featureable article. I just think whoever's responsible should admit that they're wrong, because otherwise I can see the admins continuing to do things just because they like it, and not adhering to the wiki spirit. --Carlos the Mean 00:30, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I was responsible. I don't admit that I was wrong. I admit to doing something that amused some people, ticked off some others, and resulted in a fairly hilarious talk page - all the result of less than a day of featurization. I also believe that it was done in the Uncyclopedia spirit. Heaven forbid the admins do something unexpected/undemocratic that doesn't even affect the users aside from making them divert their eyes from a little box on the front page for a few hours. --—rc (t) 01:44, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You're right, actually, this is pretty Uncyclopedic. But the talk page isn't funny. That comment makes all of the Jesii cry. I think you should explain why it's funny in three or more bullet points... --Carlos the Mean 05:03, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Very well. From above (you have to wait for the punchline):

• "Okay, so there seems to be some dissension as to whether Euroipods deserves to be the featured article. I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out answer: Yes. That is all, go back to work." --Rcmurphy Sq.W (Talk) 23:56, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Waaaaait for it...
• "I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out reply to your answer:Go fuck yourself. That is all, go back to wanking." - IP

Tell me you don't find that funny. --—rc (t) 05:24, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So that's one "joke" in it's entirity, and it's a lame one. Not funny, not frontpage material. --Carlos the Mean 10:06, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm the guy who wrote that one, and it only took 2 seconds to think of it. It wasn't even meant to be all that funny.

I just "expanded" the article. You remember you said you wouldn't revert it, right?

So were you just acting randomly, or were you taking the piss out of the stupid stuff people people vote to be featured sometimes? Because I know people do elect some pretty stupid stuff. (AAAAAAAAA!)

Unlike Euroipods, AAAAAAAAA! had an actual democratic route to featured article and theme of the day. Mostly due to the wonderful efforts of an AOL vandal to try to vandalize it, giving it overwhelming anti-vandal sympathy and community support. Heh heh heh. --Splaka 23:10, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Look, AOL guy who hates Euroipods, I don't care what you think/write about me or Euroipods, as long as you write it on this talk page or my user talk page. Quit vandalizing other pages. It's pathetic. --—rc (t) 04:39, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That fight image is awesome

Nuff said. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Holy snuff! Thats the first time I've ever been recognised on the internets, thanks for making my life.--MrJimmy Journal talk 03:30, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Whoever made that pic kicks ass. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:09, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Also, one ought to be made for Talk:Tourette's Syndrome. DrPoodle vs. World. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:42, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is the best I could do with MSPaint, if anyone else wants to replace it with a much better Photoshop version and put it in the correct place, go ahead. I know it's horrible, and in the wrong talk page, but Nin asked for it here.--MrJimmy Journal talk 07:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Look, here's my point for why it shouldn't have been featured

Here it was on VFH:

Featured! --—rc (t) 04:55, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• ++++ Very good, would buy from again. --—rc (t) 00:42, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• 1/7th of a vote. What the heck --Splaka 06:29, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Against. It's like a fraction of a stub. A stub of a stub of a stub. --Nintendorulez 20:46, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• 1/118th of a vote. --Savethemooses 20:53, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• 3/5 of a vote! --Paulgb's slave 20:56, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Nope, but kudos for the most spelling mistakes in the smallest word count. Impressive. -- T. (talk) 00:12, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• No, and it appears to be true despite the Oscar Wilde quote, so actually I think deletion would be more appropriate (yes, I know I'm heartless!)--Sweet Indigo 16:13, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• 1⁹² votes. Is this a sociological experiment to see what kind of articles actually get elected for highlight? I'm of course alluding to Rcmurphy's "don't worry, it serves a purpose comment." ;) Hooloovoo 17:26, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Erm, against... wtf? --Caiman 22:14, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Um...no Butthead stub as a feature? Staxeon 06:33, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Dream on, it's not even an article. Why has it been left up to be voted on for so long? -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

I put it on QVFD. It got speedily deleted. Then it got speedily restored. I can't be bothered to waste my mental energies working out why it's there.--Sweet Indigo 19:19, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Prefer this version. I might be biased. 62.252.32.12 23:27, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• For Amazing. --—rc (t) 05:19, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• 15 votes against' - David Gerard 14:07, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Against - This person may have come from a website where it is ok to be unfunny. But this just doesn't cut it on Uncyclopedia Jeydehn 07:04, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 10 PRINT "Strong object" : GOTO 10 Article contains only three statements, and two of those are factual. Also, User:Rcmurphy claims the article serves a purpose, when UP articles clearly should serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. 62.252.32.12 02:18, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

According to all my math knowledge, the overall vote was against. And other articles had much, much, much more "for" votes and much less "against" votes than this one did. So why the hell were the rules broken and this crap featured? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:47, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Rules"? --—rc (t) 00:53, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've got it! I know why. To make Nintendo "Rules" incredably upset.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:17, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. Look, I'm trying to be serious here. Save the humor for the articles. Just because you're an admin doesn't justify violating concensus like this.

