New Wikipedia entry - Schmidthead

[burythehatchet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidthead

[ananda]

1. I helped as follows:

Schmidthead:

A derogatory term used to refer to an individual who lacks any sense of decency, perspective or irony. Based upon Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), A schmidthead, generally draped in the American flag, is unable to engage a rational thought process prior to regurgitating vile and idiotic statements or Republican talking points.

-------

That was fun.

[burythehatchet]

3. Very good!

[upi402]

40. That's great

LOL

[DainBramaged]

119. They want to delete it already??????

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: Article serves no purpose other than to disparage Rep. Jean Schmidt.

[efhmc]

2. Didn't know what to expect but found your entry to be great.

[blm]

4. OMG, that is HYSTERICALLY perfect, burythehatchet....PERFECT!

.

[burythehatchet]

5. If our anger can somehow morph into a few laughs

then Mission: Accomplished. :)

[EFerrari]

63. Exactly. Good job.

I want to add my comment to the Wikid discussion. Do I literally type four ~~~~ at the end (beginning?) of my entry at page bottom?

High five, burythehatchet.

[efhmc]

6. Can't seem to respond. Has it been deleted?

[Frances]

7. I like the term

Here are my suggestions for editing (after using the spell check):

I really like the first sentence:

"A derogatory term used to refer to an individual who lacks any sense of decency, perspective or irony."

I made a minor change in the next sentence, but I don't think this sentence is as strong as the first one. I like the ideas but the words don't seem to have the same impact.

"Based upon Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), a schmidthead is unable to discuss an issue using a rational thought process and instead simply regurgitates vile and idiotic statements or Republican talking points."

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Excellent ...

[Midnight Rambler]

9. We're on the same page here

I thought up Schmithead for another thread, with a couple of other Schmidt puns. I guess great minds just think alike!

:yourock:

[burythehatchet]

10. Then you the man! I didn't know who to attribute the term to

Its a winner.

[Midnight Rambler]

11. Glad to contribute something to the culture

I don't know if I was the first one to think that up, but hey, it's a nice little ego boost.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5402748

[blue neen]

12. Perfect.

Her name is now synonomous with something derogatory.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Attention, burythehatchet! Your entry has been Freeped

Go have a look.

[burythehatchet]

14. Oh I'm not going to play their silly sandbox games.

Point has been made. They can mastrubate to their little heart's content.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Well ,good for you

Should be interesting to see what happens to it.

[DrDebug]

16. Please don't do stuff like that

I'm going to mark it for deletion. Please read the rules of wikipedia. It is not meant for games but an encyclopedia. You can use demopedia for those games, but this item has no place in wikipedia. And you know that as well!

[burythehatchet]

17. I'll second your self-nomination to the Department of Censorship

and you title can be Arbiter of That Which Will be Considered Culturally Relevant. K?
:)

[DrDebug]

18. It is an encyclopedia. It's not something for fun

Read the wiki rules. And stop playing like a child!

[burythehatchet]

19. Ubet!

[DrDebug]

20. First moderator has already voted for deletion

While I am in sympathy with the content expressed in the article, I vote to Delete. It is not a commonly used term at this time, although if Schmidt keeps opening that nasty unAmerican pie hole of hers, she'll make that term stick. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schmidthead

I am not as nice as that moderator, because a lot of work has to be done to clean up your mess and that's not funny! You give DU a bad name with stuff like this!

[Neil Lisst]

27. Oh please! Wikipedia is a joke, and so are those who run it.

If you're one of those who kids himself or herself into believing you're actually doing something worthwhile, please buy a ticket to the real world.

No one who is educated would ever (1) use Wikipedia as a source, or (2) spend their time there voting on entries at the place.

It's a joke, and so are all those who waste their time there, pretending they possess skills they don't.

Put THAT in Wikipedia.

[LoZoccolo]

37. It's a joke as much as people make it so.

And because you have chosen to...



:hi: :nuke:

[DrDebug]

39. And that gives you the right to troll and deface?

Because you don't believe that it is possible to make a free encyclopedia. Well thinking again because it's a very good resource. The only downside are children and stupid people like you who troll about and deface it. I guess you are one of them as well.

So the next time you get freeped, remember that you are exactly like those freepers.

In many case wikipedia is one of the finest sources. It outranks all online encyclopedias already. Non of the commercial variants have that much information and detail.

You know what is a waste of time. People like you who go about on a messageboard calling for defacing and trolling!

[EFerrari]

66. No one has called for trolling or defacing. And by repeating

that claim, YOU are misrepresenting both the poster AND DU.

DUers are very generous with their time and attention and YOU have made a baseless claim.

[DrDebug]

69. I see the response about defacing

And there has been trolling going on. The idea of creating this topic is trolling to begin with because it is not a neutral subject. Nor is it an established term, nor does did abide with the codes of civility and is nothing more than a direct smear against a person.

For those reason it had no reason to be created in the first place. And creating it is trolling and the same applies to all those who glorified it and voted for it and even went as far as vandalizing parts of the wiki to proof their point. It was always flame bait attracting republicans to add counter insults. But the flame bait was started and predominately done by Democrats.

I'm sorry but DU has shown itself to be no better than Schmidt in this case and I am ashamed to be a member of DU and the lack of response of the moderators despite an alert. I also feel that this is the probably the last topic I talk to DU because you have gone to the dark side and this is nothing but an encouragement to disrupt other sites.

You should be ashamed of yourself! And so should all the others for allowing this trolling to take place!

[EFerrari]

70. Repeat: No one here advocates trolling or defacing.

And, if Wiki has an editorial process, you are showing very little faith in it.

[DrDebug]

71. You are encouraging trolling but saying it's okay

Don't you get it yet? The act of shouting "Great, wonderful" at a blatant trolling entry is trolling by definition. And nobody seems to mind and attack the very few who dare to speak against it, like this is normal behavior.

As far as the entry goes, it'll go down despite the number of votes to keep since there is not a single argument for it to be kept. Nevertheless this topic has gone too far for too long.

Please understand that adding smears and insult is the act of trolls!

[EFerrari]

72. You don't get it. And apparently don't know the difference

between wit and prank.

Instead of becoming hysterical and calling out all of DU, why not let the process work at Wiki?

[DrDebug]

74. I think it is really sad that you even think this is funny and a prank

It's the same behavior as disrupting messageboards. There is no difference whatsoever. It is called encouraging and laughing about vandalism.

[EFerrari]

76. In fact, I was pointing out the difference between wit and prank.

So, no, I'm not condoning vandalism.

Do YOU edit that thing?

[DrDebug]

78. But can't you see that this is vandalism?

And they have to work hard to get these pranks out of it. In general these are made by children, but I guess DU falls in the same category. Nevertheless a lot of effort has to be done restoring the damage done, since there is no single authority so the decision has to be done by consensus which is very frustrating.

If you allow this single entry there will be more made - just for fun - and it'll take countless hours to clean up.

And the one thing I disliked most is that some DU member added some anonymous vandalism to other pages as well because it was funny.

