If it's not found on Wikipedia, using an AI to learn is quick, easy and pretty much everything not found on Wikipedia can be found. But not everything.
The place that inspired the start of this blog can be found and studied using a CHAT GPT now
You still have to know the name, but the info is there.
I no longer need my own private Wiki, the uncensored AI chabots (like GROK) can explain almost everything.
Almost
Unlike some slang, like mudda fukka, 4 teh lulz only has a redirect, to a page that doesn't even mention 4 teh lulz
That would be the LOL page. While the following definition isn't complete, if you actually don't know about 4 teh lulz it will help
"4 the lulz" means "for the laughs," essentially indicating that someone is doing something just to cause amusement or stir up a reaction, often with a slightly mischievous or playful intention, and is typically used in online contexts where "lulz" is short for "laughs."
You have come across one, (some would say I am one!), but Wikipedia has nothing
Like so many things found on Wikipedia, we don't actually need an article on this. Because the meaning of the two words is obvious.
A pundit is a person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.
Explaining it could be viewed as condescending. (condescending, that means talking down to people like they are ignorant). (<-- Bob Newhart joke)
Should Wikipedia have articles on common phrases, or even words that everybody knows?
Well, like so many things, some are OK, and some are not allowed. "Soapfish" is an obscure term for a type of fish, but an article on "soapfish" cannot be found.
But "water" has a very long article.
"Daisy flower" has no article, nor does Daisy have a redirect to Bellis perennis, which is actually the article for daisy. It gets complicated and stupid (of course) at this point. Because Wikipedia doesn't actually have an editor.
Originally daisy had an article, and Bellis perennis redirected to daisy
Now the daisy article, which was about the flower (the origin of all other daisy names and such) is a page with a hundred different things on it.
It's wikigroaning level annoying.
Boba Fett, a fictional character has a very very long and detailed article, Even though most people in the world never heard the name.
While The Subway Vigilante, or Bernhard Goetz, no article. A billion people know those names. No article.
If you think that's absurd, then you are probably a sane rational person who doesn't trust Wikipedia already.
While you can read about it, Wikipedia doesn't have the actual comic or the panel or the actual script published.
While the "official version" of the comic (with the f bomb whited out) appears as the historic version of it, the actual version can be found here.
But not on Wikipedia.
(which has extensive article on Fuck off, and Fuck you, but "go fuck yourself" redirects to fuck)
There may be a page that does state this theoretical number, but it's not easy to find
The number is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power
or
10^82
It depends on who you ask
I found the Anal Babes (NFOW) on Adam Thrasher's old web page, which also isn't found on Wikipedia. While those are both "real things", a band and a person, which either exist or did exist, you will not find an article about them on Wikipedia.
Articles for Spacemoose and Yavin 4 are both found, but neither actually exist, they are just creations of real people, who do exist.
It's just one of those strange things about Wikipedia, made up "things" that have no actual existence have huge articles, while actual people or things are not found. And will never be found. This is not by chance, or neglect. There is an active and constant effort, energy and actions being taken by unknown or known people, to remove and prevent articles from existing on Wikipedia.
Both examples, Anal Babes and Adam Thrasher, will not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia.
While a cartoon that long ago vanished from the internet, and a fictional moon from the Star Wars franchise both have extensive articles.
It's one reason why I find making blog posts here so much fun. Creating articles about actual people, places and things, that are real. An enjoyment you can never have on Wikipedia. Which means "that" is also something not found on Wikipedia.
Wow. So meta.
The Anal Babes links
https://analbabes.bandcamp.com/track/intro-fuckstuck
https://www.discogs.com/artist/505754-Anal-Babes
https://analbabes.bandcamp.com/album/people-are-garbage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_mBhrgH69k&list=PL93aTp21n90iOaGvZqgwUgdQuHPNtXmPw full album
Live at Bromsjordet in Horten (Norway) 1992
Gene Ray, inventor and author, American self-described scientist and creator of the Time Cube Theory
While his "theory", the Time Cube, (something that is not real) has an extensive article, the actual person, Gene Ray, (who did exist) is not allowed to have an article on Wikipedia. (he does however, have an article on Wikiquote)
In this matter, it is almost exactly like how Bernhard Hugo Goetz is not allowed an article on Wikipedia.