Okay. As Dictator, I hereby authorize that one time violation of consensus. Yes, there is a pseudo democracy on this wiki. Yes, it is generally followed. Was it followed for this case? No. However, this was a couple of weeks ago, and you're dragging this out longer than Election 2000. The past ain't gonna change, so i'll take this day in North Korea to adjunct the rules. --Chronarion 22:41, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)--70.107.134.109 22:39, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Score: -8.5 --AAA! (AAAA) 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

I think I finally get why this was funny. --Spooner 17:56, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You've come back to the light side of the Euroipods.--MrJimmy Journal talk 06:29, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, hurry up and explain it then! We're all waiting.

Me too!!!! It's funny because it's crap! *points to article* Tee-hee! --Timmytiptoe _{my talk} 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moral of the Story

If you get rcmurphy on your side you cant lose cuz hes god and everyone knows it so bow now or be yelled at and embaressed for the rest of your life.(like nintendorulez) --4.252.210.192 02:19, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)(Tompkins)

That is correct, good sir. --—rc (t) 02:22, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Suck up. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:50, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nuh uh, You're a suckup!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And you're a... 3 year old?--MrJimmy Journal talk 04:35, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And your mom is... gay?   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Swish. Nice comeback! Almighty Stove 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Super get a real page --Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has ED started an article on this yet?

Not that they matter at all anymore, as we have swiftly crushed them in the Wiki Wars, but this stuff is (as Chron mentioned earlier in the page) exactly what those Cretins at encyc. dramaeaeaetica love to write about. --Savethemooses 16:39, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It is fargin war!

Hey, where is my free Euroipod! What kind of scam is this anyway? Does Steve Jobs know about this kind of rip-off? How come I keep getting more spam email and my buddies that I signed up are mad at me? I live in the USA and this is discrimination because I don't live in Europe, isn't it? I want my free Euroipod, dammit! Don't make me come over there and invade Europe with my army of pirates and ninjas. Honestly, who is going to stop us? The UN? They don't even have an Army to sanction me with. What nations can stop us, France, don't make me laugh, The Netherlands, bunch of liberal wankers there. I mean youth socialism has created a lot of Eurotrash who cannot fight. What is to stop me and my army from walking in and taking our free Euroipods? Oh wait, it is from Eastern Europe? After the fall of the USSR, their economy is a joke. I could buy one of their cities for the price of a USA iPod. I can make a killing selling VHS copies of 1970's and 1980's USA TV Shows, because they are starved for good programs. Nah I think I'll plan the invasion, tell CNN and Fox News what I am up to, and bring back all the Euroipods to the USA that I can. --Orion Blastar 01:59, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Orion Blastar said: "The Netherlands, bunch of liberal wankers there." WHAT???????? (I am Dutch) --Timmytiptoe _{my talk} 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize The Netherlands are not a bunch of liberal wankers. I misspoke in a fit of anger. They are all nice people and kind to others, just don't eat the brownies at the Dutch coffee shops. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I see the article has been "improved" by Nintendorulez

Congratulations on being able to keep that "not funny" message box there for so long. I thought some dipshit would've deleted it by now. --64.12.117.5 01:17, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

HA!--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:50, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

See, it stayed because it's the truth. Apparently people agree with me that it isn\'t funny. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:50, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well actually people would have obayed it by now if it were that true.--MrJimmy Journal talk 04:19, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, Flammable accused me of vandalizing the page and banned me for 24 days. --Nintendorulez

HA!KATIE!! 17:05, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

AHHHHH!!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:46, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't like SPAM!--MrJimmy Journal talk 16:30, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Can we infer from the lack of objections that the punishment fits the crime?  :) -- T. (talk) 16:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Us smart people are just taking our time to object. --207.200.116.197 21:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I can see why Nintendorulez would be pissed about there being a Nin on the page. Can we make it Anais Nin? Then it's funnier and it's obviously not Nintendorulez--RudolfRadna 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testimonials...

