User talk:Jinxmchue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jinxmchue/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Bluffs? You see bluffs? I'll call your bluff

Here, visit this link: http://images.google.com/images?q=bluffs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wi Then tell me you see bluffs around Montevideo, much less (as you earlier characterized them) "spectacular" bluffs. Sorry if my standards for geographical features are a bit higher than what's seen in your minds eye.

From the other notes from other Wikipedia notes, I'm not the only one who questions your judgment.

sotaman 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Higher? More like narrower. Bluffs are not just sheer cliffs. As I said, check the dictionary. Jinxmchue 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


No, not narrower, unless you mean to say "more accurate". I'm from Montevideo. I was born there. I was raised there. I return home frequently. I know what bluffs are. And I know what river valleys and river bank erosion are. If there are "bluffs" in Montevideo, then there also are mountains and dragons, and pixie dust.

To be most accurate, Montevideo is surrounded by farmland, prairies and river valleys. I realize this is a stupid point to belabor, but your fantasies won't change the real-life landscape around that town.

In the meantime, when someone else edits a Wikipedia listing to be more accurate, understand that they are acting in the interests and principles of Wikipedia. You have no grounds to issue threats to have someone "banned" from Wikipedia.

Last I checked, you are not master of Wikipedia. You have no authority here. If you want to lord over something, go back to your Dungeons and Dragons games, or go kick a dog.

sotaman 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults. I'll be sure to note them if and when I report you for rules violations. Jinxmchue 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick suggestion Jinx, before giving me advice... take a stroll through this page and ask yourself why so many other Wikipedia users get into confrontations and altercations with you. It's quite a history. But I suppose everyone is just a jerk, while you're a saint. My experience is, however, that you instigate much of what you disdain. As a remedy, I might suggest that you check your own "holier than though" attitude, and swallow some of your own unsolicited advice. In the meantime, I'll consider this conversation ended. Happy New Year. sotaman 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"So many" = 2 people: FAAFA and BenBurch. No, everone is not a jerk and I most certainly am not a saint. I think the pot is calling the kettle black, there. Your experience is incredibly limited here and you know little to nothing about what I do or do not instigate. My attitude is not "holier than thou," although that phrase could be applied to your attitude. I've yet to see you admit you were wrong (in the face of several reliable sources) about the bluffs issue. People who are "holier than thou" tend to not admit fault in anything. They are also uppity, self-centered, obnoxious and arrogant. Have you checked a mirror lately? You just might see that angry finger pointing back at yourself. Jinxmchue 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... good point. Seems I confused a lengthy debate with the number of debates. Still, there's something about your posting that insights heated comments... could it be you?
And for the record, I haven't admitted I was wrong, because, despite your lame, obscure web sites, I don't believe I am wrong. Yet, I retained "bluffs" in my edit -- mostly to humor your fantasies, but also to give you and whatever troll edited those sites (you?) the benefit of the doubt. I also beg to differ -- you come off as spectacularly arrogant and sanctimonious. I've read your blog... and, while I'm quite more than sympathetic to your points of view, you come off as an ass there too. Maybe you can make a New Years resolution around that. Again, Happy New Years. sotaman 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
On another note, it's probably just safe to say we'll agree to disagree. Which is why I left the bluffs in the last edit to the article. This discussion is now nothing more than you said, I said at this point. And I'm quite tired of reading and writing the tired commentary. Call it a day. O.k.? sotaman 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PW Link in ANSWER Article

Thw PW link was down when I removed it from the ANSWER article. I see PW is back up. God is good! I'll check to see if that link is OK under the new EL guidelines in the first place. P.S. you might try spelling 'Wolverine' correctly in the link - F.A.A.F.A. 07:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Stine

Looks good, nicely sourced. I added a blp template to the talk page. Crockspot 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

You wrote: "Hey, instead of spamming people's user pages to get them to do the work for you, why don't you make your own case for the removal of items from the article by citing verifiable material"

