Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikistupidity

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Consensus delete. Qualifies as speedy for patent nonsens too. Taxman ^Talk 19:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistupidity

Thought about speedying it as patent nonsense, but whatever. Neologism. There: the process works. :) RADICALBENDER★ 17:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Note: There is also an article from the same editor and in the same style on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi "punk" anderson. Fire Star 17:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Note also that this is a recreation of material deleted twice already as nonsense; see [1], and probably deliberate nonsense; see Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of South Florida. Shimgray 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did, too, but the prospect of a multiplicity of "stupid" voices erasing this mess once and for all seems more appropriate. Delete. Fire Star 17:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as neologism or attack, but first give it a barnstar for being the most pedantic diatribe so far this month --Outlander 17:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's the best this month, but the one on Why Wikipedi is a cult was much funnier. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

WIKISTUPIDITY like the word wikified "See also Help:Editing, Help:Starting a new page, m:Help:Editing Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page.

Editing a Wiki page is very easy. Simply click on the "edit this page" tab at the top (or the edit link on the right or bottom) of a Wiki page. This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the editable text of that page***"

ALL means that you don't have to be all too very smart to edit, write, or delete. In fact you don't have to smart at all as such the word that best describes that which follows Wikipedia guidelines in form without substance is called Wikistupidity as not only is it intolerantly pompous arrogant pretentious and completely callous in a bureaucratic sense it is also stupid and wikified so combining the two words we get the conjunction of WIKI-STUPIDITY.Andrew Zito 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

OKAY first delete wikified also.[[ User:Andrewzito|Andrew Zito]] 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikistupidity"

Is that a vote? Fire Star 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NO YOU WIKI-IDIOT Andrew Zito 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Duhhhh.....deleet! DJ Clayworth 17:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• As a not very smart person who has no idea what "you don't have to smart at all as such the word that best describes that which follows" means, I vote Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you want to delete wikified O my brainless and verbally economic ones? delete or don't delete delete or don't delete do you bureaucratic foundationists (refer to the Foundation Trilogy) have any brains to be expressed or is it all summarized garbage o no value where the functioning of what was created "is no longer understood by those who run it" ask me if I care my eggs are in other baskets(Ibid)? Andrew Zito 17:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a good argument for this being patent nonsense....DJ Clayworth 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Patent Pending at best. Tonywalton  | Talk

If another admin cares to delete this entire fiasco, I will support it. Fire Star 17:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. Give me three more days, and I will. android79 17:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Personal attack on all of Wikipedia. android79 17:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

No No Wikipedia is not allowed to be attacked and criticized as we are all good fascists (sic).It seems that no argument in opposition to the word "wikistupidity", as it is merely labeled and castigated as nonsense such without forethought or consideration for clearly there is a purpose and meaning to the word "wikistupidity" and as such can not be refered to as merely nonsense at all as it describes its detractors to date who egotistical in their egghead middle American lives can't stomach the thought that anything they are connected to can be stupid. If the word wikified was basis and the words stupidity has basis then the word clearly is a conjunction of the two words. Actually the opposition to the word "wikistupidity" is nonsense.Andrew Zito 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As a good WikiFascist, heiling my great WikiDictator, I think that keeping an article that is a big attack (especially in the main namespace) would be true Wikistupidity. Lord Bob 18:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Quintin3265 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

DEAR "WIkifascist" and UBER-LORD (HIGH ADMIRMAL) BOB if you used the word "wikistupidity in your sentence above how can it be nonsense defined by "wikipedists" (sic) as "an utterance or written text in what appears to be a human language or other symbolic system, that does not in fact carry any identifiable meaning" if is so distasteful and detracting then it is not nonsense and there for not deletable as was argued. or is there another and completely unstated argument being offered that should be made for us to distain look down on frown and call humbug? Andrew Zito 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• You know, one of the official policies of Wikipedia is "no neologisms". As you admit that the word is coined by you, that qualifies it as a neologism. Sorry. Also, "wikified" isn't an entry per se; rather, it leads to a meta-page that explains how wiki formatting works. Therefore, your objection on that basis is invalid. DS 18:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Good God, that was hard to read. I can only assume that English is not your native language, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the use of wikistupidity in my vote was purely ironic. In addition, note that it would only apply if the article were kept, therefore demonstrating that there was no consensus that wikistupidity is a nonsense term. So for my comment on "wikistupidity" to apply, "wikistupidity" would need to be accepted as a valid concept. Also, I pray, note that my vote to delete was not on the grounds that it was patent nonsense, although I can understand why somebody would think it was. Lord Bob 18:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dear High Admiral Lord Bob of the Church of Bob in the Land of Nod.

Thank you for stating: "I pray, note that my vote to delete was not on the grounds that it was patent nonsense, although I can understand why somebody would think it was. Lord Bob 18:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)" as now we really know what you intended to state. Perhaps you and all "Wikidom" (oops another word quick get it into print and can learn a lesson in tolerance and grace so that a less coarse approach to matters and be found. If you object to someone over stating something discuss and fix the matter don't delete whole articles as it causes me to dwelling on how I could buy a shotgun and fix matters (another good metaphor)Andrew Zito 18:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC).

• You all know what I meant to state, because I stated it. I've never been known for not speaking my mind, as a look at my history will show. I said I can understand why somebody would think it's patent nonsense, because I do. I understand why somebody would believe in God, even though I, as an atheist, do not. I can understand why somebody would want to live in Vancouver, British Columbia, even though I, as somebody who chooses to live in Victoria instead, do not. Do you understand the difference between comprehension and agreement yet? I can't believe I'm having this argument with somebody who doesn't know what a conjunction is, but I'm a sucker for debate. Lord Bob 18:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Censor this dissent! Quickly! And neologisms/nonsense/whatever too. --Cherry blossom tree 18:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that "Wikistupidity [is] a noun and adjective" is incorrect. Wikistupidity is a noun, wikistupid would be the adjective. Also, I follow the orders of Überlord Bob. Sdedeo 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know but in actuality that is not an issue it is in fact a conjunction as was aforementioned and there for valid if you wish you can delete the passage relating to me coining the phrase but then you may have to replace it. In any case how can a small part of a posting invalidate the psoting as a whole if you wish to edit things edit them but if Wikipedia continues to act with a blugeoning axe when a scapel is needed it can expect to reap my criticisms and condemation eternally in this life and the next from the grave also if necessary as you should be destroyed as antithetical to anything sacred regardless of label.Andrew Zito 18:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Personal essay about a neologism. Also poorly written. Could possiblly be speedy deleted as an attack page, but under the circumstances i'd prefer the regualr deletion process be allowed to run its course. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism... other than ironic context here, I've never seen the term used by anyone other than Andrew. My only question: is Andrew a random word generator or just ESL? --Isotope23 18:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My question is (as you sound like a stiff) "Are you living or living dead?" as you sound so mechanical as to give me the impression of you being a machine. In any case there is no objective consistency to Wikipedia, Wikipedists, Wikistupidity, and you my dear Wiki-idiot you are a great arrogant ESL student.Andrew Zito 19:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.