Why does Wikipedia have the GBA SP AGS-101 screen listed as 50hz?

[Anonymous No.9588762]

It's listed as 50hz on Wikipedia. When you check the source it's some random free literally who book that doesn't even say where it got that information from. I can't find a single other source that says the screen is 50hz. It doesn't even really make sense. For the screen to run at 50hz the games would have to run significantly slower or simply drop the extra frames resulting in stuttering. We can obviously see it's not doing either of these. So what's up with this? Remember, GB(C/A) games aren't like PC games. They're not designed to run at any framerate. Something's off here.

This is what they're using as a source BTW: https://books.google.com/books?id=J1aAAwAAQBAJ&q=nintendo+ds+refresh+rate&pg=PT799#v=snippet&q=nintendo ds refresh rate&f=false

This is the only place I can find this information...

[Anonymous No.9588798]

>>9588762
Why come here with this stuff? Wikipedia is a collective effort and you're free to challenge anything mentioned provided you can reliably back it up. You mentioned on the talk page that "everything else" states it is 60Hz. This is very poor reasoning. If you can point the editors to one or multiple reliable sources stating to be 60Hz it will probably be changed.

[Anonymous No.9588805]

While I don't think you should really worry about Wikipedia autism, here is when that specific line was added:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Advance_SP&diff=prev&oldid=960237867
and here is the user that added it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maxeto0910

So he's from a pal region, but even so none of the GBAs ran in pal standards obviously...


The "AGS-101 runs at 50Hz" meme is really old, I remember seeing it like 10 years ago and I don't know where it comes from. But the frame rate in the GBA is determined by CPU cycles, not the display, and all of them run at 59.725ish hz except for the Game Boy Player which duplicates a frame every few seconds to run at 59.94Hz (which gives it it's awful stutter)

[Anonymous No.9588813]

>https://www.ign.com/articles/2005/09/21/gba-sp-gets-brighter
>The updated GBA SP's screen is now on par with the Game Boy Micro, at least in brightness and clarity. But it's not perfect -- the refresh rate is a tad slower than the classic GBA SP and Game Boy Micro screen, so there's an ever so subtle "blur" when objects move or the screen scrolls.

[Anonymous No.9588815]

>>9588798
>Wikipedia is a collective effort and you're free to challenge anything mentioned provided you can reliably back it up

complete bullshit. wikipedia's editors are 99.9% PR agents and intelligence community opperatives

[Anonymous No.9588816]

>>9588762
I think that's a long said rumour because of the noticeable ghosting, which was always there but only really apparent when they put in a backligt

[Anonymous No.9588825]

>>9588815
So whose PR agents or intelligence community opperatives want people to think that a 50 years old electronic toy ran at 50Hz?

[Anonymous No.9588839]

>>9588825
Misinformation wastes time. Distracts you from real issues. That's why you spread it everywhere you can.
Wikipedia has been compromised for years.

[Anonymous No.9588851]

>>9588839
>Misinformation
buzzword, in the real world we call that lies and propaganda

[Anonymous No.9588854]

>>9588839
lol

[Anonymous No.9588856]

>>9588798
>This is very poor reasoning. If you can point the editors to one or multiple reliable sources stating to be 60Hz it will probably be changed.
As opposed to a random book that just makes it up...

[Anonymous No.9588862]

>>9588813
Yes that's referring to pixel response times. Not the refresh rate. They're different things.

[Anonymous No.9588864]

>>9588825
Wikipedia is shit. I agree that this case no one messed with it, but it's fucking shit. Genuine shit. You'll find your resources for the topics you keep on revisiting. Using Wikipedia as the one-stop would be fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.9588872]

>>9588762
Congrats, you just found out the main reason why wikipedia sucks ass.
You could do a technical analysis on the AGS-101 screen demonstrably proving it's true refresh rate, and your source will be instantly deleted to the shadowrealm because LOL ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Meanwhile some bullshit broscience myth will be listed as a credible source because some retarded tech writer at kotaku said it was so with absolutely nothing to back it up

[Anonymous No.9588975]

>>9588872
They put up guidelines discouraging editors from referencing primary sources a few years back. So yes, they would unironically take the word of a tech blogger over a service manual.

