Revision as of 17:40, 30 January 2018 editIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,470 edits →January 2018← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:30, 26 December 2024 edit undoIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,470 edits →Minor edit flag: fix | ||
(814 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{skip to bottom|notoc=yes}} | {{skip to bottom|notoc=yes}} | ||
{{notice|This user has joined the '']'' to boycott editing articles on Mondays until things change. <small>(You can join too!)</small>}} | |||
{{wikibreak |image=The Mamas and the Papas Ed Sullivan Show 1968.JPG| |imagesize=120px |message=But Monday morning, <br />Monday morning couldn't guarantee <br />That Monday evening, <br />You would still be here with me <br /><small>"]", ], 1966</small>}} | |||
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} |Monday |{{wikibreak |image=Mamas and the Papas' John Phillips in 1967.JPG | |imagesize=120px |message=Every other day, <br />Every other day, <br />Every other day of the week is fine (fine), yeah! <br />But whenever Monday comes, <br />But whenever Monday comes, <br />You can find me crying all of the time}} |}} | |||
{{break|1}} | |||
{{centered pull quote |1=<font size="3">''I was thinking yesterday, in all my life, I have never been so harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed as I've been on this website. Not even nearly.''</font> |author=<font size="2">Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)</font>}} | |||
{{centered pull quote |1=<font size="3">''The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it.''</font> |author=<font size="2"> Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</font>}} | |||
{{divbox|radius=0px|brown||<small> | |||
*"I'll also emplore my fellow editors not to engage in behavior that can be viewed as taunting or otherwise encouraging the continuation of this editor's behavior along these lines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)" | |||
*"I think it's best if you leave them alone, as difficult as that may be. That's what I've done, pretty much--I just stay out of their way. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)" | |||
*:Thank you, Toddst1 and Drmies. (One of the most considerate things admins have ever done for me!) Sincere, ] (]) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
{{multiple image | {{multiple image | ||
|align=left | |align=left | ||
Line 26: | Line 11: | ||
{{User oops}} | {{User oops}} | ||
{{User please be nice}} | {{User please be nice}} | ||
{{Template:User Donald Trump}} | |||
{{User INTJ|color=Silver}} | {{User INTJ|color=Silver}} | ||
{{User:Mms/Userboxes/drugs}} | |||
{{User:ShadowDragon343/Donald Trump}} | |||
{{User pp|up, yours}} | |||
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenDoom}} | {{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenDoom}} | ||
{{userbox | {{userbox | ||
| |
|border-c={{{border-c|black}}} | ||
| |
|id=] | ||
| |
|id-c={{{id-c|grey}}} | ||
|info=<center>''']'''</center> | |info=<center>''']'''</center> | ||
|info-c={{{info-c|black}}} | |info-c={{{info-c|black}}} | ||
|info-fc={{{info-fc|white}}} | |info-fc={{{info-fc|white}}} | ||
|info-lh={{{info-lh|1.5em}}} | |info-lh={{{info-lh|1.5em}}} | ||
|info-p={{{info-p|0}}} | |info-p={{{info-p|0}}} | ||
|info-s={{{info-s|8}}} | |info-s={{{info-s|8}}} | ||
| |
|nocat={{{nocat|}}} | ||
}} | |||
{{boxbottom}} | {{boxbottom}} | ||
{{clear}} | |||
<big>''']'''</big> | |||
<!-- {{toc left}} | |||
{{clear}} caused big gap, plus some users couldn't see start of contents --> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
{{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
This took some time, and research, to make. (The correct kanji, rendering the images, the board geometry.) --] (]) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
<!-- User Talk sessions go below --> | |||
<big>'''Articles this editor created'''</big> | |||
== Restore comment == | |||
"{{tq|Any dirtball can file at ANI against any editor for any reason. Any dirtball can file at Arbcom against any editor for any reason. Any dirtball admin (and it's not like they don't exist) can block any reg editor (interesting they don't block other admins, or have I missed that?) for any superficial or plain made-up reason. So all the inuendos, if they are present in even the slightest degree, "if this comes to ANI/Arbcom/block again, boy-oh-boy Joe, you better see to it that it doesn't happen, 'cause that'll be the last straw, we have limited patience to see this go by our eyes anymore, don't say you haven't been warned", is really ... (I'll quit now, do I really have to describe what's wrong?). --] (]) 18:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)}}" --] (]) 05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
'''''Games:'''''{{space|en}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}{{red|Troy (chess variant)}} {{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}] | |||
== New Page Reviewing == | |||
{| style="background:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: auto" | |||
|- | |||
|rowspan=2 style="position:relative; right:6px"| ] | |||
|- | |||
|{{large|Hello, Ihardlythinkso.}} | |||
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. <br /> | |||
