Jump to content

User talk:Ianmacm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
nope, enough for today
Line 45: Line 45:


:::Nope, that's just rude and you haven't responded to the issues raised in [[WP:EXPERT]].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 09:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Nope, that's just rude and you haven't responded to the issues raised in [[WP:EXPERT]].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 09:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just go away and stop abusing BIRD --[[Special:Contributions/120.22.5.202|120.22.5.202]] ([[User talk:120.22.5.202|talk]]) 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:30, 1 March 2023

Graham Hancock edit, 17:26, 8 February 2023‎

"This is redundant wording"

D: , , , >:( Troopersho (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what this means, but I stand by the comments at Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023 (2) on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree, thank you for replying. - Troopersho (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John

You were recently called sensible (well, they "perceived" you to be such) and reasonable. I may differ due to your interpretation of "Not News". I'd like to show you your error.Justanother2 (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's related to this edit at 2023 Monterey Park shooting. This was discussed at Talk:2023_Monterey_Park_shooting#What_is_news? and is best raised there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is talking or "discussing" anything related to that especially on the page. Best? You are making an error by saying it isn't news. What are you not understanding?Justanother2 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a talk page matter and you need to get a WP:CONSENSUS for making this edit. I can't decide single-handedly whether or not it goes into the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One plus one is two. Two outnumbers one. I'll change it if you agree with me.Justanother2 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victims

Regarding this edit, I just wanted to combine names so it's clear who (owner/manager and 3 Taiwan citizens) died at the scene and who at the hospital later, with less redundancy. Vacosea (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this edit, but changed "perished" to "died".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People like you are why everyone else hates the editing community here.

You reverted an article to a version with even less sources, and even less merit to be here. The type of bad faith editing you engage in is why the Wikipedia community is full of well meaning, but in the end, useless idiots. Not you specifically but you get the point. FYI: If an article doesn't start as a stub, where does it start, I put it out there in the community to encourage others to expand things as you do... I assume... Although, Maybe? Maybe you don't... Maybe you're the type of hapless idiot I'm describing who believes in editing things, in secrecy, in a sandbox on their talk page by themselves? Welp... That leads to the Sysaphean paradox of trying to roll shit up hill like a dung beetle. Rolling the dung up a monolith only to be crushed by it when it inevitably rolls down again, and then people who might be like you (if they could) would be wondering why they died...

Which leaves the paradox... This community (if one can call it that) is full of well meaning, but (mostly) hapless idiots (who have inferior knowledge on most subjects to people from academic and scientific backgrounds) but think they have a superiority complex because they can revert someone else's edits.

Which leads to another paradox, which is one about why I never (generally) bother to contribute anything to this (stupid) project, even though I am a person with a post-graduate degree and part of the so called "inteligentsia." Or in another way as they say... you might like to know, knowledge is not created in a vacuum, it's created through a construct, and if you understood what that word "construct" actually meant you would also understand why you're dangerously foolish. But I'll let you suck all the air out of the room until your eyeballs pop out of your head (should you so wish?) 120.22.86.142 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of launching into personal attacks, have a look at what WP:EXPERT says on this issue. Even if you are an expert in a given area, Wikipedia articles have to be sourced properly. Quote: "Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just admit that you're a hapless fool who likes playing king of the castle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.86.142 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's just rude and you haven't responded to the issues raised in WP:EXPERT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just go away and stop abusing BIRD --120.22.5.202 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]