Talk:Fnord/Archive 1

Buzzwords

are essentially fnords. Often these days, the media or politicians use neologisms or neologism phrases (dunno how to call that), which serve exactly the same purpose fnords do. I consciously take the effort to ignore all such new words and phrases altogether, so it took me til now when a random lightbulb moment enlightened me to their actual purpose - to confuse, annoy and spread uneasiness.

An Acronym?

For No Other Reason Dischord

I can't see it myself. 58.168.91.115 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fnord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should this really be a redirect to Illuminatus? "Fnord" pre-dates Illuminatus by some fifteen years!

Now there's a claim that cries out for substantiation.

None forthcoming, it seems.

Principia Discordia, page 10, at the bottom. Consider it substantiated.

I dispute that this word needs an article of its own. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the subject canbe (and is) covered in the article on the Illuminati Trilogy. If someone writes 10K+ on the subject then by all means we can think about splitting them up, but until that time I believe we should avoid the creation of stubs... Martin

Well, I dispute that. Fnord is not a word with a definition. It is a concept from a science fiction book. OTOH, do we really want a wikipedia page for every fictional construct? Pmurray bigpond.com 00:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(1) Can everybody please remember to sign your talk entries? (2) Discordianism, and specifically the Principia Discordia, predates Illuminatus! by 10-15 years (depending in part on whether you count publication date or date of writing). Fnord does not appear in the Principia, however. Vicki Rosenzweig

What do you mean? Fnord appears in the Principia, what thinkest thou, Fnord, that it dost not? Moo. -J.P Marshall III

We have to keep this page alive, forever! If we fail to contain the fnords here, we run the risk of them slipping out into the mainstream and wreaking havoc with sheep, goats, and other cloven animals. Think of our furry friends, who do not know how to read, please! Bonus, fnords have been in use since the early 1800's: Fnords Everywhere! You're humble servant, Pauljbenedict (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keeping fnords

Can we keep at least some fnords in the article, please? Even if only to keep the Alligator Control folks happy? -- The Anome 22:43, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can see some fnords in the article. Can't you? :-) -- Infrogmation 22:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's nice to see people taking this wiki seriously. --Onias 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) fnord

It's nice to see people taking life seriously.146.201.129.27 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The popularization of Fnord! by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea in the 1975 The Illuminatus! Trilogy is the only reason why there is a Fnord article in Wikipedia at all. If you've read that book, you know that fnords are included throughout the text as an example of the phenomena. Let's include one here, so we are not considered raving hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljbenedict (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing random fnords has nothing to do with hypocrisy. We simply use standard encyclopedic style here. Plus, at the very least you should have gotten a consensus before you kept putting that word back in. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Clarinetguy097 - If you can prove to me that you've read the Illuminatus trilogy cover to cover and you've gone through that experience, I am more than willing to take what you're saying seriously. However, if you are editing the Fnord page on Wikipedia to try to remove Fnords from it, it is insanely clear to me that you have not. Why don't you go back and read the book cover to cover, then come back here and make edits to this page. Otherwise, you're not an expert, you're not even informed, you're just a passenger. Pauljbenedict (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Drop the Pink Elephant

62.49.130.172 added what would eventually become this book reference, originally under "Related":

• Drop the Pink Elephant by Bill McFarlan, ISBN 1841124796

With edit summary:

Pink Elephants are communication traps that a speaker unwittingly produces. Fnords seem to be when they have a conspirational undertone.

But failed to update the article itself to reflect this. Then the book was moved to "References", giving the misleading impression that the book mentions fnords or was used in any way to form the article content, which it doesn't and wasn't. Looking at a summary of the book[3], it's a self-help book promoting effective communication, a topic that seems only very strenuously related to fnords. On these grounds, I've removed it. JRM 20:36, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Oh. Fnord. (Almost forgot.) JRM 20:36, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I originally added the Drop the Pink Elephant to the related part of the page. I thought it was related because they seem to be fnords without the discordianism spin. For example, in some professional fields, certain methods or practices become really faddish and people begin to follow them verbatim. Instead of adding to the vocabulary of the field and helping people discuss and act -they begin to harm through distraction from the original purpose. People start having to say they are 'Blah qualified' or 'using XYZ methodologies' instead of saying 'I did it.'

