WTFsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
forum
im bored; give me things to do
posted
Total Posts
73
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
based movesametdze wrote:
i improved the 5 gum wikipedia articleFarfocele wrote:
find a wikipedia article and improve it
Topic Starter
why do i always have to get the job, why can't the job get mefluffpup wrote:
get a job
sametdze wrote:
pork is disgusting and you all know it
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
I've got this super good recipe for peanut pork that I stole from Joshua Weissman. I swear it's one of my all-time favouriteslostsilver wrote:
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
The only think I don't like about pork is the greasy zones but otherwise I like it more than chicken or beef overall.sametdze wrote:
pork is disgusting and you all know it
Learn Scala
ooooTeeArctic1 wrote:
I've got this super good recipe for peanut pork that I stole from Joshua Weissman. I swear it's one of my all-time favouriteslostsilver wrote:
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
nice
Start your depression era early in your adulthood so you get out of it sooner
At my high school graduation, one of my teachers gave a speech and had a piece of advice in it: "have your midlife crisis early." I think about that often, and hope I did.Ashton wrote:
Start your depression era early in your adulthood so you get out of it sooner
Explode
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
Randomly add [citation needed] and no one's gonna notice.Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
Do your homework
I eat it pretty much every daylostsilver wrote:
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
nice- Marco - wrote:
I eat it pretty much every daylostsilver wrote:
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
Based.- Marco - wrote:
I eat it pretty much every daylostsilver wrote:
i honestly don't mind pork, it's good, but i don't have it often- Marco - wrote:
L take tbhsametdze wrote:
pig is a disgusting meatFoolishGamming wrote:
eat pig
Topic Starter
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
Write me a love letter
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
Topic Starter
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
mf doing a school text over small wikipedia editsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
Topic Starter
its when someone intentionally adds misleading information, disruptive edits or other actions which damages how solid the article is. sometimes people can be in good faith and may accidentally do one of the previously stated actionsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
That's a good definition. Remember to keep in mind that using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" to refer to editors in good standing or edits which were made in good faith can be taken as a personal attack, which may result in warnings or blocks. Now, could you tell me which of these actions could be considered vandalism using the Wikipedia definition?sametdze wrote:
its when someone intentionally adds misleading information, disruptive edits or other actions which damages how solid the article is. sometimes people can be in good faith and may accidentally do one of the previously stated actionsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
1. Copyright violations made by a new user who has not yet read the policy.
2. Addition of incorrect information by a user who is not aware that what they've added is misinformation.
3. Blanking a section of an article without listing a reason in the edit summary or article talk page.
4. An edit which does not follow a Neutral POV.
5. A bold edit to an article which does not follow consensus.
6. A user editing a block notice on their own talk page to state that they've been blocked for "questioning the status quo as established by nerds with nothing better to do."
Jangsoodlor
learnn how to progran in brainfuck
Explain why rail tracks have different spacing in every part of the world
Topic Starter
1. good faithFarfocele wrote:
That's a good definition. Remember to keep in mind that using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" to refer to editors in good standing or edits which were made in good faith can be taken as a personal attack, which may result in warnings or blocks. Now, could you tell me which of these actions could be considered vandalism using the Wikipedia definition?sametdze wrote:
its when someone intentionally adds misleading information, disruptive edits or other actions which damages how solid the article is. sometimes people can be in good faith and may accidentally do one of the previously stated actionsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
1. Copyright violations made by a new user who has not yet read the policy.
2. Addition of incorrect information by a user who is not aware that what they've added is misinformation.
3. Blanking a section of an article without listing a reason in the edit summary or article talk page.
4. An edit which does not follow a Neutral POV.
5. A bold edit to an article which does not follow consensus.
6. A user editing a block notice on their own talk page to state that they've been blocked for "questioning the status quo as established by nerds with nothing better to do."
2. good faith
3. vandalism
4. depends on if its done on purpose or not; could be either
5. vandalism
6. vandalism
The answers are as follows -sametdze wrote:
1. good faithFarfocele wrote:
That's a good definition. Remember to keep in mind that using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" to refer to editors in good standing or edits which were made in good faith can be taken as a personal attack, which may result in warnings or blocks. Now, could you tell me which of these actions could be considered vandalism using the Wikipedia definition?sametdze wrote:
its when someone intentionally adds misleading information, disruptive edits or other actions which damages how solid the article is. sometimes people can be in good faith and may accidentally do one of the previously stated actionsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
1. Copyright violations made by a new user who has not yet read the policy.
2. Addition of incorrect information by a user who is not aware that what they've added is misinformation.
3. Blanking a section of an article without listing a reason in the edit summary or article talk page.
4. An edit which does not follow a Neutral POV.
5. A bold edit to an article which does not follow consensus.
6. A user editing a block notice on their own talk page to state that they've been blocked for "questioning the status quo as established by nerds with nothing better to do."
2. good faith
3. vandalism
4. depends on if its done on purpose or not; could be either
5. vandalism
6. vandalism
1. Correct! Copyright violations, while serious and usually requiring revision deletion if not oversight, a good faith copyvio is not considered vandalism - it can still be punished if repeated though.