Would you please consider becoming a ]? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but <u>it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines</u>; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read ] before making your decision. Thanks. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 09:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
|}<!-- Template:NPR invite --> | |||
'''''Bios:'''''{{space|en}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}] | |||
== Nice work on McDonnell Gambit == | |||
'''''Other:'''''{{space|en}}]{{dot}}'']''{{dot}}] | |||
Cheers, --]] 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Thx! ;) --] (]) 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
<big>'''Articles this editor developed from stubs'''</big> | |||
== Happy New Year! == | |||
]{{dot}}]{{dot}}] | |||
I remember you wished me ] way back in 2013; popping back in five years later to wish you the same, and my talk page is always open should you want to collaborate on any more chess variant articles. ^_^ ] (]) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Thx, & ditto. ;) --] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
<big>'''Articles this editor substantially improved'''</big> | |||
== coincidences == | |||
]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}]{{dot}}] | |||
{{TOC left}} | |||
{{clear}} | |||
I think I'm thinking . ] (]) 09:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:An add'l theory crossed my mind: that we've been reasoning w/ an Alexa AI. {{emoji|1F612}} --] (]) 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Our instincts bore out. ;) --] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Shall we go == | |||
== thanks for helping to defend the integrity of First-move advantage in chess == | |||
I have the vanity of a powerbroker. | |||
Now we know why {{u|LithiumFlash}} wasn't interested in involving others in ]. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
I like my work to be heard, but not necessarily read. | |||
:You guys did the heavy lifting. Don't think we've seen the end of Mr. Mathematical Madness. {{emoji|1F612}} --] (]) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
I am looking for you. But nobody seems to know where you are. Find me! | |||
== Blocked for topic-ban violation == | |||
:I luv ]! {{=P}} More clue(s)? --] (]) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::Secret admirer? ] (]) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::Guess so. Hope she's pretty! {{emoji|1F605}} --] (]) 03:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Any chance you'll come back to editing chess articles? == | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] and for violating your topic ban from post-1932 American politics, you have been ''']''' temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
* Link to ] thread and administrative consensus: . ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Haven't you figured it out yet, IHTS? The line is currently drawn at "Post-1932", due to the same virulent anti-Trump madness that has the mainstream media putting out 90% negative material. If you were to actually improve the encyclopedia by adding unbiased and objective content to, say, the ] article... a block for disruption would be justified. I see that articles "closely related to American politics" also apply. No slippery slope here! I can't tell you how little I miss this place! I check in once in awhile, and things seem to just get worse. Unless you toe the line. Resistance is futile, IHTS! Just let the babies have their bottles, thinking they are being "encyclopedic" in nature. It's a joke. Cheers! (Doc9871) ] (]) 08:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
I've enjoyed collaborating with you, with our different skill sets. ] (]) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I appreciate the sentiment, Max. And I do miss editing/contributing, and collaborating too. But the jurisprudence re article title '''Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack''' versus '''Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack''' has been poison to my system. Contenders claimed the hyphen was in published use. That is nonsense for more than one reason. Publishers don't care or have any MoS for those things, what they publish on book covers and in book text is subsequently meaningless. And one can't even put a magnifier on printed pages and say "That's a hyphen" or "That's a dash". Completely an inarguable point. We have a clear MoS, and the connector between two individuals is clearly a dash per ]. To subject this to !vote and an unqualified "judge" thinking both arguments have weight and a judgement needs to be rendered based on assumption the hyphen "arguments" make any sense, is a poison pill for me. I can't continue to be subject to mob rule like this, have witnessed too much of it on WP during my time, and I think this was the final straw. This wasn't a judgment case it was/is simple MoS. I give up, I'm dead. --] (]) 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for that. (My heart rests a little more peacefully now. Fuck!) --] (]) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::I am with MaxB on this, I always enjoy checking out your chess edits, and also appreciate your work ethic. But whether you're stepping away because Wiki is intensely crazy, or you just want to relax a little and do other things, I wish you well. ] (]) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:p.s. Yeah, re that POS article, I tried to point out "Mexican" isn't ''race'' and was blocked for it. (If editors consulted a college, or looked things up, they'd learn "Mexican" & "Latino" & "Hispanic" are not only not race, they aren't even ''ethnicity''! (What is this place?! An "encyclopedia"!? How embarrassing. And kill anyone advocating education over misconception. Amazing!) --] (]) 10:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::I was going to post a similar message to Max a few days ago when I saw you hadn't edited for a while. Totally understand why you had to take a break - do hope you'll be back someday. ] (]) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The "narrative" is simple. Trump is a "white supremacist". Hates all "non-whites". It's just absurd. ] (]) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::Sometimes the consensus is "wrong", sometimes you don't get your way. That's wikipedia. Don't quit the whole thing over an n-dash. ] (]) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::The |
:::The consensus is not a count of votes but of merit. There was no merit in any of the arguments. The decision was not "wrong" it was anti-MoS wrong. And it wasn't just an ], it was an article title. And BTW a title that has meant something to me from the 1970s. It's too much, all rolled into mob rule and incompetent summary judgment. And *that's* Misplaced Pages. It's just too much to swallow. You've already stated in that discussion that the issue wasn't something you cared about either way. All Wikipedians aren't made of the same stuff. You might not have cared and don't care. I did and do. That article title is a permanent stain until presented '''Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack'''. I'm done. --] (]) | ||
::How about the resident White House physician, appointed in 2013, treated with utter incredulity that Trump is not just simply a blithering idiot teetering on the very edge of insanity. "So, what you're saying, right now, is that he's not completely unfit?!" No. Ouch!!! ] ] 12:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Yeah. The WH press conferences w/ Huckabee show the press for what they are. (See how instead of using it as a window to ask Qs & get answers what the administration is doing, they attempt to grandstand, argue, & debate Sarah! Half the Qs asked are so dumb it's unbelievable they were asked. A quarter of the Qs asked were asked previously and have answer already known by the asker. It's so childish they might as well say right-out: "I already know the answer to this stupid Q, but I'm asking anyway to give you an opportunity to step in a cowpie I'm laying in front of you. And if you do slip-up then I'll be famous since it'll be on frontpage tomorrow morning." It's an abuse of the press conferences. Photo-ops for evening news the same day.) And don't you just love the brainless meme, that if Trump gives criticism to the MSM they so vastly deserve, it's because he "doesn't believe in a free press "!? And how they credit themselves w/ "defending democracy"!? (God! Puke!) --] (]) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::SHS is such a badass!!! Love her!!! Snowflakes don't even dare really to watch her. They are way too wimpy, really. Idiots like Cher tell her not to dress like a "sister-wife". ...Cher. Who the fuck wants her in office?! ] ] 12:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Funny! But it's pathetic because she gets "real" questions less than 5% of the time. The rest are laden w/ Trump-indicting language she has to peel off as more cowpie offered her, before responding. Actors like Streep, Hanks, De Niro ... who do they think they are, "People's representatives"?! They drip w/ sheltered self-entitled attitude, I wouldn't even call it "opinion". Gawd they wanted Oprah as their gladiator. (Funny!) --] (]) 12:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::So much "butt hurt" from these folks. De Niro: "He's a punk. He's a mutt." This ain't "Goodfellas", dude! The smarmy smugness of the left is revolting. The audacity of them to silence their opposition whilst screaming injustice is absolutely sickening. ] ] 13:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::I've never met a liberal who is tolerant of non-liberal ideology. It's black and white there. Literally. ] ] 13:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::I remember Chuck Todd on ''Meet the Press'' honoring an Antifa member (who was there for authoring an Antifa "Manifesto") with extreme politeness & reverence as though he were the Pope, giving him "equal time" in a discussion with a Republican senator sitting alongside. (This was before Antifa was recognized as a domestic terror group.) As though beating up people for their views is a possible legitimate position to assume, if in Antifa's mind those views are "neo-Nazi". Then all the while Todd claiming that administration remarks condemning both sides in Charlottesville was "normalizing" and encouraging white supremacism! Amazing. (How hypocritical & unself-reflective can he be!? And how different from Maddow pumping up the assassin!?) --] (]) 09:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::It's amazing what's going on now. Our FBI is being slowly purged of corruption (political weaponization by Dem admin operatives). This is really historic. (I'm an improved-over-time WP editor so know the diff between "historic" & "historical". {{emoji|1F604}} I'm also a conscientious WP editor and know when I'm "ranting" & when I'm not, when I'm endeavoring to "promote" & when I'm not. ;) ) If I weren't agnostic I'd suggest it is a good time for prayer for our country. --] (]) 10:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
