Posted by you are BANNED but with rewards

WOPWOW (#149569)


View Forum Posts


Posted on
2020-01-01 15:17:22
I got this idea from the many " you are banned " forum games because i am nOT creative. so full credit to those guys for giving me this idea. Love yall xoxoxo

anyways

Basically just ban the person above you for a stupid reason, theres really no win or lose with this its just for fun

HOWEVER - you come up with something clever and/or funny that makes me laugh???? i will send you some GEEBS () or a random decor. I will send 3 or a random decor to every person that comes up with something clever. There is no maximum to the amount of times you can get a random prize, so go crazy and have fun. also be nice, ya dweebs



Hrt Icon 44 players like this post! Like?

gully (#295972)

Wanderer
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:01:16
banned because pizza express doughballs and garlic butter



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Raven (#482121)

Dreamboat of Ladies
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:02:00
BANNED because now I have to fight the Georgia snow to go get some cuz u mentioned it



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

mentallica (#228470)


View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:02:38
banned because you have an image that says "image not found" in your den



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Raven (#482121)

Dreamboat of Ladies
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:03:13
Banned because WHERE?



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

mentallica (#228470)


View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:03:58
banned because literally below the huge raven?? crow?? bird??



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Raven (#482121)

Dreamboat of Ladies
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:05:36
Banned bc its my clan banners and its a raven



Hrt Icon 1 player likes this post! Like?

_
-🌾🌡EnigmaticπŸ
Œ΅πŸŒΎ _ - (#498787)

Scourge of Lions
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:12:05
banned for custom decor because i heavily envy custom decor. Why must thou wear such FOUL clothing ? for i am recoiling from what we may call screens .. why must we buy a simple mane for a gazillion sb or 100 gb? i understand must that take lots of work ... but for a handsome mane that is overpriced and much too scandalous, almost like its a scam however its not , unreasonable prices i say . . custom decor has PLAGUED AND TAKEN over our kingdom of normal decor so we must take back our reign . . #STOPCUSTOMDECOR chant with me everyone!! / j



Hrt Icon 1 player likes this post! Like?

Raven (#482121)

Dreamboat of Ladies
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 14:13:37
Banned because so real
#STOPCUSTOMDECOR



Hrt Icon 1 player likes this post! Like?

xleepy/malarkey (#372027)


View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:05:11
banned because all the conversations everyones having whilst throwing around the ban hammer make me giggle



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

●oβ˜†βSaraββ˜†
o● (#256148)

Bone Collector
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:14:13
Banned because

Wikipedia[c] is a free-content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history,[3][4] and is consistently ranked among the ten most visited websites; as of December 2024, it was ranked fifth by Semrush,[5] and seventh by Similarweb.[6] Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001, Wikipedia has been hosted since 2003 by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American nonprofit organization funded mainly by donations from readers.[7]

Initially only available in English, Wikipedia now exists in more than 300 languages. The English Wikipedia, with over 6.9 million articles, remains the largest of the editions, which together comprise more than 64 million articles and attract more than 1.5 billion unique device visits and 13 million edits per month (about 5 edits per second on average) as of April 2024.[W 1] As of November 2024, over 25% of Wikipedia's traffic was from the United States, followed by Japan at 6.2%, the United Kingdom at 5.6%, Russia at 5.0%, Germany at 4.8%, and the remaining 53.3% split among other countries.[8]

Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, and culture. Wikipedia has been censored by some national governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site.[9][10] Although Wikipedia's volunteer editors have written extensively on a wide variety of topics, the encyclopedia has been criticized for systemic bias, such as a gender bias against women and geographical bias against the Global South (Eurocentrism).[11][12] While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise from the late 2010s onward[3][13][14] while becoming an important fact-checking site.[15][16] Articles on breaking news are often accessed as sources for frequently updated information about those events.[17][18]

History
Main article: History of Wikipedia
Nupedia
Main article: Nupedia


Wikipedia founders Jimmy Wales (left) and Larry Sanger (right)
Various collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before the start of Wikipedia, but with limited success.[19] Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.[20] It was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were Bomis CEO Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia.[1][21] Nupedia was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, but before Wikipedia was founded, Nupedia switched to the GNU Free Documentation License at the urging of Richard Stallman.[W 2] Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[22][W 3] while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[W 4] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[W 5]

Launch and growth
Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001[20] (referred to as Wikipedia Day) as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[W 6] and was announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[22] The name originated from a blend of the words wiki and encyclopedia.[23][24] Its integral policy of "neutral point-of-view"[W 7] was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were initially relatively few rules, and it operated independently of Nupedia.[22] Bomis originally intended for it to be a for-profit business.[25]


The Wikipedia home page on December 20, 2001[d]
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2001, with a total of 161 in use by the end of 2004.[W 8][W 9] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of 2 million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the Yongle Encyclopedia made in China during the Ming dynasty in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600 years.[26]

Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[W 10] Wales then announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[27][W 11]

After an early period of exponential growth,[28] the growth rate of the English Wikipedia in terms of the numbers of new articles and of editors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.[29] The edition reached 3 million articles in August 2009. Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[W 12] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to "increased coordination and overhead costs, exclusion of newcomers, and resistance to new edits".[28] Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "low-hanging fruit"β€”topics that clearly merit an articleβ€”have already been created and built up extensively.[30][31][32]

In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[33][34] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[35] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.[36] Two years later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[37] A 2013 MIT Technology Review article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, reporting that since 2007 Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and suggesting that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.[38] In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.[39] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."[40] The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.[41][42]

