Wikipedea and you

Funny, i did the same thing, but with catholic crosses and on rationalwiki's atheist pages

Take it up on the talk page. If that doesn't help, there's stuff like request a comment etc.

Good luck on fighting these mongs.

Bogdanoffs for like six months straight

That was my favorite meme for a while

Reminder that if you insert ANY information about Jews in Wikipedia, not even anti-Semitism or a biased piece of information to make them look bad but even SIMPLY inserting information about a person being ethnically Jewish, they remove it instantly because "we don't want to spark up hate because of the context of the article".

I used to mass-edit obscure historical pages and put in stupid bullshit
It's kinda fun knowing that they still hadn't revisioned my shit even though the pages were gone through numerous edits

Why does this read like something that is largely made up?

I have one contribution on the ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ page that I didn’t properly source but they don’t wanna take it down for some reason

Can anyone give me a quick rundown of these guys???

I corrected Sam Watkins' wikipedia page listing his rank as Private (he ended the war a Corporal).

>Wikipedea
Are you the same guy who spells 'intelligence' as 'intellegence'?

I made a small alteration to the "democracy" page indicating that direct elections were an oligarchic institution, and gave citations to classical sources. The goal being to publicly drive a wedge between "representative democracy" (moderate oligarchy) and... well... democracy.

The result was a lot of people made further alterations and Wikipedia now clearly indicates that modern, western governments are heavily mixed polities and do not resemble actual democracies such as ancient Athens.
I also updated the break dancing page to reflect that the whole movement began with Hippokleides, but I kept getting reversed by intolerant anti-Greek BIGOTS.

So basically you dedicated your life to studying a make-believe battle, and he's eating fully comped sushi while humiliating you with Wikipedia edits?

Are YOU that person????

It's wikipedea because most admins are pedophiles.

Has anyone ever made a one sentence revision and then debated on the wiki talk page for days about it more like

I have made tens of thousands of contributions to articles related to my nation's history, and given that Wikipedia such a popular resource, I get to watch the ripple effect of my work in the broader culture

For example, I wrote a comprehensive article on a little known but remarkable historical figure. This article has since served as the obvious starting point for historians and journalists in publishing their own works on the man. I wrote another article about a relatively obscure event, and a famous band subsequently released a song about it. The imagery and lyrics match up to I wrote in the article

You are some kind of strange, manipulative Wikipedia-driven sociopath.

which country?

holy shit, i never knew that was a thing.
holy shit

Jesus h christ its like my bible thumping neighbor has a website...
I i like to somewhat call myself a conservative, but fuck me.
is there a liberal version of this?

Mostly corrected pages of some Romanian writers and politicians. Added additional info on some Victorian novels as well.

...

Once you understand that at least 90% of what you read on this site is fully or partially fabricated you will have a better time.

I have always enjoyed doing great things and having influence on society without getting direct credit. It is strange and probably sociopathic, or covertly narcissistic

I would never share that, not even anonymously

>is there a liberal version of this?

Wikipedia

The Wiki talk pages are always so autistic.
>the huge walls of paragraphs on the Dreigroschenoper talk page debating whether it's an opera or an operetta

Conservapedia and Rationalwiki amuse me so. The former because it's always so angry, and the latter when it's so assheadedly smug with no reason to be.

>is there a liberal version of this?
Rationalwiki

I made a bunch of edits actually. Most prominently, I wrote most of these pages:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_Khan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalchuq

I've repeatedly tried to remove the line stating that the Roman Lorica Segmentata was not a practical piece of armour and was purely used for parades, but it always gets put back despite absolutely overwhelming contrary evidence.

The same crowd who think any item with a bit of engraving or a crest was also never used in battle.

It's a weird feeling. I don't think my edits had the same impact as yours, but I've notice a LOT more people bring up the 1280s Mongol invasions in forums and articles in the past couple years since I wrote the above articles than at any time before.

Let me guess. Hungary?

>he didn't get beyond the of the video
>he doesn't know what an hypothesis is
>he doesn't know that lindy then spends the next 20 minutes explaining how it DID happen

>even SIMPLY inserting information about a person being ethnically Jewish, they remove it instantly
>hundreds/thousands of articles describe the Jewish ancestry of people

What did he mean by this?

>Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin (Russian: Cepгéй Mихáйлoвич Бpин; born August 21, 1973) is a Russian-born American computer scientist and internet entrepreneur.
>[Edit]
>Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin (Russian: Cepгéй Mихáйлoвич Бpин; born August 21, 1973) is a Russian-born American computer scientist and internet entrepreneur and also a Jew.
>Your edit has been reverted.
WHY DID IT GET REMOVED

>and also a jew
It's quite aggressive, and it has no need in that introduction line, it suggests it's some secret that needs to be outed.

Put it in the personal information as "is of Jewish descent" and perhaps link to the source confirming it.

>Brin was born in Moscow in the Soviet Union, to Russian Jewish parents,
???

I thought it was clear from my phrasing that I was taking the piss out of . Guess not.

There is obviously no big conspiracy to hide people's Jewish heritage on Wikipedia.

>I've repeatedly tried to remove the line stating that the Roman Lorica Segmentata was not a practical piece of armour and was purely used for parades
is there any evidence it was used in battle?

I don't think it's made up, user seems to be talking about the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. It's been cleared up recently but a large portion of the article is still dedicated to arguing that it either didn't happen or that the Roman-Germanic coalition actually lost.

>is there any evidence it was used in battle?
Yes, it's been found everywhere in the Roman world and its clearly designed for warfare and shows continual improvement over its 300 years of use.

academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulated_Roman_Plate_Armour

Try editing it to say in later periods it was ornamental

>There is obviously no big conspiracy to hide people's Jewish heritage on Wikipedia.
I wonder who could be behind this post

i've never heard of it
what is a 'wikipedia'

Stuff like that belongs in the "Early life" section, and is worded as "born to jewish parents" etc.

I meant largely the third paragraph. user fabricating credentials to make it seem like he has more authority on the subject than the wikiuser shitposting.

I did the article for the artist Ralph Goings back when I was a sophmore in high school.

t. Guy who has never edited Wikipedia in his life

Updated the name of my mayor.

yes, some articles are quoted here and on /pol/
Fun fact-I have falsified some sources content(nobody checks this)