[Anonymous No.9588983]

Did anyone try the emulators to see the max possible video hz specs?

[Anonymous No.9588992]

>>9588839
You're literally wasting your time in general if your posting on 4chan. Revaluate your life. Better yet kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9589008]

>>9588815
Far worse anon, they're actually mostly stupid pedants. That is to say they're jannies

[Anonymous No.9589050]

>>9588983
Emulators only support 60hz for GBA. There is no 50hz option in any of them.

[Anonymous No.9589059]

>>9588983
the hertz are related to the display, not the device
the problem is with the refresh rate on the ags-101 not the framerate
it's just a git blurry

[Anonymous No.9589091]

>>9589059
Once again. Pixel response time and the refresh rate of a display are two different things.

[Anonymous No.9589254]

>>9588798
>Why come here with this stuff?
Probably to get the sources for those "everything else". Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you.
>Wikipedia is a collective effort
It is. But not for what you imagine it is.

[Anonymous No.9589261]

I actually kind of like the original SP's screen better. Also my DS Lite looks better than AGS-101 screen for GBA games.

[Anonymous No.9589290]

I have been playing Pokemon Emerald on my Micro and it feels like I can see ghosting or some blur when running around. Same with Castlevania Aria of Sorrow.

[Anonymous No.9589306]

>>9589261
>that DS button placement for A and B
Basically killed any and all interest in me using it for GBA games. Even more than the cartridge sticking out the bottom.

[Anonymous No.9589309]

>>9589306
>that DS button placement for A and B
what does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.9589314]

>>9588815
This.
>>9589008
And This.
>>9589254
And This.

I gave up on wikipedia when I looked up a childrens book because I wanted to discover if there were similar childrens books. Anyway, 75% of the wikipedia entry was Interpretation, a twisted sexualized interpretation by a gay man, and Controversy, the author apparently wrote a tirade in the 90s before they died about how gay meant happy and was not sexual. Basically wikipedia at some point turned into a forum for psychologically damaged people to project their favorite catfights, usually Vice and Wapo fluf articles, over everyone elses day to day facts. If you try to clean it up, I have, they just roll it back.

[Anonymous No.9589321]

If you find out the truth, don't fix it.

Let wikipedia burn

[Anonymous No.9589534]

>>9588762
First of all, Wikipedia is written by people. All other encyclopedias are written by people, too, they don't appear out of thin air in finished form. The process is known and can be understood.

Let's see what we got here. The “book” is free to read and download:
https://books.google.com/books?id=J1aAAwAAQBAJ
It's clearly some kind of cheap digital print-on-demand publication with a mismatching template. The “publisher” site lists a nonsensical collection of similar works, so I'm not even sure that the author is a real person. Despite the 2021 copyright year, most of the text is semi-automatically copied from old ass Wikipedia articles. The one in the beginning hasn't been existing for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artistic_computer_game_modification&action=history
This one in the end was quite different back in the days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konami_Code&oldid=35584877

However, the reviews, like the Game Boy one, came from a different source. The website mentions translation from French and Romanian, that can explain the lack of other copies of English phrase. Maybe someone else can find the original articles.

The original author, some journalist in the 2000s, could naturally make a mistake and consider the discussion of longer response times of a brighter screen a symptom of a lower refresh rate.

[Anonymous No.9589537]

>>9589534

So what you can do? First, use the talk page to list your doubts:
— Single low quality source.
— Source doesn't actually mention those model numbers.
— Direct TV output was not an option, no “PAL models” are known to exist. That said, it had nothing to do with NTSC either, the refresh rate was probably chosen to be similar enough to port existing games without recalculation of all timing constants.
— It would require a big technical mess to use a different refresh rate for the screen (another independent oscillator, wire speed buffering, and so on).
— Emulators have zero support for such a thing.

Then you simply edit the page to remove the statement about 50 Hz screen, and put “see talk page” in comment. Unless someone wants to defend the previous choice, YOU have writtene a better article for everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

Social networks have taught a lot of people to be extremely passive consumers, and many don't even think that they can do something on the internet on their own.

[Anonymous No.9589581]

>>9589537
Ugh, forgot the other thing.

