Talk:Heidi

From Fandom wank wiki

Um, what's with the random ninja stuff? -- Avocado 02:41, 14 December 2005 (GMT)

I think they're either quotes from the Vin Diesel fact generator, or something like it. Couldn't figure, though, if they were added by a Heidi detractor, to further mock her, or a Heidi defender, to mock the wiki. It's all mockery anyway... --Mindset 08:19, 14 December 2005 (GMT)

Yes, it's all mockery anyway. I can't figure out the goal, either. -- Avocado 15:49, 14 December 2005 (GMT)

Oookay, I've just removed that. HP really does bring out all the freaks huh?--Hinkeh 17:32, 14 December 2005 (GMT)

That it's mockery is fairly manifest.

However, the premise that mockery should be edited or deleted in a FanWank wiki is intriguing, since the entire concept of this wiki is certainly not objective journalism -- witness the edit comments that include phrases like "added snark."

How pathetic is this wiki? Is it possible to quantify the pathos? Sure.

Let's begin with the idea that writing good original fiction is an admirable goal. Below that, the hierarchy of achievement looks like this:

2. Writing bad original fiction 3. Writing good fanfic (all the heavy lifting has already been done by the original writer) 4. Writing commentary on fanfic (fandom) 5. Writing commentary on commentary (wiki) 6. Discussing the commentary of the commentary (this)

Here you graze -- witless bottom-feeders in the creativity ecosystem. My goodness, people. -- Jamesausten, who didn't sign at the time s/h/it commented. (fpb, issat you?)

You skipped a step between 4 and 5 -- namely Fandom Wank. So comments here are actually level 7. Oh god, the layers of meta! The nihilistic pointlessness of it all! I'm so depressed at my futility, I think I'll have to slit my wrists! What a wreck my life has become -- and it's all your fault! I'd've continued on in this point, snarking and mocking and being utterly useless, if you hadn't awakened me meta whine snark whine blame whine flame (pretend I went on for another dozen paragraphs of emo tl;dr, okay? I'll do the same for you when I'm not on a deadline at work, thanks.) --Mindset 20:41, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

There's a level of mockery that requires some thought, and a level of mockery that requires none. The goals here are parody and satire. Taking things written by others out of a random "fact" generator and changing the name involved isn't so much parody as pointless. -- Avocado 23:23, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

Not to mention lazy and verging on plagiarism. Not that the person will see this by now.--Young Murdered Faery 21:56, 5 January 2006 (GMT)

You know, this brings up a point I've occasionally wondered--have the people who accuse other groups of people of being 'bottom-feeders' ever set up a working, minimal-effort fishtank, or do they just spend all their time wondering why there's all this algae and yucky growth in their tank, why, they have such perfectly nice fish and none of those icky bottom-feeders, what's going wrong?

Don't dis the plecostomuses, man. --MB 13:37, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

Think of the bottom-feeders. They think of you. Naked. And covered in slime. --Mindset 21:14, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

*dies* And now I love you. --MB 21:52, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

You win! -- Avocado 22:33, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

I think I'm in love with you. --PuiPui 23:20, 17 December 2005 (GMT)

This never, ever gets old. --Young Murdered Faery 21:56, 5 January 2006 (GMT)

Here you graze -- witless bottom-feeders in the creativity ecosystem. My goodness, people.

That comment is like a work of art. I'm going to see how many wiki pages I can fit it into. Thanks mate!--Hinkeh 18:44, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

However, the premise that mockery should be edited or deleted in a FanWank wiki is intriguing

Uh, yeah, it's a real fascinating premise called "You're not funny." I took a course on it in college, but I only got a C because it was so hard to grasp. --Jim Smith 22:10, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

...well, not intentionally funny, at least. I, for one, am highly entertained by the "hierarchy of achievement." -- Avocado 22:33, 16 December 2005 (GMT)

How pathetic is this wiki? Is it possible to quantify the pathos?

I don't know, sweetie, but I know this: accusing the Fandom Wank wiki of pathos goes straight out the other side into total bathos. Your mom must be so proud.--Vigilanterodent 19:02, 17 December 2005 (GMT)

Hey, has someone banned Heidi from the wiki? She says she has been banned.

Um, that comment above was me. Sorry.--Snacky 16:26, 27 December 2005 (GMT)

I can't see anybody on the banlist, but I'm not an admin, so... --Mindset 20:34, 27 December 2005 (GMT)

I haven't banned anyone to date, and I hope I don't have to. The only person who has been banned at all so far was Gigaprincess (for retconning the FAP article and the Plagiarism and all that article). She was only banned for a week, AFAIK. If Heidi's Gigaprincess, then she would have been temporarily banned, but it should have expired by now. -- Avocado 02:21, 28 December 2005 (GMT)