jesus christ they literally just changed the positioning yet again and now when u scroll past a fucking side-ad shows up
Jesus christ they literally just changed the positioning yet again and now when u scroll past a fucking side-ad shows up
Juan Reed
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Kayden Lewis
That shit's been there a long while
Camden Sanchez
That's kinda hot.
Easton Lee
i know, i posted a thread about it just this morning but the layout was completely different, it took up the entire fucking screen this morning
David Hernandez
disable javascript
Evan Allen
>using the internet in 2018 without javascript
everything isnt a chinese imageboard
Gavin Barnes
>letting wikipedia load javascript
Asher Long
This
Op, why are making an issue out of a non-issue?
Aiden Bell
why isnt it in the default fucking filters?
gorhill just updated to take out Sup Forums's shitty iframe ad from yesterday but why not the shitty jewish ads on wikipedia that constantly appear each month
Jaxon Kelly
They technically aren't ads. I think they're in the "annoyances" list.
Dominic Moore
Probably because too many sites would break if you block 1st party scripts and retards would complain. You cant please everyone.
Protip: block all 1st and 3rd party scripts, cookies, etc like and only allow whats needed per site and then save the setting. Takes me less than 20 secs on a new site that requires certain scripts.
Josiah Bailey
*block by default
Christopher Adams
Maybe give them some money because they're a good thing?
Jeremiah Clark
only faggy things on the internet require javascript and for things you need it or (dragon dildo order submission?) you can selectively enable it unless you are retarded
Michael Mitchell
>*censors wiki article*
>"yeah, i'm going to need like 15 bucks anyways though"
fuck right off
Jayden Scott
nothing wikipedia does will ever be as bad or intrusive as the clusterfuck they put on any Fandom Powered By Wiki wiki
Lincoln Thompson
If you make a wikipedia account you can literally turn off all these in the settings.
Jason James
>why isnt it in the default fucking filters?
Because uMatrix's default behavior is to allow first party scripts and etc. You need to go in and reset that.
Julian Gonzalez
Do you really want to? Only like 10% will go towards WP & mediawiki, which I assume is the only thing you care about.
Henry Ward
>give them more money so they can waste it on more pointless shit
yeah no
en.wikipedia.org
Carter Green
They raked in 70,000,000 USD last year.
By the end of the fiscal year, they had 90,000,000 in assets.
It's a scam.
Robert Price
>chrome
>reddit
>twitter
>twitch
>windows 10
>cortana enabled
>klinfelter syndrome
>vlc player
>day of the week
You couldn't more obvious if you had a troll folder labeled "black tranny porn" or "pictures of bread".
Aaron Edwards
>reminder not to give money to sjwiki
reminder not to give money to sjwiki
>reminder not to give money to sjwiki
reminder not to give money to sjwiki
>reminder not to give money to sjwiki
en.wikipedia.org
>its mutilation
>its gender inequality
>its a way to control womens sexuality
>its WRONG
en.wikipedia.org
>its a tradition
>look at these benefits
>heres how its good for you to mut-er I mean improve your child's dick
someone post the screencap from the tread of the user that edited or moderated for wiki and had to deal with their bullshit and bigotry on a daily basis
Thomas Murphy
Source?
Mason Diaz
Hunter Morales
the two really aren't that comparable, female circumcision can cause serious health problems, which are well documented
male circumcision (when done properly) has only been documented as having negative psychological effects, which is demonstrated by your angry post
Evan Jenkins
>the two really aren't that comparable
I've got to agree. While both are unnecessary medical procedures with minimal health risk (when performed properly), only one of them is performed on a woman.
Kayden Parker
>when performed properly
Well, one of the key differences between the two surgically is that there are many different types of female circumcision, and while the most minimally invasive ones may be low risk, the rest of them are not.
Noah Torres
read about the types of fgm. Type 1 fgm can be equivilent to mgm. They just remove the clitoral hood which is the equivilent to the male foreskin.
type 1 fgm is illegal under united states law.
