- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
The first paragraph is 100% proof that this person has some form of autism. Not at all shocking for a trans furry,Here's another, more detailed version of User page from May 2016:
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
Why does this exist on this article? Really, why?
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Why does this exist on this article? Really, why?
The so called Presidential "Historians" have long abused their (often self-bestowed) titles to what in reality is little better than political punditry. This has been a problem since about the 1990s - I can remember some of the same names being trotted out to defend whatever Clinton was doing at the moment in light of some supposed historical precedent - the example I remember being given was, hey if Jefferson boned a few slaves, why can't Clinton have his dick sucked in the oval office?
Rankings like this don't really mean shit (and this is broader than Wikipedia) - what's the difference if a President is ranked 16th best vs. 19th best? Very little.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
All of the best Presidents are at the bottom and all of the worst are in the middle.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
These kind of ratings are also vastly prejudiced by time. Recent Presidents invariably score much higher or much lower based on present day chimpouts rather than what will eventually shake out as history passes on.
For instance, you will see people vastly overrate Obama, or vastly underrate Trump. Meanwhile, neither of them were particularly dramatically good or bad. Anyone who says Trump is the worst President ever when we had James Buchanan is an idiot, and probably never even heard of James Buchanan or knows why he was such shit.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
These people think mean tweets are worse than the Great Depression. Hoover (and even Roosevelt) aren't ranked where they would be if people remembered 30s-40s politics.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
I've been having fun reading move discussions because they're always so fascinatingly retarded and autistic. Outside of Irish and Palestinian topics the final move attempt "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request) might be the longest and most intense, after ten previous efforts. It has 10,367 words and involved 1537 editors. It has its own page because it's so damn big. It started in April 2015 and had to be closed by uninvolved admins in June.
The final move of "Yoghurt" to "Yogurt" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_6#Move_page_to_yogurt) isn't quite as amazing but do note that it took eight move requests over six years to move the page from something most people don't use or recognize to something that pretty much everyone recognizes. It was originally moved to "Yoghurt" in contravention of policy but, because of the anti-American bias of a lot of the site, the Brits were able to keep it by citing "stability." Brits incorrectly claimed that the entire Commonwealth uses "yoghurt" while the truth is that most of the Commonwealth uses "yogurt" and Britain itself is divided.
I'm convinced that some of the editors that do a lot of controversial move requests get a kick out of pissing people off and are doubly pleased that it's all according to policy. Warms my heart to see it.
The final move of "Yoghurt" to "Yogurt" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_6#Move_page_to_yogurt) isn't quite as amazing but do note that it took eight move requests over six years to move the page from something most people don't use or recognize to something that pretty much everyone recognizes. It was originally moved to "Yoghurt" in contravention of policy but, because of the anti-American bias of a lot of the site, the Brits were able to keep it by citing "stability." Brits incorrectly claimed that the entire Commonwealth uses "yoghurt" while the truth is that most of the Commonwealth uses "yogurt" and Britain itself is divided.
I'm convinced that some of the editors that do a lot of controversial move requests get a kick out of pissing people off and are doubly pleased that it's all according to policy. Warms my heart to see it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
These fucking toothless inbred fags also think we should spell "aluminum" with an added i even despite that only being the spelling on Inbreed Island. Just even try to say "aluminium." If you do, 18 dozen cocks immediately go into every orifice in your body because that is how faggoty it sounds to say "aluminium."
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
But it's consistent with the other metals, like goldium and ironium!
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
Our favorite editor for Wikipedia us getting a thread
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
LMAO, George Bush, the president who didn't care about black people and supported the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell (okay that was Clinton but still), and invaded countries full of brown people, is considered "mostly good?"Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
Why does this exist on this article? Really, why?
View attachment 2878754
View attachment 2878755
I bet the way these "scholars" construct their analysis, Woodrow Wilson would've ranked higher than Trump since even if he segregated the federal government and was very very racist, he never made mean hateful tweets.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
I don't think Abraham Lincoln was anti-racist, wanting slaves freed didn't mean you wanted equality for black people, quite the opposite actually. And he didn't even always support abolition
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Well it's explained in a footnote that "Lincoln is rated as both white supremacist, for his personal views, and antiracist, for his policies." It also notes, predictably, that Trump is "white supremacist both for his personal beliefs and his policy."
