|
LinuxGirl87 posted:Also, the use of the term "cubs" instead of, you know, "babies" "kids" "children" just screams "creepy unmarried uncle you only ever see at the family reunion". Or a furry
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
or "big fat virgin who's rationalised his lack of sex as a lifestyle choice against breeders"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
Coffee Quack posted:imagine all the lives that could be saved if only wikipedia had a few more photos of public urination
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:imagine all the lives that could be saved if only wikipedia had a few more photos of public urination when the american hegemony collapses, the world population is decimated, and the survivors crawl from the ashes and begin searching for something to guide the recovery of the human race, the ultimate gift of its thousands of years of culture, the light in the darkness will be this dump I just took
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
Lamont Cranston posted:seriyospost: just require all pictures to be properly sourced, and the problem will go away on its own "sorry, but until we've got third party confirmation that this picture is, in fact, a woman urinating, it'll have to stay off wikipedia"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
its not wikipedia but its close enough http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_cross_your_heart_and_hope_to_die_means
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
ymgve posted:just require all pictures to be properly sourced, and the problem will go away on its own 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Coffee Quack posted:quote:(Commons is not censored, blah blah blah (Mr. Freeman)).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:what's with the random namedrop the ending to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slRsexrhbG8
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
ymgve posted:just require all pictures to be properly sourced, and the problem will go away on its own its kind of interesting that photographers get a free ride from having [[citation needed]] put on anything. uploading pics of obscure things and tagging them as something slightly different sounds like a good way to vandal also didnt jimmy institute a "seriously quit with the exhibitionism" policy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:its kind of interesting that photographers get a free ride from having [[citation needed]] put on anything. uploading pics of obscure things and tagging them as something slightly different sounds like a good way to vandal yes, and they restored nearly everything he removed and de-modded edit lol quote:Now, we all know about Jimbo's rampage a few months back, but we also know its upshot: virtually everything was restored and he was effectively de-admin'd. The whole point of this is to clarify policy in an area where even the founder of Wikipedia was apparently capable of misunderstanding community intent. - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Lamont Cranston fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jun 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Lamont Cranston posted:yes, and they restored nearly everything he removed and de-modded so did they restore the lolicon wikipe-tan? im pretty sure the questions surrounding copyright were sufficiently addressed by now
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Lamont Cranston posted:yes, and they restored nearly everything he removed and de-modded quote:Oppose} Some rhetorical questions: Do we have a policy that facilitates deletion of certain culturally offensive imagery? No? Do we have a policy that facilitates deletion certain imagery of violence or murder? No? Not even if the perpetrator or victim of the violence requests deletion 40 years later? Shall it become OK to flood commons with images DEPICTING AND GLORIFYING HATE AND DEATH BUT NOT LOVEMAKING? NOT ON MY WATCH! What started as obviously vile, anti-sex, agenda-driven instruction creep became an innocuous-looking almost-reasonable sounding but-not-quite-right proposal, due to some edits by talented and well-meaning editors. But no, I will never accept the argument that it's OK to show children how adults can kill each other, and hate each other, but not how adults can love each other. Because it makes no sense. Think about it. Amen. --Walks on Water (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC) quote:Oppose (a) it's plain unnecessary. (b) since we're an international and intercultural site, using US/Florida law is not acceptable. The pure suggestion to value it above all others in the world is obscene and fascist. (c) Servers and office space can be had almost everywhere on earth, so if we were wanting to have materials challanged by someplaces law, we can simply store and serve them elsewhere. (As a side note, US govt. escape their law in Guantanamo, why not act like so?) (d) Obscenity is too variable a concept, you cannot build on it. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) quote:Oppose I oppose a policy or section that is absolutely useless. I was just asked by a Federal judge why after allowing my nudes to be shown on Wiki to minors I can be opposed to GOOG doing it also. Either place all nude images behind an age disclaimer or keep out the Googlebot-image bot. This is not just an opposition to ALMOST getting it right but a DEMAND that the Googlebot-image bot be excluded by 12-10-2010 or that all photo content by me be removed. I am comfortable with it being here and it is some of the best content and should remain. Wiki must either keep out the GOOG image search or delete content donated by me to prevent it being shown to my minor children while at school on GOOG safe searches. CurtisNeeley (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
wait how can they deadmin jimbo? how can he confuse the purpose of his own site? what kind of bizarre politika is wikipedia anyway? fundamentalist democracy or something?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
got dat wmd posted:wait how can they deadmin jimbo? how can he confuse the purpose of his own site? what kind of bizarre politika is wikipedia anyway? fundamentalist democracy or something? wikipedia/wikimedia are run by spergs
