User:Sj/essays/Wikipedia Humor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Sj‎ | essays
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is under deconstruction. Its meaning may change as you read it, even if you do not reload the page. To avoid existentialist nausea, it is recommended you sit back, throw up (your feet, that is), and enjoy derrida.

This[1][2] page is intended to be a scratch pad[3] for Wikipedia-related humor/jokes/puns, or whatever.[4]

You Know You Need Time Away from Wikipedia When...[5][edit]

  • ... your mother finally reveals her birthday to you and you reply, "I won't believe you unless you WP:CITE a reliable source."[6]
    • ... your mother then shows you her birth certificate, and you reply, "But was it published in a refereed journal?"
  • ... you give a friend an anniversary gift and sign the card -- ~~~~.
    • ... your friend opens the card and is confused and shows you the 4 tildes, you are genuinely shocked to not see your pseudo and the date there.
  • ... someone introduces you to a friend, and the first words out of your mouth sound like: "Bracket bracket double u pee colon en en close bracket close bracket? Please assert."
    • ... you are not at all startled that that person then replies, "Less than are ee eff greater than Subject has had CNN appearances many times period. Less than slash are ee eff greater than."
      • ... you then find yourself replying, "Apostrophe apostrophe Strong keep period. Apostrophe apostrophe."
  • ... you find yourself tempted to defend concepts you not only never even heard of the the day before yesterday, but that you didn't more then half understand before you hit "Save page".
  • ... someone IRL ticks you off, you snap a snarly reply, and the next words out of your mouth are, "Um, can I do a refactor?"
  • ... you feel you have enough entries for a "You Know You Need Time Away from Wikipedia When..." subsection on your humor page.
    • ... realizing the above is true doesn't make you laugh anymore.
  • ... everything you thought you believed about X (the subject you thought you knew most thoroughly) just got reduced to l33t rulz! and for 30 seconds, you actually doubted your previous understanding of the subject.
  • ... thinking it was POV-pushing or vandalism, you're still waiting for CNN to announce that Pluto really is still a good ol' fashioned planet.
  • ... you no longer think pseudoscience is the formalized study of screen names.
  • ... you begin to suspect that you have a life outside of Wikipedia, but discount it out of hand for lack of a reliable source stating in those exact terms that you do, indeed, have one.
  • ... it takes you altogether too much time before you realize the superscripted two in E=mc^2 was not an accidentally L_A T_E X-ized reference to a reliable source on some work by \sum_{i=1879}^{s=1955} i + (N^s T^{e^i})^n.
  • ... you noted on a page that it is asserted that 1 + 1 = 2, and jumped into Principia Mathematica to verify this assertion, but got lost on page 3, so simply put a {{citationneeded}} tag.
  • ... you jump out of a plane at 30K feet without a parachute because you read "Humans can fly under their own power" and noted that it was attributed to a reliable source.
    • ... you realize only too late (as you plumet to your certain doom) that the statement was left in after pages of debate for its documented notability and not it's veracity.
      • ... your last act before ground 0 is to send by PDA satellite up-link a new main namespace template to the article called {{Dont Try This at Home Kids}}.
        • ... your last regret is that you forgot to put in a nifty graphic on the template message, just so it would stand out and you might get a posthumous Barnstar of Falsifiability for your efforts.
  • ... your skeptical nature leads you to believe that a single list, although attributed to the same individual, in an article where every bulleted item has a cited reliable source, right down to the exact words being interpreted as supporting the items in the list, must have, at one time, been the subject of one whopper of a NPOV debate.
  • ... you come to the realization that AGF leads to AAGF, without realizing AAGF is actually covered in its own page.
    • ... you realize the potential for AAAGF, and eventually generalize the whole notion to L = \{A^nGF| n \ge 1\}.
      • ... you realize you understood what I just pointed out above without having to hunt it all down to make sense of it, and it hurts so hard you laugh.
      • ... you realize that the above equation suggests that while the assumption-loop tends towards infinity, the good faith-atom remains constant.[7]
        • ... you take the pseudomathematics further, realizing that "good" is not a balance of POV and "faith" is pseudoscientific, leading you to normalize to: L = \{A^n| n \ge 1\}, so as to not offend anyone and risk a revert war.
          • ... you now understand that what it all seems to boil down to is one whole lotta assumptivatin'.
          • ... you realize further that assumption itself is pseudoscience, so you reduce further, to L=infinity.
            • ... you sense that means the law is everything, and you suddenly sense it all boils down to fiat in the end.
              • ... you secretly hope the cabal that doesn't exist will suppress this mathematical discovery, so nobody else will realize what you've just shown to be mathematically true; maybe there's still time left for a little assumptivatin' before it becomes public knowledge.
  • ... you see something like Qu^\iota n^n Ty^l \epsilon^r Ja^c \kappa^s o^n and know how it was done, without peeking at the page code.
    • ... you understand why it was done that way.
  • ... you wonder if "Not about truth but about verifiability" means you could somehow get the statement "[Insert your name here] is filthy, stinkin' rich!" into a reliable source would somehow make it seem less like wishful thinking.
    • ... you begin to wonder if somehow managing to do that even might--just might, mind you--make it (gasp) true.
      • ... it no longer matters to you if it would make you magically rich.
  • ... you read this list this far.[8]
  • ... you spent more than 5 minutes trying to sort out how the heck the References and notes section below came about.
    • ... after figuring it out, you come to realize it hides a deeper commentary about certain situations than first meets the eye.
      • ... you were tempted to edit this page to fix the logical mess it's in, but then realized This-Ain't-Main-Namespace, Toto.
        • ... that almost wasn't enough reason to keep from fixing it all up, even though it is in some user's namespace.
  • ... any part of this page makes you smile.
    • ... knowing that, you smile anyway.
  • ... you start to think it all makes perfect sense.