I thought that the book was about this. I didn't read it and the Amazon page seems to say that it is not about this at all so thanks for removing it. AnonymousCoward

Say What?

How do you say 'fnord'?*Kat* 00:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two answers.

1. Just by common extrapolation of English pronunciation rules, whatever they are for you. For me, it rhymes with "hoard".
2. You don't. You can't see the fnords. You can't pronounce the fnords. You can't hear the fnords. Even if you said "fnord", people wouldn't hear you.

One of these is the conventional answer, and so is the other. It depends on what convention you use, though.

JRM 01:24, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Wait...would it be pronounced like "fin-ord" or just "ford"? Will

Written as X-SAMPA, [fnOrd] or [fnord], depending on how you chew your English vowels. That, in turn, might get transition sounds between the "f" and "n". No, the n isn't silent. It's just that "hnoard" wasn't a word. :-) JRM 08:24, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't 'F' Nord?... 63.162.14.253 16:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)RPM

It's pronounced similar to /f.nɔrd/, the 'f' being a seperate syllable. Probably. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I belive fnord is pronounced in a similar way as with the word "Fpoon" coined by Wendy's in their new commercials. If you can say fpoon, you can say fnord.

The Bored Dude 6:49, 20 June 2006

Maybe the 'F' is silent, like the K in knock, knife, etc, or the T in tsunami. Then it'd be pronounced |norde|. Anyone know a language where the F and N combination make a distinct sound? Maybe it's just not meant to be said at all.....Oh, and hi, Ghelæ. Remember me? --Wikiwow (a.k.a. DiZ) Yes, I have sold out.

The t in Tsunami isn't silent, you're just not pronouncing it properly.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to fjord (where you say "fee - yourd"). So, "fuh-nord," except more like "f'nord," so "finord." Yeah, that's it, "finord." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.73.116 (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'fnord' is silent. McGehee (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not always silent; it depends on the context. The 'f' should stay silent if the word is used first in a sentence. Otherwise, /f.nɔrd/ is acceptable, though in a literal context, /f.nerd/ or /f.nérd/ while rounding the mouth is of better usage . Enigma55 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't say fjord or f**** in two syllables, or make the f silent. Do you pronounce "few" and "future" as "fee-yew" and "fee-you-ture"? I didn't think so, and so you should be able to pronounce fjord as "fyord", in one syllable without any trouble, though you may have a hard time breaking the habit.

As to the unword under undiscussion, we have plenty of words beginning with sn-, like snake and Snape and snicker; and for many people a fair number of words beginning with shn- or schn- (pronounced the same), like s(c)hnook and the name Schneider. (Similarly for sm- and s(c)hm-, like small, shmear, and schmuck.) Just treat f**** the same way and say it in one syllable, IPA: /fnɔrd/.

For that matter, the same goes for my username. --Thnidu (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Theories on Creation of Word

Um, is it just me or is this section a bunch of vandalist junk? --*ralian*

It's not just you. Reverted. Pat Berry 17:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely you. Bring you A game to this party, or you will be destitute with the poodles out back! <fnord> Pauljbenedict (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is just you.
Fnord is the lint inside your bellybutton,
Fnord is green tea without the tea
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.40.187 (talk)
The key, creation and meaning of Fnord is poodle-school simple when implied in the following context;
$20 (same as in town)
added by maabof and "the teacher told us Wikipedia isn't a trusted source dad" sons : 9.3.2010

