Posts on Wikipedia

Do they really need to have an article on anal fisting? Can’t you kind of put together the words “Anal” and “fisting” and figure out what it is?

It’s like saying, “I have no idea what the movie ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is about.”
 
I like going into Wiki and changing things to sound stupid , but they said if I keep doing it I will get ****** lol
 
habo9 said:
I like going into Wiki and changing things to sound stupid , but they said if I keep doing it I will get ****** lol
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the **** out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their ****).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!
 
Mayhem said:
Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the **** out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their ****).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!
Click to expand...



Im really sorry I upset you , na Im not really , ok I will stop it because you type in swear words and your mental plus you have told me off :rofl:

PS I dont use wiki not been on it for ages anyway , BTW way I was joking but I will do it now just to **** you off :thefinger

BTW dont disregard that cause I will , any requests?
 
Premium Link Upgrade :
However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.
 
Mayhem said:
Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the **** out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their ****).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!
Click to expand...

I think your taking this way to seriously, Mayhem. One of the reasons Wikipedia is so great is because it can be edited. I use it as a reference website for my archeology course to look up historical dates but I still double check on other sites because I know its universally and constantly edited. Lighten up dude.
 
Big Poppa Pump said:
I think your taking this way to seriously, Mayhem. One of the reasons Wikipedia is so great is because it can be edited. I use it as a reference website for my archeology course to look up historical dates but I still double check on other sites because I know its universally and constantly edited. Lighten up dude.
Click to expand...



Lol me too , I never use it if I want to find things out , its not accurate and its always changing , I remember I looked up were Im from in Glasgow and it was just bullshit , well it wasnt all bullshit but people had added just pure rubbish and things that werent true lol

Take everything you read on Wiki with a pinch of salt and always double check it with another source :thumbsup:

Thats why I dont use it for serious stuff , Id rather look up a proper website
 
Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to ******* Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that ******** other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

What does "Obviously inappropriate content" mean if they show photos like the ones in teabagging? I'm perfectly open to their cartoon portrayals of other sexual activities, but a photograph seems way out of line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Rachel Hollis
Replies
1
Views
2K
DuanCulo
D
Will E Worm
Why snowflakes will be extinct soon
Replies
6
Views
2K
bodie54
bodie54
D
Stephanie Vixen / Stephanie V / StephanieVXXXX
Replies
3
Views
31K
mentator75
mentator75
Little Red Wagon Repairman
Martin Luther King Jr. Was Reportedly An ****** Who Laughed At ****
Replies
9
Views
9K
Little Red Wagon Repairman
Little Red Wagon Repairman
S
The 20 most fascinating accidental inventions
Replies
9
Views
5K
Vanilla Bear
Vanilla Bear
Back
Top