http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo_Answers
It mentions him, which I found to be peculiar! Hey, why doesn't it mention me?! It should mention Sinthyia, seeing as how she has so many best answers. And there are people in other sections that have even more than her. I don't get it. Why does Jim Darwin get to be mentioned? Pout, pout, pout.
2006-06-12 02:20:48 · 9 answers · asked by Heron By The Sea 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I've edited the nonsense out. In articles about internet communities, such as Yahoo Answers, Wikipedia shouldn't cover individual users, unless absolutely relevant.
2006-06-13 06:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by Nicki 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Aww, everytime I contribute my part to Wikipedia, someone will always erase my part(s).
Before, the article mentioned some of the earliest Featured Users of the original Yahoo! Answers; Anirudh Koul, conradj132, Nurse Annie, caveman_man and Batman if not mistaken.
Too bad the article keeps changing.
No, seriously.
So tiring the con of Wiki.
<0117, 18/15 Jamadil Awal/June 1427/2006>
2006-06-14 06:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by セバ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't worry too much about having Jim Darwin being mentioned in the article. There are quite a few Wikipedia editors who spend their time removing these types of vanity information. If he is not important or relevant to the article (which he is not, the article is not lacking anything by not having him in it), his name will eventually be removed along with any other Answers user who thinks he/she is important enough to be a part of that article.
The only users I can think of off the top of my head who might warrant a mention in the article are the 25 that were chosen to inhabit the brain in Times Square.
2006-06-13 08:21:31 · answer #3 · answered by California Bear 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ha ha! Good question. He must have as I would question him being called "popular". That term implies cliquishness. He does seem to have some cronies and they all seem to laugh at each other's jokes, and vote for each other, too, but "popular"? I don't think any more so than any one else, and that term is not qualitative or quantitative like the stats of the other members named are, anyway.
So you may be on to something here, you clever person, you.
2006-06-12 02:26:12 · answer #4 · answered by desperatehw 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that is the real jim_darwin. His im name is evil_jim_darwin. The real Jim Darwin got suspended a while ago and has been going by spock_darwin and it would appear he is now beavis_christ. There's something fishy about this one.
2006-06-12 02:24:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He sure is editting it as the edit history shows him.
I think he is trying to make wikipedia more questionable. Or just his big ego. because he really is not that popular. Rev Trask was much more sought after.
2006-06-13 05:48:31 · answer #6 · answered by rian30 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i did
i am going back in later tonight or tomorrow to add a bunch more people
trust me
we are all going to get our place in the wikiopedia entry
2006-06-12 02:22:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Work at it and maybe you will make an updated version!
2006-06-12 02:25:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can't be because of his looks. hee hee hee
2006-06-12 02:25:32 · answer #9 · answered by jammer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