I haven't done much on wikipedia, but I have worked on other wikis and it's nice, but vandalism is a real problem and here it is being glorified.

You can make a prank on your blog or whatever, but in this you leave it other people to resolve your mess. This topic shouldn't have been added in the first place and it's clear from the beginning that it is not funny if you leave it to others to clean up.

The reason they have chosen for NPOV (neutral) is to make it as large as possible and even though it makes it a hard place for political messages, politics is just a small part of the overall wiki and even with neutral view you can present a wonderful topic but it takes efforts and it is in general harder to read since you need to mention all sides and hope that the reader can make the final judgement. But it is not intention for childish name calling and it is not a mature way of dealing with things anyhow.

And I find it ironic that you accuse somebody of "lacking any sense of decency" and yet the article itself lacks any sense of decency!

[EFerrari]

80. I haven't made any such accusation. And no, that entry

was not apparently made with the intention to harm Wiki and is therefore not vandalism.

Do you know the difference between vandalism and humor?

I like the idea of a collaborate space so I'd be the last person to condone malicious posting at that site.

Why not let their editorial process work instead of insulting everyone in earshot?

[DrDebug]

83. You did

> I haven't made any such accusation.

sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts)
Mon Nov-21-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #5

63. Exactly. Good job.

> And no, that entry was not apparently made with the intention to harm Wiki and is therefore not vandalism.

I seriously doubt it, because it was created to keep and even people voted for it to be kept. It was created without reading the rules and despite the warning when creating a topic that it was to abide with the rules and that includes neutral point of view and encyclopedic value.

So it is vandalism. Also this whole thread actively encourages it and neither the person creating it or you seem to find anything morally wrong it and prefer to keep slander like that without realizing that slander is double-edged sword, because Kerryhead can be created as well with the same arguments etc.

> Do you know the difference between vandalism and humor?

Humor is when something is funny. This entry isn't funny, since it's insulting a person.

A derogatory term made up by a poster at the Democratic Underground to refer to an individual who lacks any sense of decency, perspective or irony. Based upon Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), a schmidthead, generally draped in the American flag, is unable to engage a rational thought process prior to regurgitating vile and idiotic statements or Republican talking points.

- - The term came into wide usage in November, 2005, and was coined when Rep Schmidt referred to Rep. Jack Murtha, a 37 year Marine veteran as a coward. - - See also "Schmidtfaced".

This is not funny. It's slander. Also it is doing exactly what it accuses Schmidt of having done: It lack any sense of decency, perspective or irony and it is doesn't engage in a rational thought process prior to regurgitating vile and idiotic statements.

It's not humor but a stupid smear attack which not only violates the rules about what topic is allowed, but even the contents violate the normal rules of civility in entries.

> Why not let their editorial process work instead of insulting everyone in earshot?

I am bitterly disappointed that most people here think that it is okay. Becuase you are on the exact same level as the people you are trying oppose.

[EFerrari]

87. Are you the editorial board at Wiki? If not, these judgments

are above your pay grade.

And, as you show, I have made no allegations about "decency".

The fact that *you* do not see the wit in the entry is unfortunate but not catastrophic. Thank you for the lecture on humor. As a professional comedy writer, that is useful information for me to have.

[Neil Lisst]

90. He was born without a funny bone. Don't look him in the eye.

They think that's a sign of aggression.

[EFerrari]

96. What a tempest in a tin cup. n/t

[DrDebug]

91. You condone it and encourage this

There is no such thing as an editorial board. It is a consensus by all participants and the consensus is that there are at many reasons why it is not relevant and no reasons why it should be relevant.

Slander is not funny. If you think that an entry like that is funny then I am not interested in your "professional" writing and I'm sure that I won't be amused, because I don't like people like you!

[Neil Lisst]

93. It's not slander. Look it up in a legitimate source.

Slander requires an UNTRUTH.

[DrDebug]

94. Using the strawman argument again?

You are biggest troll of them all!

[EFerrari]

97. There ya go, using dictionaries again. Stop it now!

lol

[EFerrari]

95. So,

"There is no such thing as an editorial board. It is a consensus by all participants and the consensus is that there are at many reasons why it is not relevant and no reasons why it should be relevant")

unless you ARE that consensus, you are out of line.

And you are right. Slander is not funny. Perhaps you would do well to reread your posts to this thread and make a list of all the people you have slandered here so you can apologize to them.

I accept in advance. :)

[DrDebug]

98. You are the one who encouraged vandalism

So you need to apologize first!

[EFerrari]

99. LOL!

:rofl:

I better stop right here. :hi:

[mzmolly]

128. Goodness. I'm reminded of Barney Fife here. "CITIZENS ARREST!

CITIZENS ARREST!"





Chilllllll Dr.D

[DrDebug]

100. Also who says I like DU after this thread?

Because the majority seems to condone vandalism and that includes the moderators, so I doubt whether I even want to participate beyond this flaming discussion!

[EFerrari]

102. I hope you make a good decision. n/t

[DrDebug]

103. I have seen the additude change since last year

And it has gone down considerably. The one thing which was great were the intelligent people here like Octafish, H2Oman, emad etc. but a lot of conversation is hateful.

But now it seems like it is fine to vandalize. We had the remark by SouthernDem2004 about condoning threads about violence, and even though I don't agree with southern on many points, it was a valid point and it was ignored.

And this thread is one huge flame war and nobody cares and it seems to be funny to vandalize other sites and we can laugh about. Well count me out, because I guess I have a totally different view.

[EFerrari]

106. This thread seems to have made you very upset.

That must be awful.

Hope the rest of the day is better for you.

[DrDebug]

109. It started out as a rotten day. And yesterday as well

And it was caused by hating upon because I said "No" in this thread and marked the entry "to be deleted". The reason I did that because I have sympathy for the wiki project and no sympathy for trolling, so indeed I chose wiki over DU. And look what happened. Hated upon, trolled, vandalised. It has been a great day, but I know one thing is that I have made the right decision by chosing wiki over DU in this case. Sometimes the democrats can be wrong. Remember that and if you allow yourself to become what you despise then you've lost all moral grounds and DU was already going down but I guess I needed a confrontation.

Anyway have a great day as well and I think I have to get out of here, but I doubt whether I'll return to DU soon. Tell Skinner I'm sorry, because I kinda left before but it was one of his PMs which made me return, so there is no hard feeling with the owners of this site, but I don't feel comfortable with the mindset right now.

[EFerrari]

111. Okay. Take good care. n/t

[burythehatchet]

114. Your avatar might recommend detachment

once you become attached to temporal things (data bits??) you will always expose yourself to the vicissitudes of the object to which you attach.

[DrDebug]

117. I guess it meant I need to detach from DU

Not making much progress, but I still don't agree with your action or your first response when I said it wasn't appropriate. The irony is that sooner or later somebody else would have said the same, but one of the result could have been more of these pranks, so I don't regret my decision.

