| Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Attention! Wikipedia and Boobpedia Lies; Fraud on multi-user information websites | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 13 2009, 12:28 PM (6,138 Views) | |
| SuperAmanda | Feb 13 2009, 12:28 PM Post #1 |
|
Ray Of Fright
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I cannot begin to tell you how offensive the amount of doctored and false information about Mankdonna is on wikipedia and on Boobpedia. Firstly, and this is just AWFUL, madonna's wikipedia filmography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_filmography That might as well include each time she walked near a movie theater and passed wind, includes the most offense section that is just swimming in lies called "Film roles associated with Madonna" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_filmo...ed_with_Madonna Notice how when she was dropped from the film or acted like a skanky hag that's conveniently left out. The desperation of madonna fans is just pathetic. eg:"This project (originally called "Angie, I Says") was created with Madonna in mind for the starring role, but then scheduling conflicts arose with the filming of Dangerous Game." Uh no, she actually acted like a grasping control freak, was not right for the part and she was canned, then she acted like a compete banshee and started ragging in the papers with these badly worded attempts at a stinging rebuke. half of those films mentioned in wikipedia she was NEVER attached too, it was all just rumor. anyway if anyone has citations and references end them to me and i will redit the information. Most of the "facts" cited have no references which makes sense because they're 100% false! And while Boobpedia is just a site for adults, wikipedia is referenced by the entire world and her articles need to be overhauled beacuse their is enough misinformation and lies being pimped by her beloved media without the people's information being altered too. Secondly, Boobpedia is a fun, silly boobcentric website cataloging larger chested celebs, amateurs and adult entertainment stars in a wikipedia format. They have C cup minimum which means no Mandonna and happily for about a year she was off the site until some idiot who is into fishnets, fashion designers, latex clothing (get my drift) and other metro-sexual garbage put her in there. I protested and sent in over ten photos throughout all her ENTIRE career that show that, unless she going to have an abortion or is breast feeding, that she can't measure up and is actually concave. That big foot craw photo just sold at Christie's proves it as well. http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Madonna I tried to change the photo and add photos her from Swept Away bikini shots but the aforementioned editor of the page flipped out. Claiming manky's own information is the most reliable source. Thankfully the Website creator allowed me to put in two paragraphs about how she only had something close to C cup for about a year and that she NEVER has had these hourglass measurements she still claims of 34-24-34. I remember Joan Rivers getting her measurements on her talk show, the same ones used for the D*ck Tracy costumes, which she had to gain weight for and her cup size was a B/C My response to the whacked out madonna defender: "The biggest lesson of Madonna is that she is a liar and a cheat about everything and everything is for drawing attention to herself. so of course she is going to carefully hype herself as a c with an hourglass figure because that is much more preferable than what she really is: a b cup with a boyish/athlete's figure. Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case. The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. the same PR that said she had a 'happy marriage.' one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a slight C cup from being heavier TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated. " |
![]() |
|
| edge6678 | Feb 14 2009, 09:54 AM Post #2 |
|
Shanghi-ed Away
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
someone should end all the lies of the hag on the mentioed sites above. I agree SuperAmanda. If someone should re edit that information they should do so in a honest manner. |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Feb 14 2009, 11:44 AM Post #3 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
Just letting everyone know that rather than merge this thread with the 'Internet' thread that I've placed a link to this thread in the Index pages (in other words, I'm keeping it separate). You can look for this thread under I > Internet (on the A - L Index page), and on the other index page, the M - Z Index page, under W > Wikipedia. One of the only reasons I wouldn't bother messing with Wiki pages is that there are some people who are slavishly devoted to them, and five seconds after you've corrected their mistakes, they will log back in and paste back in what they had before. I don't know if that's true of Madonna related pages, but I bet it is. It might be futile to try to keep a Madonna page 'honest.' If that's your thing and you want to keep messing with Madonna Wiki pages, I don't mean to rain on your parade, I'm just speaking personally here. Regarding Madonna's cup size: I would say that she's had larger cleavage at other points in her life other than pregnancy, but I think it was due to breast implants. She never seemed very naturally "endowed" (she looks almost down-right flat chested in some photos I've seen of her), so in some photos when she appears larger, it always looked like the work of a cosmetic surgeon (or weight gain). I really try not to give Madonna's breasts (or certain other body parts) too much thought if I can help it. :puke3: |
![]() |
|
| anshirk | Feb 15 2009, 05:40 AM Post #4 |
|
madonna go away
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have experienced the same even my account got banned for correcting some information. I have long since given up logging, the moment you change it the very next second somebody is there to reverse it. Some politics are being played I think. On one account they even deleted the history archives of changes made usually they keep an archive for 1-2 years. They deleted it so I could not access the page I changed so I could not put it back the way it was when I made the changes, so clever of them. I am not trying to make you lose hopes but, when you make the changes you must keep a "word file copy" with you so you can again go there and change back what they reversed over and over again as many times you can. I tried to clarify some false history and they kept believeing their false legends. I gave them full proof of all accounts still they went back to the same old paragraph, no use. It didn't really concern me so I gave up. But considering madoona I wouldn't give up at all, just keep on doing it. |
![]() |
|
| edge6678 | Feb 15 2009, 01:19 PM Post #5 |
|
Shanghi-ed Away
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i'd feel safe using other sites than wikipedia. Maybe the Hag re-edits her own page!
