Giraffe Stapler is so obviously a die hard wikishit.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Giraffe Stapler is so obviously a die hard wikishit.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 26, 2021 11:27 am

Always suspected, we now have three data points that taken together, conclusively prove Giraffe Stapler can't be anything other than the sort of utter retard who is drawn to a life as a Wikipedia editor. Yet more proof that Wikipediocracy isn't for intelligent critics who want to debate the real issues. It's a rest home come social club for die hard Wikipedia editors looking to goof off from their day job, editing Wikipedia.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the userbox is offensive. I happen to think it is, but what about "This user is Ukranian and proud of it"? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
No, it's not a rhetorical question, it's proof you can't see the issue. A reasonable person would never argue that "This user is heterosexual and proud of it" is inoffensive, because there is no inoffensive interpretation of it. Straight pride is not a thing outside of gay bashing circles. And why the fuck would it be? Being straight is the default. You're proud to be a default? Really? Only an utter moron would even feel the need to say it, if they genuinely didn't mean to be offensive. Obvious bullshit is obvious. And someone who bullshts so easily, could equally easily lie about whether they find the statement offensive to begin with.
That's what happens when you use a biased rag like the Guardian, who were in cahoots with certain well-placed editors in getting the Daily Mail banned as a source! Something something Guy Macon!! Jess Wade stole my strawberries!!! etc etc etc

More than half of Muslims want gay sex to be outlawed and nearly a quarter support areas of UK being run under sharia law
A Guy Macon-esque baseless trying to be sarcastic attack on the Mail and on me. Unsurprisingly, the Mail story, to anyone who bothers to read it, is stand up journalism, quoting the results of impeccable polling organisations and reporting the opinion of one of the country's foremost experts in social cohesion, who is black btw. What a crime, real journalism. The Guardian wouldn't do a story like this, because it goes against their dogma to ever believe immigrants could be anything other than willing adherents to traditional British values (one of which is TOLERANCE, the legalisation of gay marriage here having been done by a right wing government a long time ago as the sane and reasonable reflection of the changing attitudes in society, no Supreme Court bullshit necessary).

This is why the left here keeps getting their assses kicked in elections, most recently seeing their traditional heartland absolutely crumble, ushering in the strongest right wing government in generations. The electorate sees through their lies so easily. The general public don't care about Wikipedia for the same reason. Wikipedia editors have even less effect on British society than their already obviously quite meager effect on American hearts and minds. The Daily Mail ban is obvious bullshit, a politically motivated product of a biased encyclopedia trying to ensure the right wing viewpoint of all stripes, is cancelled, forever. If they could deny it on the facts, they would. They can't, so they simply ban anyone who says it.
Honestly, I don't see sourcing problems, but I'm not looking very hard. Can you point out the specific problems with the sourcing?
(specific problems duly pointed out).....
So you're complaining that the biography of Katarina Svanberg, oncologist, doesn't have a source for the statement "Svanberg completed her specialist training in oncology"? The source for the awards claim is the same one used for two of the preceding awards. Jess Wade should be careful to meticulously over-cite everything in case nutters like you try to find fault with their articles. No one else has to do that, but she apparently does because she makes incels upset.
Ha! Only in the mind of someone insane enough to be part of a movement like the incels, would even dare try and suggest that meeting a basic requirement of the BLP policy, namely both provide a citation and do so at the end of the sentence it supports, is somehow meticulous over-citing. Fuck off with that utter bullshit. And with the fact you apparently thought nobody would notice you didn't even address all the problems identified, such as the fact "[Liane Marcia Rossi] was promoted to full Professor in 2016" is also unsourced. Why was that left out of the reply? Was it because he couldn't find it in any of the sources provided? If he did, well, he needs only look at this forum to know that she does also have a habit of not providing the source at all (and it falls to the mug spending hours checking her work to figure out which specific kind of BLP screw up, the bad or the really bad, she is guilty of in each specific case).

Nutter? No. But I won't apologise for going in helmet first when seeing people think they can't punk me like this, and get away with it. Like I'm just some know nothing cunt who fell off the boat yesterday.

I am a serious Wikipedia critic. I have done my research. I know of what I speak.

Try and mug me off, and I'll make you fucking pay, and handsomely. Ask Jake. He knows. Too scared to even let me back onto his forum now, because he has made his choice. He would rather have morons post, for the clicks. Considers the correction of their errors to be an act of hostility. Flattering the governance of Wikipedia with imitation in how he governs his own corner of the interwebs, as always.

Sell out piece of shit. He knows what I would do to a stupid motherfucker like Giraffe Stapler. I'll call him what he is, and I'll back that shit up with STONE FOLD FACTS.

You know he is a Wikipedia editor, because when confronted with the facts, HE JUST CAN'T DEAL and reaches straight for the personal attacks, and the big ones too. I am a TERRORIST apparently, for daring to point out Jess Wade is an absolute fraud. She calls herself a Wikipedia ambassador. Thinks the only reason she can't become an Administrator, is because of sexism. I shit you not. Defend that, you pricks on Wikipediocracy. Don't bother waiting for them to even try, they're more desperate to shield her from scrutiny than even the Wikishits. What's that all about?

