Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. If that's not what you want right now please say so and I'll strike/withdraw it. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This all sucks. It's a real clusterfuck of misunderstandings. Please return. Taking a short pause from the Trump arena might be good, but you are needed elsewhere. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Over these past 15+ years. I've been banned for a 'year', been through 2 topic-bans & due to my dedication to Wikipedia (which requires hours in a chair) been through three bouts of hemorrhoids, but have never retired. So don't you retire. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
miss you, like you, see also - why do we loose the good ones? - I liked last year's quote: "you realize there are no answers, just stories" especially. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope this means you're coming out of retirement! :) Rray ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Aabcxyz ( talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your non admin close to save Thinker78 from a well-deserived boomerang block is not a valid reason to do a nonadmin close, IMO. And this is especially true given your "retired" template at the top of this page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
babble: to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds (Merriam-Webster)
babble: talk or speech that has no meaning (Cambridge)
Your gratuituous mention of Hitler, with immediate false disclaimer that it wasn't Godwin, and your anti-Trump rant, were both intelligible and had meaning, but inappropriate and off-topic, and thus meaningless on the Joe Biden talk page. YoPienso ( talk) 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
In the edit summary when you deleted my edit at Twitter Files tonight, you asked 2 questions. The story was on a CBS affiliate's night desk, and Jackson Sinnenberg was the byline. Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
How is stating a fact offensive?23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael ( talk • contribs)
Thought you were retired? suppose the template tricked me. Anyways, concerning the Trump page? I certainly wish to be proven wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
you mentioned stories -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You said that I deleted a post after it received a response. Not true. Here's the edit. After an edit conflict with you in the prior edit, I first took the text I had tried to update my prior comment with and turned it in a response to you. But, then, I decided that extending the conversation would not be productive, so I just updated my original post, and I pinged you in case you would want to update your reply. In other words, I posted a reply, but before you responded to that reply, I deleted it and incorporated it into my prior response, properly tagging it as an "update". You did not reply to my comment before I deleted it. Accuracy matters.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You are updating text after a response.That's not what you accused me of doing. And for someone who just made a false accusation, "you make incorrect false characterizations" is a rich claim. Yes, I updated my post ... I marked the post as updated, and I even sent you a courtesy ping you to alert you to the update. You responded by falsely saying that I had deleted a post after you responded to it.Finally, I said your argument—let's censor information so we can push back against the narrative promoted by this Fox push alert-struck me as a RGW argument. You seem to have taken that oddly personally, but I didn't intend it as such.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It's so exciting to find someone who speaks your language. Valereee ( talk) 17:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I live in Manhattan, but I love international country food, particularly French and Asian. If we have guests, my favorites are bourguignon, which I did last week, cassoulet, and nasi goreng. (Of course, even famous chefs like pomme frites. ) Nasi goreng is interesting. I think it began as a breakfast meal based on whatever was left over – hence the fried rice. First time I had it was in Kuala Lumpur. So impressed had it for three days straight. Cassoulet also originally depended on what was available. I used to go by recipes. Sorta/kinda still do. But, have to make changes according to what works for whom you serve. And, experimentation is valuable.
My wife makes a big deal about my food and I keep insisting she stop. I ain’t a chef. I just adore food, and it's easier than some work. And cooking is cheaper than going to places like Le Bernardin (heaven on Earth).
