Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Another page that's been the target of demands for renaming is Adam's Bridge, which gets the somewhat-frequent demand of changing the page title to Rama Setu to the point that the requests are virtually reverted on sight
If you go there in google maps, you’ll find like 30 variations of Rama Setu marked as locations along the bridge, and the reviews for the main marker full of angry pajeets demanding the removal of the name “adams bridge”

It’s kinda hilarious, I don’t know why they’re so mad about it.
 
If you go there in google maps, you’ll find like 30 variations of Rama Setu marked as locations along the bridge, and the reviews for the main marker full of angry pajeets demanding the removal of the name “adams bridge”

It’s kinda hilarious, I don’t know why they’re so mad about it.
Something something colonisation is the chief complaint I hear.
 
thought it interesting the Holocaust largely overshadows what appears to be a Typhus epidemic during the second World War. The problem is, it's far too a touchy subject to ever get resolved. Everyone seems to have their own personal opinion
The typhus vaccine was invented by an ethnic German who did most of his work in Poland during WW2, but because the only way to cultivate the vaccine was to have lice feed on human blood, there was a very short supply and most went to the Wehrmacht and SS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse-feeder (notice how the Wikipedia page uses the Ukrainian name for the place this was produced lmao)
Something something colonisation is the chief complaint I hear.
Supposedly it was built by the Hindu god Rama so he and his army of monkeys could walk to Sri Lanka, so calling it Adam's Bridge (which was invented by the only people more hated in India than the British, Muslims) is blasphemy or something.
 
I had looked up the article on Typhus, since someone had mentioned some Nazis had died in the camps from it, and discovered it was much more prevalent than stated in the Holocaust article.
I thought it interesting the Holocaust largely overshadows what appears to be a Typhus epidemic during the second World War. The problem is, it's far too a touchy subject to ever get resolved. Everyone seems to have their own personal opinion.
Typhus has historically followed war like the literal plague; the deprivation and grueling physical conditions, plus all those people who were sharing bedding and washing facilities make lice almost impossible to avoid. It's fairly easy to avoid for modern (1880s+) populations with even basic precautions like steam laundries and delousing(lol) stations, that's why typhus is sorta ignored in holocaust studies, because without the privation of the camps the typhus epidemic never would've happened.
 
Last edited:
As some of you may have been aware, Wikipedia changed its default skin for unregistered users earlier in the year. This resulted in a request for comments (RfC) to determine if there was editor (and reader) consensus to persuade the Wikimedia Foundation (who handles the servers and design for projects like Wikipedia) to roll back to the older skin. It was closed a few days ago, with the closers observing that there was no consensus to do a rollback, and as such the new skin will stay. There's been a bit of sperging over this "horrid" outcome on the RfC's talk page.


The tard rage couldn't be contained and it spiralled out into other discussions:

🔸 A discussion over at the village pump for proposals ( will be archived on Wikipedia )
🔸 An attempt to force a review on the closure ( will be archived on Wikipedia )
🔸 A discussion on one of the closers' user talk pages ( may be archived sometime on Wikipedia ):

Biggest tards here seem to be Toa Nidhiki05 and Tvx1. I expect more retardation from these two when this RfC gets brought up in the future.
So there was a second attempt to force a closure review ( will be archived on Wikipedia ) on changing the default skin, which was closed itself as no consensus whether to endorse the closure or overturn it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Humbert Humbert
I thought it was only composers but dancing siblings Mackenzie and Maddie Ziegler have their pages locked due to conflicts on whether or not they should have an infobox. This goes back almost a decade. For whatever reason, having an infobox on both Ziegler siblings was deemed useless and for a decade, this opinion has lasted.

