Jump to content
IGNORED

Funny Pictures - The Official Thread

azatoth

By azatoth
in General Banter

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Adam

Guest Adam

Posted
Posted

She has a huge fucking face.

 

And fuck off with the aphex reference that i know somebody wants to post. Don't fucking do it.

 

 

24nr1nc.jpg

 

hx3pki.jpg

 

:whistling:

 

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SR4 Grand Master

SR4

Posted
Posted

i laughed...but thats also fucking horrible...she has to live with the fact that she has completely ruined her face.

 

edit: WOW she has been living with that since the 80s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kaini Grand Master

kaini

Posted
Posted

how dreadful. why is her wikipedia page deleted? what did we do before wikipedia?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N

is that really why? If her photo has been in a newspaper I thought that was enough

 

to be specific, it's WP:BLP1E. as a fairly active wiki editor, i'd be the first to admit that it's full of little tinpot dictators who raise a fuss about literally fucking anything.

 

here's the actual AfD if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jocelyn_Wildenstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Coalbucket PI

Guest Coalbucket PI

Posted
Posted

I don't know how people get involved in editing wikipedia, everytime I've looked at talk pages it's just these horrible bickering notability arguments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kaini Grand Master

kaini

Posted
Posted

I don't know how people get involved in editing wikipedia, everytime I've looked at talk pages it's just these horrible bickering notability arguments

 

it's like a battle of the retards. on one side, anon editors who when they aren't vandalising are inserting made-up shit or can barely string a sentence together. on the other, the editors in the top 2% wrt editcounts, who clearly have nothing better to do and spend their time trying to get articles deleted because they have a ridiculous problem with the article, or they're in a bad mood, or they're on their fucking period. in the middle are editors like me who get drowned out because of all this fucking noise.

 

witness this AfD on die antwoord's album, or this one on one of their EPs - particularly love this gem:

 

Comment. A musical recording does not establish notability, based on the mere fact that it was released on a specific label. Notability of an album is not inherited from the label on which it was released. As blogs, neither BoingBoing nor Consequence of Sound are considered reliable. Pitchfork Media is not considered reliable as a zine. The Rolling Stone is notable, independent of the bands that they cover. Brief mentions or reviews, along with track listings are not considered significant coverage, regardless of the source. Regarding the notability of Consequence of Sound, the article contains no reliable links to establish notability. Regardless of this fact, you may want to review this link WP:OTHERSTUFF. The inclusion of one inappropriate article does not validate the inclusion of another.

 

or this, where because some random dude on the internet doesn't like stockhausen, he shouldn't be mentioned in the aphex article.

 

being a wiki editor is very, very frustrating at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.