Let's have some fun, Funny posts, funny messages, funny edit summaries Options

[mbz1]

There is always something to have a good, kind laugh over. I mean some funny posts at Wikipedia.
Let's use this thread to link to these here. Let's leave our anger to a different threads. Please let this thread to be kind and funny. OK, I'll start:

1. A blocked editor cannot understand what he was blocked for yet another time, claiming he did only as he always does. An admin responses (see edit summary)"sorry, TT, but if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got": (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

2.Arbitration enforcement concerning user Dinner for three starts like this:"Dinner for three (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account created with the sole aim of hounding an ideological opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) (whose name he evidently apes) " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

3.A post on AN/I:"What does being naked have to do with pregnancy?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[EricBarbour]

This would be funny. Slightly. If Wikipedia were just another website.

Sorry old boy, but it's not funny to me.
Because every day, thousands of schoolchildren use Wikipedia to do their homework and write papers.
While these idiots squabble and snipe at each other, people all over the world are fooled into thinking
that Wikipedia is a "resource" that can be "trusted".

I don't see any warnings on the front page about users called "Dinner for three" and "Lunch for two"
using Wikipedia as a casual wargame, do you?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[melloden]

This would be funny. Slightly. If Wikipedia were just another website.

Sorry old boy, but it's not funny to me.
Because every day, thousands of schoolchildren use Wikipedia to do their homework and write papers.
While these idiots squabble and snipe at each other, people all over the world are fooled into thinking
that Wikipedia is a "resource" that can be "trusted".

I don't see any warnings on the front page about users called "Dinner for three" and "Lunch for two"
using Wikipedia as a casual wargame, do you?

People aren't fooled by Wikipedia, though; they fool themselves. It's not Wikipedia's fault people try to do homework off it, or write papers from it, or make medical diagnoses with it. Only an idiot does something that reckless.

Wikipedia is quite fun to watch because of this mindless squabble; it's like a little theater with all these pesky characters that one can't hardly keep track of but still manages to laugh at.

[thekohser]

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

[Peter Damian]

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Agreed.

[mbz1]

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Thank you for linking to Kafkaesque's thread! It is an absolute classic, and it is hard to beat this one, but ... if I did not start this one now, I would have never learned about "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Milton Roe]

balete

[Milton Roe]

Mbz, this thread has already been done before. I don't think anyone will ever top "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Thank you for linking to Kafkaesque's thread! It is an absolute classic, and it is hard to beat this one, but ... if I did not start this one now, I would have never learned about "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Remind me never to say "This is Kafkaesque." in some review of a Wikipedia procedure! These people are robot-literal. And yes, the wholey unintended irony here is indeed outstanding. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) You couldn't make stuff up this good. Even Kafka wasn't this good.

Some book about Wikipedia should have this heading a chapter.

"This is Kafkaesque."

"You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

[mbz1]

Even Kafka wasn't this good.

Actually it could be an interesting exercise, I mean to try to figure out how Kafka would have presented wikipedia. Here's my try:

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was blocked from editing Wikipedia. There was no block message left at his talk page, but when he tried to edit an article he saw this message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.
Editing from Josef K. has been disabled by GG for the following reason(s):
anon. only, account creation blocked.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail

At his talk page Josef K. asked for the reasons for his block, but was told to keep quiet for his own good. He did not.
He kept asking what he was blocked for. He was accused in wikilawyering.
He asked what “wikilawyering” means, and his block settings were changed to be with an expiry time of indefinite.
There still was no block notice, but his blocking administrator stated that “indefinite” does not mean “infinite”.
Josef K. asked what he should do for his indefinite block to end. For this question GG removed Josef K. talk page access.
Josef K emailed GG, and very politely asked her to explain what he was blocked for. In an hour he noticed that his e-mail was blocked.

Josef K. emailed to ArbCom to ask what he was blocked for, and to request to be unblocked. In a month he got a response. His unblock request was declined because... it did not address the reasons for the block.
Josef K. emailed to ArbCom one more time. He started his email with the words: "This is Kafkaesque". Members of ArbCom read no more. Now they knew what Josef K. was blocked for.
They all agreed to stamp Josef K. user and talk pages with a puppet template:

This account is a sock puppet of Kafkaesque and has been blocked indefinitely.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[radek]

I've always thought that if one were to write a story of Wikipedia as a novel, The Good Soldier Svejk would work much better as a model than Kafka (though yes, that works too).


"And so they banned our [name of a now disgraced admin you don't like here]" ...

and you take it from there...