Anyway, this list is clearly junk, and it's only interesting in that its presence in this article is a sign of the continuing racialization of Wikipedia. If someone made a list ranking by "resistance to feminist encroachment" or whatever, I somehow doubt it would get a mention. Indeed, I expect there are plenty of existing valid rankings such as "contributing to world peace" that aren't included.
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
Yes, that's the main takeaway I get from it as well. This kind of material (as well as some other recent examples in this thread) would not have passed muster on Wikipedia just 3-4 years ago. Other than obvious external factors like TDS - which doesnt explain all of it - what caused the change? Seems like some of the up and coming editors just before the Trump era really let loose at some point (see: our friend GorillaWarfare).
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
It just seems to be another part of the "Great Awokening", which is usually dated around the late 2010s. College students' dumb, uninformed, far-left opinions that people used to roll their eyes at and chalk up to lack of life experience, at some point became dictates which it is hate speech to disagree with. Wikipedia may have been a somewhat leading indicator, as many contributors are young and "very online", but it wasn't that far ahead.
So, the question is why the Great Awokening happened. There are many opinions. Social media? Growth of HR departments? Trump as an electrifying, unifying force? Mainstream news cutting costs by hiring fresh-faced graduates? Abuse of civil rights legislation and risk-averse corporations? Parasites like Ben Crump? Mass immigration? All of the above? Hard to say.
And 2020 put the pedal to the metal. WuFlu created a pretext for censoring "misinformation" as a public health imperative, which quickly extended to other domains such as protecting "trans lives". And then there was St. Floyd's death; while there remains zero evidence race played any role in that incident, millions had been primed by years of misleading coverage to believe that police kill blacks for sport, and so an explosion was created. With this cultural shift, NPCs were able to steamroll over remaining resistance to filling Wikipedia with racial propaganda.
Well that's my theory anyway.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
The C of E is an unironic British imperialist who is quite autistic with regards to the "Did you know" crap on the main page, contributing 508. He got in trouble, though, because he kept trying to push controversial content about The Troubles, the phrase "refers to Muhammad as 'that Arab thief'", and the phrase "Niggerhead, Nigger Hill and Nigger Stream" on the main page. He was forced to temper himself and now he's reduced to trying to get "fuck" on there. He had a brief resurgence with "Nigger Love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!"
In general, the nomination and talk pages for parts of the main page can be hilarious. Sometimes you might notice that "in the news" doesn't change for weeks, except for election results, sports tournaments, and space missions. That's because they deadlock themselves on what to post so often that the only stuff that gets posted is stuff they agreed years ago to always post, even though some of them still desperately hate it.
Update: he was brought up for sanctions again over this, with a complete ban from DYK. Not looking good for him and I wonder how long he's got to live. (Archive)
In general, the nomination and talk pages for parts of the main page can be hilarious. Sometimes you might notice that "in the news" doesn't change for weeks, except for election results, sports tournaments, and space missions. That's because they deadlock themselves on what to post so often that the only stuff that gets posted is stuff they agreed years ago to always post, even though some of them still desperately hate it.
Update: he was brought up for sanctions again over this, with a complete ban from DYK. Not looking good for him and I wonder how long he's got to live. (Archive)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2020
The C of E's userpage is fucking gold. The "The C of E is currently experiencing mental health issues" warning with some British anthem midi right under it is hilarious.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
The only reason Bush ranks high anyways is because those tards look at Trump now and call him Hitler 2.0, as if they never hated Bush. And that goes for both Bush's, but Bush 2 in particular. Realistically Obama shouldn't even rank that high considering all the drone striking of brown people he did as well as plenty of shady shit but he is a saint for lefties.
Can anyone tell me what those policies were? I must've missed al the death camps for gay people and minorities he set up.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
Same. I always ask the same question. I must have miss the screaming of people going on a train.