The Rubaiyaat of Omar "Wiki-me-this-Batman" Khayyam[edit]

 I came not knowing to the WikiTruth™,
 And saw Truth's Rose Blow Nasal snaggletooth --
   It did not matter This or That the Say:
 A simple source could turn the Fray uncouth.
 Some truths we love: the Honest and the Best,
 For they've had their Weight put to the True Test,
   (And those we Married O-Just-Because):
 And disregard the Meaning of the Rest.
 I recently (just now) picked up a book,
 Looked at the cover -- half an hour I took! --
   Expert? Elitist-Tail-that-Wags-the-Dog!
 Let me alone to babble like the brook!
 They told Khayyam that Proof Needs Falsity;
 That one plus one is falsified by three,
   And only at sharp Popper's Grinding Stone
 Could his Science without the Pseudo be.
 Old Khayyam knew, and then he did not know,
 To Left, to Right, which way do Roses blow?
   And then, that Roses even blew at all --
 And why? At each "Reload" the facts would grow.
 Old Khayyam replied, "But 't is not the sum,
 "Or the cogito ergo I have come!
    "I came to Prove a Point (though 'gainst the rules!)
 "Then forgot that Point, having quick gone numb!"
 Every assertion Old Khayyam swift backed,
 With fancy obfuscation and with tact,
   The Fundamental Problem, not the Form:
 But that his Theses lacked a single Fact.
 It's not the True or False from It one gleans,
 For True and False are not fixed-points, it seems,
   It's not to judge the Junk from Right or Real,  
 But rather, Man's Well Documented Dreams.
 For many years I made my Alliance
 With this and that Empirical Science,
   The Null Hypothesis, my only friend,
 Now the Revert is my Sole Reliance.
 Khayyam knew not, but so did try impress,
 This and that mumbo-jumbo in Nice Dress,
   At times the Fancy Trappings fooled the Crowd,
 At others, 't was quite obvious' a Guess.
 I did not know, and so hit the Bitstream,
 The Things I learned there, I could only dream --
   Of course, the Things Weren't True, but what the care?
 They all were Well Backed Up, or so 't would seem.
 O, come with Old Khayyam and leave the lot
 Of Reason and of Common Sense forgot':
   Let's meddle with the Fabric of the Core,
 Veracity, good sense, they matter not.
 A footnote Here, a well-wrought graphic There,
 Give the Appearance and Weight of some Care,
   The Care of course is caring how it Looks,
 And how the Truth doth dance like Fred Astaire!
 I learned that one and one sum up to two,
 I learned the Very Nature of that, too,
   The Proof I pored over with Mighty Might,
 And then I "learned" that this was Point-of-View.
 To Riddles and Puzzles, no Novice, I,
 I looked the Great Confoundments in the Eye,
   But then I read of ---- ----, and, well, um...
 I learned the Greatest Puzzle was the Why?!