Etymology

It might be useful if someone could provide a pronunciation and cite some reference to an actual origin/etymology for this created word. Judging by its supposed meaning, I would suggest it might be a portmanteau of "fjord" (a narrow sea islet between steep slopes) and "canard" (a deliberately false story); however, I'm not knowledgeable about Illuminati fandom, so I wouldn't pursue such Original Research. Someone might check Wilson or Shea's writings/interviews to see if they provide any illumination. —Leflyman^Talk 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Or you could check, too. — Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon, aka    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) fnord

Yhea, not a lot of explaining is going on in the Wilson or Shea department; at least not the kind you are referring to. These are works of (supposed) fiction, so I'd just credit the imagination. However, your imagined etymology works great for me - best I've ever heard! Pauljbenedict (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fnord miscellany

I remember reading this Fnord definition back in the days of BBSs Fnord by Binky, April 19, 1989, would it be worth linking? Steve Jackson Games also used the word fnord to refer to angle brackets:"< >" in one of their publications. And then if you've ever wanted to see the fnords in the New York Times: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&datetype=0&sortby=RELEVANCE&restrict=articles&QryTxt=fnord Schizombie 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking English

Let's examine the grammar of this sentence: "The Illuminati program children, while still in grade school, are taught to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'." To break it down, the subject is "The Illuminati", the verb is "program", and the direct object is "children". The verb "are taught" is a mistake. Instead, "to be unable to conciously see the word 'fnord'" describes what is programmed into children. The verb "are taught" does not work in the sentence structure. If someone is hung on the words "are taught", then this is a viable sentence: "Under the Illuminati program, children are taught, while still in grade school, to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'."

You're right, of course. The sentence is confusing because the subject is unclear; I assumed it was "The Illuminati program children" (as one big noun). I changed the sentence to "Under the Illuminati program, children, while still in grade school, are taught to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'." for clarity. Λυδαcιτγ 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice improvement, Audacity. Placing the dependent clause immediately after children does produce better clarity than my sample.

I must agree. Nice to see another grammar cop. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New User Category: Fnording Wikipedians

I'm considering implementing a template/user category: Category:Fnording Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have fnorded their userpage. Thoughts? samwaltz 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun idea, but it will get killed if you try. Make a userbox, sure, but I would not bother with the category. It will not last long enough to be worth the effort. On that subject, though, make sure that you have all of your user categories on your watch list. That makes it easier for people to use the category talk page for collaboration, and as a bonus, you know when somebody puts the category up for discussion. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blank spaces?

Why is the entire history of this article riddled with gaps of whitespace? Such shocking typography and/or repeated, localised blanking vandalism is making me feel uneasy. --LionsPhil 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually... what exactly is the title of this article?--84.57.90.212 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Beetle Bailey's eyes

Fnords are like Beetle Bailey's eyes: you are probably not aware that you have never seen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.18 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy Bridge

Ave Discordia! I was idly Googling for things related to my misspent youth, and what should turn up but this! I don't know whether I was the first person to adorn Anarchy Bridge with Discordian ejaculations, but... ah well. Fame, of a kind. Kay Dekker (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hail Eris! Kudos to you :D --Alf ^melmac 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All hail Discordia! Adamantios (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Derp.

The deletionists can get rid of good articles but not this. Yeah, no, wikipedia isn't a failed project. Clearly this page would be more fnordified if it didn't exist. --66.188.84.217 (talk)fnord~ —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Lead sentence

I find the lead sentence to be very convoluted and confusing. My head just about exploded after trying to understand it. 67.1.49.191 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. . . that's weird

Is it just me, or is this article blank for some reason? I mean, the hyperlink I clicked on didn't have any text in it (although it was about 5 characters long, give or take), so I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting, but I certainly wasn't expecting a blank page. I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.59.26 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Illuminati are pretty active in trying to discourage people from understanding this concept. You have likely witnessed their guile, my friend. :) Pauljbenedict (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

They Live?

