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


This user may, or may not be, very active on Wikipedia, as the mood takes them(see top userbox) as of November 2009.
La conspiration est moi
This wikipedian has been accused of being a cabal or conspiracy all on their lonesome, and may therefore occasionally lapse into the majestic plural.
Alfred E. Neumann.jpg
This wikipedian has been accused of being a creationist.
This wikipedian finds the accusation hilarious in the extreme, rather than insulting.
prec This editor is a precisionist.
exo This editor is an exopedian.
<ref> This user would like to see everyone using inline citations. Please...
39,000+ This user has made more than 39,000 contributions to Wikipedia.
dar This editor is a darwikinist.
(Hint: follow the link — don't just assume you know what it means)

Hrafn's Looney Bin (make a sufficiently strange accusation about me and you too can get a mention here)

On WP:Civility:

This scrutiny [of some of Adams's writings] enhanced my esteem in the main for his [Adams's] moral qualifications, but lessened my respect for his intellectual endowments. I then adopted an opinion, which all my subsequent experience has confirmed, that he is a man of an imagination sublimated and eccentric; propitious neither to the regular display of sound judgment, nor to steady perseverance in a systematic plan of conduct; and I began to perceive what has been since too manifest, that to this defect are added the unfortunate foibles of a vanity without bounds, and a jealousy capable of discoloring every object.

(We frequently feel the same way about a number of my 'colleagues' here on Wikipedia.)

Who says intelligent design doesn't make testable predictions:

In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead.

— William Dembski, Touchstone magazine, July/August 2004

As Anne Lukas can't work this out for herself, we would like to explicitly point out that the above is a JOKE — playing upon the fact that (i) ID Creationists never seem to make any testable scientific predictions, but (ii) are perennially predicting the demise of evolutionary biology. (Sheesh!)

Wikipedia, it has recently been pointed out to us, is very frequently things that it is claimed that wikipedia is WP:NOT. Does that mean that 'Wikipedia is not Wikipedia'?

And for those of you who think that over 10k of unadulterated data is not excessive, we have only one thing to say to you:

And I would suggest that anybody who believes that Wikipedia is WP:NOT all to frequently a pointless spewing forth of enormous masses of obscure and largely useless raw data, I would suggest that they take a look at List of minor planets, and its subpages, for 283,317 pieces of such trivia.