Most pointless sections of wikipedia

One name (at least) springs to mind...

Anyway, the ILM Wiki entry says "have included", in the past tense.

(xx-post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dom_Passantino

COEM ON PEOPLE, REPRAZENT.

ban dom's mum from wikipedia now pls

Why hasn't anyone told me about this so I can vandalise it?

Dom (Dominic) Passantino is a fatty lover and UK based journalist of "Italian" descent. He is the UK editor of American music webzine Stylus Magazine and has written for The Guardian and Bizarre. Wears a fucking scarfe.

Likes Girls Aloud and Professional Wrestling but is not of teh gay. Honest. Just ask the fat girls he fucks.

Sadly, he will be the next Alexis Petridish.

Although nearly all fictional work features the Earth, this page describes its fictional place in the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_National_Pok%C3%A9dex_number

Pretty much gave up hope for wikipedia when bulbasaur became a featured article.

JIM YOU ARE GOING DOWN

I WILL CRUSH YOU, SON

dom himself linked to this a while ago. some internet flamewar from 11 years ago.

Yeah, it's totally useless for looking up Napoleonic battles, Galapagan volcanoes or Icelandic pronounciation since that went up.

Not completely pointless, as I once thought I had imagined the fact that there was a Spanish episode, but this confirms it.

If they haven't deleted that, then there's no reason to delete dom's entry, surely? I mean neither of them is "notable" beyong a small circle of music obsessives who spend 1/2 their waking hours @ least online?

Passantino is a major figure in the online music criticism community, his move into mainstream print media is one of the most important developments in current British music journalism signalling a major shift in media dynamics. He is a very controversial figure and his, sometime brutal, criticisms are mentioned in a number of wiki articles such as the Tori Amos entry."

though we might hate to admit it, there are always two sides to every story...

Find yourself in the gutter in a lonely part of town
Where death waits in the darkness with a weapon to cut some stranger down
Sleeping with an empty bottle, hes a sad and an empty hearted man
All he needs is a job, and a little respect, so he can get out while he can

We always need to hear both sides of the story

A neighbourhood peace is shattered its the middle of the night
Young faces hide in the shadows, while they watch their mother and father fight
He says shes been unfaithful, she says her love for him has gone
And the brother shrugs to his sister and says looks like its just us from
Now on

We always need to hear both sides of the story

And the lights are all on, the world is watching now
People looking for truth, we must not fail them now
Be sure, before we close our eyes
Dont walk away from here
til you hear both sides

Here we are all gathered in what seems to be the centre of the storm
Neighbours once friendly now stand each side of the line that has been drawn
Theyve been fighting here for years, but now theres killing on the streets
While small coffins are lined up sadly, now united in defeat

We always need to hear both sides of the story

And the lights are all on, the world is watching now
People looking for truth, we must not fail them now
Be sure, before we close our eyes
Dont walk away from here
til you see both sides

White man turns the corner, finds himself within a different world
Ghetto kid grabs his shoulder, throws him up against the wall
He says would you respect me if I didnt have this gun
cos without it, I dont get it, and thats why I carry one

Yeah! Who does he think he is? Esteban Buttez??

The film was largely a disappointment both commercially and critically. Numerous parts of the previously-accepted history of the series are ignored in the film, including all references to Prince Adam, as well as Randor and Marlena- in fact it is implied that Castle Grayskull itself is the ruling point of Eternia rather than any royal city. The story concentrates more on the science fiction elements of the franchise rather than the fantasy. Aside from The Sorceress there is little reference to magic powers, with most of the characters relying instead on futuristic technology. even He-Man himself uses a gun in some scenes, and there is no direct indication that he has any superhuman powers or that his strength comes from Grayskull. However, although many feel that the movie may not have been particularly faithful to its source, it remains fairly popular among He-Man's fan community, although unsurprisingly it is usually disregarded from the fans' meta-text.

Some fans, however, counter with the observation that many of these apparent inconsistencies with the "main" cartoon/minicomic canon could be easily be explained by interpreting the film as simply being set some time after the events of the regular canon. Apart from obvious inconsistencies of design (all the character's costumes and especially the Power Sword and Castle Greyskull), there is little in the film which is wholly unreconcilable with the cartoon & minicomics. There is virtually no material in the film which directly contradicts past canon; rather there are merely few references to it.