Why is there link to the film 'They Live?' in the 'See Also' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.81.124 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.81.124 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The link was there because the movie "They Live" is centered around a very similar idea of invisible things placed all over by a ruling conspiracy. Basically all the consumerist propaganda the main character sees with his special glasses are Fnords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.16.69 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of the fnord phenomena - we should add the link to They Live back in! Pauljbenedict (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Read between the lines

The article twice states that "seeing the fnords" is similar to "reading between the lines". This is uncited and, to me, erroneous. To read between the lines means to comprehend an author's unstated intention, which is not present in the text. To see the fnords means to see something that IS present in the text, but was previously unnoticed due to prior conditioning. These seem to me to be completely separate concepts, except that they both involve realizations that occur while reading text. Mnudelman (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mnudelman: That phrase has been removed from the article by the time I read it. However, I think it does apply more than you said, as illustrated by these perhaps newer sentences in the article:

For the rest of their lives, every appearance of the word subconsciously generates a feeling of unease and confusion, and prevents rational consideration of the text in which it appears.

And:

The exclusion of the text from rational consciousness also enables the Illuminati to publish messages to each other in newspapers, etc., without fear that other people will be aware of them.

If we compare rational consideration of texts and noticing certain publicly published messages to being unable to do either, then I think that reading between the lines is a good comparison, and maybe even should be in the article again.

A point that is made in the article is that this is not all about being unable or able to see the word, it's also about the word's effect on comprehension of the text around it, as describe in the quotes above. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A f****ish (fannish) bingo

One time at the Arisia sf convention, in the 10–minute period between events that allowed for going from one room to another, I was part of the hall crowd as we passed a couple of guys standing against a wall, one of them wearing a F**** T-shirt. Just after passing them I suddenly stopped and put a hand to my forehead as if in intense concentration, held it a few seconds, and shook my head as if in extreme frustration. As I resumed walking, I heard the T-shirt wearer say to his companion, "That's the best reaction I've had yet!" --Thnidu (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

example

In hopes of keeping this article on point.

There was an article in a major metro newspaper, about how two drunk yahoos had been driving around out in the far fringes (rural, really) firing their guns in the air, and a spent bullet fatally wounded a woman standing on her porch. Tragic, certainly. Though the paper regularly flaunted its high journalistic standards, in this case they went for the yellow journalism credo: "If it bleed, it leads." The front-page above the fold headline was

Suburban mother of three murdered in home

(Notice free use of "murder," even though the yahoos had not been formally charged, let alone convicted.)

On seeing this, I was bemused to observe my own visceral reactions, all occurring before I was even close enough to begin reading the body text. Until that moment, I'd never appreciated how REAL the fnrd is.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! A Fnord is a specific way of describing the general phenomenon of social control - something every member of a society experiences. In the 2016-2020 US climate of "fake news", one would expect to see a resurgence of fnrd like memes and other fnrd-esk expressions. "Seeing the fnords" is a way to mentally cope with the corrosive effects of over-indoctrination by media and propaganda. Media outlets and propagandists everywhere pray that concepts like fnord go away, so they can pipe their messages directed into the targeted populations' nervous systems without resistance. When subconscious control over a population is wielded effectively for political control or commercial profit, one can see the "value" on the control side of the exercise. Seeing the fnords and resisting subconscious indoctrination via limiting media consumption or otherwise is the other side of that "value" equation. If someone doesn't think that fnords exist, or does not see the value in exploring concepts like this, I'd ask them why governments, companies, etc invest so much time and money in crafting and delivering messages intended to manipulate behaviour.

Your example of careless gun fire resulting in a death that goes unpunished is an example of the writer or editor of that newspaper consciously or subconsciously promoting one line of behaviour over another. You identify a tragic and extreme example, but a good illustration of how common sense (expressed through your gut feeling) is in conflict with the "established narrative". Calling that bullshit is seeing the fnords in my view. Pauljbenedict (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft's Illegal and Monopolistic Approach Suppressed Free, Open Source Software in an Effort to Eliminate Fair Competition with it's Products

