| Revision as of 14:06, 2 September 2008 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:JzG/Archives/August_2008.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:50, 2 September 2008 edit undoProfessor marginalia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,362 edits →Pokes: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
| * I guess ] or something like that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) | * I guess ] or something like that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **Seems to me ] would be perfect. ] | ] 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC). | **Seems to me ] would be perfect. ] | ] 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC). | ||
| == Pokes == | |||
| If is still true, will swipes like help here? ] (]) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:50, 2 September 2008
|
This user is a member of the Misplaced Pages Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately.
You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards. |
|
I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.
I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.
Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
- User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing - extremely interesting debate on what I feel is one of the worst problems on Misplaced Pages right now.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
<3
Celarnor has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Removal of sources
I noticed you removed a source here, and while I haven't checked to determine whether the source is a reliable source, you ought to at least include a citation needed tag when you remove a source, particularly if the rest of the information in the paragraph is cited—otherwise it will appear that the subsequent ref is citing the information that was actually covered by the deleted ref. Everyking (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- The rest is not really, and that is just tattle to support more tattle. The site owner has been very naughty, see the Dan Schneider thread on AN. I don't think that personal opinions from individuals with no obvious reputation as an authority on popular culture asserting "The Tug Of The Lowest Common Denominator" are necessary as a reference for the fact that X and Y were another couple on Z soap opera. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You were, of course, right to remove that reference. I had forgotten to remove it when that couple and reference were removed from the List of fictional supercouples some time ago. The rest of that paragraph is cited, though, with valid references. Well, I mean, I will put a valid reference beside Frisco and Felicia in that article (the Supercouple article, to be precise) right now.
- As for whether or not the word supercouple is interchangeable with the words power couple and dynamic duo, they are in some of the references (valid, of course) in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wild Wales Challenge - proposed deletion
Hi there
I see you propose deletion of one of my articles Wild Wales Challenge. I don't see how I can improve it though. I linked the official site because that's where I got the facts and figures from, and as far as I can see the article is neutral. I don't see much point linking the 1001 other personal/club sites (do a Google search on 'wild wales challenge') as well though, they don't tell you anything new as such. As for being 'not notable' - judging by the amount of people there on the 2 occasions I've taken part I disagree - but again look on Google... I don't see how I can incorporate this into the article.
Sorry if it's not the way things are meant to be done, but I removed the prod notice from article because it's only 3 days from the deletion date and I don't have the time to get it resolved before then.
Iainjones1980 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on - just found details on an independent association's site, so I've linked it. Hopefully this addresses the independent sources issue. Iainjones1980 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Cycling events
Argh - just realised you are a cycling fan anyway so removed this mini-rant ;-)
Que?
Is "running interference" some sort of sporting term? What does it mean? I like to understand remarks people make about me, and English isn't my first language, either. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC).
- Running interference is a common term in Canadian football (also in the crap game the Americans play) - it means getting in the way of the person(s) chasing the man carrying the ball. In basketball and lacrosse, it's called a "pick". In the only real sport hockey (with which you may be familiar, having many of the best players and all) it is illegal and results in a penalty. The term can also be used to describe a tactic in business meetings, where you obfuscate to protect another member of your team. Guy might have a completely different interpretation, although I believe interference may also be illegal in his (presumptive) favourite sport. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd rather hear from him, then, if it means "obfuscating" or merely illegal in this case. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
- As far as I've ever been aware it just means watching his back and heading off attempts to trip him up. I don't watch sport at all, there may well be sporting uses which have pejorative overtones, but that was not intended in any way. The only reason it's a problem at all is because you have to do it - I think we'd all be happier if you did not have to spend quite so much time calming down Giano-related drama. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do believe the term has sporting origins. In this case, Guy is using it in the exact legitimate sense of (our) football - protection. The other case is hockey, where you're not allowed to prevent someone else from hitting your team-mate - but you can beat the crap out of them afterwards if they make a dirty hit. The concept is problematic though on Misplaced Pages - all too often interference takes the form of hooking and tripping where an editor asks another a perfectly legitimate (and cogent therefore sensitive) question and several others jump in to sidetrack the discussion with extraneous details, and the original point gets lost in drama. Almost like what I'm doing here. :) Franamax (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- One guy has the ball, and two blockers run beside him. They seem useless, except that they run and become interference. It's the same as a fighter escort for bombers. Bishonen is right that it sounds like the same language that some fools use, who say that Giano would have been banned, if it weren't for these people (always, "people" are bad, in contrast to "Misplaced Pages," which is presumed to be "us" in these conversations) "enabling" him by preventing blocks without policy. To say "running interference" is too close to that foolish charge. Geogre (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I thought it was a simple and obvious metaphor. Just shows to go you, doesn't it? So many arguments are started by such trifling ambiguities. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- One guy has the ball, and two blockers run beside him. They seem useless, except that they run and become interference. It's the same as a fighter escort for bombers. Bishonen is right that it sounds like the same language that some fools use, who say that Giano would have been banned, if it weren't for these people (always, "people" are bad, in contrast to "Misplaced Pages," which is presumed to be "us" in these conversations) "enabling" him by preventing blocks without policy. To say "running interference" is too close to that foolish charge. Geogre (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do believe the term has sporting origins. In this case, Guy is using it in the exact legitimate sense of (our) football - protection. The other case is hockey, where you're not allowed to prevent someone else from hitting your team-mate - but you can beat the crap out of them afterwards if they make a dirty hit. The concept is problematic though on Misplaced Pages - all too often interference takes the form of hooking and tripping where an editor asks another a perfectly legitimate (and cogent therefore sensitive) question and several others jump in to sidetrack the discussion with extraneous details, and the original point gets lost in drama. Almost like what I'm doing here. :) Franamax (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I've ever been aware it just means watching his back and heading off attempts to trip him up. I don't watch sport at all, there may well be sporting uses which have pejorative overtones, but that was not intended in any way. The only reason it's a problem at all is because you have to do it - I think we'd all be happier if you did not have to spend quite so much time calming down Giano-related drama. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd rather hear from him, then, if it means "obfuscating" or merely illegal in this case. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
Civility and Giano discussions
Where? I asked Jeochman as well... Arbcom page seems like poor choice, as does ANI, but where? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I guess Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement or something like that. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me this talkpage would be perfect. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
Pokes
If this is still true, will swipes like this help here? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Categories: