Wikipedia's standards fall yet again...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Zeal Ex Nihilo
Lulz.

Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

AngryManatee
Then again it could be argued that every character in Naruto, and the people who watch it, are chronic little-boy-pee-pee-touchers

Schecter
this passage should be saved for anyone who quotes wikipedia as indisputable proof of anything.

Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

funny that you posted...considering you dont give a shit. well...actually its not funny, but.....yeah....*leaves avoiding eye contact*

Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.

That had me in stitches!

lord xyz
I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. smile


Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC No, it's unreliable because any idiot could have posted it. An Australian could be the one who wrote the article on the American civil war. (Don't bother mentioning Kram3r.)

Alpha Centauri
That is essentially what I said.

It's unreliable cos anyone can do it, it doesn't mean someone who DID, is wrong.

-AC

Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is essentially what I said.

It's unreliable cos anyone can do it, it doesn't mean someone who DID, is wrong.

-AC You said it's unreliable because it gets edited. I said it's unreliable because it could have been posted by an idiot. There is a difference between the two statements.

Bardock42
Bad postOriginally posted by lord xyz
I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. smile


Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Good postOriginally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wikipedia is just unreliable because it's able to be edited. It doesn't necessarily mean people put false info up there.

Though I agree using it as a source is usually a bit silly.

-AC

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Bad post

Good post Aww, you like Naruto.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Aww, you like Naruto. It's a good show.

I was just more referring to your post being trivial nonsense and his actually stating a problem with Wikipedia.


But good show.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a good show.

I was just more referring to your post being trivial nonsense and his actually stating a problem with Wikipedia.


But good show. Wikipedia does contradict itself. Something that contradicts itself is a problem, yes?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Wikipedia does contradict itself. Something that contradicts itself is a problem, yes? You said "Wikipedia is wrong because it contradicts itself"

That's an immensely stupid thing to say.

Because if it contradicts itself wouldn't one side of the contradictions be likely right?

It might be an unreliable source because it contradicts itself (it doesn't always btw), but you do see that it can and is correct in many cases.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
You said "Wikipedia is wrong because it contradicts itself" Replace wrong with unreliable. Since you don't understand what I meant by wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an immensely stupid thing to say. Depends what I mean by wrong, obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because if it contradicts itself wouldn't one side of the contradictions be likely right? Well, no. 2 + 2 = 5. 2 + 2 = 1. Both are contradictions, both are wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It might be an unreliable source because it contradicts itself (it doesn't always btw), but you do see that it can and is correct in many cases. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Alpha Centauri
Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?

-AC

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?

-AC I said wrong as in not good. Unreliable is a better word, however, and I should have used it.

Kram3r
Originally posted by lord xyz
No, it's unreliable because any idiot could have posted it. An Australian could be the one who wrote the article on the American civil war. (Don't bother mentioning Kram3r.)

That wouldn't mean it's unreliable. I know a lot of information about the American Civil War as I studied it in Modern History. I could also back it up as well. It's not reliable because, as mentioned above, and you have stated, any one can edit it.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by lord xyz
I said wrong as in not good.

"Why do people feel they can say one entirely different word to another and then act like they meant the other?".

-AC

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Replace wrong with unreliable. Since you don't understand what I meant by wrong.

I did understand. Pointed out how it was stupid to use it though.
Originally posted by lord xyz

Depends what I mean by wrong, obviously.

Not really. Depends entirely on what wrong actually means.
Originally posted by lord xyz

Well, no. 2 + 2 = 5. 2 + 2 = 1. Both are contradictions, both are wrong.

Which is why I said "likely". Not only do you use incorrect terms you also don't understand when the correct ones are used. Irritating.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

That Wikipedia is correct oftentimes. Originally posted by lord xyz
I said wrong as in not good. Unreliable is a better word, however, and I should have used it.

Wrong usage of words can happen to anyone. Just relax. Admit it. And move on.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Impediment
Boo-fu*king-hoo.

Write a letter to Oprah. I don't give a shit.
I DONT CARE BUT I'LL RESPOND ANYWAY

JacopeX
I still think Wikipedia is reliable. Only an idiot would be believe anything like that would true out of the mind.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Actually, I believe that Sasuke is a fairly gaytarded character--and he's gay for Natuto (ergo, Naruto-sexual).

Therefore, FACT.

JacopeX
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Actually, I believe that Sasuke is a fairly gaytarded character--and he's gay for Natuto (ergo, Naruto-sexual).

Therefore, FACT. ^ Opinion.

Fact.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
ERRONEOUS.

NARUTO-SEXUALITY is a recognized and accepted lifestyle. Sasuke is gay for Naruta; therefore, he is a NARUTO-SEXUAL.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

Except that argument invalidates everything but direct personal experience.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is. Good point.

You can usually find links to good sources from the Wikipedia articles though, they're pretty well-kept.

JacopeX
Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Robtard
That is completely besides the point of Wiki being a reliable information source, or not.

Schecter
Originally posted by JacopeX
Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia. roll eyes (sarcastic)

just wanted to type something, anything?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
I did understand. Pointed out how it was stupid to use it though. Could've been more specific.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Depends entirely on what wrong actually means. Wrong can mean unsuitable, and an unreliable source, is unsuitable to use.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is why I said "likely". Not only do you use incorrect terms you also don't understand when the correct ones are used. Irritating. But it's not likely is it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That Wikipedia is correct oftentimes. Yes. I know that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wrong usage of words can happen to anyone. Just relax. Admit it. And move on. I did admit it. I'd prefer that you actually told me I used the wrong word instead of this bullshit.

Afro Cheese
lol.. i remember when my little brother(age 7) was watching this show and i mentioned that a few of my friends are into that show and he was like "how old are your friends...?"

DARKLORDCAEDUS
Wikipedia is a good source of material. Anybody can edit it, but the thing is the people that run Wikipedia make sure whats being written is truthful facts.

JacopeX
Originally posted by Robtard
That is completely besides the point of Wiki being a reliable information source, or not. Of course it is reliable. Have you noticed that when a troll vandilises an article with false source, the edit it out knowing it proven to be wrong? The people behind wiki make sure what they put in is the truth. I get my source from wiki all the time. smile

BackFire
Wikipedia isn't a valid source?

WHO KNEW?????

Wikipedia exists for pure entertainment, nothing more. Kinda like Bardock.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm confused. Why does JacopeX fail at--I'm not exaggerating here--everything? Seriously. Pretty much everything he writes is mixed with a good helping of failure.

"Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia."

NURH.

Lana
Originally posted by lord xyz
I liked the Impediment quote too. He's always good at making quotes to live by. smile


Anyway, Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself, not because it doesn't know some shit about a retarded anime.

Wikipedia does not contradict itself, the people who write and edit the articles can, though.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Of course it is reliable. Have you noticed that when a troll vandilises an article with false source, the edit it out knowing it proven to be wrong? The people behind wiki make sure what they put in is the truth. I get my source from wiki all the time. smile

Just because stuff that's obviously false gets edited out doesn't mean wrong info still doesn't get put in there.

I hope you don't ever try and use it as a source for something like a school paper, because no one with any common sense would accept that.

Victor Von Doom
Wiki's alright. It's a good starting point usually if one is alien to a subject.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Wiki's alright. It's a good starting point usually if one is alien to a subject.
CORRECT.

Violent2Dope
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Lulz. I can't believe I missed this. How does Wiki phail at this, when what is being said is true? Sasuke is gay as hell, all the b*tches wanna f*ck him and he ignores them, yet when Orochimaru(Michael Jackson) gives him a hickey, all of the sudden he wants to go and live in his village.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Could've been more specific.

Could have been less stupid.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wrong can mean unsuitable, and an unreliable source, is unsuitable to use.

No. Not in this sentence: "Wikipedia is wrong because it contridicts itself"

Originally posted by lord xyz
But it's not likely is it?

Yes, it is very likely.
Originally posted by lord xyz

Yes. I know that.

What made you say something as stupid as above then?
Originally posted by lord xyz

I did admit it. I'd prefer that you actually told me I used the wrong word instead of this bullshit.

I'd prefer if you'd not constantly post a bunch of bullshit and hope people take it the way that suits them best.

Be accurate with your words. It is very annoying.

JacopeX
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm confused. Why does JacopeX fail at--I'm not exaggerating here--everything? Seriously. Pretty much everything he writes is mixed with a good helping of failure.

"Anything that is highly famous will always have it's cridics.

Example, Wikipedia."

NURH. Because everyone misses every ****ing point which is one of the reasons I hardly come here because everyone tends to skim through a post and try to find something so called "Stupid". And everyones main purpose here is to starting a bash fest. For now, i'll be the mature one and ignore it.

Anways

EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.

Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. roll eyes (sarcastic)

JacopeX
Originally posted by Lana
Wikipedia does not contradict itself, the people who write and edit the articles can, though.



Just because stuff that's obviously false gets edited out doesn't mean wrong info still doesn't get put in there.

I hope you don't ever try and use it as a source for something like a school paper, because no one with any common sense would accept that. The main purpose of a site like Wiki is to give information that has been proven with source from books, news, television, etc. A person with common sense can also see information being vandalized as well. Once I went to go look up an Article on "Diego Forlan" and everything was erased saying "**** Urugay! Gay ass Forlan 3333".

of course, that is a way to pick up vandilised articles.

And yes, I have been using it as a source. Explain my good grades. smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by JacopeX
Explain my good grades. smile
You suck your teacher's cock?

JacopeX
Originally posted by Bardock42
You suck your teacher's cock? LOL, good one. laughing

No, it's because I have gotten better in school since I am taking it more serious than before and since this is my Junior year, I put laotm ore effort within my work, essays, etc.

Wikipedia does have reliable source and it helped me alot. Think whatever you want, I will just continue with my studies.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lana
Wikipedia does not contradict itself, the people who write and edit the articles can, though. noneup

botankus
Though the articles are sometimes bizarre in content, I am impressed with how Wikipedia keeps their information current. For instance, there could be a baseball game where some dude streaked onto the field and started humping one of the umpires, and something like "Naked Streak Love" would have its own link 2 days later.

Robtard
Originally posted by JacopeX
Because everyone misses every ****ing point which is one of the reasons I hardly come here because everyone tends to skim through a post and try to find something so called "Stupid". And everyones main purpose here is to starting a bash fest. For now, i'll be the mature one and ignore it.

Anways

EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.

Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. roll eyes (sarcastic)

JacopeX, your post rarely have a point; that is a fact. Not sure if it is just the way you write and your point doesn't come through as you visualized it, or if you just post pointless posts. You also tend to make many ignorant generalizations. I am not trying to bash you here; just explain why you get so much flack.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Something having critics doesn't make it correct, proper, better etc. etc. etc. by default.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by JacopeX
And yes, I have been using it as a source. Explain my good grades. smile

Inadequate vetting by teachers.

There is absoluterly no way wikipedia counts as a good source and anyone letting it through as one is being derelict in duty.

There are several reasons for this:

1. NO encyclopedia is a good source. Encyclopedias are compendiums of information, NOT sources. The point of sources are to be things coming from expert testimony, and without that expert source they are worthless- source may as well be the girl next door. Encyclopedias use sources for their info; use those sources, not the content of books that have no claim to expertise. To further this, Wikipedia has an extremely clear 'no original research' rule. All of it must come from somewhere else, and it itself has no claim to fact.

2. One of the points of referencing is to provide due credit. Wikipedia is anonymous. It therefore breaks one of the cardinal rules of being a good source.

3. As has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as there are no controls over who contributes. When it comes to referencing, your opinion on whether the source is any good or not is irrelevant. The only important thing is that the source can be objectively recognised as being expert else the reference is entirely pointless.


I will remind you the founder and head of Wikipedia has specifically said "Do not use wikipeida as a reference." Wiki is commonly rejected as a source by all respectable academic instituions and with good cause.

You do yourself no favours by using it as one and any good grades tha rely upon it have not been properly earned. This kind of cavalier treatment of sources might just abbout fly by poor vetting where you are right now but it will not be accepted in any decent institutuon and it is best you learn that right now before trying it with one once you go to College.