You can use the blame tool and search for "50 Hz":
http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=Game_Boy_Advance_SP
to find that 50 Hz was first stated incorrectly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Advance_SP&diff=prev&oldid=960237867
by an active, but probably not familiar with the hardware, editor. Some time later it was “corrected” without any discussion in the worst possible manner (hidden among minor link edits) by an old user who should've known better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Advance_SP&diff=next&oldid=1071607187

[Anonymous No.9589597]

Fuck me this one's a wild ride.
So the 800-page book listed as a source was written by a former Romanian spook.
>The book is made by organizing Telework articles (main sources: my own articles, Wikipedia
>under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license adapted by Nicolae Sfetcu, and other sources).
Among other things it has the following stuff
>Speculation in regards to the upcoming Halo 3
>Gizmondo Halo is rumoured and definitely coming
>Entire sections copy-pasted from Wikipedia with complete with citations[4]
>Mention of an unlicensed Nintendo franchisee in the Philippinies (they finally got a legit deal in 2022 apparently)
And I found a direct source for some of the text from the GBA SP section. It's directly copy-pasted from a Japanese site hosted on Tripod
This is a fascinating book that's basically useless due to being a collection of unsourced rumours and complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9589642]

OK, it is stooopid. Everything with “Home | Up” etc. in the end was simply copy-pasted from (mobile) Wikipedia articles.

It was added in December 2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Advance_SP&diff=prev&oldid=33293442

and removed in January 2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Advance_SP&diff=prev&oldid=36483830

We have completed the circle. Wikipedia article references incorrect version of itself from 2006.

>>9589597
It is also a copy of old Wiki article.

[Anonymous No.9589652]

Every time I check a "wikipedia source" it's always some bullshit like this.

Yet people on /vr/ (and elsewhere) always spout their wikipedia knowledge in every thread

[Anonymous No.9589658]

>>9589652
I don't mind using it as a basic info dump, but anyone using it as irrefutable evidence to make an argument is a moron

[Anonymous No.9590110]

>>9589534
>>9589537
>>9589581
>>9589597
>>9589642
You know. I've never taken anything on Wikipedia seriously but referencing a book with old copy pasted information from Wikipedia that was removed before being re-added with this as the source is kind of a new low even for Wikipedia. Usually they at least pretend to use a real source. This is just random BS and everybody else just said "OK".

[Anonymous No.9591527]

>>9590110
You seem to believe that “they” exist, and the problem is “theirs”. In fact, it is pretty much “yours” just as well.

[Anonymous No.9592023]

>>9591527
Those certainly are words you've strung together.

[Anonymous No.9592225]

>>9592023
You seem to believe that there is a certain group that “owns” Wikipedia, and is somehow obliged to offer some kind of better “service” to you.

This is consumerist delusion. Not everything is a business or should be treated as a business. Less than perfect state of Wikipedia affects everyone, just like air pollution from the factories affect everyone who lives nearby.

[Anonymous No.9592235]

This whole thing reminds me of the "You swallow 8 spiders per year" myth
>The Myth: The average person swallows eight spiders per year. Fear not. This "statistic" was not only made up out of whole cloth, it was invented as an example of the absurd things people will believe simply because they come across them on the Internet. In a 1993 PC Professional article, columnist Lisa Holst wrote about the ubiquitous lists of "facts" that were circulating via e-mail and how readily they were accepted as truthful by gullible recipients. To demonstrate her point, Holst offered her own made-up list of equally ridiculous "facts," among which was the statistic cited above about the average person's swallowing eight spiders per year, which she took from a collection of common misbeliefs printed in a 1954 book on insect folklore. In a delicious irony, Holst's propagation of this false "fact" has spurred it into becoming one of the most widely-circulated bits of misinformation to be found on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.9592240]

>>9592235
It's not a myth in Australia

[Anonymous No.9592329]

>>9592240
The best way to catch a spider is to suck it inside your mouth. The stomach neutralizes any possible venom. Might become handy if you're in Australia.

[Anonymous No.9592383]

>>9588798
>Wikipedia is a collective effort and you're free to challenge anything mentioned provided you can reliably back it up.
Total bullsh1t.

1. You need a registered account.

2. You need an account with "good history" to avoid being accused of being a sock puppet or vadalism

3. There are Super Users and Veteran Mods that keep certain articles under lockdown. They treat these pages as their personal kingdom.