You might be interested in ]. ] (]) 17:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
==MastCell== | |||
:It's been moved. ] (]) 01:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* At the risk of playing into your narrative, please remember that because of your previous behavior, both of you are topic-banned from using Misplaced Pages as a platform for any edits related to modern American politics. These topic bans explicitly extend to usertalk pages, so this thread constitutes a topic-ban violation on both of your parts. It seems reasonable to extend some leeway for passing comments that touch on politics, but these sorts of partisan rants clearly violate your sanctions. I understand that you share an interest in excoriating the left-wing campaign to destroy American values and freedoms, but please pursue this shared interest via email, or elsewhere on the Web (surely there are at least a handful of Web sites which exist to promote and reinforce such viewpoints). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::OMG! Just noticed this. Still in some shock/disbelief. (Never expected w/ *ever* be corrected.) Looks like will be creeping out of the lagoon of wikiretirement. {{emoji|1F605}} Will take some time to regain pace. I prob never w/ have checked the article, so thx Bruce & Max for signalling me. Cheers, --] (]) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Hey MastCell, just because you're attempting to appear oh-so polite & objective here, let me point out how you're not: 1) Calling my shared opinion and Doc's shared opinions "rants", is ... (can you figure it out? -- it's both insulting, and adding innuendo that our expressions here have been irrational or emotional -- neither is true, both are insulting, why do you choose to insult? -- gee let me guess!) 2) Suggesting that I re-locate my shared opinions on website(s) that "exist to promote and reinforce such viewpoints" is also insulting (can you see why? -- it's insulting because I have no interest to "promote" any political view anywhere, and neither am I interested in any site that exists to "promote and reinforce"; in fact, I'm not aware of any, 'cause I wouldn't be interested in them if I knew of them; I'm not a sheep, MastCell, and I doubt Doc is either.) And BTW, my "behavior" on Donald Trump that inhereted a political article ban, was no worse re Clinton than the awful things said re Trump on that page which went overlooked & unenforced (which is why I made my comments there in the first place -- for 'equal time'), and if you wanted to exercise your admin warnings here why not there; where were you or any admin when Trump has been repeatedly trashed on Talk:Donald Trump??? --] (]) 08:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Me likes the phrase ''dual attributive form''. {{emoji|263A}} Thx for that, {{u|BarrelProof}}. --] (]) 01:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Bishzilla threatens me with an indef. Not one more peep outta you! Unclean hands. ] ] 10:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::Also: "Modern" American politics. Hmmm. Anything post-1932 is now considered "modern". Maybe it's time to move the goalposts? ] ] 10:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::I can see why Alex Jones named his site ''InfoWars''. (An indef block is the equivalent of an "info-bullet" to silence someone, like Seth Rich, permanently.) --] (]) 11:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::FDR? I think he was a pretty good president. | |||
*::Oops! Damn! I just violated my topic ban by commenting on post-1932 American Politics. Fuck me. ] ] 11:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::I hate you! (Wasn't FDR a Bernie-type socialist? Didn't he want law or constitutional amendment guaranteeing citizens a job, a house, and a car!?) --] (]) 11:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::The ]? I think it was a very important, benchmark decision that was long overdue. Oh, dang! We got a Topic Ban violation over here! ] ] 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::Sinner! Repent before you go to Wiki-Hell. --] (]) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::I'm thinking of perusing the ''"handful of Web sites which exist to promote and reinforce such viewpoints"'' that MastCell says are out there. Now, as a stereotypically toothless, inbred, cross-burning Trump supporter, I may need some help negotiatin' da intranets. Lil' help? ] ] 11:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::Your behavior also evinces that of an editor who is a deplorable & irredeemable homophobe, sexist, racist, misogynist, Islamophobe, & xenophobe. And also an editor who calls people names--shame! --] (]) 12:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::"Don't put me in the basket, Man! Don't put me in the basket!" A funny guy I know would actually say this to this liberal freakshow who would mentally dismiss and put people in "the basket of deplorables" when discussing politics. Who even comes up with such a stupid concept? The one who lost? Yes!!!! ] ] 12:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::If the basket don't work, we can always ''impeach'' you for being ''unfit''. <small>(Or a Russkie.)</small> --] (]) 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*::I wish ] would get the "unfit" label as well. 84 years fuckin' old. Corrupt as hell, wanting re-election. Career Dems are the worst. ] ] 12:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::"Make America White Again". "This is Armageddon." If President Bush would only stop egging Nancy on! --] (]) 13:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