The biggest loss to the culinary field was the suicide of Bourdain. He didn’t have a cooking show. He went places and talked their history, their present, their maybe future. He talked to their food: Why it was what it was and its purpose and relationship to their community. It should be required viewing. (Before all the books are banned.) O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Before directing me to SECTIONHEADINGOWN, it would probably have been wise for you to review it first. Especially, the sentence that says: "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." You failed to do that and I stand by my revert. I don't own my headings, but you don't either. But if I inadvertently reverted your other comment(s) as well, I won't object to you restoring it. X4n6 ( talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled across a two-sentence passage in Ron DeSantis that was pretty much copied from Encyclopedia Britannica and posted a question at the Teahouse about the line between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. A fairly new editor posted this answer. I'm trying to parse "essentially the same with but rephrased in certain areas" in terms of acceptable or not. I've also been under the impression that we shouldn't be using Britannica for cites. Could you take a look at my comment on the Ron DeSantis talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I love his backstory on the Orange Catholic Bible, in short made to bring all religions together in peace, and caused the worst religious wars anyone had ever seen. It's so plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
With regards to your comment: sorry, but I have been told templating regulars is naughty. You can have a cookie if you apologise to Jack4576 for assuming bad faith. Politrukki ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that I was not disagreing with you in any way. I agree with all the points you made. I just didn't like the way you said things. That's all. I understood that you were speaking sarcastically, but that was my entire issue with what you were saying.
Also, I only used the quotes from your user page in irony. Cessaune [talk] 04:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I made a dummy edit in the conspiracy theory page because the other editor was disparaging my edits. Therefore, it was only fitting to clarify things in the same place where the disparagement was being made. I don't intend to hold discussions with edit summaries though. Read Help:Dummy edit. I am assuming good faith that you will understand instead of being a completely biased editor. Sincerely, -- Thinker78 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Adam Schiff - You took down my edit saying you didn't see the comment in the citation. It is at 5:21 in the CNN Youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerseusMeredith ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert you here, but that's more of a meta issue than an issue with this article in particular. I generally agree with the point you're making, but Wikipedia gonna Wikipedia, and breaking news articles will always exist. Maybe self-revert and start a discussion at the village pump, perhaps? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
O3000, would you please self revert your Andy Ngo edit? The summary material is disputed and your edit violates the consensus required rule, "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Springee ( talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you know what the big revdel was on the talk page and which Admin? SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a very unfortunate situation. I removed it several times from my watchlist, but I keep peeking and getting reengaged. Among other things, 1RR can't function as intended on a new article where every edit is a revert except for the loads of news flash, coatrack, unverified or other bad content added either for POV or simply by editors without the experience needed to work on such a page. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the retired template and you wrote "The user has left the building". Unfortunately the template is categorizing you in retired Wikipedians. I notice the retired template does not have the option to turn off categorization. But aren't you supposed to remove the retired template if you return to Wikipedia? Awesome Aasim 00:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope you're cool with me sliding into your talk page. Just wanted to give you a heads up – your recent comment, some folks thought it was a bit out there, like a "bizarre accusation". Someone else even mentioned it seemed like you were accusing editors of Islamophobia. I know you've got the Wikipedia civility guidelines locked in, and personally, I don't see it as a personal attack either, but it might be wise to tread lightly, especially when you're chatting about those hot-button topics. Stay good and live long and prosper! Infinity Knight ( talk) 09:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not for me to instruct you how to use an article talk page, which you are very experienced at. But if I could make a suggestion that might help me and other editors who are making changes: I find it easier to respond to edit requests or suggestions when the bottom line is up front—i.e., what specific change to the page you are suggesting. I apologize for saying you were "hung up" on the word count on the page, which was an unnecessary jab. What I should have said was that I was unable to tell if your main concern was the amount of repetition of the specific words you highlighted, or the discussion of the topic altogether. You did make a compelling case that the amount of discussion of the topic should be reduced significantly in the article. I just didn't understand what the request was until after we had our back-and-forth. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI, see this.
