Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

WhiteNight said:
Yes Wikipedia has an article on this:
View attachment 6903695

It's been nominated for deletion, but from the !votes so far it's likely to survive.

It includes text like this:

But the paragraph on these supposed groups' celebration is mostly them laughing about it.

Also, there is an article for this:
View attachment 6903706

Seethe and dilate harder, Wikipedia:
View attachment 6903708
Click to expand...
And who is Royce Lamberth, you might wonder, this dude who talks about "meritless justifications of criminal activity?"

Well, he used to be this:
Screenshot 2025-01-26 152127.png
So he used to be the Presiding "Judge" of a fake court that only existed to commit crimes against Americans on behalf of the LITERAL Deep State.

This is the USA PATRIOT fake court that existed just to rubber stamp every single thing the intelligence establishment demanded.

This evil motherfucker is in no position to criticize someone for pardoning people for engaging in First Amendment protected activity, or commuting excessively harsh penalties for the few people who committed anything that could be considered actual crimes.

Fuck this guy and may he burn in Hell as soon as possible.
 
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Look--an Alien!, Temperance and 12 others
Smaug's Smokey Hole 2 said:
I wanted to know some things about this guy:
View attachment 6914375
His name is Bolo Yeung.

I searched Wikipedia for "Bolo Yeong", just guessed the spelling of his last name, and got...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_fetish
Click to expand...
The South Korean public often views diaper fetishism in a negative light. A Naver cafe (similar to the Yahoo! Groups service) that is devoted to diaper fetishism was closed around September 2010 as the South Korean media outlets portrayed it negatively to the general public.[22][23][24] Another incident occurred when a South Korean girl group, Girl's Day, were accused of wearing costumes that looked like oversized diapers, dubbed diaper fashion.[25]
Click to expand...

no seriously

what the fuck is wrong with the Republic of Korea
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, woowie queen, Wright and 10 others
Coberald said:
This is on the front page today
1738149812566.png
I can't stop laughting at the phrase "Gay synagogue"
1738149892634.png
Click to expand...
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
A gay synagogue is a synagogue of Satan, not of God.
 
  • Agree
  • Islamic Content
  • Winner
Reactions: Sammich, UnsufficentBoobage, Wright and 13 others
WhiteNight said:
Wikipedia could provide balance by, say, including cases of egregious over-prosecution like this Xitter post:
j6.png
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1882268997606945260
Click to expand...
The insane Jan 6 sentence lengths which were obviously politically motivated and malicious are made doubly egregious by the fact that just 6 months before during the Floyd riots people were literally getting probation for burning down fast food restaurants over a dead fentanyl addict.
Screenshot 2025-01-30 111243.png
Screenshot 2025-01-30 111527.png
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Temperance, Sexy Peach Emoji and 11 others
A good few pages ago, someone mentioned Wikipedia's chemical articles being full of fluff and junk, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It tells you almost nothing about what this chemical is or how its made beside how it looks like a scary wrongthink symbol. If you click the source that supposedly claims it's "controversial" (how in the hell is a chemical controversial because of the shape of its molecules?), it's an article about a totally different chemical that also looks vaguely like a wrongthink symbol.
Screenshot_20250130_212924_Brave.jpg
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Secret Boots, Cnidarian, Cunted and 46 others
Save the Loli said:
A good few pages ago, someone mentioned Wikipedia's chemical articles being full of fluff and junk, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It tells you almost nothing about what this chemical is or how its made beside how it looks like a scary wrongthink symbol. If you click the source that supposedly claims it's "controversial" (how in the hell is a chemical controversial because of the shape of its molecules?), it's an article about a totally different chemical that also looks vaguely like a wrongthink symbol.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you just won the thread, this is easily the most stupid shit I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

Now I think troons should be burned with tetraethylmethane.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Nuclear Operative, BottledCrab and 8 others
Save the Loli said:
A good few pages ago, someone mentioned Wikipedia's chemical articles being full of fluff and junk, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It tells you almost nothing about what this chemical is or how its made beside how it looks like a scary wrongthink symbol. If you click the source that supposedly claims it's "controversial" (how in the hell is a chemical controversial because of the shape of its molecules?), it's an article about a totally different chemical that also looks vaguely like a wrongthink symbol.
View attachment 6924355
Click to expand...
That is not even how the actual structure is. It's just the 2D projection. The unstable compound orthocarbonic acid looks more like a swastika.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Cnidarian, UnsufficentBoobage, demicolon and 9 others
Save the Loli said:
A good few pages ago, someone mentioned Wikipedia's chemical articles being full of fluff and junk, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It tells you almost nothing about what this chemical is or how its made beside how it looks like a scary wrongthink symbol. If you click the source that supposedly claims it's "controversial" (how in the hell is a chemical controversial because of the shape of its molecules?), it's an article about a totally different chemical that also looks vaguely like a wrongthink symbol.
View attachment 6924355
Click to expand...
This is indeed dumb, but it's worth noting that that text was added by an anonymous (IP) user only a few weeks ago, and has now been removed (probably because of your post):

This was basically vandalism that went unnoticed for some time because it is an obscure article.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 306h4Ge5eJUJ, UnsufficentBoobage, Nuclear Operative and 13 others
WhiteNight said:
This is indeed dumb, but it's worth noting that that text was added by an anonymous (IP) user only a few weeks ago, and has now been removed (probably because of your post):

This was basically vandalism that went unnoticed for some time because it is an obscure article.
Click to expand...
Well shit, how will I know about controversial alkanes now, can anyone help me out here?

If only Wikipedia could fix the rest of the articles people highlight in this thread so quickly.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Wright, From The Uncanny Valley and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back