WikiZen Koans[edit]

  • Sound of one POV, pushing.
  • The assumption of one faith, gooding.
  • Master citation: master truth.
  • Master tags: taint truth.
  • Master arts: undergraduate degree with the "of".
  • An editor asked RfC, "What is POV?" RfC said, "Three pounds of reverts."
  • An editor asked RfC, "What is a crock?" RfC said, "Three pounds of 'facts'."
  • If you meet the NPOV, revert him.
    • If the NPOV returns, it was always yours.
    • If the NPOV stays away, it never was.
  • Sound of one citation, reffing.[9][10]
  • If you meet the a prophet historical philsophical teacher, refactor him them him and/or her and/or them and/or it the person and or/persons first heretofore referenced.
  • Thinly sliced cabbage. -- QTJ 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) -- this signed wikikoan added by someone who secretly wishes he had remained anonymous
  • An editor asked himself, "What is WP:SELF?" Himself said, "See WP:SELF."
  • Theorem-san asked: "If the sound of a truth is like 1 + 1 = 2, then what is the sound of one one, twoing?"
  • An editor approached the Master and asked, "Consensus-san, what is vested interest?" Concensus-san said: "Cents-gratification."
  • Sound of the 3OP, non-negotiabling.
  • If a {{stub}} falls in the main namespace, and no one is around to expand it.
  • Sound of one fiat, passing.
  • A general reader asked an article "What is the truth?" Article said, "Edit me."


 Wondering "What the ...?"
 Apple bitten more than chew:
 Running for ArbCom.
 Truth or consequence
 Sitting under Edit Me...
 Click and make stuff up.
 Consensus now reached,
 Random reader enters fray:
 Truth becomes bollocks.
 There is but one Truth:
 Truth cannot be redefined to fit the particular context that happens to support a claim, using citations;
 Truth never changes.[11]
 Balance to defend:
 Must fight to last breath inside
 (Or 'til 3RR'd).
 Man gains 10 years age
 In but one so swift Save Page
 (An RS exists).
 School child regains Hope:
 Santa Claus has been proven!
 (Read before revert).
 Nonsense makes me laugh,
 Then suddenly becomes Truth!
 (System has been gamed).
 Citations beckon --
 So many sources support:
 Pancakes need two eggs.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
 Pointless to go on,
 Only so much meatspace time:
 WikiHaiku[22] done.

The Neowikipediatxologicifationalism Movement[edit]

The Neowikipediatxologicifationalism Movement, (pronounced like numb for historical reasons, and apparently intentionally lacking an a in there) founded by Tex O'Nomy, first described in his groundbreaking monograph, I Stuck Around Long Enough to Describe the Subculture and All I Got Was this Lousy Monograph (Useless Trivia Press, 1 April 2010), adds these additional categories of ismists to the already burgeoning body of ismists found in the Wikipedia subculture.


An endoexomonosyllabist believes that Wikipedia articles should strive to be composed of the shortest words possible (one sound per word being the ideal) to get the point across, and that this will happen "from both inside and outside the monosyllable-espousing community."[23] When called to the floor about their own appellation, endoexomonosyllabists typically reply: "To call us the Bluntists or the Curtists would still make two sounds in one word, so why stop there in this one case?" True endoexomonosyllabism reduces an entire article (no matter how wide the topic) into one syllable (typically "bunk" or "crock" or "junk" or "huh?"). This extreme form of endoexomonosyllabism, however, results in too much content duplication (which endoexomonosyllabists call SSDD but pronounce "fffff" to be true to their ideological underpinnings).


