User talk:Ihardlythinkso: Difference between revisions

This user has joined the Eric Corbett initiative to boycott editing articles on Mondays until things change. (You can join too!)

But Monday morning, Monday morning couldn't guarantee That Monday evening, You would still be here with me "Monday, Monday", The Mamas & the Papas, 1966

"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-13 This 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. INTJ This user has an INTJ Myers–Briggs Type Indicator This user has nibbled The Donut of DOOM FREE PENYULAP

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

I think I'm thinking the same thing you're thinking. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An add'l theory crossed my mind: that we've been reasoning w/ an Alexa AI. --IHTS (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our instincts bore out. ;) --IHTS (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know why LithiumFlash wasn't interested in involving others in WP:RFC. Quale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guys did the heavy lifting. Don't think we've seen the end of Mr. Mathematical Madness. --IHTS (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban from post-1932 American politics, you have been blocked 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.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|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. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators 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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• Link to WP:AE thread and administrative consensus: [7]. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Herbert Hoover 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) 69.122.234.2 (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at this POS "article". Not worthy of any encyclopedia of any merit. 69.122.234.2 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. (My heart rests a little more peacefully now. Fuck!) --IHTS (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Yeah, re that POS article, I tried to point out "Mexican" isn't race in these posts 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!) --IHTS (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "narrative" is simple. Trump is a "white supremacist". Hates all "non-whites". It's just absurd. 69.122.234.2 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked people in real life: "What if one of your parents is black, and the other is white? What then?" Confused silence. Why is "the race card" pulled? For votes? For Democrats? Jus' sayin'... 69.122.234.2 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The race card is signal the Dems are out of stuff. Absurd yes, laughable too, because hatred & desperation drives them irrational. (Like a demon crying for exorcism. "This was a 'white-lash'!" Can't wait for Maxine Waters's response-speech to State of the Union! ) p.s. It's more than 90% neg. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC are all non-stop anti-Trump propaganda. But it's really not funny after Rachel Maddow pumped up a Bernie supporter who tried to assassinate Republican ballplayers and messed up Scalise badly. Still, Maddow & others continue in same vein w/o hesitation. (Immorality capable only from the Left.) HC hasn't accepted her loss yet, that'd be funny too, if it wasn't just plain sicko. --IHTS (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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!!! Doc talk 12:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 [or the 1st Amendment]"!? And how they credit themselves w/ "defending democracy"!? (God! Puke!) --IHTS (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?! Doc talk 12:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]