2. Correct! While misinformation can be considered vandalism, if in good faith by a user who thought it came from a reliable source it is not vandalism.
3. Correct! This is pretty clear cut. You should still check the edit summary and talk page (AND the previous edit in case of a BLP subject removing libelous content, albeit that's rare) before reverting blanking though.
4. Sorta correct, but also sorta wrong. NPOV violations are not vandalism by themselves, but vandalism can violate NPOV. The lines can be blurry here, but in general, NPOV violations, while disruptive, are not vandalism.
5. Wrong. Citing WP:VANDAL, "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." As such, bold edits are not usually vandalism unless they meet the other signs of vandalism and also can actually lead to establishing a consensus (after following WP:BRD, or bold, revert, discuss)
6. Correct! I was hoping to catch you out by mentioning a user/talk page - where you have a lot of latitude to edit it or remove topics. However, fucking around with a template placed on your talk page signed (especially if it's a block notice) is not a good idea, and can be considered vandalism.
I will find something for you to do in a bit, but in the meantime you can edit Wikipedia, boldly too.
Produce a song
I've got something. Ever heard of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia? If not, read WP:5P and try to get to a point where you can recite the 5 pillars by heart. They are the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and give a pretty good, although basic idea of what to do.Farfocele wrote:
The answers are as follows -sametdze wrote:
1. good faithFarfocele wrote:
That's a good definition. Remember to keep in mind that using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" to refer to editors in good standing or edits which were made in good faith can be taken as a personal attack, which may result in warnings or blocks. Now, could you tell me which of these actions could be considered vandalism using the Wikipedia definition?sametdze wrote:
its when someone intentionally adds misleading information, disruptive edits or other actions which damages how solid the article is. sometimes people can be in good faith and may accidentally do one of the previously stated actionsFarfocele wrote:
Alright, good. Now, could you describe in short terms what the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is?sametdze wrote:
yesFarfocele wrote:
did you do so?Farfocele wrote:
Well done. Now, your mission will be reading up on WP:VANDAL and distinguishing between vandalism and good faith editing.sametdze wrote:
Farfocele wrote:
your mission for today is improving another article on Wikipedia. It can even be something as simple as a bit of copyediting.
im just that guy
1. Copyright violations made by a new user who has not yet read the policy.
2. Addition of incorrect information by a user who is not aware that what they've added is misinformation.
3. Blanking a section of an article without listing a reason in the edit summary or article talk page.
4. An edit which does not follow a Neutral POV.
5. A bold edit to an article which does not follow consensus.
6. A user editing a block notice on their own talk page to state that they've been blocked for "questioning the status quo as established by nerds with nothing better to do."
2. good faith
3. vandalism
4. depends on if its done on purpose or not; could be either
5. vandalism
6. vandalism
1. Correct! Copyright violations, while serious and usually requiring revision deletion if not oversight, a good faith copyvio is not considered vandalism - it can still be punished if repeated though.
2. Correct! While misinformation can be considered vandalism, if in good faith by a user who thought it came from a reliable source it is not vandalism.
3. Correct! This is pretty clear cut. You should still check the edit summary and talk page (AND the previous edit in case of a BLP subject removing libelous content, albeit that's rare) before reverting blanking though.
4. Sorta correct, but also sorta wrong. NPOV violations are not vandalism by themselves, but vandalism can violate NPOV. The lines can be blurry here, but in general, NPOV violations, while disruptive, are not vandalism.
5. Wrong. Citing WP:VANDAL, "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." As such, bold edits are not usually vandalism unless they meet the other signs of vandalism and also can actually lead to establishing a consensus (after following WP:BRD, or bold, revert, discuss)
6. Correct! I was hoping to catch you out by mentioning a user/talk page - where you have a lot of latitude to edit it or remove topics. However, fucking around with a template placed on your talk page signed (especially if it's a block notice) is not a good idea, and can be considered vandalism.
I will find something for you to do in a bit, but in the meantime you can edit Wikipedia, boldly too.
play ghost trick
good gameSerraionga wrote:
play ghost trick
Topic Starter
im going to die before i finish thatColdTooth wrote:
I'll give you something to do
community/forums/topics/1938163
all of you are COWARDS (except dm for mutual)sametdze wrote:
im going to die before i finish thatColdTooth wrote:
I'll give you something to do
community/forums/topics/1938163
every single time someone tries to do a thread like that, it fails, and there have been MANY attempts, even polyspora, in their shitpost thread, they weren't even willing to actually keep the joke going and resorted to chatGPT, you're all WEAK
immigrate to albania
69th post
finish games you own
join Redbull's challenge
All just have their own interests and lives outside of fulfilling random peoples every wills on a forum lulPatatitta wrote:
all of you are COWARDS (except dm for mutual)sametdze wrote:
im going to die before i finish thatColdTooth wrote:
I'll give you something to do
community/forums/topics/1938163
every single time someone tries to do a thread like that, it fails, and there have been MANY attempts, even polyspora, in their shitpost thread, they weren't even willing to actually keep the joke going and resorted to chatGPT, you're all WEAK
Anyway maybe make a gun tierlist or something
Or even better, a tierlist of guns that can be mounted on trains
Like wotever kim jong un uses