Extra links if you never heard of the Christ Family, or Lightning Amen
https://www.newspapers.com/article/corpus-christi-caller-times-lightning-am/134626242/?locale=en-US
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/v8h2sv/42_years_later_a_murdered_texas_couples_missing/
See here for update and original post
Efforts are still being made to delete content about him. Because Wikipedia is all about not allowing "certain information" to be found on Wikipedia.
Clock, Ruiz and Crawford all either knife raped or just raped and stabbed their wife with a knife. Some people, and some actions, we don't actually want to be on Wikipedia.
Richard Clock is notable since Norm McDonald used him in a joke. But unlike Ruiz and Crawford, you can't find his story online. Or on Wikipedia.
Now you probably know more than you wanted to know. Here's the joke, which is also not found on Wikipedia.
This one should NOT be found on Wikipedia. Yet.
While the term has been created, it's not clear what it means, or if it is real.
Of course "being real" is not a requirement for being found on Wikipedia. A huge amount of articles on Wikpedia are about things, ideas and concepts, that don't actually exist.
Like the term being real. That is not found on Wikipedia.
While something that does exist, like the author of this blog, will not be found on Wikipedia
This one was surprising. Since both are used in Wikipedia articles, it would seem prudent to define and explain them. Or at least link to Wiktionary
There is an article on Radiolysis
Wiktionary has
radiolytic (comparative more radiolytic, superlative most radiolytic)
radiolysis (countable and uncountable, plural radiolyses)
"The Tokara Strait", not found Wikipedia, including not being mentioned in the article on the Tokara Islands
Which is most odd, especially when Google maps also doesn't know where the Tokara Strait is!!
A science direct article on the tides there.
News article that started my fruitless search for where it is.
Looking at the picture below, you will know more than Wikipedia AND Google maps about this location.
Commentry:
So trying to find where it is, led to the creation of this topic. And some interesting research papers on the tides there.
Max Cannon, the creator, does not
This website lets you make your own Red Meat comics, and it is not found on Wikipedia.
Can't really blame them for this one
Explained here, from Eric Berne himself. He writes, "... occupies a special place in game analysis, because it was the original stimulus for the concept of games. It was the first game to be dissected out of its social context, and since it is the older subject of game analysis, it is one of the best understood" Full text of the book Games People Play
Mentioned twice on Wikipedia, "Why Don't You — Yes But," and "Why Don't You... / Yes, But...", but no agreement on how it is presented. Nor is the game explained. (“Why Don’t You – Yes But” is correct)
No explanation of the game is found on Wikipedia. And of course, no article.
Try making an article about the game, and have fun watching it go away.
"Yes, but" is actually larger than this original game now.
Some links (that would be used for an article)
https://sheffieldcentralcounselling.co.uk/blog/why-don-t-you-yes-but
https://www.elitefts.com/coaching-logs/coaching-the-yes-but-people-its-impossible/ (a different example)
https://www.kinetichw.com/post/yes-but-is-the-ultimate-conversation-killer (has a quote from Berne)
https://arbss.org/the-yes-but-strategy/ (yes, but being promoted as a good thing)
and of course the two Wikipedia article also have sources.
The 1951 season had four, one of which a depression.
Here is where it appeared, and it has remained since that day, 14 May 2015
Permanent link to the page (line 186)
Content by User:Hurricanehink It's no surprise this anonymous user brags about being a "Wikipedia administrator since March 17, 2008". There is also no source for the claim. Not then, not now. In fact, it falls into the class of "not found on the internet", meaning that Wikipedia article is the only place it has ever appeared. See here if you enjoy that sort of thing
This error has survived 400 edits over the last 9 years. Nobody has noticed it. (Even when it was a featured article)
The situation is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Is it a lack of money?
Redpanels still not found, but recently a stonetoss article was created. Probably because somebody doxxed the creator.
Rick Cavallaro and John Borton, the two men who built the Blackbird DDWFTTW cart. While mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Blackbird, neither have an article, and no redirect to Blackbird.
Just another dead mass shooter, who doesn't have an article. Just a redirect to the mass shooting.
It illustrates how Wikipedia has no style sheet, no consistent method of being an encyclopedia. It isn't because he is dead,
Not allowed, not found on Wikipedia
While unofficial names are found, the Weather Channel names for winter storms are not.