Wikipedia simply and objectively fails in this regard- if you can use the word 'fail', bcause to be used as source material is manifestly NOT what Wikipedia is actually trying to do.

chithappens
Originally posted by Ushgarak

1. NO encyclopedia is a good source. Encyclopedias are compendiums of information, NOT sources. The point of sources are to be things coming from expert testimony, and without that expert source they are worthless- source may as well be the girl next door. Encyclopedias use sources for their info; use those sources, not the content of books that have no claim to expertise. To further this, Wikipedia has an extremely clear 'no original research' rule. All of it must come from somewhere else, and it itself has no claim to fact.



I keep wondering why no one is mentioning this. Wiki does actually have places where citations can be referenced at the bottom of the page. Wiki is not the source you cite.

Geez.

Lana
Yet people do cite wiki as a source, and not everything posted on there IS sourced.

lord xyz
I don't use it as a source, only to copy and paste work and to prove a claim.

chithappens
Originally posted by Lana
Yet people do cite wiki as a source, and not everything posted on there IS sourced.

Agreed, but check the parts that are cited.

Even the Naruto section has chapter of the manga cited as a source for information.

Take it with a grain of salt as with most things until you check multiple sources.

Schecter
no way!!! ive seen that sorgo guy pwn lotz of noobs by quoting wikipedia. skillz

Violent2Dope
Wiki can be unreliable by itself, I prefer to get links from it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Wiki can be unreliable by itself, I prefer to get links from it.

Indeed. Random internet sites are well known for their scruples and accuracy.

Violent2Dope
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed. Random internet sites are well known for their scruples and accuracy. I mean official sites that they link to that ARE reliable.

lord xyz
Originally posted by JacopeX
EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.

Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. roll eyes (sarcastic) McDonalds has critics because it has bad food, nice of you to make that comparison.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter. Even if Wikipeida was only ever edited by responsible people in the know it's still no good as an academic source; no encyclopeida is.

yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.

Devil King
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Lulz.

I was unaware they had standards to begin with.

Schecter
Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.

i think you missed the point. wikipedia has proven to be a reliable database of sources. however with that said, it is not a valid source. it serves as nothing more than to point someone in the direction of sources. it is then up to the reader to filter through and differentiate between valid sources and biased crap. to think that teachers would actually allow wiki as a source is a testament to our declining system of education.

then again, its highly famous so it has its cridics.

Devil King
Originally posted by Schecter
it serves as nothing more than to point someone in the direction of sources.

Well, that's a nice sentiment. But we've both had to deal with people who use it as an on-line encyclopedia. And the really sad part is that people who treat it as such, never quote it as their source material. Even they know better than to treat it as reputable.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by JacopeX
Because everyone misses every ****ing point which is one of the reasons I hardly come here because everyone tends to skim through a post and try to find something so called "Stupid". And everyones main purpose here is to starting a bash fest. For now, i'll be the mature one and ignore it.

Anways

EXAMPLE: MCdonalds is highly famous, yet it has its own cridics of diet freaks.

Do you understand yet? Or must I explains it all in essay form? Or dashes in between each word, just so that it won't go too fast for you. roll eyes (sarcastic)
Did you ever consider that it's not everyone missing your point, but perhaps that you are failing to make a point?

Bardock42
I think Wikipedia is good for a fair few things. It can give you a mostly decent overview of a topic...you can use it as a source of trivial knowledge in your day to day life...it kills an immense amount of time...it is also surprisingly good at explaining mathematical concepts. But I am sure we all agree it is not suited for real scientific research...if you are not convinced go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europe&action=edit and type in "Europe is the capital of the earth, which happens to be flat, and has the sun revolving around it"

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't use it as a source, only to copy and paste work and to prove a claim. But that's the point. It is not good to prove a claim, really.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah well said.also its NEVER edited by responsible people.Its common knowledge that site is a joke and an unreliable source.