Did I write you? Hmmmm. Let me check. No. No I didn't! Same old Jinx. Just like the others. Complaining about, and attacking me for something that has nothing to do with you. And that's after I was nice enough to inform you that you spelled 'Wolverine' wrong! Some people! - F.A.A.F.A. 05:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course you didn't write me because I don't agree with you. See, you got called on not providing verifiable material to back up your claims of "conspiracy theories" and subsequent removal of information from an article. Instead of providing material you claimed exists, you went off and spammed the same message to a few like-minded editors. You claim that some of the material in the Saddam/al-Qaeda article has been "refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts," yet you don't provide documentation of any of that. If you have it, show it. If you don't, find it or refrain from editing the article in question. Jinxmchue 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I also wrote MONGO, Tom Harrison, and NuclearUmph who don't 'agree with me'. Sorry you're upset that I ignored you. I have started work on the article. I invite you to weigh in with your concerns and conspiracies there. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not upset you are ignoring me. I'm annoyed that you are applying false motives to my legitimate questions and concerns. Do you or don't you have verifiable information to back up your claims? A simple "yes" or "no" question. Why are you afraid of answering it? Jinxmchue 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I already did on the article talk page. - A major source for the Conspiracy Theories was a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The so-called Feith Memo was based on leaked intelligence, which the Defense Department subsequently rejected as "inaccurate," noting that the information leaked "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."DOD refutes allegations and condemns Conspiracy Theorists and #1 Conspiracy Theorist Debunked - F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

What on earth were you thinking when you messed up all the dates in the Jesus article? That is just not like you. --BenBurch 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing CE into AD (and viceversa) goes against the rules

Just to let you know that it is forbidded to change CEs into ADs (and viceversa): WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues. Unilaterally reverting/removing era styles is a serious offence.--RedMC 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting.

From looking at your contribs and your blog; I think we'd get along IRL. Mostly socially, but also a little bit politically. Okay, mostly socially. As I describe myself in the santorum AfD, I'm a gun loving social libertarian/fiscal conservative from Texas, living in Illinois. Anyway. I didn't want you to think I was singling you out or stalk-warning you. I'm actually going to remove the warning I left for you; as I think I provoked you. NOW LET'S HUG AND GET A MANICURE. Heh. Anyway. Later. -- weirdoactor t|c 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: "Idiotarian," "fitzmas" vs. "santorum"

Your stance on these terms seems grossly inconsistent. "Fitzmas" is far and away more well-known than "santorum," and "idiotarian" is even more well-known than "fitzmas." However, you nominated "idiotarian" for deletion for supposedly being a "Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism" and claimed that you would vote to delete "fitzmas," yet "santorum" is perfectly okay with you. Care to explain this? Jinxmchue 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No inconsistancy. I have only encountered Fitzmas and Idiotarian used on the www by people who participate in certain blogs / forums. I have heard and seen Santorum used in 'real life', on the radio and TV, including The Daily Show. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and nominate Fitzmas if you'd like. I support deleting it and will comment accordingly.- F.A.A.F.A. 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
But "santorum" - a lesser known, lesser used term - is just fine for Wiki by your standards. Amazing. Simply, simply amazing. Jinxmchue 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They huffed, and puffed, . . .

 Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Request for Comment has been filed

I've filed an RfC against BenBurch here. Your experiences have been mentioned and I would appreciate your description of your experiences with BenBurch, FAAFA and Travb. Thank you. Dino 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It comes up fine for me. I don't know.
You can report the bug. But in my expeince of reporting a bug, if it trivial, they won't care.
Looking forward to your comments on Talk:FrontPageMag.com. Travb (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tracking IPs

Please stop creating articles about IPs that you disagree with. Wikipedia should not have articles about particular IPs and IP ranges. — coelacan — 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I criticizing you? I already moved your content over to User:194.247.231.99. I was just telling you that that's not appropriate for article space. Some users don't realize that. — coelacan — 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never filed one of those reports so I'm not sure what's up. Try the WP:HELPDESK? — coelacan — 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Pornography addiction

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jinxmchue! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule porn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/n/User_talk%7EJinxmchue_c784.html"