I do find it concerning that there is an increase in hatred on this board and that minor acts of violence and even calling for violence against people are allowed nowadays. Mind you this isn't about Schmidt, since I couldn't care less about Schmidt, however I do know the amount of work needed in a wiki to repair these pranks and that is the part which is not funny.

Don't make stuff like that anymore, will ya. And if you can't resist it start a blog and throw it there. There is lots of good political info on the wiki though and much more non-political (because that's their strength) info, so it is a very good project. It's already proven superior to Encarta in many comparisons which is a tremendous achievement.

Anyway you have a nice day as well.

[Kralizec]

116. Many of us have noticed it, DrDebug. Though DU has made great leaps

in some areas, it is still a far cry from a truly free thought exchange forum. And the main backers will admit this. But I realize it's value, and tend just not to talk with the people that you have engaged with in this thread.

I've found the people who can see past the group-think and reactionary responses, and I've taken note of them. I used to be on the verge of leaving, but didn't, and glad. You should too. PM me for more...

[Pachamama]

118. I think the term is accurate and I think its funny as hell! I'm going to

start using that term for all the Repukes and Chickenhawks I encounter....I'll say "Stop being such a Schmidthead"....

Beautiful....

[Mutley]

133. All of DU, huh? As in, every last one of us?

I've refrained from stating my opinion on this matter in this thread, and I don't appreciate you referring to everyone on DU as trolls. Some may agree with you if not for that. You also are being no better than the freepers who say EVERY last member of DU hates the troops and loves the terrorists.

[DrDebug]

136. At least THREE members.

I am not talking about all and I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but the general view on DU is that this is fine. I don't agree and I think it is a wrong view. But we are dealing with multiple DU users who have committed minor and major (because voter fraud is major) vandalism.

So at least 3 people have been trolling. And it seems to be fine with everybody including the moderators of this site which are totally absent despite a full flame war on this thread.... That has noted and taken into consideration by me as well and it means that right now I have no real affliation with this site.

[Mutley]

138. Alright. I have no problem with your opinion

and might even agree with you to a point, I just wanted to clear that up about all of DU.

I would personally say that the term Schmidthead should at least be given a month or so to see if it really picks up before it is put on Wikipedia, but I also think you should let the moderators at Wikipedia do their job -- unless you ARE a moderator at Wikipedia. I don't think it is fair of you to add those lines across the entries made, even if you feel that they are made by people voting more than once, because that same note mentioned that users are not allowed to change entries made by other users in that discussion.

[DrDebug]

139. I know that I can let it all happen

But it amazes me that there is a consistent group of DUers (and at least one person) who keeps on disrupting. It is not nice to see constant disruption going on there and on this thread and I'm pretty sure it are the same people on both sites. And my state of mind is still frustrated. Also because it seems like this is normal according to most. Yet they get upset if somebody freeps but it's the same thing which is happening here.

The voter fraud was unsigned so it wasn't even visible. I didn't delete anything, I added a second point about it and crossed out their statement. The entry still stands as it is, but it was the objective of this person to vote twice anonymously and unsigned. The strike out merely means that it is no longer valid for whatever reason and that reason is mentioned behind it. In this case the user disqualified himself by sneaking two votes into the system. And once again who are we to talk about voter fraud by Diebold when there are people here doing it as well and it is concerned funny and normal.

[Mutley]

142. That is exactly what I said, you crossed out the entries.

Why can't you let the Wiki people decide which entries are multiple entries and which are not? Are you a moderator there? Is it for you to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't? I agree with you about vandalization on Wikipedia, but you also have to follow the rules.

[DrDebug]

144. Everybody can do these functions

A moderator has the ultimate say, but adding signatures to unsigned items, reverting vandalism and even marking voting fraud are part of the functions of any user. The only difference between an normal user and a moderator are the special functions and the ultimate say. So I am following the rules. I noticed that it contained an unsigned item. I added the IP and saw that it was the exact same as a previous vote. Therefore it is fraud and I can add it to the entry.

[Mutley]

146. I'm talking about how you crossed out some of the entires.

The rest of it is fine.

[ErisFiveFingers]

49. No one who is educated would use wikipedia as a source?

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

Hm....Washington Post, Chicago Times, BBC, Boston Herald, Forbes, LA Times, New Scientist, CNN... (etc. etc.)

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_book_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_conference_paper_source

Looks like quite a few educated people and information sources have used Wikipedia as a source.

"Put THAT in Wikipedia."

Already in there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections

:evilgrin:

[Neil Lisst]

84. You're using Wikipedia as your source to support Wikipedia.

That's rich!

Ha! You guys don't really understand the concept of proper sourcing, do you? If you did, you wouldn't be officious volunteers at Wikipathetica.

[Mutley]

134. I wouldn't have a problem using Wikipedia as a source...

However, most of my professors don't allow it, and I would have to trust their judgement on that. So, I only use Wikipedia for personal reasons, and not for actual papers. I always back up info I see on Wikipedia with another source when writing for school.

[Exiled in America]

52. Well, that's totally untrue.

Wikipedia is a great resource, used by myself and other professionals regularly. I don't know what "real world" you're talking about, but in my real world, wikipedia is great. It's also a wonderful example of what can be done through collaborative effort and working together in community - some things that a DUer such as yourself should probably be in strong support of, as am I.

[Neil Lisst]

82. Professional?! Ha!

Please.

No professional would ever use Wikipedia in their work, unless their work was modern satire, and they are looking for material to lampoon.

[Exiled in America]

121. Apparently you choose to ignore post #49

So I'll requote it for you:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_p...

Hm....Washington Post, Chicago Times, BBC, Boston Herald, Forbes, LA Times, New Scientist, CNN... (etc. etc.)

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_an_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_c...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_b...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_c...
(you'll have to click that post for the links)

Looks like quite a few educated people and information sources have used Wikipedia as a source.

"Put THAT in Wikipedia."

Already in there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_commo..."

[LiberalPersona]

81. Where's your proof that Wikipedia is a "joke"

I have yet to run into any entries that are not factual and accurate.

[Neil Lisst]

85. It's a joke because anyone can edit, and the editors are not ...

... qualified.

[LiberalPersona]

86. You didn't answer the question

Where's your PROOF.
You're making an assumption, that is not proof.

[Neil Lisst]

104. This is where I dismiss you as trivial.

buh-bye

Now run along and use those high school arguing skills on someone closer to your paygrade, which is about E-1.

[LiberalPersona]

112. You can't answer the question

and instead insult my intelligence.
That's how a freeper argues.

Anyway, thanks for proving me right.

[entanglement]

110. You forget, Wikipedia has a VAST amount of information

that is apolitical, and while it cannot be cited in professional work, I (and millions of other people IAP) have found it extremely useful as a reference.

[Occulus]

135. IF it's not something for fun,

why are the Myst games- all of them- covered in excruciating detail, including the mythology of the series, lots of spoilers, screenshots, etc., & etc.?

You are clearly way off base in that assertion.

[LoZoccolo]

36. That's a stupid way to respond.

Therefore...