It is ''very'' good to see you again! :D ] (]) 10:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== January 2018 == | |||
:Thx. Ditto. (But if get really pissed again, well. ;) Hate Wikilawyering.) --] (]) 10:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ] (]) 13:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
:Why do I feel nothing, except humor? --] (]) 16:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
: --] (]) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Minor edit flag == | ||
Hi Ihardlythinkso. I noticed that you are marking a number of edits as minor that aren't really ]. Some examples: {{diff2|1265244583}}, {{diff2|1264881018}}, and {{diff2|1264939347}}. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages—it refers only to superficial edits that could '''never''' be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thanks. ] (]) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
There's a thread about Doc's posts here that has morphed into one about you too. If you wish to comment, you can make a comment here, and if it is appropriate, it can be transferred there. --] (]) 17:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Hello. I really only agree w/ the first example, though. (My bad. Will endeavor not to repeat. Thx.) On the other two, one was to reverse a markup deletion that messed up a template execution, my EDITSUM s/ have made that clear; the removal of text was incidental, part of that user's unfortunate edit, I reverted the entire edit based on the mess up, if the editor cherished their text, they c/ resubmit it. The last example is simply adding a ref, which wasn't really needed, except undefined user IcePage had placed a citation-needed tag. Adding a superfluous ref (the source re entire article was already listed in References sec) seems minor edit to me. (That's wrong?) Besides the first example, methinks you're being too picky. --] (]) 03:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:p.s. My editorship tendency/habit is to mark my edits minor, unless there is good reason not to, unless clearly content-related. I do so because my i.d. does show up in numerous articles' stats as numerically high, and as Wikifairy editor, don't like to obscure the true credit due the articles' creators & content contributors. --] (]) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I understand that they are smaller edits compared to a lot of edits, but the flag isn't really intended to be used as broadly as any of those three example edits. Each is altering the information in an article. | |||
::Ultimately, the better default habit is to leave the box unchecked. You're allowed to simply never use the minor edit flag. Someone might disagree or find reason to improve or change your edit? It's appropriate to leave it off. Add or remove text, a citation, a template, etc.? It's appropriate to leave it off. Please read the ] information page for more information. You could also ask about those edits at the Teahouse if you'd like a second opinion. For several examples of minor edits, here are the last three times I used the minor edit flag other than cases where it's set automatically: {{diff2|1260095500}}, {{diff2|1259423278}}, and {{diff2|1259767166}}. | |||
::Also, please try to keep edit summaries focused on the change or reasoning. An edit summary like {{tpq|why the fuck did you do that??}} is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages ] guidelines and it's much more likely to create or escalate a disagreement rather than avoid one. Regards. ] (]) 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::That EDITSUM isn't my normal, the editor was inexplicably sloppy and it did damage and pissed me off. I really don't try to be a perfect Jesus if that is what you're expecting of me. I did review the minor edit info pg again, I think I'm using minor edit box close to properly, I believe it always crosses my mind the Q: "Is this edit potentially disputable?" and that seems to be consistent w/ the minor edit info page. Interesting, because I somewhat disagree on that page: {{em|"rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits"}}. (Rearrangement of text, especially a major rearrangement, is a presentation factor, which can totally impact how content is perceived/absorbed, so I have an issue w/ that aspect of the minor edit info pg description/definition.) Last, I really don't like skipping the minor edit box as a better habit for future, because, those edits then default as "major", and the extent/number of cosmetic/Wikifairy edits I tend to make in articles w/ then obscure as mentioned the true creators/contributors in the Page statistics displays/graphs/counts/summaries. --] (]) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:30, 26 December 2024
Keirsey, David; Bates, Marilyn (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types (Fifth ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 182. ISBN 0-9606954-0-0.