A circumlocutoricalpolysyllabicist likes to coin incredibly long words and insert them into Wikipedia articles because they, "increasomnambulate the informatocontexuality of the modalification" of the article. Tex O'Nomy himself began this trend, which he describes as a "trendificatorical deconstructivization of wikipsycholinguisticality". A distinct branch of this ismist branch are those who add the prefix "wiki" (typically without "hyphenalizationatory differentiatiatoristic preponderancizing", which means "typically without using a hyphen so it stands out from the root word and perhaps is made easier to read") to just about every standard nonwikiword they wikican wikithink of. While this branch (called wikificatorialismistism by O'Nomy) is technically, as he describes them, "primaraliwise practicificating redoublificationary strategemoralizatory methodologicalism" (which some believe means "just tacking on wiki to whatever suits their fancy")-- they are still considered to primarily be a wikisplintergroup and not a ismist category properitorical.


A Imaginofantasticalist believes that Wikipedia exists as a medium for him or her to expound on his or her fanciful ideas about things that just occurred to him or her as he or she was typing. Anything that is contrary to a given imaginofantasicalist notion is labeled a realitatoryintrusionalist deconfabulation. Difficulty finding adequate reliable sources for particular notions dreamed up on the spot to fill drive space is mitigated by handing that responsibility to other ismists who don't realize until too late that the stuff was made up spontaneously while editing.

Imaginofantasticalists, when asked to provide sources, point to their head, and explain that, since everything they thought up is remembered in there, their assertions can all be sourced. "Technology simply hasn't caught up with the medium of publication," Ima Dreamer declares in her famous monograph.[24] on the movement. She cites Shakespeare as being the first self-declared imaginofantasticalist. "We are the things that dreams are made on," she explains. "A Midsummer's Night Dream, contrary to the realitatoryintrusionalist deconfabulationist rhetoric declaring it a play, is actually a proto-wiki entry in the spirit of our ideology."

The related substantoimaginofantasticalists are those who are found realizing they accidentally formally ended up locking a topic page forever in the aisles of Wikipedia by providing reliable resources for ideas that didn't even exist until 20 minutes ago (for some value of n < 20). Although substantoimaginofantasticalists are well-meaning ... they technically inadvertently game the system so well that, as O'Nomy puts it: "By 2015, I predict not only will all these articles be wrong on their face -- 99.3% of them will describe things that don't even exist except on those individual pages." O'Nomy predicts that, given that his BLP (of sorts) only appears on this very page now, he'll cease to ever have existed by the time the reader finishes reading this major subsection of the humor page. "This," he bemoans, "is totally unacceptable and yet an inevitable consequence of the substantoimaginofantasticalist trend." To help counter this, he started the activist group SIE (Substantoimaginofantasticalism Is Evil, and pronounced sigh) about 10 seconds ago, but states, "It may already be too late for me. Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Very rarely, imaginofantasticalists are referred to as freeassociationalkeyboardalists, but this label has not received community-wide endorsement, since it may, according to some, be too easily applied to too many ismists.


A porcusaviatusist (also called a hadessupergellatist or thatllbethedayist) follows the editing practice of summarizing deletions of content with comments such as "When pigs fly!" or "When Hell freezes over!" If a porucaviatusist is shown to have been premature in his or her declaration enough times, he or she may elect to move into the wellillbedamnedist or even the whodathunkitist camps without subsequent loss of face.


A onetruewikipedist believes that there's no such thing as ismists. Since they don't technically exist, or acknowledge their own existence, nothing can be said about them without venturing into cognofantastical methodologies (i.e. making stuff up about them).[25] Their leader, doesn't exist. The moment he denied his own existence, his Right to Disappear kicked in. He still posts, but from the IP #

It has been pointed out by various noted[26] Wikipediologists that many subfactions (for instance, see Orthodox Favaism below) actually broke away from onetruewikipedism itself when they suffered from the Great Reality Check. Another such splinter group, although only a mild variation ideologically, are known for their onetruearticlism -- that is, the steadfast belief that every article can be written using the same 100 catch phrases and words, layout, and content, while still representing all the knowledge of the world. A onetruearticlist achieves this end not by actually differentiating the content in the article itself, but by defending it in change histories and on an article's discussion page using a meta-article-language that uses such phrases as this is what it means when I say "up" (Up being one of the 100 canonical words permitted in their vocabulary.) Pure onetruearticalism strives to be so absolutely uncontroversial as to be content-free, while simultaneously conveying limitless content.