Does anyone else NOT like the testimonials?--MrJimmy Journal talk 16:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I do, and I put them there.... :) Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Well, then. Right. *Sniff*--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:26, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am quite pissed off that my name is there supporting euripods. I hate it a lot, and I want that testimonial removed, or at least the name changed. I'd do it myself, but I have a feeling I'd get banned for it. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because when people see "Nin," they automatically think "Nintendorulez." --—rc (t) 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well who the hell else would it refer to? It's an obvious attempt at being subtle and pissing me off. If it really isn't meant to refer to me in any way, then I suppose you wouldn't mind changing the name there. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course the people who have been involved in the Euroipods saga know who it refers to. But they know about your role in the whole thing anyway, with or without the testimonial. New people are the ones who I was referring to. --—rc (t) 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still an uncalled for joke at my expense, and as such I should be the one who decides whether or not it stays. I WANT IT REMOVED. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a big, big joke at the expense of that Poodle guy in the tourette's article? And weren't you the guy on the Talk page extracting most of the urine? Telling him to basically shut his mouth and piss off? LOL! Nin, u rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly suck the seven balls off your crackwhore of a mom, dude--82.44.21.151 18:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But David, there's no mention of "DrPoodle" or any derivative of his username in the main Tourette's Syndrome article. I suppose you could add one, though... Besides, User:DrPoodle is only an occasional contributor, whereas Nintendorulez is a regular contributor. So really, it's not quite the same thing. I'm in this position myself actually, though to a somewhat lesser extent because most of the pages that attack me are obscure sock-puppet user pages that hardly anything links to. But the same principle applies: Using main article space to attack established contributors, even if only the user being attacked notices it, and even if it might actually be sort of funny, is just bad for business. (Unless of course it's User:Mhaille who's being attacked, in which case it's highly encouraged!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A bite! I havn't argued over the internet in years! So basically, it's okay to insult someone if you don't mention their name? And so long as they arn't a regular contributor? But shurly in either case the contributor is a HUMAN BEING!!! And surely the only reason why it is significant to put a person's name in an article, for as the guy in the Miller play says 'Because it is my name! Because I will not have another like it...IN MY LIFE!,' is because it is hurtful to that person. As such, given that the quantity of contribution is irrelevant and the cause of concern to each party is the hurt engendered by the content of personally orientated parts of articals - THEN surely sir, there is nothing to distinguish in terms of reprehensibility either the attack on Poodle and the wryyyyyyyyysubtle attack on Bintendo RUlz? yah? You must see - they are quite the same thing on a most basic level. let me lay it down:

Both contributors are members of the human race foremost, posters on UNCY someway less and even further back they are different sorts of posters. We must concern ourselves with the fact that both are humans with human feelings, so where the hurt of feelings is the object of an action, both of these agents should be equally regarded when we are considering the impact of the hurting of the feelings in question.

But are both of the examples of hurtful things the same? Yes you daft cunt! They both twist a person's words to hurt them. So why should we spare mentioning Nin's name? We want to hurt him! Using his name is one of way of doing it, like making the Poodle doctor look like he types all wrong!!!!!!! And as he, Nin, enjoys 'hurting' people, the pleasure should be immediate to his recall. 'Ah yes, now I recall when I was ripping the piss out of that uppity shithead spastic. lol I shure showed him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11' So yeah, what's Nin's problem? He knows why it's funny to do this to people. it's fun to hurt people, people are all the same and so hurting different people still the same kind of hurting, so if you don't like being hurt by people then don't hurt people. because then you are doing something which is exactly the same as the thing you then say should not be done.

ftw!

Twisting words and meanings as usual, I see. Oh well, I guess I have to go over this point by point: Yes, I'd say it's okay to insult someone in the main namespace as long as you don't mention their name, or any derivative of it, because that way the rest of the world doesn't necessarily know who or what you're referring to. There's a level of deniability that both you and the victim lose when you start naming names. Honestly, if I were insulted here in such a way that I knew, for a fact, that no other user on this site had any idea as to who the insult was directed at, then sure - why would I care? In fact, I could probably just go in and edit the offending material and only me and the original offender would know why I did that. But that's not the case here. And of course being a regular contributor makes a difference. This is a community, and User:Nintendorulez is a member of this community whether we like it or not. He must be given a greater amount of respect on that basis alone, even if he deserves the insult, because if we don't, everyone else here is going to be thinking "will I be next?" It's what we call a "chilling effect," and it makes people leave, and often go somewhere else and bad-mouth us, at a time when we can't afford a lot of defections.

