Some of those articles are protected, so this beat poet had to wait to accumulate ten edits before hitting the protected articles, no? Quite the artiste!

Greg

I thought it was only a 4-day waiting period on this particular Weapon Of Mind Destruction?

Jon

{{sockpuppet|Wikipedia Review}}
{{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}}


Well, which is it Raul?

{{sockpuppet|Wikipedia Review}}
{{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}}

Well, which is it Raul?

Others in the Hive dutifully carry out the hive repair functions that they have been taught (some from ages as young as 11 or 12, I understand) to perform.

If you look at WP:NPA, it says:

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I'm still having trouble seeing the "content" of this editor's work that warranted a block. As for the labeling of the contributor as one or the other of Jon or me, well... That's nothing new. Wikipediots like Krimpet and Jpgordon have been doing it for months (or is it years now, Jon?).

Oh, yes. Jon has been prattling on Freenode lately (and not for the first time), causing consternation for Krimpet, who still thinks that Jon and Greg are pals, or socks. As does, let me see, Jpgordon. Who is not, repeat not, part of the Jewish Power-Cabal on WP because there is no such thing. And as for Krimpet, Ms. Rogers, well, we don't know what her ethnicity is.

But in any case, Mr. Man in Black, if you're convinced the whole WP thing is shit, and certainly not a community, what are you doing baiting people on its freenode discussions, under pseudonyms? Weren't you making fun of me some time ago for adding good content to articles which will outlive WP, for the sake of my own artistic pleasure? So what pleasure do you get in this kind of thing (IRC baiting), which is morally-ethically-intellectually, pragmatically, educationally, in any way whatsoever, superior to what I do on WP? Eh? Hypocrite!

BTW, Krimpet shows up on WP, fully-formed, on Jan 2, 2007, making complex revisions to WP the next day, and claims in her RfA in April that she's only been a Wikipedian for about 3 months. But her first edit Jan 3 is pretty complex, as noted. Sock-like complex. Duck-like complex. So, did she come rightously from COMMONS and forgot to mention this? Or is she really a sock of a previous WP identity?

BTW, Krimpet a fellow computer wonk apparently, knows Raul, and knows he's at the University of Delaware, and checkusers (or perhaps just uses IPwhois) on the fly that Cache is posting from there, also. Great game, eh?

Get Sirius —

You've obversely been been conned — it's just a part of the Sub, Moron — by yet another e-pisode of Black vs. Black.

Go get 'em, Kramer …

Jon

BTW, Krimpet a fellow computer wonk apparently, knows Raul, and knows he's at the University of Delaware, and checkusers (or perhaps just uses IPwhois) on the fly that Cache is posting from there, also. Great game, eh?

Whaaa th' ???

Jon

Okay, somebody has actually invented a new form of vandal-only-account "vandalism" (acid commentary) . I give it 10/10 for cleverness. This had to be done in reverse, and with each edit not drawing attention to itself. Very good.

Whaaa th' ???

Jon

That's hilarious. Well-done.

You're only just now catching on to it, Uncle Milty?

I can't wait to see the first copy-cat poetry. Jon, do you mind if I copy your original idea and try some of this Contribution artform, or … wait … will you be copying my original idea?

Greg

BTW, Krimpet shows up on WP, fully-formed, on Jan 2, 2007, making complex revisions to WP the next day, and claims in her RfA in April that she's only been a Wikipedian for about 3 months. But her first edit Jan 3 is pretty complex, as noted. Sock-like complex. Duck-like complex. So, did she come rightously from COMMONS and forgot to mention this? Or is she really a sock of a previous WP identity?

One thing that has personally kind of irked me is sections in articles usually called "Cultural References", "In popular culture" or "Trivia" that do nothing but list references to that topic in TV shows, movies, video games, etc.

I call it the "Family Guy Effect". Now, I'm not against the show Family Guy, but with the huge amounts of cultural references the show makes it is the best demonstration of what I am talking about. Check out Special:Whatlinkshere/Family_Guy and you will see examples of what I mean: the link will almost always be in a section called "Cultural References" or "Trivia", and be along the lines of "In episode 12345 of the cartoon Family Guy...". Family Guy is by no means the only offender here though, other TV shows like South Park and the Simpsons often pop up in the same manner, as well as movies. Another common sight in these sections is songs that mention the topic, invariably in the format of "(artist) mentions (subject) in their song (song), on their album (album)". These can range from very notable, huge hits by popular bands, to songs by artists so obscure and non-notable that they don't even have their own articles.

Now, I am not completely against these "cultural references" lists. Rather, I think they are being put in the wrong place. Almost always, the article for the movie/album/TV show making the reference will already have its own list of cultural references in said movie/album/TV show. Going back to the example of Family Guy, each Family Guy episode already has its own article with a comprehensive list of everything satirized in that episode. Why duplicate the exact same information in this article in the article for the subject being referred to?

These sections can grow to become an enormous mess. Check out KFC#Cultural_references. The section is huge, with references to TV shows and movies, some of which don't even have links to articles on said shows/movies. It heavily detracts from the professionalism of the article. If someone really, really wanted to know what movies and TV shows made cultural references to KFC, they could just click "What links here" and get an even more comprehensive list.

I have found discussions that seem to indicate that other Wikipedia editors are against these sections as well, but have not been able to find an official policy either for or against them. However I think it can be argued that the sections violate parts of WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Does Wikipedia have an official policy on these kinds of sections in articles? If not, I think it would be helpful if one were developed. Krimpet 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)