:hi: :nuke:

[Exiled in America]

51. I agree with you completely.

Thankfully, wikipedia is usually pretty good about cleaning up the garbage. It would be nice if people here would respect a site like wikipedia and the people who work very hard to contribute to it by ahearing to the rules and showing some basic respect.

[DrDebug]

53. Thank you. I'm glad to see that finally some decent people showed up

Welcome BTW.

People don't realize that the efforts needed to clean up are much greater than those needed to make a mess of things. Because there are lots of strict rules, a delete has to be peer-reviewed. So the efforts of determining that it is not a suitable item which was clear from the start is already larger than the efforts of putting in.

Next a sysop needs to make an overall judgement based on the reviews and the quality of the reviews (people do not even seem to understand that it is not a democracy but a meritocracy) and the item needs to be deleted and the discussion regarding the deletion.

To make matters worse there have been people vandalising stuff as a result because they didn't like their slander removed. That needed to be cleaned up and we have the ignorance on this thread.

All in all I say that DU has shown itself to be very little respectful to the sites of others. And I also like to repeat my disappointment in the moderators of this site of not taking a stand, because it is no different from another site calling for disrupting DU.

[entanglement]

108. Don't worry, many of us here know how great Wikipedia is

I think some people are ignorant about the wealth of (non-political) information in Wikipedia

[Cha]

21. I see this helping Paul Hackett

in Ohio..they shoulda sent him instead of the Embassassment to their district.

[burythehatchet]

22. Ohio has become a political train wreck.

Its too bad that there's enough time to cover Plame and still give adequate attention to Ney, Abramoff, Blackwell and Ohio. Ohio - Prototype for one-party Republic governance.

[DrDebug]

23. Let me add that I am very disappointed in the childish behavior I've seen

First voting for deletion is not by numbers, but by value of their entries and anonymous unsigned entries tend to be disregarded.

May I express bitter disappointment at the childish and ignorant behavior of both the person who has created this stupid entry and dared to big mouth me and all those who helped him.

I think this is case where DU sank rockbottom by glorifying trolling! And I am disgusted by you all!

[burythehatchet]

24. I hope you get to feelin better

:)
:hi:

[DrDebug]

38. I think it is trolling what you have been doing

And it's not funny. And the same applies to the defenders of trolling. It seems like immature, stupid behavior is normal nowadays. Let's deface it and don't care about people who have to clean up your trash. Ah fuck the rules it's another site, so why should we care.

Please glad I'm not a mod there, because I would have banned you for your rude remarks!

[Neil Lisst]

42. you're the one trolling, and you're trolling THIS thread

Someone adds a term to the Wackypeedia, and you get your underwear in a bunch because you think Wackypeedia is something special. Well it is special - special the way used gum on the floor of the movie theatre is special.

You've been hounding anyone on the thread who has howled at your posturing about said WackyPeedia.

It's only important to the permanently unemployable who volunteer there. Honestly, I'd sooner cite National Enquirer to Wikipedia. At least the NE has some credibility.

[DrDebug]

43. Wikipedia was not created to add your pranks

An entry should be NPOV, encyclopedic and known by a limited amount neither. This entry fails all three criteria and therefore is not an allowed entry.

Yet people like you think it is funny and bully everybody who dares to say no. That's trolling behavior and you are doing it right now. Take a look in the mirror because you are advocating trolling on this site right now!

[Neil Lisst]

46. If you feel so strongly, start a thread about THAT topic.

But please stop trolling this one.

This thread is for those who want to comment on the entry in Wackypeedia, whereas you want to lecture everyone about what you THINK Wackypeedia is.

Instead of behaving that way in this thread, why don't you start a thread about how Wackypeedia is a legitimate source, and then you can be answered there. All you're doing here is wagging your finger at others, as if belonging to the group of volunteers over there confers some special knowledge or status upon you.

The thread topic here is not "DrBugged goes off on those placing terms in Wikipedia."

I'm done with you. Like Wackypeedia, you're not useful for any purpose. I strongly encourage you to start your own thread, if you really, really want to know what people think of your "encyclopedia." Ha!

[DrDebug]

47. What I think wikipedia is?

I'm sorry but there is something called rules on that site as well. And it says clearly that this entry is not allowed. Since this thread advocates breaking the rules on another site, it is advocating trolling on a different site and people have been trolling because of this post. And they have been trolling on wikipedia as a result of this entry which is really sad and means that others needed to clean up again. This thread has no reason to exist since it is calling for members to disrupt other sites! And you are advocating trolling other sites and bullying people!

What Wikipedia is NOT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

[DrDebug]

45. I wonder what DU has become since advocating trolling is allowed

And seems to be funny. I guess that we can stop moderating this site as well, because trolls are no longer a problem!

[Neil Lisst]

28. Wikipedia is a joke.

It's full of people who couldn't get an appointment to meet with an editor, much less be one.

Haven't you figured it out? The people who own and run the Foundation are making a killing BECAUSE they have a bunch of people to run it who don't get paid. They're volunteers. Why are they volunteers? EGO. They badly need their ego shored up, so they work for free and tell themselves they're doing something important.

It's a joke, most of all on those people. The guys who own it are living well, while volunteers there play janitor at the site for free every day.


It's run by a foundation with a board of five members. They all live well.

[Domitan]

33. I know one of the people who run it

Your comments do disservice to people like him who see this as a worthwhile project and not a joke.

[Neil Lisst]

35. I feel sorry for him, then.

It's a ridiculous pile of nothing, with meaning only to the uneducated or poorly educated. If you think Wikipedia is more than a lame excuse to draw traffic on the internet, guess again.

[Bill McBlueState]

89. dude, relax.

While many here agree with you in principle about vandalizing wikipedia, it's just a bit over the top to carry on about the whole of DU the way you have.

[Neil Lisst]

25. Is Wikipedia really good for anything else?

I can't imagine anyone actually using Wikipedia as a source.

It's the world's largest bathroom wall, with appropriate entries.

[Domitan]

34. I wouldn't consider it a "final" source

but it can be useful like a Coles' notebook to get a glimpse of a topic before embarking on more thorough research using more comprehensive resources.

[Neil Lisst]

44. That's like checking National Enquirer before US News

Why would you?

Wikipedia is for the truly ignorant, who know absolutely nothing, so that any smidgen of information will seem legitimate to them.

I am fascinated people even use it.

[ErisFiveFingers]

48. Guess I'm one of the truly ignorant then...

Especially since WP winds up with a higher content and accuracy rate than US news, or even Britannica or Encarta, in the log run. Of course, part of the WP process involves everybody who wants to say something about a subject putting in their two cents, not unlike DU, or any other public project...

That's why eventually, people who become well versed in a subject start to watch over pages that they have an interest in, and demand that information which is being put into articles must have several decent, reasonably reputable, sources.

So, sometimes articles start off as pretty uninformative graffitti or vandalism pieces, get a bunch of silliness, a few experienced people in the subject gradually wander in, article gets cleaned up and well sourced. It can take a while.