Btw, when do you plan to change your banner to "semi-retired"? ― Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I warned them I have to warn you, you are bludgeoning the coverrsation at lab leak. Drop it now. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I sincerely thank you for that revert. I can't even imagine what it might have been, and don't want to know. I've been subjected to a few "untoward" comments over the past decade. I just want you to know that I truly and sincerely wish you a healthy and prosperous New Year. It is hard to believe 2024 is here and now. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
today's story is as last years, to help you to catch up -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
like, bruh... don't dismiss comments for no reason. at least give reasons for the article saying that. 2600:1700:BA02:36E0:3C12:A2F7:67F0:60EC ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I hope all is well with you. Apparently you've had to endure some bullshit here; I do my best to stay away from the drama boards; had I seen this nonsense when it was taking place, I'd have happily attested to your unimpeachable character (probably a good thing that I missed it all, as a character reference from a no good son of a bitch such as I is unlikely to work in anyone's favor around these parts). I see that you've retired; I hope that your sporadic activity indicates that it's more accurately semi-retirement. Anyway, a friend of mine, having recently returned to the States, following a trip to Curacao, told me he played blackjack there, blackjack that offered early surrender. Now I've heard rumors over the years that early surrender games still exist in far-off remote locations. I've always treated such reports similarly to alleged sightings of living dinosaurs (non-avian dinosaur, that is; obviously anyone who has seen a bird has indeed seen a living dinosaur, but I digress...). Occasionally I've encountered folks who don't understand the difference, and think "early" surrender means "before playing the hand" (I honestly encountered a pit boss who took that position when casino games were first introduced at Philadelphia Park racetrack ("You mean if the dealer has an ace showing I can surrender before he peeks?", I asked, to which she quickly responded, "Oh no, no, not like that."). More often I've encountered folks who are just completely full of shit. However, this came from a long-time friend who does know t he difference, and who's honesty I've always found to be beyond reproach. It's not that I disbelieve his account, but - I don't know exactly how to put it; if my brother told me he encountered a stegosaurus during a stroll through the woods my incredulity would still trump my instinct to believe him. Can you provide any information about this? Are there truly early surrender games still being offered anywhere? I guess the reason I find it so difficult to believe is that unless I'm very wrong, with early surrender, advantage play is possible without card counting. If I'm correct, just playing BS correctly will give the player something like a 0.02% advantage. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this. Best, Joefromrandb ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. If that's not what you want right now please say so and I'll strike/withdraw it. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This all sucks. It's a real clusterfuck of misunderstandings. Please return. Taking a short pause from the Trump arena might be good, but you are needed elsewhere. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Over these past 15+ years. I've been banned for a 'year', been through 2 topic-bans & due to my dedication to Wikipedia (which requires hours in a chair) been through three bouts of hemorrhoids, but have never retired. So don't you retire. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
miss you, like you, see also - why do we loose the good ones? - I liked last year's quote: "you realize there are no answers, just stories" especially. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope this means you're coming out of retirement! :) Rray ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Aabcxyz ( talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your non admin close to save Thinker78 from a well-deserived boomerang block is not a valid reason to do a nonadmin close, IMO. And this is especially true given your "retired" template at the top of this page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
babble: to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds (Merriam-Webster)
babble: talk or speech that has no meaning (Cambridge)
Your gratuituous mention of Hitler, with immediate false disclaimer that it wasn't Godwin, and your anti-Trump rant, were both intelligible and had meaning, but inappropriate and off-topic, and thus meaningless on the Joe Biden talk page. YoPienso ( talk) 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