Gwildor with the movie versions of Man-At-Arms and Teela.This theory points to the fact that at the start of the film Skeletor has already conquered Greyskull (and much of Eternia), which could easily explain the absence of many classic characters such as King Randor, Orko etc. Such characters can easily be supposed to have been captured, killed or driven into hiding prior to the start of the film. More importantly, this argument maintains that the lack of a depiction of (or even references to) Prince Adam does not by any means preclude his existence, and some would argue that under the drastic circumstances of the film's plot He-Man would have no time or reason to adopt his secret identity.

Furthermore, while Skeletor's Stormtrooper-esque legions admittedly had no previous depiction in the MOTU-verse and although their origin or precise nature are not divulged, the very existence of such an army makes Skeletor's unprecedented victory all the more plausible. Also, such a shift in the nature of the conflict could well explain the Heroic Warriors' own escalated use of high-tech weaponry, which was, after all, always an element of classic MOTU, going right back to the earliest toys. Given the vague similarity between the filmic Skeletor's black-armoured soldiers and Hordak's robot Horde Troopers (in particular supported by the fact that when stabbed or shot these soldiers give off sparks and occasionally explode, suggesting a robotic nature), some have even speculated that Skeletor's rise in martial prowess could possibly be accounted for by his having defeated his former teacher and rival at an earlier point and, as a result, taken control of his Horde armies.

The mere fact that there is a Masters of the Universe "canon" must mean some people have way too much time in their hands.

Jones OTM. Why anyone would want to "give up on" wp for what it *does* include is beyond me.

You searched for "ask a drunk" [Index]
Jump to: navigation, search

No page with that title exists.

:(

He is also likely to be the author of this in a shameless effort at self-promotion/ego indulgence.

no wai, unsorted trivia is the best thing about wikipedia.

otm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_Pop_Conf_afterparty_03.jpg

Gonna happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ned_Raggett&diff=205724150&oldid=193445201

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluedo_chronology

I've blocked him for a week. Please let me know if you see any more vandalism by the guy. Keep an eye out for anonymous IP vandalism. The fellow also uses these when he vandalises but he's not smart enough to come up with another catchphrase so "hen fap" is pretty easy to spot. 23skidoo 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man! Some of the targets for his vandalism have been fairly obscure (one of the ones I caught had been standing for far too long), so I'll keep watching his contributions page. EVula 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI another admin decided to take things a step further and permaban the guy. Unfortunately that doesn't stop him from posting using an anonymous IP address (like the one you pointed out to me) or opening another account. If you see any more "hen fap" let me know. 23skidoo 03:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll certainly keep an eye out for more spam. EVula 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hen fap vandalization at Momus (artist) using the IP 130.209.6.40 on March 29th... looks like there are legit users of that IP. I also see vandalization at John McKay (attorney) and there is probably more.--Larrybob 18:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also posts from 82.35.24.169 - has been harrassing regulars on the www.ilxor.com board from that IP. Just so you know.

Two more bits of "hen fap" from IP: 82.35.24.169. One at Sanjeev Bhaskar and one at Jeremy Kyle. -- GWO

There was something about hen fap in existentialism

Just reverted a "hen fap" at Russell Brand. Jess Cully 23:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

People, there's nothing I can do about it; I'm not an admin. I'd suggest bugging 23skidoo instead. EVula 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One at Sanjeev Bhaskar and one at Jeremy Kyle

Genuine tears-down-the-face lulz.

There was something about hen fap in existentialism

There was something about hen fap in existentialism
There was something about hen fap in existentialism
There was something about hen fap in existentialism
'Ello John Got a New Motor?

I've never seen anything that beats these two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_ranged_weapons

The second one particuarly, is wretched.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Broom%2C_sponge_and_towel.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Broom,_sponge_and_towel.jpg

delighted to learn that whoever created the wikipedia page for “thirst trap” used a photo of themselves for the image. channeling this level of confidence today pic.twitter.com/F8dSOUqKlz

— emotionally normal human (@meanlittleworm) July 19, 2020

🕸

^ not even remotely pointless for Indian public health officials (nb: English is among the official languages of India)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnes#Metric_Tonne_in_Popular_Culture
― ken c (ken c), Monday, 18 September 2006 11:25 (thirteen years ago) bookmarkflaglink

Deleted in Dec 2008.
Clearly as a result of my effective lobbying

Dec 2007 even!!