|
![]() |
|
| noone3 | Feb 15 2009, 02:37 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Desperately Seeking Clarity
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I honestly think Wiki allows misinformation because they receive big donations from the people in question. |
![]() |
|
| edge6678 | Feb 15 2009, 07:45 PM Post #7 |
|
Shanghi-ed Away
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good point! |
![]() |
|
| Mihoshi Marie | Feb 16 2009, 03:39 AM Post #8 |
|
to whom it may concern
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wikipedia also keeps old versions of the entry pages. I used to love using Wikipedia for school assignments, and then of course, my college said that it can no longer be used in references. Sad thing is, a given Wikipedia entry is usually on the first page of any search engine results. As for the hag, I think she edits, or at least pays someone to keep her entry the way she wants it to be. I am sure a lot of people do it - even some random prince edited his own Wikipedia entry (this happened last year or so). |
![]() |
|
| SuperAmanda | Feb 16 2009, 10:13 PM Post #9 |
|
Ray Of Fright
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Haha VERY true! Thanks for all your feedback. I recently had great success with re-diting the article so I was being optimistic but you're all correct, with people devoting entire pages to remixes and straight to video dvds. The only thing amazing about Madonna is the rank stupidity and sad neediness that her fans display. |
![]() |
|
| Melissa | Sep 15 2011, 09:42 PM Post #10 |
|
Evil Admin Extraordinaire™
![]()
|
Not that I like thinking about Manny's boobage, but I am and have been a C-cup since high school (although, now that I'm older and have gained some weight, I'm nearly a D), and there's no way she's as busty as I am. If she was, there'd be a slight but noticeable sag to her breasts (due to their mass). She's not big enough to sag. She looks like an A-cup (as in "not quite a B", as her breasts are clearly smaller than my mom's B-cups). A's and B's are perfectly normal and not at all bad, and it makes no sense to lie about something as silly as one's cup size. |
![]() |
|
| SuperAmanda | Sep 16 2011, 12:54 AM Post #11 |
|
Ray Of Fright
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, as Flea said thinking about her body and size is actually very gross!! I was going through a phase where I was pointing out the lies about celebrity measurements and overly concerned but now with the net, it is clear that they all lie. I do still think, in retrospect that madonna and the media hyped a small set in a such a blatantly false way that it lowered the bar for all this "I hated my womanly curves crap." Clipping from back then are a joke-it was if she was Mansfield. (I think small is actually superior btw just not on her) Madonna was complaining about "having a voluptuous body" etc etc The media was touting her as "Marilyn's double" and "Marilyns figure" when there was zero curves even then. Even during 85ish when she was not hugely cut she was still 99%linear As for lies on wikipeda though. Legolas2186, the lying fan **** cruft pov stooge will not alter the fake reviews: As stated before he won't remove it. If anyone want to try and raise it they'll be attacked. Nor will he accept that W.E. is not "W.E" with ONE period! Typical madonna freak wanting control over even the most minute detail! If you make even the kindest most minute changes he flips out. He is a complete psycho. He added even this lame quote
Oh jeez, this **** just want up!
THEY WERE NAZI SYMPATHIZERS, MADONNA YOU LAME HAG! Edited by SuperAmanda, Sep 16 2011, 12:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| flea dip | May 30 2014, 09:33 PM Post #12 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
This was also posted to the "Internet" thread --------------------- Madonna is #72 on the list. I have never tinkered with the Madonna Wiki page, just for everyone's info. I have never had a desire to fool around with that. I perceive it as being a never-ending battle. I'm trying to remember if I even have a Wiki account. I might have, come to think of it, but it was years ago, and I don't remember what e mail address or name I signed up with, but my brief foray into Wiki had nothing to do with Madonna while I was on there. I think I was looking at political articles. I cannot copy and paste their chart, so I am only going to type in a small number of the entries. The 100 Most-Edited Wikipedia Articles
|
![]() |
|
| Marilynrules62 | Jun 1 2014, 08:10 AM Post #13 |
|
Ray Of Fright
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wikipedia says that Madonna's sold 300 million records worldwide, but I think it's more like 260 to 270 million. |
![]() |
|
| Blue Tiger | Jun 2 2014, 12:41 PM Post #14 |
|
Desperately Seeking Clarity
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Few days ago they told in news that approximately 90% of wikipedia articles about illnesses and dieseases are wrong. They are not totally wrong but include some misinformation. The worst thing is not that some people believe it and use wikiepdia to heal themselves from little troubles but some doctors use it as a source of knowledge. My parents told me one of our first contact doctors does it. When it's about Moldonna, not only flattering articles are rewritten by her fans but there are also negative ones by haters. For example some info about her samples on 'Bedtime copies' are wrong, such as "Forbidden Love" samples "Down Here on the Ground" performed by Grant Green or Inside of Me samples "Outstanding" performed by The Gap Band. I've listened to it many times and didn't find any similarity. Plus there is a new sentence which wasn't there before. "Survival" – "Hey Love" performed by Stevie Wonder. It also seems to be false. Edited by Blue Tiger, Jun 2 2014, 12:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Jun 14 2014, 09:29 AM Post #15 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
This study was based on mentions of Madonna's name on Wiki. This seems familiar. I may have posted another story on this over a week ago? Maybe these Gigwise people are using the "most edited Wiki" list as the basis for this - in which case, the list showed Madonna is not the "most influential" but that her page has been edited more frequently than most other entertainers. New study names Madonna as most influential woman in history
|
![]() |
|
| Julia Griggs | Jun 14 2014, 03:22 PM Post #16 |
|
Ultimate Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^^^^ Another indication we're already living in an Idiocracy: this form of stuffing the ballot box. Terrible. Depressing. |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Jun 23 2015, 03:09 PM Post #17 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
Wikipedia Pages of Star Clients Altered by P.R. Firm
|
![]() |
|
| Realist84 | Jun 30 2015, 05:47 PM Post #18 |
|
Desperately Seeking Clarity
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've noticed that over the years since Wikipedia came into place that people basically repeat what they read on celebrities' Wikipedia pages. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Madonna Blows Chunks · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






1:17 PM Jul 11