While antidisestablishmentarianists are not and have never been a part of the Wikipedia editorial taxonomy, the concept does have a page on Wikipedia and is mentioned here simply to allow a moment for pause and by way of gentle persuasion to show that reallyreallylongismistisms are not simply part of the Wikipedia subculture, but have been around for some time before computing.


A supercallafragalisticexpialladociousist is someone who points out in Wikispace that longer words than antidisestablishmentarianism do, indeed, exist as cultural memes in the English speaking world, and is offered here, in the spirit of the above entry on just that ismistism, as a demonstration that reallyreallylongismistism can be taken to extents and extremes even by someone so very innocent as Mary Poppins, and thus reallyreallylongismistism is seen to be a non-determiner of bad faith in the absence of any other claim.

Favaism (Orthodox and Neofavaism)[edit]

Perhaps the most mysterious of the ismists to the date of O'Nomy's classification, after some investigation it was determined that the favaists (now known as the Orthodox favaists for reasons discussed soon) originally began as a splinter group from the onetruewikipedist ismists when their founder, Spee Knowie-Ville read WP:BEANS and had the epiphany that he was the reincarnation of the boy who shoved beans up his nose against his mother's wishes. He claimed that the story as presented leaves out the fact that the little boy died soon after stuffing the beans up his nose, and came back as Knowie-Ville to correct the mistake. Knowie-Ville's original vision, which considers the page WP:BEANS the "Fundamental Canon of Orthodox Favaism", is simply to not do or say anything in Wikispace that would give anyone any bad ideas to play with. After some infighting (which went unrecorded, since fighting is bad, and technically the favaists restrain themselves from doing or saying bad in witnessable Wikispace), it was determined that the NPOV doctrine conflicted with WP:BEANS unless it was interpreted to mean: "Don't give anyone any ideas at all -- good or bad, since goodness and badness are POV."

At this point, the neofavaist movement came into being. Strictly adherent neofavaists go by the belief that one must not add (or take away) content from any article. To add is to give an idea, and to take away is to give an idea (in the history of the page). Neofavaists thus restrict themselves to only modifying whitespace. It is considered anathema, even then, to hit "Save page", since this would leave an entry in the history, which might give someone an idea. A famous controversy is said to have broken out when a neofavaist fell to temptation and changed a comma to a semicolon and hit Save page. He was run out of the movement, and, unable to readjust to the former Orthodox favaist way of editing, is said to be stuck reading that accidental edit in a nostalgia for the neutral ol' days.

Neofavaists are sometimes mistakenly believed to post from IP #, which has been proven to be a wikimyth: in fact, they non-post from the IP \epsilon, also known as the Empty String IP. Little else is known of these two related movements. They'd like to keep it that way.

Favaism is sometimes informally referred to as the ahinta philsophy: no hint.


A gazonavelist believes that by staring at his or her own navel long enough, he or she will come up with an idea worthy of a Wikipedia article. A group of 10K dedicated gazonavelists are said to be currently in this camp. We're still waiting to see what happens -- since none of that camp has started typing yet.


A metatagist uses {{curlybracedtags}} to edit, and no other text. They never remove, but only add tags. This is their sole form of adding to the body of knowledge. Other than this, nothing much is known of the metatagist faction. They are, however, closely allied to the related group known as the knightstemplatists (those whose sole contribution is to code new templates in the Template: namespace for use by the metatagists). It is not known whether these two factions communicate and coordinate their related effort behind the scenes via back-channels, but often a knighttemplatist will create a new template that gets used by a metatagist almost immediately (how did the metagist know it existed?) -- so there are some who believe they work hand in hand via email or some other back-channel. Which brings us to....


