| Revision as of 21:06, 19 February 2007 editIrishguy (talk | contribs)45,851 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 19 February 2007 edit undoChrisGriswold (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers22,679 edits Are you Jack Szwergold?Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :: (reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. ], calling someone and idiot is a violation of ] and ]. If you are ], FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per ]. FFJ isn't ''hiding'' his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably ''could'' ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | :: (reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. ], calling someone and idiot is a violation of ] and ]. If you are ], FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per ]. FFJ isn't ''hiding'' his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably ''could'' ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Are you Jack Szwergold? == | |||
| If you are Jack Szwergold, please do not remove the {{tl|Notable Wikipedian}} template from your article's talk page; you should be open and honest about any conflicts of interest you have, and removing this template does not give that impression. In fact, please try not to edit articles involving you or the Onion. I don't know what your relationship with ] is, but I am not sure how ] is. If you have any questions or comments about this, I am available to help you with this. Incidentally, I really liked the work you did on the Onion site, and I agree with your opinion that the Onion got caught up a little in being relevant after 9/11. --] (<big>]]</big>) 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:30, 19 February 2007
Reply from my talk page
I'm not sure what tags I am obsessively adding. I believe that I was actually asking Future Fun Jumper (TIC) to ease up on the tags needing references for almost every sentence. IrishGuy 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Future Fun Jumper (TIC) is an idiot. He's been busted and now he's taken to "moving" his "talk" page to an "artchive" undoubtedly to make sure others don't see what he's done in the past. Pathetic and very much not in the spirit of the Wiki. SpyMagician 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- (reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. SpyMagician, calling someone and idiot is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. If you are Jack Szwergold, FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per WP:COI. FFJ isn't hiding his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably could ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. IrishGuy 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you Jack Szwergold?
If you are Jack Szwergold, please do not remove the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template from your article's talk page; you should be open and honest about any conflicts of interest you have, and removing this template does not give that impression. In fact, please try not to edit articles involving you or the Onion. I don't know what your relationship with Maria Schneider is, but I am not sure how NPOV this edit is. If you have any questions or comments about this, I am available to help you with this. Incidentally, I really liked the work you did on the Onion site, and I agree with your opinion that the Onion got caught up a little in being relevant after 9/11. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)