In the edit summary when you deleted my edit at Twitter Files tonight, you asked 2 questions. The story was on a CBS affiliate's night desk, and Jackson Sinnenberg was the byline. Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Kmccook ( talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
How is stating a fact offensive?23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael ( talk • contribs)
Thought you were retired? suppose the template tricked me. Anyways, concerning the Trump page? I certainly wish to be proven wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
you mentioned stories -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You said that I deleted a post after it received a response. Not true. Here's the edit. After an edit conflict with you in the prior edit, I first took the text I had tried to update my prior comment with and turned it in a response to you. But, then, I decided that extending the conversation would not be productive, so I just updated my original post, and I pinged you in case you would want to update your reply. In other words, I posted a reply, but before you responded to that reply, I deleted it and incorporated it into my prior response, properly tagging it as an "update". You did not reply to my comment before I deleted it. Accuracy matters.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You are updating text after a response.That's not what you accused me of doing. And for someone who just made a false accusation, "you make incorrect false characterizations" is a rich claim. Yes, I updated my post ... I marked the post as updated, and I even sent you a courtesy ping you to alert you to the update. You responded by falsely saying that I had deleted a post after you responded to it.Finally, I said your argument—let's censor information so we can push back against the narrative promoted by this Fox push alert-struck me as a RGW argument. You seem to have taken that oddly personally, but I didn't intend it as such.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It's so exciting to find someone who speaks your language. Valereee ( talk) 17:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I live in Manhattan, but I love international country food, particularly French and Asian. If we have guests, my favorites are bourguignon, which I did last week, cassoulet, and nasi goreng. (Of course, even famous chefs like pomme frites. ) Nasi goreng is interesting. I think it began as a breakfast meal based on whatever was left over – hence the fried rice. First time I had it was in Kuala Lumpur. So impressed had it for three days straight. Cassoulet also originally depended on what was available. I used to go by recipes. Sorta/kinda still do. But, have to make changes according to what works for whom you serve. And, experimentation is valuable.
My wife makes a big deal about my food and I keep insisting she stop. I ain’t a chef. I just adore food, and it's easier than some work. And cooking is cheaper than going to places like Le Bernardin (heaven on Earth).
The biggest loss to the culinary field was the suicide of Bourdain. He didn’t have a cooking show. He went places and talked their history, their present, their maybe future. He talked to their food: Why it was what it was and its purpose and relationship to their community. It should be required viewing. (Before all the books are banned.) O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Before directing me to SECTIONHEADINGOWN, it would probably have been wise for you to review it first. Especially, the sentence that says: "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." You failed to do that and I stand by my revert. I don't own my headings, but you don't either. But if I inadvertently reverted your other comment(s) as well, I won't object to you restoring it. X4n6 ( talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled across a two-sentence passage in Ron DeSantis that was pretty much copied from Encyclopedia Britannica and posted a question at the Teahouse about the line between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. A fairly new editor posted this answer. I'm trying to parse "essentially the same with but rephrased in certain areas" in terms of acceptable or not. I've also been under the impression that we shouldn't be using Britannica for cites. Could you take a look at my comment on the Ron DeSantis talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I love his backstory on the Orange Catholic Bible, in short made to bring all religions together in peace, and caused the worst religious wars anyone had ever seen. It's so plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
With regards to your comment: sorry, but I have been told templating regulars is naughty. You can have a cookie if you apologise to Jack4576 for assuming bad faith. Politrukki ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that I was not disagreing with you in any way. I agree with all the points you made. I just didn't like the way you said things. That's all. I understood that you were speaking sarcastically, but that was my entire issue with what you were saying.
