User:AlexR/Edits that are so stupid that they deserve to be preserved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Today I once again came across such gem of stupidity that I decided to preserve it for eternity. So here you will find

Edits that are so stupid that they deserve to be preserved[edit]

The ongoing series[edit]

  • (from Homosexuality): "The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet. That is incorrect. "Homosexual offenders" is used in the Bible by the Apostle Paul." [1] by an IP
  • (from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, regarding Template:Gay(another stupidity, but not even worth to be preserved))
    Keep 金 (Kim) 08:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree with Jiang (? see above). It is so large and flashy in its current form that it would detract from any serious article that it might appear in. However, if it could be made less obtrusive it might serve a useful purpose. It would need to be balanced by a representative list of anti-Gay organizations. I think the important thing about this template is that it flags a considerable, and considerably underrepresented or misrepresented, social group. It could help readers find connections that they would otherwise miss. For instance, there may be a gay weltanschaung in architecture. Does every phallic tower have to be received, in image if not in reality, but a reflecting pond? How often are two towers built side by side, and with no reflecting pools at the bottom? How often are two pools nestled together, and not lorded over by concrete phal-syms? Maybe the same kind of sensibility gets represented in music, in paintings, etc., and nobody ever notices it. Then, as with any social organization, some attention might be directed toward forces that reinforce and forces that fight it. 金 (Kim) 08:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Makes me wonder what lesbian architecture is supposed to look like. <Slowking_Man> suggested: "Fast food restaurants. After all, they're where people go to eat out.

The Classics[edit]

Some things you will see again ... and again ... and again ... and ...

  • User:Baoutrust on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/QuakeAID is saving us a bit of time, as he pulled four of them (almost) at once:
    • "(The texts) were published with the permission of the copyright owner and that permission has now been withdrawn."
      Repeat after me: "I will read and try to understand the GFDL and I understand that once published under the GFDL I cannot withdraw that publications. [2]
    • Then delete the username Baou Trust.
      Nope, we don't do that, either! [3]
    • And less than an hour later he did what a lot of people do:
      "I tried to send an email to Jimbo Wales" [4]
      Just why do these people always assume that Jimbo will be on their side? Hint: I wouldn't bet my money on it, most of the time.
    • BTW, did you know that wikipedia.org is actually owned by Bomis, Inc., a private company for profit controlled by Mr Wales? [5]
      Not quite - ever heard of the Wikimedia Foundation?


The joys of technics[edit]

  • About 2001: A Space Odyssey: Cameras using film which needs to be processed are still in use today and were shown being still in use in the movie. But Digital Photography was also clearly in use. The cameraman in the conference room used a camera the size of an eyepiece -- clearly, a digital camera. [6]


You might also enjoy[edit]

  • User:Cyrius/Quotes These are various and sundry quotes related to Wikipedia that I've found interesting or funny.