Userboxes
|
This took some time, and research, to make. (The correct kanji, rendering the images, the board geometry.) --IHTS (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Articles this editor created
Games: 2000 A.D. (chess variant) · Millennium 3D Chess · Wildebeest Chess · Chad (chess variant) · Onyx (game) · Cubic chess · Dragonfly (chess variant) · Troy (chess variant) · Hexdame · Chessence · Dameo · Rhombic Chess · Wolf Chess · Triangular Chess · Trishogi · Hexshogi · Masonic Chess · Masonic Shogi · Chesquerque · Tri-Chess · Three-Man Chess · Cross Chess · Quatrochess · Space Shogi · Double Chess · Rollerball (chess variant) · Parallel Worlds Chess · Stratomic · Beirut Chess · Apocalypse (chess variant) · Balbo's Game · Game of the Three Kingdoms · Canadian Checkers · Falcon-Hunter Chess · Congo (chess variant) · Hostage Chess · Diamond (game) · Chancellor Chess
Bios: Ferdinand Maack · Philip M. Cohen · Veniamin Sozin · George R. Dekle Sr.
Other: Fischer–Spassky (1992 match) · The Chess Variant Pages · Glossary of board games
Articles this editor developed from stubs
V. R. Parton · Dragonchess · Semi-Italian Opening
Articles this editor substantially improved
Ringo (board game) · Stone Warriors · Bizingo · Conspirateurs · Hexagonal chess · Glossary of chess
Shall we go
I have the vanity of a powerbroker. I like my work to be heard, but not necessarily read.
I am looking for you. But nobody seems to know where you are. Find me!
- I luv puzzles! More clue(s)? --IHTS (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Secret admirer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Guess so. Hope she's pretty! --IHTS (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Secret admirer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Any chance you'll come back to editing chess articles?
I've enjoyed collaborating with you, with our different skill sets. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the sentiment, Max. And I do miss editing/contributing, and collaborating too. But the jurisprudence re article title Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack versus Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack has been poison to my system. Contenders claimed the hyphen was in published use. That is nonsense for more than one reason. Publishers don't care or have any MoS for those things, what they publish on book covers and in book text is subsequently meaningless. And one can't even put a magnifier on printed pages and say "That's a hyphen" or "That's a dash". Completely an inarguable point. We have a clear MoS, and the connector between two individuals is clearly a dash per MOS:NDASH. To subject this to !vote and an unqualified "judge" thinking both arguments have weight and a judgement needs to be rendered based on assumption the hyphen "arguments" make any sense, is a poison pill for me. I can't continue to be subject to mob rule like this, have witnessed too much of it on WP during my time, and I think this was the final straw. This wasn't a judgment case it was/is simple MoS. I give up, I'm dead. --IHTS (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am with MaxB on this, I always enjoy checking out your chess edits, and also appreciate your work ethic. But whether you're stepping away because Wiki is intensely crazy, or you just want to relax a little and do other things, I wish you well. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post a similar message to Max a few days ago when I saw you hadn't edited for a while. Totally understand why you had to take a break - do hope you'll be back someday. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes the consensus is "wrong", sometimes you don't get your way. That's wikipedia. Don't quit the whole thing over an n-dash. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus is not a count of votes but of merit. There was no merit in any of the arguments. The decision was not "wrong" it was anti-MoS wrong. And it wasn't just an MOS:NDASH, it was an article title. And BTW a title that has meant something to me from the 1970s. It's too much, all rolled into mob rule and incompetent summary judgment. And *that's* Misplaced Pages. It's just too much to swallow. You've already stated in that discussion that the issue wasn't something you cared about either way. All Wikipedians aren't made of the same stuff. You might not have cared and don't care. I did and do. That article title is a permanent stain until presented Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack. I'm done. --IHTS (talk)