I remember there was a mass culling of "...in popular culture" at one point

good that shit is insufferable

that there are countless articles dedicated to individual episodes & characters from minor nerd culture phenomena would be tolerable if they didn’t keep deleting articles about black women for being “insufficiently notable”, as it is it speaks volumes about who the site is by & for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1890s_pornographic_films

Maybe you don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's a collection of previously published information from reliable sources. Nerds can get away with writing those articles because they are referenced to independent sources. An article on any subject will get deleted if it's not reliably sourced. If a subject is insufficiently notable to merit an article that's not Wikipedia's fault, it just means that there are no reliable sources about that person's life. Or maybe there are, but no-one's looked hard enough for them.

xp

facts don't care about your feelings

I have tried to make wikipedia articles about bands and musicians, especially from the 90s, and it's a real struggle to get them to stay up there because the original sources (mostly the music press) are almost all undigitised and not available online, except in the form or blogs, which are not good enough as sources, also there are people ready to swoop down and delete anything which doesn't fit their impossibly high standards - I was trying to save an article about a Romanian singer once, but there was literally nothing available which they would trust, it was infuriating.

It's almost as if a lot of Wikipedia editors are dicks

I had a long debate with one of these dicks about an article which he deleted because it was funny. it was perfectly encyclopedic, he just hated anyone enjoying themself.

The marketplace of ideas could really do with a better alternative to that place

It doesn't matter if your music press sources are not digitized or available online. Many sources are like that. You just cite the printed version. As for "impossibly high standards", I disagree. Loads of sources are considered reliable.

oh that's fine, I'll just refer to the comprehensively indexed stack of NME and Melody Maker which I keep in my private library.

Well if you don't know which issue of NME the quote you want to use comes from it's hardly surprising your submissions got rejected.

Could somebody please digitize old NME and Melody Maker issues before they all degrade into pulp? I can’t believe this hasn’t been done yet.

Well if you don't know which issue of NME the quote you want to use comes from it's hardly surprising your submissions got rejected.

― joni mitchell jarre (anagram), Tuesday, August 4, 2020 2:42 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Now who says I have some quotes ready, and why / where would I have some saved?

Fortunately someone is digitising Select, which is something - https://selectmagazinescans.monkeon.co.uk/

Well, there's your problem right there. Wikipedia is constructed of quotes! If you haven't got any quotes you haven't got anything!

ok, I'm done, bye

Leave Wikney alone

trying to imagine what the references were like on these wiki pages "1. I read about this band in NME, probably about 1992?"

no, obviously in these cases there is plenty of information from other sources on the internet, the cds and records, radio interviews, my memory from reading about them / seeing them at the time (these are not obscure bands) - who the living fuck is going to write about a band without hearing them? agh, fucking hell, closing this thread forever, jfc

It doesn't matter if your music press sources are not digitized or available online. Many sources are like that. You just cite the printed version. As for "impossibly high standards", I disagree. Loads of sources are considered reliable.

― joni mitchell jarre (anagram)

ok, let's see, concrete example

here's a blog post i just wrote about the wikipedia article for the 1929 film "the surprise of a knight"

https://www.alanauch.org/wtob/2020/08/04/the-surprise-of-a-knight-1929/

do you agree or disagree with the problems i identify in the article? if you agree, how would you recommend the problems with this article be rectified?

there are also tons of deadlinked articles that nobody has caught or cleaned up, so it's liek "oh cool, I wanna read the source arti....oh, yay, it's broken".

also, some of the sources are literally TV Guide, November 1984, pg 17. does somebody spot-check the print magazines, cos I've always suspected anybody could attribute some random bullshit to page 71 of some obscure magazine.

good article, Kate. definitely seems problematic the way the film is depicted even if some of the problematic descriptions did originate from a previous publication. I'm not sure how to solve them, but perhaps ensuring these types of articles are edited by LGBTQ editors who know better what problematic language/assumptions to look for could be a start.