4. Even if you do attempt to change it, the people who mod the page will have their ego hurt and attempt to fight you and dispute you on it. Ultimately they have final say to revert changes.

I say this as someone who works in biology and attempted to correct an error on their page with proof to back it up. It started a war where the mod got butthurt that someone was touching "their" page without approval. So my edits (with cited evidence) got reversed.


Its even worse if you touch anything related to popculture (like comics, cartoons, anime, TV shows, etc). Those mods are OCD and don't take kindly to any edits.

[Anonymous No.9592393]

>>9592225
Did you forget to take your meds, anon? What are you even talking about? Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

[Anonymous No.9592428]

>>9592393
First, Wikipedia content is owned by no one. Second, Wikimedia is not providing encyclopedia services (compiling better articles, etc.) to end users, it is concerned with making Wikipedia work. Before discussing what was actually wrong in this case, let's get at least the basics right.

[Anonymous No.9592449]

>>9588762
I don't know why you expected reliability on technical specs from Wikipedia.

>>9588798
Good luck with that.

>>9588825
I think this one is just Dunning-Kruger.

[Anonymous No.9592462]

>>9588839
Anon, I really think this instance is just some editor who's a fucking idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about, you don't need to organize any kind of propaganda campaign to get this, idiots are born all the time and they'll come around if you wait long enough.

>>9588975
Absolutely brilliant.

>>9589597
Ok, I lost my shit here for a bit, this feels so weirdly off the beaten path. I wonder if the same guy did the editing and was sourcing his own book?

[Anonymous No.9592470]

>>9589652
You can use it to get general gist of something miscellaneous, but anything that's important to what you're doing should be second guess. Anything of a controversial nature should be second guessed just because there's all kinds of people with vested interests which at times wield higher editing power.

>>9592383
lmao, what was the error?

[Anonymous No.9592481]

>>9592235
I love that one because of the absurdity of it.
https://youtu.be/4Ow5lGFju1c?t=117

[Anonymous No.9592545]

>>9592428
>First, Wikipedia content is owned by no one.
Irrelevant to what we're talking about. Did you already forget what you posted?

>You seem to believe that there is a certain group that “owns” Wikipedia
This group is the Wikimedia Foundation. Making Wikipedia work is its owners' responsibility. Why are you even trying to argue against these obvious, easily verified facts?

[Anonymous No.9592551]

>>9592545
It is not Wikimedia's responsibility to write better articles.

Imagine the Fart Encyclopedia, in which every article can only contain combinations of the word “fart”. Running the thing would be different from stating that it is useful and makes sense.

[Anonymous No.9592678]

>>9588798
Don't make me bring /pol/ here, cunt.

[Anonymous No.9592765]

>>9592470
>lmao, what was the error?

Keep in mind this was many years ago.

For the Biology error? They misquoted someone's research, and wrote a completely wrong page based on said misquote.

I rewrote whole sections. I provided scans of the page they misquoted. As well as additional research (other books)to back it up. I also rewrote the page so it was easier to understand for people to read it. Whoever wrote the page either doesn't understand English, or has a poor grasp of the source material. I also work in biology professionally. Despite this, they reverted my changes and threatened to ban me if I attempted to edit the page again. 4 mods appeared out of nowhere and issued me warnings. It's like the 1 mod I was debating wirh called in his friends for backup. They rule-sharked me to death. I remember they used some obscure rule saying I violated "a no more than 3 edits in 24 hours" rule. They also quoted several other Wikipedia rules and threatened to ban me. It's was ridiculous. All over their own mistake.


The comic error? It was about the Hulk. They claimed Hulk was a trained weapons master and quoted a long list of weapons that Hulk was a master of (Swords, spears, axes, etc). Literally 1 to 2 pages about Hulk being a weapon grandmaster at all these weapons. I quoted a more recent comic book issues where Hulk wielded an sword and got completely defeated in less than 1 page by a much weaker character who then insulted Hulk's skill with weapons. He called the Hulk a clumsy amateur with weapons. Like a baby. It started a huge argument about "retcons" and what counts as real information. Some people took my side and agreed with my changes (I deleted the whole section about Hulk's weapon mastery section and just wrote that Hulk occasionally uses handheld weapons). After huge arguments between my group and the other group (led by the page mod). The mod threw a fit and locked the page from edits and undid any edits I did or anyone else did.