From the archives of Maddie's talk page over the years (btw, it seems like that user "Cassianto" was involved in any discussion to remove infoboxes):
Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-31-39 Talk Maddie Ziegler_Archive 1 - Wikipedia.pngScreenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-33-14 Talk Maddie Ziegler_Archive 1 - Wikipedia.pngScreenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-33-33 Talk Maddie Ziegler_Archive 1 - Wikipedia.pngScreenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-33-55 Talk Maddie Ziegler_Archive 2 - Wikipedia.pngScreenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-34-25 Talk Maddie Ziegler_Archive 3 - Wikipedia.png
More recently, users have begun voting in support of an infobox, but as of December 2022, a user with power shut down the suggestion of adding an infobox, citing that users "need to look at the past discussion".
Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-37-27 Talk Maddie Ziegler - Wikipedia.pngScreenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-37-38 Talk Maddie Ziegler - Wikipedia.png
The user who ultimately shut down the addition of an infobox appears to be a tranny/non-binary person:
Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-38-54 User Isabelle Belato - Wikipedia.png
Similar arguing has happened in the page of Mackenzie (Maddie's sister).
Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 17-41-25 Talk Mackenzie Ziegler - Wikipedia.png
 
I thought it was only composers but dancing siblings Mackenzie and Maddie Ziegler have their pages locked due to conflicts on whether or not they should have an infobox. This goes back almost a decade. For whatever reason, having an infobox on both Ziegler siblings was deemed useless and for a decade, this opinion has lasted.

From the archives of Maddie's talk page over the years (btw, it seems like that user "Cassianto" was involved in any discussion to remove infoboxes):
View attachment 4939057View attachment 4939061View attachment 4939069View attachment 4939073View attachment 4939077
More recently, users have begun voting in support of an infobox, but as of December 2022, a user with power shut down the suggestion of adding an infobox, citing that users "need to look at the past discussion".
View attachment 4939117View attachment 4939125
The user who ultimately shut down the addition of an infobox appears to be a tranny/non-binary person:
View attachment 4939145
Similar arguing has happened in the page of Mackenzie (Maddie's sister).
View attachment 4939181
Good God why do these retards even care there ought to be a site wide rule either box or no box and people need to stick with it.
 
Yes that is another good point. The typhus wouldn't have killed people if they hadn't been already weakened by the war, shortages and camp conditions.
Maybe my learnings happened in an odd order, but I learned of typhus and forced labour first, and only heard of the organised shootings and gas chambers later. I think this is because Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen, and this is the same camp that the British film footage of starved prisoners, frequently used in documentaries, comes from.
 
Not sure why I can't quote you @JJLiautaud but it still baffles my mind that Wikipedia has never made any of their "guidelines" official rules and allows users to break them if one user with a loud enough voice dictates it.

One minor detail I noticed on Wikipedia infoboxes is that there's like 10 different ways to convert height from metric to imperial and vice versa. The site hasn't streamlined one method and users are often free to select whichever one they choose. You'd think one template site-wide would solve everything but no.

When height is notable for a job, like an athlete or model, you can simply put the metric unit height in the height parameter and it will auto-convert. I.E "Height = 1.80 m" will convert to 5 ft 11 in. But, you can also put something like "{{height|m=1.80}}". And then you can also go "{{convert|1.80|m|ftin}}". There's also an entry for some infoboxes where you can have the first parameter be "feet" and the second parameter be "inches" and then it will convert to metric.
 
Genuinely curious: does anyone agree with this light that Hugh Hefner is being painted in? Or is this just some twitter neo-feminist whiny baby bullshit like some other articles on the site now that overly-victimize women (even more than they overly victimize themselves)

Screenshot 2023-04-04 024832.png

Even the lede on the article says the following
A highly controversial figure in popular culture, in the years since his death Hefner has been accused of personally perpetrating and fostering acts of sexual abuse and exploitation stretching back decades, and Playboy has since distanced itself from association with him.

