User talk:Ihardlythinkso

“ 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. ” — Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

“ The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. ” —  Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fellow workers of INTJs often feel as if the INTJ can see right through them, and often believe that the INTJ finds them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent in the presence of the INTJ often results in relationships which have psychological distance. Thus colleagues find the INTJ apparently unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate. Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. INTJs are high achievers in school and on the job. On the job, they take the goals of an institution seriously and continually strive to respond to these goals. They make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system."
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

vn-13This user talk page has been vandalized 13 times.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump.

INTJThis user has an INTJ
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

This user has nibbled
The Donut of DOOM

FREE PENYULAP

Restore comment

"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?). --IHTS (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)" --IHTS (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on McDonnell Gambit

Cheers, --joe decker^talk 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx! ;) --IHTS (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I remember you wished me a happy (if belated) new year 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. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, & ditto. ;) --IHTS (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is in reference to this pair of edits [1], [2], which instead of becoming more moderated and thoughtful, turned even more strident, accusatory, and WP:ASPERSIONS-casting about my motives. Most of if makes no sense at all; as I've already explained [3], these strange and baseless hypotheses about me are quite literally not even possible.

PS: You might want to review your Malleus Fatuorum quote at the top of your talk page. The few times I can recall you flying off the handle in this manner, it's always over style nit-picks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)