I hate Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.9592912]

>>9589309
Try playing an action heavy game like Megaman Zero on that and you'll see what he means.

[Anonymous No.9592971]

>>9592912
Explain it to me like I am a child

[Anonymous No.9592975]

>>9589537
This is how it's supposed to work, and sometimes is even how it does work, but if a Wikipedian with enough clout and autism has become emotionally invested in the incorrect version of the facts they will revert any changes and ban you for your trouble if you touch any of their let articles.
And don't get me wrong, I think wikipedia is on the whole a better than average source of information. I can only guess the percentage of bullshit articles propped up by jannies, fluff articles written by PR firms and low quality articles written by elementary school students, but they always feel like the exception to the rule when you come across them as compared to most websites that are mostly shit with the rare exception.

[Anonymous No.9592983]

>>9589597
Judging by how batshit the source is there's a real chance the person who added the 50Hz line to the page is the author. He likely will die before he lets someone take it out of the page.

[Anonymous No.9592986]

>>9592383
>1. You need a registered account.
Not for this article, or most articles in general.

[Anonymous No.9592989]

>>9592551
>It is not Wikimedia's responsibility to write better articles.
No one is saying that, anon. I was only explaining to you that they own Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.9593059]

>>9589581
I did a fact check on this, and it turns out the words: "Your mom is 50hz" are very clearly stenciled on the inside of the SP case beneath the ZIF socket.

[Anonymous No.9593247]

>>9588825
People don't want to admit they made a mistake when they're in positions those mistakes can be pointed out like on Wikipedia. It's about the amount of edits you make, having your edits undone makes you look bad and untrustworthy.

[Anonymous No.9593679]

>>9592983
>He likely will die before he lets someone take it out of the page
This man worked at a communist nuke plant that was definitely not making weapons before moving into intelligence work in the hellscape that was post-revolution Romania
This man certainly knows death, just not his own

[Anonymous No.9594002]

>>9592678
Fuck off back to your daycare board for fat retards.

[Anonymous No.9594317]

>>9588762
The retards at Wikipedia think the Coptic language is extinct.

[Anonymous No.9594323]

>>9592383
I've had mods vandalize my talk page to try to shut things up.

[Anonymous No.9594590]

>>9591527
But "they" do exist. The voices in your head, I mean.

[Anonymous No.9594608]

GBA = bad design

[Anonymous No.9594630]

>>9593679
Imagine having such a dramatic life story then in middle age you become obsessed with incorrect GBA tech specs.

[Anonymous No.9594643]

>>9588762
> console made in 2003
Not retro.

[Anonymous No.9594678]

>>9589306
My ez flash omega doesn't stick out at the bottom, what's wrong with the button placement?

[Anonymous No.9594786]

>>9589314
You were not on wikipedia. Your own autism is palpable.

[Anonymous No.9594804]

Anyone else notice nothing from this thread is being removed as "not game discussion" even though most of it isn't game discussion at all.

But I bet if we made fun of that one janitors buttmad obsession with protecting right wing/conservatives (pedos/rapists/scumbags/criminals) then we would see this thread nuked.

>>9588762
Tons of sites list "guncon" related things wrong. Including that one Hardcoregaming site and Wikipedia and... well most do. Some games claim guncon support for specific titles when they DO NOT work, some claim you need third party when you need first. If you mention it to the autistic people on those sites, or make the edit with proof on Wikipedia, it has a 50% chance of staying. No reason to waste your life on propaganda.

[Anonymous No.9594896]

>>9594804
>But I bet if we made fun of that one janitors buttmad obsession with protecting right wing/conservatives (pedos/rapists/scumbags/criminals) then we would see this thread nuked.
Nobody's talking about politics lefty. Rent free.

[Anonymous No.9596143]

But who cares if Wikipedia is wrong though?

[Anonymous No.9596380]

>>9592383
I once had a simple spelling correction reverted twice for "vandalism" before it was accepted.

[Anonymous No.9597374]

>>9596380
This is usually done by bots, and their pages state what to do in case of bot error.