But hey, no skin off my nose if you don't use it! :shrug: Did you have a particularly bad experience on an article or get repeatedly POV reverted? (The rules there are totally different than on advocacy boards)

FWIW, the article now has 6 delete votes, and 4 non-votes (from people without established histories or credibility) to keep.

[Neil Lisst]

50. it's the blind leading the blind ...

.. but it gives unemployed philosophy majors something to do in their free time.

[ErisFiveFingers]

54. So, is your primary contention that...

..non-"experts" in a field can submit changes to articles, to be either approved, or reverted, or edited, by other experts and non-experts?

I'm currently working on 244 articles. Some subjects I know almost nothing about, and thus my changes are for grammar and formatting (and reverting vandals) only. Other subjects I have 15-20 years of experience in, and thus, can do more focused editing on subjects where I am not "blind".

I'm not an unemployed philosophy major, though. I'm an employed enterprise computer security consultant, who has hobby studies in ancient religious text analysis, holocaust history, and alternative/complementary medicine.

Edit: spelling, heh

[Neil Lisst]

55. Periods go inside the quote, not outside.

Thanks for making my point about the lack of editing skills by those who do the editing.

[ErisFiveFingers]

56. LOL, I love it.

He called it "blue".
vs.
Sammy said: "He called it blue."

When a full sentence phrase is quoted, the end-sentence punctuation belongs *inside* the quote. When a single quoted word or phrase is used (thus the sentence is not terminated by the quote marks, as the sentence is a formulation which is outside of the quoted range), the sentence is not terminated within the quotes, but rather, by the sentence.

Periods go inside the quote of quoted *phrases*, not quoted *words*.

Otherwise, "Thanks for making." me happy.

Would be valid. When there is no complete phrase in a sentence, the punctuation does not belong within the quotes.

[Neil Lisst]

57. You're wrong, and you should stop misinforming others.

Inside the quote.

As an editor, you're a computer guy.

[ErisFiveFingers]

58. Worked in computer typesetting...

...since 86. And yourself?

Is your wikipedia "beef" all about where periods go? You never did answer that question.

Edit, spelling... though I thought about putting a period after "beef", as in "beef.", just for giggles.

[Neil Lisst]

59. I don't care what you've worked in, you don't know editing.

And that is obvious from your lack of writing skills and your poor punctuation.

I could argue with you, even direct you to appropriate references, but I'll just slam dunk you with your precious source, Wikistupedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

Read it and weep.

Punctuation
The American convention is for sentence punctuation to be included inside the quotation marks, even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence....

[ErisFiveFingers]

60. Gee, I guess WP is useless, then.

Since you claimed it has no value as a source, and all...

Of course, you might actually want to READ that page, first.

[Neil Lisst]

61. I read it. It says computer geeks don't understand punctuation.

And as a result, they put the quotation mark in the wrong place.

[ErisFiveFingers]

64. I guess that mean we'll be displaced...

By all of those non-computer geek, wood-cut and lead type folks.

Woe is me. ;-)

[Neil Lisst]

65. No, but it means real editors will know you're not an editor.

I think it's great that people who aren't qualified can find volunteer work at Wikipedia. Everyone needs to be doing something, and that is slightly better than taking online IQ tests or taking courses from University of Phoenix.

Of course, that makes Wikipedia the National Enquirer of Encyclopedias, but that's life.

[ErisFiveFingers]

68. Real scotsman

Eat haggis.

[Neil Lisst]

77. What do real Scotsmen have to do with this?

Pray tell.

[ErisFiveFingers]

88. Google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Real+scotsman+fallacy

I assume no "real" editors would think otherwise.

[Neil Lisst]

92. When you're capable of writing for yourself, get back to me.

I don't read links to try to figure out what some illiterate means.

[Exiled in America]

159. Nice one! Logical fallacies are fun!

:D

[Neil Lisst]

162. for kids who think they're actually using logic, they're fun

but grownups deal with the real world

[Exiled in America]

168. Sir, there has yet to be a place in this thread--

where you have acted like a grown up.

I don't mind you having your own opinion. You are free to think whatever you want about wikipedia and be considered a grown-up. I'm free to disagree with your opinion and be considered a grown up.

But you are not free to provide no evidentiary support of any kind for your blankey perjorative accusations and be considered acting like a grown up.

You are not free to respond to everyone who disagrees with your opinion or asks you for evidence with personal attacks, namecalling and childishness and be considered acting like a grown up.

You are not free to contribute nothing to this entire course of discussion but flames and ad hominems and be considered acting like a grown up.

Therefore sir, I do not feel that you have any business lecturing the rest of us about how "grown ups" act.

[EFerrari]

67. LOL!

Hilarious.

[burythehatchet]

160. I will never be able to visit the Wiki web site again

without chuckling.:)

[Neil Lisst]

163. if it were a bakery, they'd be cooking with a 60 watt bulb

in one of those little ovens you buy for kids ...

[Rosco T.]

26. Start spreading it around fast, other blogs and try to get it on the air..

.. the thugs have descended on Wiki and are trying to say it's not being used except by one person on DU.

[Neil Lisst]

29. Wikipedia is moderated by Schmidt-for-Brains.

I'm sure some are Freepers.

[Ian David]

30. Why not start a Schmidthead.com website instead of defacing Wikipedia? n/t

[Neil Lisst]

31. How can one deface a bathroom wall?

It's impossible to "deface" wikipedia. It's graffiti.

You can't tell me that anyone actually uses Wikipedia as a source of anything important.

Anyone can add to it, and anyone desperate enough with a lot of free time and willing to volunteer can actually work there.

[thebigidea]

62. completely agree with you about that idiotic site

even its name is fucking embarassing, I dare anyone to say it out loud amongst professionals: "Well, according to Wikipedia..." It just sounds childish.

[Neil Lisst]

75. Thank you. That's exactly my point!

I have never heard any person say "well Wikipedia says," in real life. I've never heard or seen a single professional refer to it as a legitimate source.

It's simply NOT a legitimate source for anything of substance.

For throwing crap up on message boards, it has some utility, but beyond that, it's strictly amateur night.

[EFerrari]

73. Hey, are you defacing my free time, man?

Lol.

Actually, I like the idea of Wiki.

What I don't get is all the hysteria. :wtf:

[Hubert Flottz]

32. Schmidtass!

Schmidtforbrains. The GOP is in a world of Schmidt!

[Thom Little]

41. DU did not invent "Schmidthead." It's been around forever.

Ask anyone named Schmidt.

[rateyes]

79. Love it, but....

wasn't the Marine Colonel she mentioned not in Iraq but actually a current U.S. Representative who sent her to do his dirty work? They're both "schmidtheads."

[burythehatchet]

101. That would be a BubpFace (sp?)

:rofl:

[Straight Shooter]

105. You are absolutely correct. There is false info on that page, to-wit:

Careul (sic) review of the words that Schmidt used show that she was reading from a letter sent her by an active duty marine in Iraq in which he said that "cowards cut and run". Schmidt was correct in her reciting of that letter and no one was personally called a coward.