And no, it doesn't matter, and wouldn't matter, if there were other, legitimate reasons for using the name "Anais Nin" in the article. The point is that we, the members of this community, know what it means, we know why it's being done, and we know why the people who are doing it are refusing to stop. And even if we totally support them, there's nothing especially priceless about that gag (if it can even be called that) beyond its intent that makes it worth keeping. Maybe it's just my opinion, but better-quality stuff gets deleted here every hour of every day, and few people cry over it. And as for User:DrPoodle, personally I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt too — if he wanted those talk page entries to disappear, I'd support that. But again, his name isn't used in the actual Tourette's article, and that makes a difference, at least to me. And really, the whole question of whether or not it's fun, or funny, to hurt people is something I see as immaterial — but even there, your premise is flawed. Offensiveness used in the service of humor is fine, but humor used in the service of offensiveness is not (even if we occasionally do allow it, for whatever reason). Particularly if the offensiveness is directed at a known individual.

Last but not least, you resort to this equally-flawed notion that both situations are the same simply because both Nintendorulez and DrPoodle are human beings. (Technically, they're anonymous textual avatars of entities that might be human beings, but that's of little relevance here.) That's simply a straw-man argument. People get psychologically hurt all the time, by all kinds of things — it's unavoidable as long as people have emotions and feelings. But once again, you're trying to apply Wikipedia-based notions of civility to this site, and that's simply wrong. I understand why you do it, and I even understand why civility is essential, but in this context, civility has a completely different meaning. In effect, we have to convince everyone, and especially n00bs and AnonIP's, that we don't take anything seriously, and that they shouldn't either. There's far too much offensive content here to try to make the claim that offending people is wrong and "should not be done" — that would be complete hypocrisy. And obviously, it would be nice if Nintendorulez would simply shut up and not complain about the Anais Nin reference, but he isn't doing that. And as long as he isn't doing that, we have to weigh the benefit of consistently maintaining the policy of never backing down against the negativity this situation is generating. I don't think the negativity is worth it. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a simple difference of opinion, and I'm not even saying you're wrong in any objective sense. In fact, even after all that's happened, I still have some degree of respect for you. But your hiding behind an AnonIP while in the midst of a deletion spree in order to call me a "daft cunt," when it's obvious who you are, isn't going to convince me you're right, either.  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does this always happen? Yes I could type tl;dr, but that would be so bloody facile. And I'm simply not that cool either. So it's wrong to take things seriously, but if you take things seriously enough then you should have your demands acceded to in order to shut you up? kewl. Offensiveness in humour is ok, but humour in offensiveness is not? But shurly, shur, the Nin thing is humour on account of it's offensiveness? Right? Yeah I-I'm right. So it's offensiveness in the service of humour as well as being offensiveness in the guise of humour - but for god's sake, if we're going to be offensive then SOMEONE is going to get hurt! In this case it's Nin, and in that case I think it's allowable because his outrage is also the cornerstone of an interesting hypocrisy. CWIM (sea wot eye mean?)?

Two wrongs don't don't make a right? That sounds dubiously moral for uncy - isn't an eye for an eye a better adege for this place? Not 'let's all behave and get along and then we'll all behave and get along.' Christ that's SO Wikipedia it makes me want to shove needles into the joins of my index finger and dislocate it!

As you can probably tell, I'm having difficulty finding the patience to fully understand you. You appear to contradict yourself on points of manners. Please, find the time to put it simple. Then perhaps my answers will make sense, until that point you not only resemble a daft cunt. You are a daft cunt. Furthermore, elongated mutant pretentiousness in language will never impress me no matter how very hard your try XD ftw! P.S. I'm so confused, who the hell do you think I am anyway?--82.44.21.151 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the expletives into DrPoodle's quote. I initially took a Wikipedia article, and inserted the swears. Then he complained, and someone put the swears in his complaint, all went nuts from there. I would be against the changing of DrPoodle's post if it weren't for two things:

He blanked the main article with it, rather than leaving a simple complaint on the talk page. IMHO, that makes the content fair game. Fisher Price, anyone?

It's too much of an integral part of the joke to change at this point. We have the parody complaints from China and whatnot.