Even Kafka wasn't this good.

Actually it could be an interesting exercise, I mean to try to figure out how Kafka would have presented wikipedia. Here's my try:

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was blocked from editing Wikipedia. There was no block message left at his talk page, but when he tried to edit an article he saw this message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.
Editing from Josef K. has been disabled by GG for the following reason(s):
anon. only, account creation blocked.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail

At his talk page Josef K. asked for the reasons for his block, but was told to keep quiet for his own good. He did not.
He kept asking what he was blocked for. He was accused in wikilawyering.
He asked what “wikilawyering” means, and his block settings were changed to be with an expiry time of indefinite.
There still was no block notice, but his blocking administrator stated that “indefinite” does not mean “infinite”.
Josef K. asked what he should do for his indefinite block to end. For this question GG removed Josef K. talk page access.
Josef K emailed GG, and very politely asked her to explain what he was blocked for. In an hour he noticed that his e-mail was blocked.

Josef K. emailed to ArbCom to ask what he was blocked for, and to request to be unblocked. In a month he got a response. His unblock request was declined because... it did not address the reasons for the block.
Josef K. emailed to ArbCom one more time. He started his email with the words: "This is Kafkaesque". Members of ArbCom read no more. Now they knew what Josef K. was blocked for.
They all agreed to stamp Josef K. user and talk pages with a puppet template:

This account is a sock puppet of Kafkaesque and has been blocked indefinitely.

This post has been edited by radek:

[Zoloft]

Bah. Kafka?

If you want to scroll through endless pages of text to find out pretty much nothing, you are a Tolstoy fan.

But if you insist on Kafka...

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic nerd."

[mbz1]

I've always thought that if one were to write a story of Wikipedia as a novel, The Good Soldier Svejk would work much better as a model than Kafka (though yes, that works too).


"And so they banned our [name of a now disgraced admin you don't like here]" ...

and you take it from there...

Nope, you take it from here (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I've already wrote one piece for Kafka. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Now it is your turn to write for Jaroslav Hasek. Go for it. It's going to be fun.

Bah. Kafka?

If you want to scroll through endless pages of text to find out pretty much nothing, you are a Tolstoy fan.

But if you insist on Kafka...

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic nerd."

So you prefer using The Metamorphosis? I believe The Trial is more suitable for taking on Wikipedia, but it will be interesting to see a Wikipedia's story resembling The Metamorphosis too. Why wouldn't you try?

[Jon Awbrey]

Amateurs ...

If you haven't made up 6 new funny user names before breakfast, you just don't know where it's at.

See WR:PACMAN

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[mbz1]

A user made 140+ socks. Wikid77 (T-C-L-K-R-D) comes up with a differnt explanation

A close look at {{category|Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx}} showed 143 "alternate usernames" created over the years, many used only 2 days for less than 40 edits. It seemed more like someone who forgot their username and kept creating another username each week. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At least this explains why Jimbo unblocked that user, a poor guy did not create socks, he simply kept forgetting his user name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/jawdrop.gif)

[mbz1]

blocks are not punative. You can murder Jimbo Wales and so long as you are not going to cause any subsequent problems for Wikipedia you'll still be allowed to edit. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A new explanation of a blocking policy

[thekohser]

blocks are not punative. You can murder Jimbo Wales and so long as you are not going to cause any subsequent problems for Wikipedia you'll still be allowed to edit. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A new explanation of a blocking policy

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Good policy!

[mbz1]

blocks are not punative. You can murder Jimbo Wales and so long as you are not going to cause any subsequent problems for Wikipedia you'll still be allowed to edit. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A new explanation of a blocking policy

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Good policy!

Exept, when somebody tried it, he still was blocked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[thekohser]

Exept, when somebody tried it, he still was blocked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Here, let me teach you how to leave a link that won't be worthless in a matter of hours.

[mbz1]

I believe if we compare with [[:Category:Trafalgar Square|Trafalgar Square]], we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the next time WMF should be asking for donating images of penises. After all there are "around 5 billion times many more" penises on the planet than "the unique Nelson's Column". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[thekohser]

I believe if we compare with [[:Category:Trafalgar Square|Trafalgar Square]], we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the next time WMF should be asking for donating images of penises. After all there are "around 5 billion times many more" penises on the planet than "the unique Nelson's Column". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think there are only about 3.5 billion living human penises on Earth. Is he including all humans, dead or alive? Let's dig up Lincoln for the next "Wikipedia Loves Penises" meet-up!