Bullschmidt!!

[Neil Lisst]

107. That entry is wrong.

1. The guy is not on active duty, he's a reservist, and he's not in Iraq.

2. The guy is an elected Puke official.

3. She specifically said the Colonel told her to tell Murtha ... yada yada yada.

[Straight Shooter]

113. Absolutely. I think someone came along and edited the page.

A right-winger, no doubt, inserting their wrong opinion in the belief that no one will fact-check the assertion.

[MADem]

124. And the bum has never been deployed, either

His unit went, but he slimed out!

[chat_noir]

115. Stephanie Miller just called her a Schmidthead

One of her callers said something to the effect that Marines do not send stupid (not sure if that is he adjective that he used) to talk for them.

[Pachamama]

120. Very good term indeed...

:hi:

[Rosco T.]

122. Now someone is pushing it for 'Speedy Deletion'...

a few positive comments might be in order here folks.

[Neil Lisst]

164. "speedy deletion" = one of the goobers got his panties in a bunch

oh they are soooooo officious, aren't they?!

It's good entertainment, just watching them howl.

Like little kids, with the same weak impulse control.

[Roland99]

123. Just put it on UrbanDictionary.com

;)

[IronLionZion]

125. Speedy deletion is not just how Cheney treats his enemies

You shouldn't do that to Wikipedia. There are other sites to do shit like that. try urbandictionary

[Rosco T.]

126. DrDebug is on a crusade to destroy this entry it seems....

.. looking at the two discussion pages.

[IronLionZion]

129. The entry is finished

it will be deleted soon as it has no informative purpose.

[DrDebug]

130. I see that 70.120.227.153 is vandalizing, committing voting fraud

It's great to have responsible people like that. And yes, I think it has no place. Nor does this discussion on DU.

People who are willing to commit voter fraud just to proof their point are scum. And I think that a moderator can easily see that MaskedMarauder is 70.120.227.153 as well, so that entry will soon be deleted.

And my bet is that it is Neil Lisst. So he can be proud of himself, because he is once again proving to troll sites!

[Rosco T.]

131. Actually, looking a the edit history and comments...

I would say you are doing a better job of vandalizing than that IP address Dr. Debug..

- From looking over the editing history, it appears that the IP address in question has been making the entry less inflamatory and adding factual quotes to the entry.

- you made a comment on the editing page of "It's already on record that the wiki entry was invented before it was ever used if it was ever used" (emphasis mine) that appears to be in reference to removing a mention of it being used on The Stephanie Miller show. So it appears that you are calling the originator of that piece of information a liar, yet it's been reported here that it was used (hey, I heard it also...). Looking at the text you deleted by comparing entries two versions of the entry, it clearly gave TODAY'S date as being when the Stephanie comment was heard. So how does that disqualify the validity of the claim?

- the 'voter fraud' comment is a wee harsh and inflamatory, since it look like they were adding to their comments, maybe they made a mistake? And was made very clear during the "Fitzmas" incident, that page isn't for 'voting' it's for comments isn't it?

- looking over the comments page (on both the regular and speedy deletion sections) you seem to be stalking this person for everything they say...

[DrDebug]

132. If I look at the history then I see voter fraud

I also say that a claim is made, even though it is on record that the entry was created before this happened. See this topic. It clearly shows that the entry was created before it was ever used. So it's a ficitional word. Even if it has been used, it is of no relevance, because it was never used prior to the creation of the entry.

Yes, I have the person on a watch, because you suspect somebody to vandalize you put him on a watch.

Voter fraud means multiple voting and that is what this user has done on the normal delete. The speed delete was added by a republican and I support him in this given the behavior of the DU members because the sooner this entry is gone, the better.

He voted two times. Both without signing while an item was visible which clearly said that multiple voting is not allowed and invalidates the vote (it also says it is reason for blocking a user). Despite that warning, this person decided to vote twice to save his little entry.

Edit: The entry was created YESTERDAY and it is called mainstream by an alleged radio show which aired TODAY. That means that even if it was mentioned, it is no relevance to the discussion.

May I add that the FIRST vandalism revert of this user was done by a moderator and not by me. So he already received a vandalism revert, but as usual it wasn't put on record. In his case I do keep it on record, because it is relevant!

[Rosco T.]

137. So??

"The entry was created YESTERDAY and it is called mainstream by an alleged radio show which aired TODAY. That means that even if it was mentioned, it is no relevance to the discussion."

First, I'm sure Stephanie is glad to be called "ALLEGED" :D.

Second, so it's being picked up by the mainstream.. Fitzmas was picked up by the mainstream after showing up on Wiki, this is bad and not relevant how?

Third, again with this "even if it was". I heard it, so did others in this thread... are you calling us liars? Actually I heard a variation on the theme on the morning of the 19th listening to Bernie Ward when a caller referred to her as "A Piece of Schmidt".

"Despite that warning, this person decided to vote twice to save his little entry."

Again, this 'voter fraud' crap. You completely avoided the issue that it's been clearly established during Fitzmas that the pages were not for VOTING, but for COMMENTARY, as the Heading on the Fitzmas discussion page shows..

"ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because someone told you to vote for or against it, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers."

So, your "Voter Fraud" comment is pointless and inflamatory.

[DrDebug]

140. It is relevant as far as the user is concerned

He was only allowed to vote ONCE in the normal deletion poll and this person didn't and sneaked a second vote into there. So it is relevant for the value of the contributions of the user. What is the value of an entry by a person who is willing to commit voter fraud for their pet entry. But maybe it isn't about voting. It seems like this is the SECOND time by your quote above and that makes it even sadder, because that means that there is a history of disrupting sites to proof a POV.

[Rosco T.]

141. But it's not a VOTE, as the above quoted material says..

.. so your argument is specious.

[DrDebug]

143. It was first a normal delete and that is a vote. And it DOES contain fraud

And that means that the user's view are close to irrelevant already. We see the same person turning up at the speedy delete and it is relevant to note that he has already been involved in voter fraud and thus has limited to no say in this story.

You are confusing two matters. It was a normal delete first and today soembody nominated it for a speed deletion. User 70.120.227.153 disqualified himself from the normal vote since he committed fraud and that has relevance on his input on the speedy deletion as well.

[Rosco T.]

145. Let's look at the dictionary shall we???

FRAUD

- A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
- A piece of trickery; a trick.

----

Looking at the entries you are kvetching about.. I see no 'FRAUD', the IP address is clearly indicated, so there is no deception or trickery, since it's been indicated there in the past, that these are COMMENTARY PAGES and NOT VOTES (which you continue to ignore), then there is not a VOTE.

No FRAUD, simply a second comment that seems to expound on the first.
No VOTE, so no VOTER FRAUD.

Dear Sir.. you're acting exactly like what this discussion is about...

[DrDebug]

147. The user didn't sign the votes, so it was DELIBERATE

So it was NOT visible and deliberate.

