Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Chris did nothing wrong]

Literally about humans getting nasty with mermaids. What’s worse is that there are five academic sources, meaning this isn’t normal sperging, he really thinks there’s a scholarly aspect to this shit and actively hunts it down.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130119080938/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid_biology

 

[Abethedemon]

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Speedy_deletion_Wiki:Main_Page
This may be useful in finding some choice articles.

 

[Lachlan Hunter McIntyre]

C'mon, we ALL change shit and make things up on Wikipedia articles for laughs. Don't act like you don't do it

 

[Joan Nyan]

Duuuuude they're like huffin jenk or sum shit

 

[NARPASSWORD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
There is absolutely no point in having an article on this. And there certainly isn't a point for said article to have 95 notes.

 

[CatParty]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
There is absolutely no point in having an article on this. And there certainly isn't a point for said article to have 95 notes.

obviously the only correct way is over the top

 

[AnOminous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
There is absolutely no point in having an article on this. And there certainly isn't a point for said article to have 95 notes.

There are literally 95 sources cited. While I was tempted to suggest a speedy deletion, I can't cope with that.

 

[NARPASSWORD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toilet_paper_orientation&diff=715695715&oldid=715560075
If you think that's bad, an older revision included a list of people with preferences. This includes a fictional character from a Cartoon Network show.

 

[haglover]

okay

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dramatical_Murder&oldid=723448612#Anime

 

[LulzKiller]

Would an article about one road count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asin_Road

 

[Darwin Watterson]

Wikipedia not being censored is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand we can be exposed to informative articles on taboo subjects. On the other hand, we get pictures on articles like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis

Rasputin's penis once had its own article.

 

[drain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie's_careers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_five
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTubers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision

Well...

 

[LulzKiller]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie's_careers


Well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earring_Magic_Ken on that note

 

[DadaistVizor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)

 

[Abethedemon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball

 

[AnOminous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball

Things like this and the last post are why deletionists are a thing.

 

[Caesare]

obviously the only correct way is over the top

Obviously, but did you look at that article?? A six month study was done by a university to determine which way was more "cost efficient". I can't even.. I'm at a loss for words.

 

[AnOminous]

This still exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

 

[vertexwindi]

This still exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

seriously what normal person even cares about manspreading

ask your fucking mom, ask the cashier at the grocery store, ask the mailman; they don't fucking know what that shit means. who gives a fuck

 

[Jungle Princess]

Here's rather detailed summaries of the main cast of Full House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Full_House_and_Fuller_House_characters.