Hi Clarinetguy097, I noticed you issued a SYNTH challenge to a sentence or two on the Fnord page. This was a new concept for me, so I read through the definition of SYNTH, and ask that you consider SYNTH is not obvious and review all the references made in that paragraph, as these are not my conclusions, they are deeply supported by the history of the matter. Especially review this reference Download The True Story of the Internet - Browser Wars which clearly lays out the history of Microsoft's monopolistic efforts to dominate the fledgling internet through suppressing open source software and illegally acting against a direct competitor in Netscape Navigator. My assertion in this paragraph is that the free and open-source Fnord! web server was affected by the same monopolistic atmosphere that sealed the fate of Netscape Navigator and that Netscape fought back by open sourcing it's browser code and establishing the Mozilla foundation, which laid the foundation for all modern, open source browsers. Pauljbenedict (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see my mistake now. I did text searches in your references without reading them closely. United States v. Microsoft Corp. didn't mention "Mozilla" and it didn't occur to me that it might have gone by a different name, so I just assumed that the case was with a different company. My bad on that.

However, I have a few more concerns with your section. Please take this as constructive criticism. The first is that it's not good practice to use other Wikipedia articles as references. The second is that Mozilla/Netscape isn't directly related to Fnord!, which, furthermore, makes it seem like your discussion of Fnord! morphs into a rant against Microsoft. No matter how much Microsoft deserves the criticism, we as Wikipedia contributors need to stay within the neutral point of view. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Clarinetguy097 (talk), I see what you're saying about the rant aspect of the text. Let me see if I can re-think and re-write the section with that in mind. I see a link here, but perhaps I haven't taken the time to articulate it clearly. Thanks! Pauljbenedict (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I can also see a kind of thematic connection, but in my view, it would only really be relevant to bring up Mozilla here if Communicator was some kind of continuation of the Fnord! project. The subject of your section is Fnord!, not Microsoft being monopolistic. So by talking about Mozilla, you're losing your focus. Now, in other types of writing, it might be appropriate as a side note, but not in an encyclopedia. Alternatively, if you were writing an encyclopedia article about the history of open source software, you could certainly write about both Fnord! and Communicator.

I can appreciate that you're willing to tone down your writing, but the thing is, the rant aspect is, in my reading, mainly a result of the sentence being off-topic. It makes it seem like you just want to make Microsoft look bad, rather than talk about a software that is named Fnord. Now that might not be your real intention. If I had read everything but the last sentence, I don't think I would have come to that conclusion.

I hope this clarifies my previous comment. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Example

In the Gallery section, there is an altered Ford Motors logo - does it need to be there? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 19:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes - it's an example of the phenomena. Pauljbenedict (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it really an example of the phenomenon, though? Ford is a company in the business of selling product, so I doubt they're fnording their own logos. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes - it's an example of the phenomena. It's an example of a symbol hiding in plain sight that looks familiar and reassuring, but is really saying something else. Pauljbenedict (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A modder known to me only as “Insane J” uses it on the grille badge of the Transit vans in his traffic mods for Euro Truck Simulator 2. You may sleep easy in these troubled times now you know this. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't encourage him. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Fnord Bomber

A highly effective tool for displacing social control, excerpted from The Zenarchist’s CooKBook, which is published under the authority of the Paratheoanametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric(POEE) Council of the Twenty-Third Degree, for the jurisdiction of The Legion Of Dynamic Discord, and of the House Of The Apostles Of Eris, by the Pope and Poo-Bah-Pontif, under the grand command of the office of his High Reverence, the Benevolent Polyfather, and is now published by its/their/hir direction. It has been CopyLefted, to promote its free publication elsewhere, and the CopyLeft, like those of all the other works prepared for the Council, has been assigned to the trustees of POEE (which works out well, as POEE has no treasury).