Never being an exaggeration?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's the point. It is not good to prove a claim, really. Depends what claim.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Schecter
it is then up to the reader to filter through and differentiate between valid sources and biased crap. I remeber on QI or something that the creator of Wiki said " broken beyond repair." Meaning, it's impossible for them to fix every error.

Schecter
well of course it is considering their system of member editing. i never thought it needed fixing. i just feel that it should not be regarded as a valid source, since it isnt and never was. in fact i hope they never 'fix' it.

JacopeX
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Did you ever consider that it's not everyone missing your point, but perhaps that you are failing to make a point? Are you that stupid?

Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.

I still think wiki is reliable however.

Robtard
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?

Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.

I still think wiki is reliable however.

Why? Considering it is a member supported website and the "members" do not have to show or prove they have a single credential to their name, to make a topic.

Lana
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?

Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.

I still think wiki is reliable however.

CRITIC.

FFS.

And generally when there's negative criticism for something, there is a good reason for it and it's not just because it's famous.

So that claim is completely pointless. Wiki is not a reliable source. The creators of the site itself even say it can't be taken as a reliable source.

Schecter
Originally posted by JacopeX
Are you that stupid?

Wikipedia is famous, and of course it will have it's NEGATIVE cridics! Just like all the other things that are most popular. I know it is not the point but I am just saying it.

I still think wiki is reliable however.

so in other words you dont have a point, and anyone who thinks you dont have a point is stupid since you dont have a point.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Wikipedia is good for a fair few things. It can give you a mostly decent overview of a topic...you can use it as a source of trivial knowledge in your day to day life...it kills an immense amount of time...

Wiki is rarely waaaaay off base for an overview on different historical events,quick searches on latin root words, etc.

Obviously, there are some articles with crazy biases inside but they are rarely disguised as something coming from Academia, and are often easy to notice.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Depends what claim. Not really.

Devil King
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

Wikipedia says that all Germans eat poo. Did you know that?

Schecter
so once again wiki proves itself reliable.

Devil King
Originally posted by Schecter
so once again wiki proves itself reliable.

Actually, it just proves me right.













When I need it to.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Lies.

General Kaliero
I would like to point out that at my college, using Wikipedia as a source for your paper automatically earns you a fail on the assignment. Regardless of the subject or information.

Wikipedia. Is. Not. A. Recognized. Source.

Schecter
what better source is there to determine whether wikipedia is a valid source than...wikipedia? thats right, wikipedia has expressed their opinion on whether their site is a valid source for information. the answer: no

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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipediamessedchools%27_FAQ#Is_Wikipedia_accurate_and
_reliable.3F
(EDIT: kmc's smilies forbid me from posting a working link, but you can use the search function)


(horribly understated, but none the less...)


...anyone who sites wikipedia is clearly an idiot. and for those who have confessed to using it as a direct source and are asking themselves "is he calling me an idiot?": yes. yes i am.

Violent2Dope
People who use wiki as an official source:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3283/faillz7.jpg

Bardock42
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I would like to point out that at my college, using Wikipedia as a source for your paper automatically earns you a fail on the assignment. Regardless of the subject or information.

Wikipedia. Is. Not. A. Recognized. Source. At. My. College.

Hehe.

lord xyz
Maybe I should just go outside the box and say Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are more about defining things (like Dictionaries, but different information on the word(s)). They're not really sources.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
People who use wiki as an official source:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3283/faillz7.jpg Anyone else think it's funny how associated with JacopeX this is?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe I should just go outside the box and say Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are more about defining things (like Dictionaries, but different information on the word(s)). They're not really sources.

Anyone else think it's funny how associated with JacopeX this is?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Just a joke parodying the rumour, and the fact he acts irrational at times. I actually do like him, I just think there are times he needs to chill and think twice, or rather, outside his side of a debate.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by lord xyz
I just think there are times he needs to chill and think
Fixed that for you.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Fixed that for you. Cool.

Smell the glove
Wikipedia is not meant as a reference source. It does have it's uses though. "The centre for learning", part of the Institue for Education in London cite it heavily in the publication "Inspiring post 16 Science education". It does have a role as a quick introduction to send people in the right direction to both read around a subject and ask the right questions in tutorials. Viva the Wiki.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.