Milestones

Cartogram showing number of articles in each language as of March 2024. Languages with fewer than 1,000,000 articles are represented by one circle. Languages are grouped by region of continent and each region of continent is presented by a separate color.
In January 2007, Wikipedia first became one of the ten most popular websites in the United States, according to Comscore Networks.[43] With 42.9 million unique visitors, it was ranked #9, surpassing The New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11).[43] This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd, with around 18.3 million unique visitors.[44] In 2014, it received 8 billion page views every month.[W 13] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore".[45] As of March 2023, it ranked 6th in popularity, according to Similarweb.[46] Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".[47][48]

On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congressβ€”the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)β€”by blacking out its pages for 24 hours.[49] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced its content.[50][W 14]

In January 2013, 274301 Wikipedia, an asteroid, was named after Wikipedia;[51] in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the Wikipedia Monument;[52] and, in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as Print Wikipedia.[53] In April 2019, an Israeli lunar lander, Beresheet, crash landed on the surface of the Moon carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash.[54][55] In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia had been encoded into synthetic DNA.[56]

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost 9 percent."[57] Varma added, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[57] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society said that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[57] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the fifth most popular website globally.[58] As of January 2023, 55,791 English Wikipedia articles have been cited 92,300 times in scholarly journals,[59] from which cloud computing was the most cited page.[60]

On January 18, 2023, Wikipedia debuted a new website redesign, called "Vector 2022".[61][62] It featured a redesigned menu bar, moving the table of contents to the left as a sidebar, and numerous changes in the locations of buttons like the language selection tool.[62][W 15] The update initially received backlash, most notably when editors of the Swahili Wikipedia unanimously voted to revert the changes.[61][63]

Openness

Differences between versions of an article are highlighted
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle regarding the security of its content, meaning that it waits until a problem arises to fix it.[64]

Restrictions
Due to Wikipedia's increasing popularity, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[W 16] On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive, or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees.[W 17][65] A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.[W 17] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators can make changes.[W 18] A 2021 article in the Columbia Journalism Review identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as "perhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".[66]

In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles which have passed certain reviews.[W 19] Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[67] Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.[68] However, restrictions on editing may reduce the editor engagement as well as efforts to diversify the editing community.[69]

Review of changes

Wikipedia's editing interface
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, Wikipedia's software provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each revision.[e][70] On most articles, anyone can view the latest changes and undo others' revisions by clicking a link on the article's History page. Registered users may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes.[W 20] "New pages patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[W 21]

In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki created a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[71]

Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
Any change that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam.[72] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code, or use images disruptively.[W 22]

White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.
American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix it is a few minutes.[73][74] However, some vandalism takes much longer to detect and repair.[75]

In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005, falsely presenting him as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[75] It remained uncorrected for four months.[75] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales said he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[76][77] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[75] The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[78]

Disputes and edit warring
Main article: Disputes on Wikipedia
Wikipedia editors often have disagreements regarding content, which can be discussed on article Talk pages. Disputes may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".[W 23][79] It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,[80] and criticized as creating a competitive[81] and conflict-based editing culture associated with traditional masculine gender roles.[82][83] Research has focused on, for example, impoliteness of disputes,[84][85] the influence of rival editing camps,[86][87] the conversational structure,[88] and the shift in conflicts to a focus on sources.[89][90]

Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford examined editing conflicts and their resolution in a 2013 study.[91][92] Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive work behavior at Wikipedia. He relied instead on "mutually reverting edit pairs", where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor. The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles George W. Bush, anarchism, and Muhammad.[92] By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the study were for the articles covering Croatia, Scientology, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.[92] In 2020, researchers identified other measures of editor behaviors, beyond mutual reverts, to identify editing conflicts across Wikipedia.[93]

Editors also debate the deletion of articles on Wikipedia, with roughly 500,000 such debates since Wikipedia's inception. Once an article is nominated for deletion, the dispute is typically determined by initial votes (to keep or delete) and by reference to topic-specific notability policies.[94]

Policies and content
"Five pillars of Wikipedia" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Five pillars.
External videos

video icon Jimmy Wales, The Birth of Wikipedia, 2006, TED talks, 20 minutes
video icon Katherine Maher, What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs, 2022, TED talks, 15 minutes
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the US state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located.[W 24][W 25] By using the site, one agrees to the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and Privacy Policy; some of the main rules are that contributors are legally responsible for their edits and contributions, that they should follow the policies that govern each of the independent project editions, and they may not engage in activities, whether legal or illegal, that may be harmful to other users.[W 26][W 27] In addition to the terms, the Foundation has developed policies, described as the "official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation".[W 28]

The fundamental principles of the Wikipedia community are embodied in the "Five pillars", while the detailed editorial principles are expressed in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content.[W 29] The five pillars are:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
Wikipedia has no firm rules
The rules developed by the community are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines in accordance with community consensus.[95] Editors can enforce the rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material.[W 30] Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.[W 19]

Content policies and guidelines
"No original research" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No original research.
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia community, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.[W 31] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability", which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject.[W 32]



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

xleepy/malarkey (#372027)


View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:15:03
banned because I am NOT reading allathat πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ’―πŸ’―πŸ”₯πŸ”₯



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

π–ˆπ–Šπ–‘π–†π–Š
𝖓𝖆 (#241788)

Indifferent
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:15:44
banned because of spelling



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

●oβ˜†βSaraββ˜†
o● (#256148)

Bone Collector
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:15:51
banned because wikipedia



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

gully (#295972)

Wanderer
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:17:51
banned bcs copy n paste



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

π–ˆπ–Šπ–‘π–†π–Š
𝖓𝖆 (#241788)

Indifferent
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2025-01-21 18:18:24
banned bc of the nonchalant mysterious king



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?







Memory Used: 676.05 KB - Queries: 2 - Query Time: 0.00075 - Total Time: 0.18979s