This just really strikes me weirdly considering I saw so many TV specials about Hef back in the day when he was still alive which had almost nothing but positive things to say about the man. It sucks to see him memorialized this way. But if you agree and feel like this is all valid, then there's no hate from me. Just looking for thoughts
 
Last edited:
Genuinely curious: does anyone agree with this light that Hugh Hefner is being painted in? Or is this just some twitter neo-feminist whiny baby bullshit like some other articles on the site now that overly-victimize women (even more than they overly victimize themselves)


This just really strikes me weirdly considering I saw so many TV specials about Hef back in the day when he was still alive which had almost nothing but positive things to say about the man. It sucks to see him memorialized this way. But if you agree and feel like this is all valid, then there's no hate from me. Just looking for thoughts

I think the Philanthropy section balances the article and prevents it froming coming off as a total hit piece. I also think it's fine to include critiques of him especially from close sources like former girlfriends, the section should be renamed "controversys" or "criticism."

My big gripe is that I know throughout the years he's received a lot of criticism from people who oppose the sexual revolution at large. I'm sure there is a wealth of sources they can pull from to form some counterpoint views against the guy, but instead most of their source is The Guardian, there are undoubtedly more varied ways you could write the article.

But that would require them to do more than take the top Google result.
 
My big gripe is that I know throughout the years he's received a lot of criticism from people who oppose the sexual revolution at large. I'm sure there is a wealth of sources they can pull from to form some counterpoint views against the guy, but instead most of their source is The Guardian, there are undoubtedly more varied ways you could write the article.

But that would require them to do more than take the top Google result

I'm calling it now: in 50 years when Tim Stokley and Amrapali Gan are both dead and buried they will respectively have their graves shit and pissed on for making OnlyFans because it "objectifies women" (no need to mention how you all made an account and sold pussy pics to weirdos entirely on your own accords though)
 
Kind of shocked this category is allowed to exist on modern Wikipedia. Also, check out the Zebra murders article. It was a string of 15 murders of whites by three black supremacists in San Francisco during the 70s. I've never once heard of it talked about in the mainstream. No documentaries made and no media coverage. The only reason I know it happened was seeing it scrolling through Metapedia (a white nationalist Wikipedia alternative)
racially motivated.PNG


Does anyone here still remember the 2016 Dallas police officer shootings? I feel like it's been totally memoryholed. That was another case of a radicalized black man murdering people.
 
Now that you posted it, it will probably be nuked for being too inconvenient.

Also thanks for the tip about Metapedia gonna take a look at it, should be a fun alternative to browse around.
 
Does anyone here still remember the 2016 Dallas police officer shootings? I feel like it's been totally memoryholed. That was another case of a radicalized black man murdering people.
I try to remind people of it sometimes because indeed it was almost immediately forgotten. Not only that, the shootings were only hours after Obama had given a speech denouncing (imaginary) police persecution and violence against black people. One could hardly have a more neatly packaged story of inciting violence and "stochastic terrorism" (certainly compared to how Trump's speeches are treated), but the mainstream media would never make such a connection.

Wikipedia to its credit also covers the Fresno shootings by Kori Ali Muhammad, who had told police his goal was to kill as many white people as possible. It was a top story for a few hours, with the media readying anti-gun talking points, but when the motive was discovered it quickly vanished. Hardly anyone now knows it happened, and really it was forgotten the next day. Note that he was taken alive and prosecuted, but there were no federal charges as there of course would be with races reversed (racial motive or no).
 
Here's another one that's long forgotten. Learned about it while reading a random sociology book:

1680682451861.jpeg

1680682599124.jpeg

1680682656757.jpeg



Of course, it's not on that wikipedia list (even though it obviously fits the criteria). In fact, Google turns up no hits for the guy at all, Just goes to show how much has been lost to history - and how easy it is for the past to be swept under the rug when the story isn't narrative friendly.



Bonus content for all you insurrectionists: A quote from Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver's memoir:

"Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women - and this point, I believe was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of of consternation throughout the white race."
 
IIRC dialect is for only spoken, while languages are spoken and written.

But it does sound like a case of double entry for the same thing. Can't say since I am not a expert.
 
Back