236
edits
Changes
no edit summary
A typical Wikipediot will argue for any stupidity as long as there is a “source” to prove it, no matter how disgraceful that source might be: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARush_Limbaugh&action=historysubmit&diff=250714664&oldid=250714280 “The source says, "Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts..." The reports don't seem to be hoax, is all I'm saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)”]
A typical Wikipediot will argue for any stupidity as long as there is a “source” to prove it, no matter how disgraceful that source might be: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARush_Limbaugh&action=historysubmit&diff=250714664&oldid=250714280 “The source says, "Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts..." The reports don't seem to be hoax, is all I'm saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)”]
A typical Wikipediot believes everybody must love Wikipedia, and treats anything he is incapable of understanding as an expression of the animosity towards Wikipedia no matter how ridicules it makes him to look:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=485415958 “It is screamingly obvious he is making a big deal about his birthday not because he doesn't want it published, but because he hates Wikipedia.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)”]