The topic reads:

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

The anonmymous user first add a first vote and today added another. BOth were unsigned so it wasn't clear. The only way to tell is by looking at the history. That means that there are a DELIBERATE attempt to vote twice by 1) not signing 2) it contained a clear message that it was not allowed

So that fall into one category and that is DELIBERATE voting for the second time. He tried to sneak a second vote in.

Entry left by the user:

KEEP Used several times this morning on The Stephanie Miller show in the 'generic' term and not a direct releation to the person in question. It's becoming just a valid term as "Swiftboating" or "Chicken Hawk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schmidthead&oldid=28917234

Note that it is unsigned and a deliberate attempt at voting. Please note that both times a clear warning was visible not to perform multiple votes and this should go without saying.

So the voting fraud is PROVEN beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

[Rosco T.]

150. Bovine Stuff

"Note that it is unsigned and a deliberate attempt at voting. Please note that both times a clear warning was visible not to perform multiple votes and this should go without saying.

So the voting fraud is PROVEN beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT."

Or maybe they forgot to sign it? Therefor there EXISTS REASONABLE DOUBT?

Unless you can PROVE YOUR ALLEGATIONS, THAT IS WAS DONE DELIBERATELY TO GAIN A SECOND COMMENT (SINCE THIS IS NOT A VOTE) you are way over the line....

PROVE IT.

A fair and intelligent person might have NOTED IT and COMBINED the entries and added the IP with comment... however you are showing yourself biased on this item. Since YOU are the one that STARTED THE EFFORT FOR DELETION you shouldn't have ANY say on the votes.

Secondly, since you are so hot on 'unsigned comments' please have the "SPEEDY DELETION" page removed, since it (appears) to have been started by an UNSIGNED COMMENT.

[DrDebug]

152. It is proven BEYOND REASONABLE doubt

1. It is not normal to vote more than once in general.
2. It wasn't signed, therefore it was not immediately clear that it was a second person.
3. There was a warning that multiple votes are not allowed and are discarded and that entries should be signed.
4. And it states that no more than two comments can be made.

Ergo: Fraud BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The IP is verifiable from the history.

Vote 1:

Revision as of 23:46, 20 November 2005
70.120.227.153 (Talk | contribs)

'''KEEP''' It's just as valid term as 'ChickenHawk', and contrary to the above comment, I heard it being used on Air America the past coupla of days, as well as on Bernie Ward.

Vote 2:

Revision as of 17:12, 21 November 2005
70.120.227.153 (Talk | contribs)

+ '''KEEP''' Used several times this morning on The Stephanie Miller show in the 'generic' term and not a direct releation to the person in question. It's becoming just a valid term as "Swiftboating" or "Chicken Hawk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schmidthead&diff=28917234&oldid=28916309

Anyway you are arguing for the sake of arguing and I'll take no further, because you simply want to defend your stupid troll entry

[Rosco T.]

154. Anything you say Dr DIebold... make sure you do a good job...

.. editing the voters list in Florida...

still Bovine stuff... all your opinion and noone elses...

[DrDebug]

156. Funny, isn't it. We are complaining about Diebold, but ...

... it seems like this voting fraud is allowed. I think that a major change in additude is necessary. To make you feel better I removed the strike out. It is still voter fraud nevertheless. Maybe it'll help to stop allowing voter fraud altogether because otherwise Diebold has a point after all.

It seems that the majority opinion of DU is to condone voter fraud, vandalism, trolling on other sites. That is not my opinion. So like I said before I have made up my mind. And I think it is sad that the majority here feels that things like that are acceptable, because the only way to beat the BFEE is not to play the same game otherwise nothing changes except for the names.

Either way the absence of the moderators on this site despite being alterted are noted as well, so I guess it's an official position by DU. I guess that you can no longer say that you have any moral ground over FreeRepublic. Isn't that sad...

[DrDebug]

158. P.S. I'll still be defending wiki for the time being

And I can still post here as well. Isn't that ironic...

[Neil Lisst]

169. maybe the mods have concluded you're the TROLL

everyone else has figured that out but you

This is the DU. You have spent the past umpteen hours talking smack to people here because you think you own Wikipedia, you and your handful of friends who nest there permanently.

Wikipedia set up the process for commenting on deletions. Contrary to your absurd statements, it isn't fraud for someone to post as many times as they want there. It can't be fraud, because members can see the IP number.

You're a major drama queen, and it's clear that being overly dramatic is the only thing you're good at.

[Rosco T.]

148. By the way, even if it IS a VOTE...

you do not seem to have the right to 'modify' or 'disqualify' them..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion

"Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith (unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages or is making a patently offensive personal attack). It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation. It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin."

You are not a moderator, therefore you are out of line on this issue.

[DrDebug]

149. No comments have been removed

All the comments are still there. It is normal to strike out items which are not relevant for the discussion thus perserving the history clearly visible. Voting fraud immediately implies disqualification.

But I guess that a DUer voter fraud is valued higher. But I've already said that. I hope you and the troll are happy together.

[Rosco T.]

151. They were MODIFIED...

and once again, you keep isisting that this is a VOTE. It's a COMMENTARY PAGE.. why do you keep ignoring that.

[DrDebug]

153. No text has been deleted.

The entries are invalid as said below. Once again you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You really don't care except that a DU troll entry seems to be more important.

It isn't a vote in that everybody is equal and the majority rules. But it is generally like a vote, because people say "KEEP" or "DELETE". That makes it equal to a vote and just like a vote, you have one say.

[Rosco T.]

155. It isn't a Vote.. your own words...

yet you keep your rant on "VOTER FRAUD"...

you are really paranoid on this one....

[DrDebug]

157. Still trying to score a point... You are so pathetic!

[Neil Lisst]

161. Roscoe, he'll never understand.

Ask yourself what kind of person finds his way to a place like Wackypeedia and makes a home there.

NOT someone who ever gets to vote on anything in their life. NOT someone who is in charge of others. NOT someone who runs a business. NOT someone who plans political events.

NO, it's going to be someone searching for a place where they can sit and JUDGE. Don't you see that with FauxDoctor? He actually believes that whole process where he and a few dweebs opine on the worthiness of some entry. Note how outraged they are that others show up and offer their opinions, too. Note also that all DrBugged and his cohorts did was show up and register, too.

The whole site is joke, run by clowns, and not even smart ones.

[Neil Lisst]

170. Your bad attitude is the reason you will never be in charge of ...

... anything important in life.

It's appalling that you have such a lack of respect for democratic processes, the most fundamental of which is to be heard. No, you have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner of the star chamber deletion process.

Your posts fairly scream your compelling need for anyone to take you seriously in life, and it's easy to see how you got there.

[Neil Lisst]

166. Write Wikipedia Board. Addresses and names HERE!

You're wrong. Not me.