So it's not quite the same. --User:Nintendorulez 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nin, is that you? I'll pretend i've got a file detailing the various points of this argument sitting right next to me and refrain from going 'What the fuck is not quite the same?!' Yeah, because I'm totally totally up-to-date on this thing, swim? So basically - what are talking about, what isn't the same? And are you saying that taking the piss out of tourette's is ok if someone with tourette's pisses you off, in the same way that bombing Dresden was ok because the nazis really pissed everyone off? Answers on a soggy brown postcard, plx! XXXXD btw, if I have not already won, then now i win.--82.44.21.151 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but this is Uncyclopedia, and we don't "dumb it down" for anybody, especially someone who can't even be bothered to register an account. So I'm afraid you not only don't win, you lose, and in fact I win, because I say so. Is that more understandable, Mister Twistwords?  c • > • cunwapquc? 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what the hell he just said... But I've explained the differences. He vandalized the article with his letter. So it was part of the article from the beginning, and released under the GFDL. We simply made his letter funny, and he wanted to remove his contribution. The difference here is that I never vandalized this article, someone just put an attack on me into it. --User:Nintendorulez 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Twistwords here! Dumb-down? I'm only asking you to make sense, for christ's sake! Do it for christ, you insane fucktard. The point is, if there is a point, and if there is a point, at all, then the point is that I, Mr. Twistwords, as you have so dubbed me, cannot penetrate the sliding, sloping moutain of dog-shit that was your reply to one of my more heated remarks. My point is simply this: Long years on the debating circuit should bless me with the patience to listen to a man who thinks he has eight brains and need to let them all speak together at once. But it has not, I 'zone-out,' my masturbating arm twitches to flick the page back up in order to re-read the entire sphere of crapulance you have created, but then.....-sands of time-.....and I just think 'can i be fucked?' I know that either your argument will fail on a basic level, that you are mistaken or the point you make is utter madness. or, you know, prove me wrong by getting one person in here with the patiance and time to follow firstly my powerfully compelling initial argument, your grinding abortion of a rebuttal and then my irreverent couldn't-care-less subsequant responses. And Nin, you frigging lunatic - can't you see that the idea is that you took the piss out of someone with a real grievence with utter delight, now when people rip it outta your flaming red-hot ass you cry 'noes!' and try to push it all in again. Yeah, he vandalized the artical with his measured remarks and was destroyed for his crimes - so what? I don't care, you don't care, but therefore we should neither care if you are mildly ridiculed for simply being a little self-inflated with your own crazy little opinions about some article on ipods, rite? s'funny! not harming anyone, so stfu and remove your hands from your anus - the shit has already been extracted, sir!!!! XD And why did i get called David earlier? And surely I win because I said so first? neither of you guys are straight, are you?--82.44.21.151 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, pardon me for interjecting, but... S. U., Nin... why on earth are you even humoring this person? Really, all it's doing is adding useless length to an already uselessly long talk page... oh wait, now I'm guilty too. Damn. Well, I guess, in summation, D.N.F.T. Oh, and Mr. IP Number, where can I get some of what you're smoking? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why am I humoring this person...? That's a fair question, I suppose. I thought he was someone familiar, based on the geolocation of his IP address, his use of Australian invective (despite that location), and his intimate familiarity with Uncyclopedia backstory going back over, like, nine months... (And also his quickness to hurl such invective at me, of course.) But I'm now about 60-70 percent certain I was wrong initially, and that this is actually someone from Encyclopaedia Dramatica. My knowledge of that site is limited, but I suspect this could be "User:Samsara" or even LJDrama himself, even. (Woo hoo!) The point of the exercise seems to be to get revenge on Nintendorulez for "trolling" ED, i.e., by going over there and daring to suggest that Uncyclopedia would win some sort of objectively-judged contest comparing the ten "best" articles on each site, and no doubt a variety of other endlessly fascinating ideas. Either way, I'm through with him. After all, I already won, what, three entries ago?  c • > • cunwapquc? 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard for me to say, honestly, as the overall coherency of the postings dropped well below the watermark set by M. P.'s "Silliest Sketch Ever" in 1970. (That might warrant an award.) But, seeing as you emerged relatively lucid from this ordeal, I'd say the judging panel would have to default victory to you, yes. Well done, Mr. Clean-Air System! As to the identity of this strange fruit, I'm at a total loss, but you have my sympathies nonetheless as you seem to already be accquainted with "persons" of this particular ilk. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just thought of something.