A splintergroupismist is someone who believes that while self-identifying in any particular ismist camp may help to simplify explanations of editing philosophy to a point, editors ought to have the Right to New Light and form a new ismistism in order to better identify an evolved editing philosophy. A hypersplintergroupismist is someone who has tended to exercise this right often, sometimes in mid-sentence two or three times. O'Nomy has argued that, indeed, all ismistismists, are, in fact, hypersplintergroupismists, "The only real debate being as to what constitutes often, since often is really just a culturally specific constructionational psyhco-relato-paradigmitory fallback machination."


A backchannelist (not to be confused with a Bacchanalianist, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia) follows the philosophy that if one is to get anything done on Wikipedia, it will be via email, telephone, talking to reporters, writing in the popular media about it, or giving interviews to the local radio station. A sinister form of backchannelism seeks to manipulate these backchannels in a effort to manipulate reliable sources in such a way as to modulate the truth as reported in Wikipedia articles.

Tex O'Nomy, amongst every other label that applies to him, for example, is just such a sinister backchannelist for having described these classifications in his ground breaking mass media book (already mentioned). BLPs that are kept solely because the subject of the biography complained to the press about Wikipedia, and did so so loudly as to suddenly fall into significant notability by that very self-referential coverage alone -- are the true unsung social consequence of this group.

Fight them, and you become notable. So just ... well... shhhhh.


Oh, why fight it ... let's not mince words ... a Bacchanalianist is here to par-tay, pure and simple.


A shhhhhist does not want you to read this. It reveals things that .... well... shhhhh. It is a fundamental tenet of shhhhhism that in order to document all knowledge, certain knowledge must remain undocumented. Their official motto is: "Ubiquity through selectivity."


A hawaiifiveohist follows the principle that if it's in a book it is sufficiently notable. When a hawaiifiveohist challenges something as being original research and his or her challenge is contested, he or she simply replies: "Then book it, Dano," which is understood to mean, "Then write about it, get the book published, and I'll let it in without contesting it further."


A terminallyuniquenessalist (full classification terminallyuniquenessalist sui generis) is someone who believes he or she stands alone, without any ismistic label that applies in his or her special case for some reason understood only to him or her.

Apparently not.

Edits made by terminallyuniquenessalists are characterized by their lack of edit summaries (even when they edit subsections they erase the /* ... */ comments), and by their total apparent lack of ever having discovered the "discussion" tab. Although they never explain their edits, they are sometimes known to sign edits to articles with their names, in the main namespace, so their handiwork doesn't go unattributed (they apparently also haven't realized that attribution for changes is all in the "history" tab, but they seem to assume no one else knows how to find that).

Extremist branches of this group (though, by definition, not a group per se) are known to "Quote themselves to substantiate a claim." (And even put in the References section the note: "I said that just now so it must be so." or some equivalent.)

Also known informally as the mememememeists.


An abstentionalist never wrote an article on Wikipedia and doesn't plan to write one. In fact, he or she never reads the articles, either. Some abstentionalists don't even know Wikipedia exists. Those who do know and are categorizable as being in this camp, don't know it, because they've never read this page and don't even know they are called by this name herein. Shhhh.

Because the net result of abstentionalism and neofavaism is identical, they have been classified into various subcategories that are considered equivalent, but whose subclassifications go to motivation (or lack of motivation).

An intentional abstentionalist (that is, an abstentionalist by conscious choice) is said to be a neofavaist per se, without losing any cultural context.

An intentional abstentionalist who is intentionally abstaining from editing because he or she knows someone else who is also an abstentionalist (that is, doesn't edit because someone else convinced him or her not to), is said to be a neofavaist by proxy.

An unintentional abstentionalist (that is, an abstentionalist just because he or she has no idea Wikipedia exists, or even allows editing of pages) is said to be a neofavaist ad ignorantiam, that is, "Doesn't post because he or she didn't know better."

A mandated abstentionalist (that is, someone who is forced by some outside influence to not edit), is said to be a neofavaist by nannyism.

An abstentionalist who does not edit because he or she realizes the futility of it all is said to be of the neoexistentialtfavaism ad absurdumist camp.