For those of you who wish to contact the board of Wikipedia to complain about Dr.Bugout, here are the names and addresses of the five board members of the Wikipedia Foundation:

Name & Address Title
WALES, JIMMY D
3911 HARRISBURG ST. NE
ST. PETERSBURG FL 33703 US P

DEVOUARD, FLORENCE
17 AVENUE DES PAULINES
CLERMONT-FERRAND, FRANCE .. 63000 FR VP

BEESLEY, ANGELA
9 WALLIS COURT
COLCHESTER, ESSEX C03 9XU UK ENGLA-ND UK S

DAVIS, MICHAEL
1936 BRIGHTWATERS AVE.
ST. PETERSBURG FL 33704 US T

SHELL, TIM
3335 HAUCK ST., #1041
LAS VEGAS NV 89146 US

[DrDebug]

167. Will you mention this conversation & that you have been deleted from wiki?

A "non-notable" comic. Have fun at CU :)

[IronLionZion]

127. RepubliCONs, RepubliCAN'Ts, and RepubliCUNTS!

Shmidt and Ann Coulter are the lowest of filth. They are tools used by cowardly men to advance criminal agendas. Apparently, the Marine (who never served in combat) was too cowardly to say it himself, so he hid behind Shmidt. In other words, he cut and run because he won't go to Iraq and stay the course.

[DrDebug]

165. I see what Neil's problem is. Wiki deleted his page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neil_Lisst

And he committed vandalism as well on wikipedia... Poor you...

[Exiled in America]

171. LOL - I knew it.

[Neil Lisst]

173. Neil Lisst was read by 10,000 people today.

And that's just online.

Another 15,000 readers in the print media.

Meanwhile, you and other losers like you sit and opine on matters for which you are eminently unqualified.

You and the people who sit there daily and offer thumbs down are not notable, which is the reason it's so important to you that you have this little slice of power, however pathetic it may be.

And for the record, the second day I saw how the process was mucked up by clowns like you, I told you to shove it, now didn't I? Didn't I say Wikipedia is a joke and not worthy of having my comic in it? Yes, I did. Didn't I ask that no mention of my comic be made in Wikipedia for that very stated reason? YES.

But we're not talking about my comic here. We're talking about the autocratic and officious manner unqualified volunteers like you employ there.

[DrDebug]

174. It seems to me that you were unqualified and no relevant

It was wiki who decided that you didn't belong there and that you were NOT noticable. And then you got mad at them. Just like here. It's very clear. You are minor site owner who thinks that he is a big shot. I have operated sites many times larger than that, so there! In comparison you are small even compared to me LMAO.

Any I loved that advertisement that you were well-read by Free Republic and you seem to be on the place we can't mention as well. So what are you doing here besides serving self interests?

[Neil Lisst]

175. DrDoNothing, I'll let the comic speak for itself.

It's been published three times in the past week, with a circulation of over 50,000.

It's notable. You're not.

[DrDebug]

176. You are so big. LMAO. I've run sites with 3 servers and 30,000 users a day

So that is a lot more than your pathetic cartoons, buster!

[Neil Lisst]

179. Non sequitor = your last comment.

Whatever site you've run was (1) not yours, (2) didn't have a single page, and (3) was not a political cartoon.

Since you clearly try to embellish your roles, I think we can safely assume that you might have been a (very bad) moderator for some period of time at a large site, before you got canned for being crazy.

Even so, why should that be relevant? It does not address the point, which is that Neil Lisst is widely read in the world, and just because you wallow in your ignorance doesn't mean it's not so.

The internet is full of guys like you who have never accomplished a blessed thing in their lives, and never will.

Your conduct on this thread proves you're a complete nut job.

[DrDebug]

181. LMAO. No I was the webmaster. That's a lot harder than making a cartoon

Because it requires detailed knowledge. Especially if you have two types of servers. One for the websites and the other for the databases and I programmed the databases as well. It was a lot more important than a cartoon. And I was one of the owners as well, but I sold my share. At least I have done something which requires much more brainpower than making a cartoon and overall I mostlikely made more difference than you. Mind you, I don't go around being a big shot like you did on wiki, because you were bragging with them and they simply laughed at you.

Thanks for the ad hominems. Once again you proved that you cannot even respond in a mature fashion.

[Neil Lisst]

183. hahahahahahaha

Your attempts to make your history sound important are laughable.

You're a garden variety computer geek who is hired and fired by people like me. Look at where we each are. I'm a highly successful professional and accomplished politico who has created a new political cartoon that is relevant, edgy, and read, and you're a guy pretending to be an editor at an online site where anyone can edit.

See if you can pass freshman English, then think about getting into editing.

[DrDebug]

185. Yet another ad hominem from somebody who doodles n/t

[0rganism]

186. apples and ferrets, doc. Please don't start with the "who's tougher" thing

You were doing remarkably well up until that last bit of penis-wagging.

C'mon. They're different skillsets, completely. Plus a fair bit of natural talent and inclination on either one to get it right. You don't have to degrade Neil's presumably real abilities to make your point.

[LiberalPersona]

178. Oh yeah man,

your stuff is just too good to be listed among the likes of Calvin & Hobbes, Boondocks, and Doonesbury. :eyes:

[0rganism]

177. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA now that's f'n hilarious

After all this condescending crapola, he turns out to be another wiki-reject with an axe to grind and sour grapes to squeeze. I loved this part (my emphasis added):

"There is an obvious error on one of the forms here, where a period is placed outside the quotation mark. Those kind of errors are not made by those of us who actually possess writing and editorial skills. I've concluded that Wikipedia is not good enough to have a Neil Lisst entry, so let's do that." (Neil Lisst 05:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

:rofl:

From A WEEK AGO, no less! That's not just an axe, it's a FRESH axe! No wonder someone who thinks wikipedia is utter bullshit would spend so very much time carrying on about it in a DU thread.

[Neil Lisst]

180. That's right. Not good enough.

And the punctuation point is accurate, not that you'd understand the point. If you're uneducated, Wikipedia is a great place to nest.

[0rganism]

182. "not that you'd understand the point" -- excellent snark!

Well done, Neil! Way to win "points" for your side. Not that anyone here would ever think you did anything silly or inappropriate, since it's clearly all about how the undereducated idiots who use wikipedia unfairly persecute you because they're all incapable of grasping the greatness of your art. You aren't just frustrated, you're a victim, which makes it all okay.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*cough cough* just when I think this thread cant get any funnier...

[Neil Lisst]

184. Those who can, do. Those who can't, post as Organism.

It's really that simple.

Unlike you, I am not interested in winning points with the chronically uninformed.

[0rganism]

187. Oh yeah, keep 'em coming

You've got a whole jar of ad hominem just screaming to be unleashed!

:rofl:

"Those who can spell my name, do. Those who can't, call me Organism."

[Taxloss]

172. That's just vandalism.

Wikipedia is an attempt to share knowledge, not a toilet wall.

[mrfrapp]

191. Yes, it is just vandalism

And frankly, I'm appalled that DU appears to be condoning this sort of behaviour.

[nicknameless]

188. Even her apology was a lie:

"Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed to any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest they applied to any member, most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania."

versus what she had originally said:

"... He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

[wakemewhenitsover]

189. kick

[cornermouse]

190. Put her name in as definition of the word low life