> has only been documented as having negative psychological effects,
really going to disregard the suffering of 80% of all men in the united states?
go watch that ted talk from that feminist that actually learned to listen, She might be able to help you understand.
here, I found it for you.
youtube.com
Connor Morgan
>the suffering of 80% of all men in the united states?
I'm not suffering. Most men who were circumcised aren't. Only those with botched procedures and those who have psychological issue with the procedure can be said to be suffering.
I will watch your video and respond with another comment though, the video looks interesting, thank you.
Benjamin Diaz
Why do you react like Im saying fgm should be legal?
Im saying all genital mutilation should be illegal unless its done to a consenting adult.
It desensitizes the penis, I recall reading something about the dick is supped to have something like the mucus membrane of a vagina which gets destroyed and dried out from having the protective cover removed. It also leads to keratinization.
I havnt even touched on the psychological affects, which Im surprised to see you are already recognizing, which leads me to believe I dont need to go into it, so Ill save the effort of typing it all up.
James Nguyen
There haven't been any studies suggesting that the penis actually loses sensitivity due to circumcision.
And for the record, I'm not saying that involuntary circumcision should be legal. Just that female and male circumcision are different ballparks. You recognize this when you specify "Type 1" with reference to female circumcision.
Personally, I feel like unnecessary surgical procedures should be avoided if at all possible, especially done to those who cannot consent to them.
Overall this does seem to be a rather careless criticism of Wikipedia, especially considering the article on male circumcision does recognize the negative effects.
John Reed
After watching that talk, I have to say that was a very thoughtful video to link in the discussion.
Jackson Wright
My comparison is more of how wiki presents these mutilations and violations of human rights.
Im comparing their presentation, not the procedures.
I cant find the image, its on an old harddrive that isn't immediately accessible, but there was a thread where an user ranted about the bullshit he had to put up with on wiki. the circumcision thing is the only one I can remember and give a clear example of.
Ending non consensual circumcision is something I care strongly about though. And I would compare type 1 fgm to mgm when they only remove the clitoral hood and dont goo full autism and gut the whole thing off.
Dominic Cox
>After watching that talk, I have to say that was a very thoughtful video to link in the discussion.
Ill have to admit that I thought you were a feminist woman from the way you reacted. I considered this video a good way to explain that Im not minimalizing fgm but instead am trying to show that mgm is minimalized.
oh and also youre welcome for the link
Jonathan Hughes
The thing about Wikipedia is that it requires citations for the things you put on any given page, so in order to create a section regarding involuntary male circumcision you would need news articles, studies, or other relevant sources.
Of course if he did this and still got pushback, then yes, it would be a good example of Wikipedia's bullshit. Not always SJW I would think, I've heard making edits in general (regardless of political stance) is hellish because every page is some other editor's pet article. I think it's one of the biggest problems the site has with getting new contributors, as they get discouraged when their edit gets pounced on and they get a scolding.
Jacob Fisher
I keep hoping someone would post the damn thread screen cap but I can never get anyone to do it. Where I have it saved is on a deleted partition on a drive that is offline, not easily accessible right now.
he goes into detail about the hell he goes though with (iirc) some very specific examples.
This circumcision thing isnt the only thing Ive come across on there when thats made me ask if they are fucking serious.
>sources and studies
do you/they really need a study to prove that cutting the tip of a babies dick off is mutilation?
you dont even have top open the urls to see their obvious bais.
at this point I consider donating to wiki the same as donating to tumblr
Colton Thompson
>do you/they really need a study to prove that cutting the tip of a babies dick off is mutilation?
In the same way you'd probably have to have a study to show that homosexuality is a mental illness, to post that on Wikipedia.
Connor Richardson
>its a brainlet doesn't block js episode
Liam Campbell
>not supporting the biggest collection of human knowledge
>making an issue out of a non-issue because some mental gymnastics
I bet you think you're woke as fuck.