I've always found this article incredibly stupid, and it ought to have been deleted in the first place due to being an unfunny one-liner, but there's one more reason I just noticed: It's vanity. I think everyone but the article creator never heard of the site before reading this article. All this article does is give them free advertising. If you really want to feature some unfunny stub, this one shouldn't be it. In fact, I think the reason why rcmurphy bypassed the democratic voting process to nominate this is so that he could obtain referrals for his iPod. Wikipedia does not have an article for this website, so why should we? It's extremely insignificant, and should be labeled as vanity and deleted. --64.9.10.166 19:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

1. We're not Wikipedia, we are a parody site that is loosely based on Wikipedia. If you read Wikipedia so much, you might already know about their article about Uncyclopedia, where they state that we are more of a parody of ourselves then anything else. I fail to see why you can use the "Wikipedia doesn’t have it" argument, when we also have hundreds of funny articles that the Wiki would never even consider adding.

2. The free advertising bit doesn’t work either jack, at least not generally. You see there is a reason why they call it Euroipods; it’s only available in Europe. If you note the disclaimer in the article it mentions a number of places that do not carry the ability to receive a Euroipod, it is completely true. While they do bring in slightly more revenue with our contribution, it is stunted by the fact that you can't get one unless you live in Europe.

3. "If you really want to feature some unfunny stub, this one shouldn't be it." Okay, I'll address this one too. I'm sure that if anything is featured, it is funny enough to someone to be so. I'm sure that even though it got vetoed allot, it seems to me like your all fighting a loosing battle. Consider the fact that this might be for half a second <dramatic pause> funny. Okay now picture that your not alone in thinking this. Okay now you know how some of us feel, you can now go back to your previous disposition. I don't want this to become a habit, this article has comedy, but it is comedy that is funny the first time. The second time around, it's just stupid, so I agree that in the future featuring articles like Euroipods should not be tolerated, as it steles from what little visible comedy that Euroipods has.--MrJimmy Journal talk 00:44, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Consider the fact that this might be for half a second <dramatic pause> not funny. Okay now picture that your not alone in thinking this. Okay now you know how some of us feel, you can now go back to your previous disposition. And you didn't address the point of whether or not it's vanity. It's an insignificant little website that's not important enought to have an article. --72.21.41.138 03:06, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It IS funny , to somone, me, RC, and everyone on the left side of that poster up there. I diden't need to adress vanity, your just pulling out the small point that I diden't cover as a way to spite me. Observe, this is funny, it's a blatent ad, and it's funny. Now would you all please FYAD.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning sounds a lot like someone we know. Go home NR, we know you know how to use proxies. Do something else, like buy a BB gun and shoot some cans to get out your frustration.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 03:13, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Your words are lost on me sir, I have no idea what your talking about. (FYAD)--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I created this uproar purely as an advertising gimmick. --—rc (t) 03:11, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Get your Euroipod!

4. Its a senless accusation that you made when you assumend that RC featured it for his own benifit. And besides if he had featured it to get more signups, how would he benifit from it at all? He woulden't. And even further, if it were possible, and he had exploited the Uncyclopedia for this purpose, woulden't that make the article more funny, or at least more historically valuable?

5. Lastly, I went and read the vanity page rules, and I agree with you that Euroipods fits the criteria in a way, but not the way that was intended for a vanity page. Sure it's only funny to a handfull of us, but firstly when I came across the page I diden't like it either, and I have since found the comedy within it. A vanity page is an article that only a handful of users would understand AS A RESULT OF the access that those users have to the topic of the page (ie. a specific person, or game based clan). Euroipods differs for this in the way that everyone has access to the resource that spawned the page, everyone has the ability to understand, as well as think it's funny. If it smells, looks, feels and tastes like a vanity page, it must be. And it is, but just because you don't understand it dosen't mean we havn't provided you with the means to. Secondly this page is still valid, it's funny (to somone), if you really don't like it then go away and stop runing it for those of us who do.--MrJimmy Journal talk 22:28, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

If we all have access to the source, why don't you tell us exactly where the source is so we can decide if it's funny? I've gone to euroipods.com, but I haven't seen anything that makes this page seem funny. Was there a specific part of it that I missed? --205.188.116.130 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. It's strewn all over this very page, go up a ways and look for a link that takes you to an article about toilets bieng art.--MrJimmy Journal talk 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So in order to not be vanity, the jokes have to make sense anyway? Um, sorry, because I STILL have yet to understand the joke. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me...--MrJimmy Journal talk 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is what, the FIFTH time you feautured this damned thing??!?!

To whoever violated consensus and featured an article that already was featured, FUCK YOU. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What? --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*does a double take* I swear to god, five minutes ago I saw Euroipods as the featured article, and all four "previously featured" articles were also euroipods