[Anonymous No.9597408]

>>9588815
Truth

[Anonymous No.9597418]

>>9594630
LOL

[Anonymous No.9598712]

>>9588762
If it bothers you so much, why not just edit the page and fix the mistake?

[Anonymous No.9598715]

>>9588762
It's Wikipedia, what do you expect? Did they not teach you in school not to use it as a source?

[Anonymous No.9598752]

>>9598715
OP's following the sources of the information. that's the correct thing to do

[Anonymous No.9598769]

>>9592765
Not surprising, but still somewhat disappointing.

[Anonymous No.9598772]

>>9592912
they're in the same place, just at a different angle. Is the angle what kills you about it?

[Anonymous No.9598786]

>>9592989
you two are pretty good at letting the point go over your head for a while. Mate's trying to explain to you that users write wikipedia for users, so if you fuck up and write a crappy article, you are hurting the site, but the same is true if you see a crappy article and don't fix it. As others have pointed out, sometimes retard shit happens and you can't fix the article, because of power-tripping wiki idiots, but overall, it is within your power to fix things, and so not doing so doesn't make you the cause of the problem, but it does make you a part of the problem's continuation.

[Anonymous No.9598862]

>>9593679
Good job, Nicolae
Zey are believing it
Soon the capitalist pigzes will pay for zeir crimes

[Anonymous No.9598971]

>>9598786
feminist logic

[Anonymous No.9598978]

>>9588798
>Wikipedia is a collective effort and you're free to challenge anything mentioned provided you can reliably back it up
trust me, even if you have legitimate sources, they'll just revert your change and ban you if you're not already an editor.

[Anonymous No.9599007]

>>9598712
I did. Check the page now.

[Anonymous No.9599045]

>>9599007
gonna get reverted trust me

[Anonymous No.9600102]

>>9588798

[Anonymous No.9600116]

Thoughts? or is this just some /pol/chud fantasy?

[Anonymous No.9600132]

Why don't you add a [citation needed] to the page and stop foaming at the mouth for 300 posts?

[Anonymous No.9600145]

>>9600116
You're melting between the ears, /pol/troon.

[Anonymous No.9600153]

One time I edited a wikipedia article because it was missing a period at the end of the sentence.
A few hours later, the period was missing again.
Now I see why people don't like it.

[Anonymous No.9600175]

>>9600153
You poor thing, it must have been very traumatic. Did mommy make you tendies to stop the crying?

[Anonymous No.9600290]

>>9600175
Piss off faggot.

[Anonymous No.9600404]

To the janny who just warned me:
That wasn't "ironic shitposting". I was telling that fag to fuck off with the politics. Next time clean up the thread in the first place retard.

[Anonymous No.9601956]

Now that the thread is dying here's a brief collection of other claims that Wikipedia citates from books by Nicolae Sfetcu
>Huey Lewis once said "The heart of rock and roll is the beat."
>Soccer, the Jack Russell terrier on Wishbone, reportedly hated swimming and therefore had stunt doubles.
>A teaser trailer is a short video segment related to an upcoming film, television program, video game, or similar, that is usually released long in advance of the product, so as to "tease" the audience
>Some japanese poet from the 1800's thought Kokin Wakashū poetry style was too feminine and instead preferred another more manly style
>Something about fossilized swans from Australia?
>He's one of the three citations listed for "Deep house is a subgenre of house music"
>About musical tuning: Interference beats are used to objectively measure the accuracy of tuning
>Calcium carbonate is added to swimming pools, as a pH corrector for maintaining alkalinity and offsetting the acidic properties of the disinfectant agent
>For postnatal effects in both males and females, these are mostly dependent on the levels and duration of circulating free testosterone
And finally perhaps most importantly:
>Game Boy Micro has a framerate of 60hz
Truly a man of many talents, I'm sure many of those are correct just... should he really a trusted source for any of this?
So the next time someone tells you Wikipedia doesn't suck shit just tell em to search for citations based on the works of Nicolae Sfetcu

[Anonymous No.9602001]

>>9588762
You know, anon, at first I was on your side, but then I realized you're a fucking Pickle Rick faggot, so now I hate you. Good luck with your wikipedia autism.

[Anonymous No.9603627]

>>9602001
Are “forums” generated from 4chan content still going?