- I am with MaxB on this, I always enjoy checking out your chess edits, and also appreciate your work ethic. But whether you're stepping away because Wiki is intensely crazy, or you just want to relax a little and do other things, I wish you well. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You might be interested in Talk:Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack#Requested move 26 October 2024. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's been moved. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OMG! Just noticed this. Still in some shock/disbelief. (Never expected w/ *ever* be corrected.) Looks like will be creeping out of the lagoon of wikiretirement. Will take some time to regain pace. I prob never w/ have checked the article, so thx Bruce & Max for signalling me. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Me likes the phrase dual attributive form. Thx for that, BarrelProof. --IHTS (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
It is very good to see you again! :D Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thx. Ditto. (But if get really pissed again, well. ;) Hate Wikilawyering.) --IHTS (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Minor edit flag
Hi Ihardlythinkso. I noticed that you are marking a number of edits as minor that aren't really minor edits. Some examples: , , and . "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I really only agree w/ the first example, though. (My bad. Will endeavor not to repeat. Thx.) On the other two, one was to reverse a markup deletion that messed up a template execution, my EDITSUM s/ have made that clear; the removal of text was incidental, part of that user's unfortunate edit, I reverted the entire edit based on the mess up, if the editor cherished their text, they c/ resubmit it. The last example is simply adding a ref, which wasn't really needed, except undefined user IcePage had placed a citation-needed tag. Adding a superfluous ref (the source re entire article was already listed in References sec) seems minor edit to me. (That's wrong?) Besides the first example, methinks you're being too picky. --IHTS (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- p.s. My editorship tendency/habit is to mark my edits minor, unless there is good reason not to, unless clearly content-related. I do so because my i.d. does show up in numerous articles' stats as numerically high, and as Wikifairy editor, don't like to obscure the true credit due the articles' creators & content contributors. --IHTS (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that they are smaller edits compared to a lot of edits, but the flag isn't really intended to be used as broadly as any of those three example edits. Each is altering the information in an article.
- Ultimately, the better default habit is to leave the box unchecked. You're allowed to simply never use the minor edit flag. Someone might disagree or find reason to improve or change your edit? It's appropriate to leave it off. Add or remove text, a citation, a template, etc.? It's appropriate to leave it off. Please read the minor edit information page for more information. You could also ask about those edits at the Teahouse if you'd like a second opinion. For several examples of minor edits, here are the last three times I used the minor edit flag other than cases where it's set automatically: , , and .
- Also, please try to keep edit summaries focused on the change or reasoning. An edit summary like
why the fuck did you do that??
is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages civility guidelines and it's much more likely to create or escalate a disagreement rather than avoid one. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- That EDITSUM isn't my normal, the editor was inexplicably sloppy and it did damage and pissed me off. I really don't try to be a perfect Jesus if that is what you're expecting of me. I did review the minor edit info pg again, I think I'm using minor edit box close to properly, I believe it always crosses my mind the Q: "Is this edit potentially disputable?" and that seems to be consistent w/ the minor edit info page. Interesting, because I somewhat disagree on that page: "rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits". (Rearrangement of text, especially a major rearrangement, is a presentation factor, which can totally impact how content is perceived/absorbed, so I have an issue w/ that aspect of the minor edit info pg description/definition.) Last, I really don't like skipping the minor edit box as a better habit for future, because, those edits then default as "major", and the extent/number of cosmetic/Wikifairy edits I tend to make in articles w/ then obscure as mentioned the true creators/contributors in the Page statistics displays/graphs/counts/summaries. --IHTS (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)