Hey dickhead. Personal attacks are useless if they don't attack the actual person. I'm neither a nutter or an incel, clearly, so what were you even thinking, acting like that would be a devastating post?

You're a retard. Look up. Backed that up with facts, didn't I? Pretty easily too. Deny them all you want, and you won't, because cowards like you never do, your denials won't convince anyone, because they don't fit the facts.

Sure, they won't tell you what they really think of you, that goes against Jake's no honesty in the bedroom rule, he likes to present a harmonious front to his Wikipedia audience, even if it is rather obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge, what a sham it all is. More fake than the idea anyone on Wikipedia gives two hoots about anyone but their own personal enjoyment of a highly addictive hobby.

It's a fact that you don't know what a reasonable argument looks like, and it's a fact that will come at the cost of Wikipedia fovever being a hostile environment for minorities. It's a fact you have nothing to say about the Daily Mail that is grounded in the observation and analysis of evidence, and it's a fact that that will come at the cost of Wikipedia never being able to believable deny their Mail ban isn't the product of straight up prejudice. It's a fact that your laughable attempt to defend the honor of the saintly Jess Wade, was so far removed from the facts of what policy says, what she does, and what we all know is the general community intolerance for the people not named Jess Wade who do that shit as a matter of routine, for no reason but their own personal convenience, that it is genuinely open to question as to whether it's actually you who desperately wants to get in her knickers. Could be a good way to identify who you really are actually - while a lot of Wikipedia editors necessarily protect Jess Wade because of her PR value, very few are so lacking in self respect to go as far as to lick what dribbles out of her anus and call it chocolate ice cream. I bet you do. And I know you're not Ritchie333.

You are what you look like, what you sound like, what you behave like. A typical Wikipedia editor. A defender of the indefensible. A drinker of the Kool-Aid. A really fucking wierd thing to have as a member of the alleged preeminent critic forum, the so called investigators of Wikipedia's darker corners.

Can't or won't even investigate a problem that is lit up in lights. Why? Do they all want to fuck Jess Wade? Are they all Wikipedia editors, for whom the revelation of what she really is would be a potential death blow to their chosen hobby? Their star editor, their go to example of them doing good and being inclusive, in reality being nothing but a useless sack of shit of an editor, and a general all round nasty toxic entitled person. Someone who they knew fine well was all those things, but protected her regardless. Going so far as to create automatic tools to make it even easier for them to invade the privacy of anyone who even DARES to tag one of her unsourced statements as {citation needed}.

Got a comment on that, Jake? See any issues in that one simple fact of Wikipedia self governance which might be worth highlighting on your forum as an example of Wikipedia being far more like a cult than it will ever be an open encyclopedia?

I'll wait, while you seek approval from Beeblebrox or NewYorkBrad or whoever it really is who is controlling the agenda on your forum. I understand you can't just do what you want, that your alleged independence from Wikipedia was always just a myth, given you rely on Wikipedia editors viewing your forum as a useful venue, to give your own pathetic life meaning.

That's my skill. I call it as I find it, and I aim to hurt with it, because that's just my nature. And as they say, the truth hurts.

Fuck with me, take me for a fool, and I will take that personally, in a way you probably didn't intend.

The price is the price. The Iron Price. :flamingbanana:

Who knows, maybe Giraffe Stapler is none other than Guy Chapman? He did after all say, reasonable people can disagree over whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Wouldn't that be a fucking disgraceful stain on the management of Wikipediocracy, who could hardly claim not to know the truth of who he really is, given their many statements regarding their due diligence, and indeed their long history of currying favour with high ranking Wikishits in the hopes some confidential information might accidentally on purpose end up landing in their laps.

An absolute cuckoo in the nest. :oops:

Way to sell out Jake. Damn. Do I say that too much? Or are there just too many times where it is the perfect wat to end a thread? There's one cent off your invoice anyway. :lol: :ugeek: :twisted:

HTD.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Giraffe Stapler is so obviously a die hard wikishit.

Post by boredbird » Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:58 pm

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 11:27 am
It's a fact that you don't know what a reasonable argument looks like, and it's a fact that will come at the cost of Wikipedia fovever being a hostile environment for minorities.
Wikipedia’s main problem for years now is hostility to gays. Amazing Wikipediocracy doesnt see that. Or are they actually defending ihe status quo with only 20% gay wikipedians, hard to tell. It should be called Straightopedia and Straightocracy or something like that.

Hey Straightocracy: We need a Wikiproject:Grindr Gap. There, I said it. Now go home, lick your wounds and try better tomorrow.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Giraffe Stapler is so obviously a die hard wikishit.

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:32 pm

boredbird wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:58 pm
Hey Straightocracy: We need a Wikiproject:Grindr Gap. There, I said it. Now go home, lick your wounds and try better tomorrow.
lol
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT IDEA

In my experience, the deletionist patrollers who now control most of WP's "operations" tend to be manchild/incel types. They have no time for LGBTQ or any other oppressed group, because they're too damn busy doing their own oppressing....

Post Reply