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Aren't there still like 10,000 pictures on wikimedia of dudes' junk for every 1 picture actually allowed onto wikipedia
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Aren't there still like 10,000 pictures on wikimedia of dudes' junk for every 1 picture actually allowed onto wikipedia if only more dudes' junk were available we could rid third world countries of the scourge of aids 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Aren't there still like 10,000 pictures on wikimedia of dudes' junk for every 1 picture actually allowed onto wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Intact_human_penis The following 200 files are in this category, out of 226 total.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:34
|
|
Teh boners
|
lmao, "Intact" vs "Circumcised"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Nibiru posted:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Intact_human_penis And that's just the intact ones! e: gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirating_smoke_detector most of the words on that page were written by the director of marketing for a company, see if you can guess which one!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
YOSPOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neurotypical#Windows_NT.3F quote:Is it true, or just an urban legend that Windows NT (tm) has been named after "neurotypical" because the majority of the programmers at Microsoft are in fact autists (above all Bill Gates)and wanted to make fun of their normal "neurotypical" customers? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
ugh, what is it with assburgers constantly trying to "claim" famous/clever people as one of their own? there used to be a bunch of poo poo on the Einstein article about how he supposedly had it
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
desperation to find a sense of self worth/gratification
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
they think that the average populace is too stupid to see how superior the spergtelect is without a wikipedia list
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
they can claim Hitler
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
if they're so eager to justify their broken brains they should look at Newton, except he was a massive douche who had no friends and died a virgin, so not exactly the poster-boy they wanted
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:if they're so eager to justify their broken brains they should look at Newton, except he was a massive douche who had no friends and died a virgin, so not exactly the poster-boy they wanted
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
One day Newton wondered how his eye worked, so he did the obvious thing; slide a blunt needle into his eye socket and behind the eye, then wiggle it around to see what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:if they're so eager to justify their broken brains they should look at Newton, except he was a massive douche who had no friends and died a virgin, so not exactly the poster-boy they wanted yeah newton was a giant poo poo, it's amazing how much people overlook that i wanna give liebniz credit for inventing calculus just because he was nicer
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:ugh, what is it with assburgers constantly trying to "claim" famous/clever people as one of their own? they are attempting to create historical evidence that asperger's actually exists beyond the self-diagnosed internet disorder that claims that they are special and smarter than everyone else, therefore of a higher intellectual class. basically what they're doing is retroactively creating the "disease" that they now claim as an excuse for being assholes, worthless whiney scumbags, who are immune to the social rules of normal people because they're "special" (by claiming they are smarter and superior, a farce that is absolutely lacks basis in reality or any evidence beyond the wikipedia article) while still being able to claim it as a disease / handicap when people point out their behavior as being totally unacceptable
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Trig Discipline posted:yeah newton was a giant poo poo, it's amazing how much people overlook that leibniz had to be sociable because he was dependent on wealthy patrons. that also made him extremely conservative, and he worked hard to maintain the status quo, which meant that he clung on to medieval scholasticism instead of rejecting it like the English had. his contributions to math and logic were great, but his philosophical writings were a throwback to thomas aquinas and st. augustine. but i will give more credit to leibniz than newton, because leibniz actually published his work, instead of wasting his time loving around with alchemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
mr_jim posted:instead of wasting his time loving around with alchemy. In order to prove purestrain gold is superior, you must generate a test subject
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
read a pretty cool historical sf series whose premise was that newton had succeeded at alchemy
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
duTrieux posted:One day Newton wondered how his eye worked, so he did the obvious thing; slide a blunt needle into his eye socket and behind the eye, then wiggle it around to see what happened. did you make it through the entire Baroque cycle or gave up after the first one like I should have done?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Haven't read any of them, actually. They're on my list, I'll get to them sometime. I'm currently working on some Bond novels which are surprisingly goddamn racist. duTrieux. fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
a british novel written in the 50s by an aristocratic globetraveling wwii hero is racist? SUPRISING
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
moonraker owns bc it's a really good introduction to baccarat
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:45
|
|