An abstentionalist who does not edit because it's too much work to do so is said to be a lazyist.

An abstentionalist who is neofavaist per se simply because he or she will edit some time in the abstract future is said to be a perpetualprocrastinationalistic neofavaist ad mañana. Some have classed the gazonavelist camp with this category.

Finally, an abstentionalist who is forced by some inner force (such as fear of ridicule, fear of being stalked, fear of comma splices), is said to be a neofavaist ad phobiam.

Dr. Don T. Labelme, an outspoken critic of ismistism, commented on this situation as follows:

Tex O'Nomy replied to this criticism as follows:

The debate rages on until this subsection is over.


This major subsection. Enough said on this [fact]ion.

QTJ's Laws[edit]

 QTJ's Law: Given enough time and enough reading of discussion 
 pages on Wikipedia, the probability of some form of evangelism 
 spouting forth (from someone claiming to have come as a non-evangelist) 
 reaches 1.
 -- QTJ 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 QTJ's Second Law: Behind every molehill is a mountain struggling
 to express its right to self-determination.
 -- QTJ 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 QTJ's Third Law: Behind every minority cause is an evangelist whose
 probability of talking only to him or herself reached 1.[27]
 -- QTJ 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC[28])

References and notes[29][30][edit]

  1. ^ This is the One True One, again. I realized that The Vandal Footnote was at position 7, and since 7 has mystical meaning to some, I had to come back and push it to 8th position, just to keep the Vandal Footnote from sitting in a position like that in perpetuity. Done. I realize this makes me the One True One also in Note 2, but that's an historical, rather than mathematical anomoly, sort of like how there never used to be 0. BTW, should the developers ever go-programming-geek on us, and should notes start counting at zero -- I hereby reserve being the One True Zero, as well. So there.
  2. ^ I think I've seen about enough of this. This is The One True One. There can be only one 1. By ref-iat, I hereby declare this reference war over. For historical purposes it shall remain as is. No more. Stop it.
  3. ^ This is double-digit note 6-of-6 again! Oh, man, what a mess we have here. How did I end up in onespace? The double-digit reference collective does not compute, does not ....
  4. ^ OK, break it up, break it up. 2 and 3 have been subjected to a ref-lock per DMWM (Don't Mess With Math). No more of this. The references section is now complete nonsense. Thanks, guys. I can't even figure out what the Right Version is. Swift move you two. Ugh.
  5. ^ Um, I hate to be the note that asks this question ... but does the inclusion of more notes make this ref-war any more ... ah, forget it ... I think I'll go cite a fact somewhere else... As you were.
  6. ^ Says you! Say hello to being number 2! I can do that, too! There's a 3RR (three ref rule), so eventually we'll end up with me on top -- so give it up, pal. 1 rules supreme!
  7. ^ You're 2 now sucker. You just fell victim to a ref-note-war!
  8. ^ Hahaah! I am a Vandal Footnote! I inserted my ref before all other notes to prove a point! (I know, but remember, "Ignore All Rules"!) By doing so, I forced all other notes to shift up by ONE, thereby reducing their self-referential numerical logic out the door. What did I prove? That if you fall to violating WP:SELF, the very meaning of a page can dynamically totally go awry, and if the next edit doesn't take that into account, all bets are off as to what truth is! It can happen simply by being "careless" in how one edits! See how I changed the truth just by being careless about where I planted myself? Oh, this is sweet. While I did disrupt the citation section's inner logic to do so, ignore all rules covers me: I did it with a very good reason. Don't think so? Take 1 to arbitration? You can't arbitrate a number! Oh, it's so nice to be 1.
  9. ^ I felt it was unbalanced to leave the WikiZen Koans section without any references. As an inclusionist note, I am not overly concerned about how this alters the logic of the previous ref-war. That said, if an article has only one note ... shouldn't References technically be called Reference?
  10. ^ Hey, you. I was just noting by and I noticed your question. Technically, sure, it would be singular, but that would be like telling other possible notes to not bother, since then the title would also have to change, and it's not within the purvey of a note itself to change a section title. Hope that helps.