Again, I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can edit an article. You can edit it yourself. If you think it erases trans experience, it's incumbent upon you to find sources that address the film from a trans perspective, and add them to the article. Improve the article yourself, don't expect others to do it for you.

also, if you look at the talk page for the article, you will see a lot of discussion of exactly this issue

I understand how Wikipedia works. I edit all of the time.

While "anybody can edit an article", that's ignoring the bazillion tines articles are protected or semi-protected due to vandalism or edit wars

It's not merely the Old West out there

sorry, my comment was addressed to rushomancy, not you

wow you’re really a true believer eh

while we’re at it NPOV is a bullshit ideal which is never actually followed because it can’t be, it’s a useful weapon by for the community because as we know the POVs of certain people tend to be considered more objective or subjective by default. the rules for what citations are allowed & what sources are reliable are also pretty dubious, reflecting & reinforcing the existing biases of the project

also why do so many articles have the irrelevant bad opinions of nuatheist/IDW-adjacent shitheads gratuitously shoehorned into them. no one needs to hear what sam harris or steve pinker think about morality or postmodernism or whatever

this “anyone can edit so if the article erases you it’s your responsibility to change it if you can find appropriate sources” thing as if there’s no power structure here at all really exposes the right wing libertarian roots of the whole project

Again, I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works.

― joni mitchell jarre (anagram)

so your response opens by suggesting that i am basically ignorant. i'm not interested in continuing to talk with you so long as you consider that one of the acceptable topics of debate. if and when you figure out how to treat (someone who challenges your statements) with kindness and respect, perhaps i might be willing to discuss this topic with you.

"good article, Kate. definitely seems problematic the way the film is depicted even if some of the problematic descriptions did originate from a previous publication. I'm not sure how to solve them, but perhaps ensuring these types of articles are edited by LGBTQ editors who know better what problematic language/assumptions to look for could be a start.

― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal)"

it's a good idea, but like anagram suggests below, wikipedia is definitionally "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - establishing a state of exception is not something i trust to produce superior outcomes.

(for that matter, while i don't _know_ who the editors of the article i wrote my post about were, my feeling is that they _were_ speaking from an LGBTQ perspective. this particular manifestation of transphobia seems to me to be one that's internal to the LGBTQ community, specifically privileging gay male sexuality over trans sexuality.)

i would say, from my perspective, that by and large wikipedia's principles, community, and culture have produced... _acceptable_ outcomes. specifically, i find the general outcomes of wikipedia, particularly as pertains to its "free" (meaning, here, not just free to use, but noncommercial) nature, to be markedly superior to the outcomes produced by corporate hegemonic models of internet discourse as represented by e.g. social media.

as far as suggesting modifying the "anyone can edit" dictum... well, that's been tried, in the past. ultimately we're talking about gatekeeping. personally, i'm an intersectionalist, and i think that in theory, "experts" might be able to better contribute to a collective resource than "anyone". however, setting up standards for expertise is a tremendous, and tremendously fraught, bureaucratic undertaking, in addition to forcing an organization to confront the age-old "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" question.

no, what i see as the problem here is unequal access to valid sources. this problem is _particularly_ acute with respect to trans issues, whereby there has been, and continues to be, a major shift in how trans people are thought of, a shift that is led not by academic consensus, but by _us trans people_. the clinical and academic consensus has followed here, rather than led. this means that most of, particularly, the academic cites available on LGBTQ issues come out of a (historically recent) transphobic consensus.

to correct the errors in the article, errors backed up by citations, i would need my own citations. i don't have these citations. therefore, according to wikipedia's own process, the article is "correct". this, i think, indicates a meaningful and significant failure of that process.

It is certainly not true that the article is "correct" by any standard. No article is ever finished, the last word on its subject. There is always room for improvement, that's the point of the project. But you have to have citations. If you don't have any citations to support your desired improvement in the article, that's your problem, not the article's. I repeat, any Wikipedia article is a ''synthesis of previously published information on the subject from reliable sources''.

In the meantime, there's other stuff you can do. If you don't like the way the article is drafted, change it. If you don't like its use of the words "lady" and "drag queen", take them out and replace them with something else. Put something like "According to Waugh..." to emphasize that the quotes you object to are the views of one academic. Etc

why should it be incumbent on her to change some shit she just stumbled upon? so stupid, please stop

did you even read the blog post? is every topic just totally emotionally neutral for you? good for you!! jfc