File:Fnord-Bomber-Instructions.jpg File:Fnord-Bomber-Bombs-Away!.jpg

I think the above should stay in the article, what say yhea? Pauljbenedict (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Continued insertion of unencyclopedic material

This article is about a fictional phenomenon and an invented word. The article should not treat it as a real phenomenon (e.g. the "Can You See the Fnords?" and the bomber), and any examples of the word's usage should be clearly marked as such. Moreover, not every usage of the word merits mention (e.g. the typeface). Mere insertions of the word, whether in the article's text or as images, add no value to the article whatsoever. 136.228.100.144 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You're completely wrong about this, anonymous user from Norman, OK. A Fnord can never be "clearly marked as such". Your lack of experience in these matters shines through your desire to apply your encyclopedic dictums to a slippery bit of reality. Examples of Fnords and Fnording are of great value to this article, as it is an article about Fnords. Am I being trolled by the Illuminati here? I love you guys, keep up the great work! Pauljbenedict (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hagbard, Is that you? Jon Stewart must take the beautiful additive from Alpha Complex. Pauljbenedict (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Those replies were uncalled for, Paul. Besides that, you're showing a clear pattern of continually re-adding unencyclopedic material without a consensus in favor of it. If you continue these behaviors, I'm going to escalate the issue to an administrator's noticeboard.

In my view, the image macro memes and the bomber are clearly inappropriate. The typeface seems non-notable to me, but I'm not going to take a hard stance on it. If you truly believe you have a solid case for any of your additions, I would suggest that you wait for a consensus before you continue editing. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarinetguy097 (talk, perhaps we have a difference of opinion as to how wikipedia should be edited. I spend my time adding things I would like to see on the Fnord page if I was visiting it for the first time (i.e. examples of Fnords) and you spend your time complaining about how this is not encyclopedic, deleting my contributions, and "reporting" me to the other marms who enjoy persecuting the letter (and not the spirit) of the law. When I open an encyclopedia, I go there for information, examples, images, etc. I don't go there for a lesson in grammar. Perhaps you could shove off to some other neighborhood of the more than 6 million articles collected on wikipedia. Or, perhaps you could positively contribute to the subject collected here. Do you see your behaviour as encouraging people to get involved with wikipedia? You're so fast to invoke archaic rules and force me to go through layers of wiki-legalese. Just so we're clear - I love fnords. They are so cool, and looking through the history of this page, I can see that great examples have been removed over and over by the grammerati. If there was any justice on wikipedia, this page would be a altar to the fnord. My feelings about this border on the religious, so report me to whomever you need to. I'm here for the long haul.

BTW - I'm learning a ton about how to go through the rigorous image submission process on wiki Commons and I've reached out to the authors of several of the images that have been removed to have them update the details of their creative common licenses to bring them into alignment with Wikimedia's requirements. It drives me crazy that wikipedia is policed to this level. It's a 501(c)3 non-profit educational effort, clearly fair-use applies here.

Seriously, when you look at the current state of the Internet – why should Wikipedia be the only place that follows the letter of the US copyright law? Is that being done anywhere else? I can go to Facebook right now and show you a thousand examples of "copyright infringement" that is directly benefiting a nearly 600 billion dollar company. Why in Gods name of the greenhouse effect would we hold ourselves to a standard that no one else is following? Why not use the DMCA complaint process like every other platform on the Internet? We look like idiots to the world when we enforce these kinds of blue laws on ourselves.

However, as we are both contributing our time for free here, that makes us allies in a way of looking at it. When you say consensus, are you referring to a formal vote process I can invoke on this page? I see references to votes taking place, but it seems like it's just text passing back and forth - is that voting? Also, what's to be done when we have a low volume of contributions on the talk page? It doesn't seem like a vote with 2 people means much. And just so we're clear - I do appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts to me. You have helped me increase my wiki-foo tremendously. I wish I didn't have to learn all the rigorous legalese (it seems like such a waste of time), but it's happening and I suspect one day I'll make a perfect, unassailable post that you're welcome to correct my grammar within :) Pauljbenedict (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with Commons. Consensus doesn't need to be formal, and I think working towards a consensus by discussion is most appropriate here. RfC seems like a good way to get more editors involved. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• FNORD.jpg
• Paulo-Goode-Fnord-Typeface.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)