  11. ^ For the purposes of this one special case, in order to maintain the fabric of the universe, the second line of this so-called "Haiku" that this footnote finds itself at the end of has 7 syllables, by definition, to avoid arriving at who knows what kind of paradox.
  12. ^ See closest box of Bisquick.
  13. ^ See closest box of Aunt Jemima.
  14. ^ See closest box of Quaker.
  15. ^ See No-Name Pancake Mix.
  16. ^ See System Journal of Pancakology.
  17. ^ See if you like them with less or more; they'll be either too sticky or too runny with more or less than 2. QED.
  18. ^ See? Ah, you think no eggs needed on the box means no eggs in the mix? You didn't read the ingredients. There's eggs in there alrighty. Just pre-added. Don't go misciting the front of the box out of context. We're talking about egg-truth here, not pseudobaking.
  19. ^ Oh, allrighty -- yes, yes -- vegan pancakes don't use eggs. But show me from a reliable source that vegans are a signficant minority of pancake eaters whose recipes need to be represented in this WikiHaiku before you go adding that, OK?
  20. ^ I guess you made your point: vegan pancakes don't need any eggs, let alone 2.
  21. ^ This citation is here so that the single digit citations do not go underrepresented, even though there's only one of them.
  22. ^ This note is here due to double-digit-citation-creep. No, wait, creep can mean jerk, and that's potentially inflaming: double-digit-citation-drift. Thing is, the reference in the previous not to one double-digit citation is now patently wrong--but to prove that, I would have to point to this very footnote, and I can't use this note as proof of the existence of multiple double-digit citations in this section. That would be self-referential notability and verification. Darn it. I've worked myself into a logical contradiction that is nonetheless self-apparently bafflegab. Time to call an RfC?
  23. ^ Sownd, Won, How to Say Big Stuff With One Sound Per Word, Circumlocutory Press, Bafflegab, Nebraska, 2009.
  24. ^ Dreamer, Ima, Let's All Dance Around the Wikimaypole and Hold Hands and Drink Lemonade and Make Stuff Up, Dream On Publications, Neverneverland, Peterpanspermia, 1856.
  25. ^ This citation is intentionally left blank.
  26. ^ Whom we shall not note here.
  27. ^ Shouldn't that be approached 1? Well, actually, that comment (which should have been on the talk page, not in a reference), was actually just an excuse to get yet another double-digit citation in here. After all, if you're going to let in 2 double digits, why not 3? After all, 1, 2, and 3 are all prime numbers, and by the very existence of the next double-digit footnote, someone will be able to prove that the primes are not underrepresented, but that would lead to using a talk page as an RS, as noted by my worthy colleague Note 11. Anyway, say hi to 5 (that is, the fifth double-digit reference, not that elitist single-digit Note 5 up there -- snob!) if it ever drops by this page, will you? I have to go mow the truth. It's been looking kind of brown and dried out lately, and maybe if I mow it, it will get more exposure to the light at the roots.
  28. ^ What does UTC mean? Um, this is the 4th double-digit footnote (we double digit non-primes were feeling left out). The 5th double-digit talk-paged me and said its having a reference rebellion until 4, me, is declared prime by some pseudomathematical means. No can do, so it'll be a cold day in Math before you see your odd-numbered-friend. Anyway, that's what it said to me before it left the note collective in a huff.
  29. ^ Oh, OK, this is the 5th double-digit, back after my little rebellion. I just couldn't stand to see the 4th misquote me. I didn't leave in a huff -- I simply said I was going on sabbatical until 4 was so-called proven prime, to make a point. Then I realized that would be undermining formal mathematics to prove a point. BTW, the only place left to interlope was the header of this reference section. Is there some formatting rule about my very existence here? Reference-drift is getting out of hand on this page. Let's call a guideline meeting. Only double-digit notes need show up, since this doesn't concern those other numbers. They have plenty of space to not have to force themselves into a section break, after all.
  30. ^ I am Double-Digit-Footnote 6-of-6, prepare to be ... Oh, wait, wrong user subpage. Sorry. Move along, nothing to see here, folks.