Also, I only used the quotes from your user page in irony. Cessaune [talk] 04:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I made a dummy edit in the conspiracy theory page because the other editor was disparaging my edits. Therefore, it was only fitting to clarify things in the same place where the disparagement was being made. I don't intend to hold discussions with edit summaries though. Read Help:Dummy edit. I am assuming good faith that you will understand instead of being a completely biased editor. Sincerely, -- Thinker78 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Adam Schiff - You took down my edit saying you didn't see the comment in the citation. It is at 5:21 in the CNN Youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerseusMeredith ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert you here, but that's more of a meta issue than an issue with this article in particular. I generally agree with the point you're making, but Wikipedia gonna Wikipedia, and breaking news articles will always exist. Maybe self-revert and start a discussion at the village pump, perhaps? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
O3000, would you please self revert your Andy Ngo edit? The summary material is disputed and your edit violates the consensus required rule, "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Springee ( talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you know what the big revdel was on the talk page and which Admin? SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a very unfortunate situation. I removed it several times from my watchlist, but I keep peeking and getting reengaged. Among other things, 1RR can't function as intended on a new article where every edit is a revert except for the loads of news flash, coatrack, unverified or other bad content added either for POV or simply by editors without the experience needed to work on such a page. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the retired template and you wrote "The user has left the building". Unfortunately the template is categorizing you in retired Wikipedians. I notice the retired template does not have the option to turn off categorization. But aren't you supposed to remove the retired template if you return to Wikipedia? Awesome Aasim 00:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope you're cool with me sliding into your talk page. Just wanted to give you a heads up – your recent comment, some folks thought it was a bit out there, like a "bizarre accusation". Someone else even mentioned it seemed like you were accusing editors of Islamophobia. I know you've got the Wikipedia civility guidelines locked in, and personally, I don't see it as a personal attack either, but it might be wise to tread lightly, especially when you're chatting about those hot-button topics. Stay good and live long and prosper! Infinity Knight ( talk) 09:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not for me to instruct you how to use an article talk page, which you are very experienced at. But if I could make a suggestion that might help me and other editors who are making changes: I find it easier to respond to edit requests or suggestions when the bottom line is up front—i.e., what specific change to the page you are suggesting. I apologize for saying you were "hung up" on the word count on the page, which was an unnecessary jab. What I should have said was that I was unable to tell if your main concern was the amount of repetition of the specific words you highlighted, or the discussion of the topic altogether. You did make a compelling case that the amount of discussion of the topic should be reduced significantly in the article. I just didn't understand what the request was until after we had our back-and-forth. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI, see this.
Btw, when do you plan to change your banner to "semi-retired"? ― Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I warned them I have to warn you, you are bludgeoning the coverrsation at lab leak. Drop it now. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I sincerely thank you for that revert. I can't even imagine what it might have been, and don't want to know. I've been subjected to a few "untoward" comments over the past decade. I just want you to know that I truly and sincerely wish you a healthy and prosperous New Year. It is hard to believe 2024 is here and now. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
today's story is as last years, to help you to catch up -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
like, bruh... don't dismiss comments for no reason. at least give reasons for the article saying that. 2600:1700:BA02:36E0:3C12:A2F7:67F0:60EC ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I hope all is well with you. Apparently you've had to endure some bullshit here; I do my best to stay away from the drama boards; had I seen this nonsense when it was taking place, I'd have happily attested to your unimpeachable character (probably a good thing that I missed it all, as a character reference from a no good son of a bitch such as I is unlikely to work in anyone's favor around these parts). I see that you've retired; I hope that your sporadic activity indicates that it's more accurately semi-retirement. Anyway, a friend of mine, having recently returned to the States, following a trip to Curacao, told me he played blackjack there, blackjack that offered early surrender. Now I've heard rumors over the years that early surrender games still exist in far-off remote locations. I've always treated such reports similarly to alleged sightings of living dinosaurs (non-avian dinosaur, that is; obviously anyone who has seen a bird has indeed seen a living dinosaur, but I digress...). Occasionally I've encountered folks who don't understand the difference, and think "early" surrender means "before playing the hand" (I honestly encountered a pit boss who took that position when casino games were first introduced at Philadelphia Park racetrack ("You mean if the dealer has an ace showing I can surrender before he peeks?", I asked, to which she quickly responded, "Oh no, no, not like that."). More often I've encountered folks who are just completely full of shit. However, this came from a long-time friend who does know t he difference, and who's honesty I've always found to be beyond reproach. It's not that I disbelieve his account, but - I don't know exactly how to put it; if my brother told me he encountered a stegosaurus during a stroll through the woods my incredulity would still trump my instinct to believe him. Can you provide any information about this? Are there truly early surrender games still being offered anywhere? I guess the reason I find it so difficult to believe is that unless I'm very wrong, with early surrender, advantage play is possible without card counting. If I'm correct, just playing BS correctly will give the player something like a 0.02% advantage. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this. Best, Joefromrandb ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)