Jump to content

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 61: Line 61:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sci-Hub&diff=865650694&oldid=865645067 Do you think this is constructive]? You could have conveyed the same meaning by saying e.g. "terminological sophistry" rather than "Clinton-level bullshit". --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sci-Hub&diff=865650694&oldid=865645067 Do you think this is constructive]? You could have conveyed the same meaning by saying e.g. "terminological sophistry" rather than "Clinton-level bullshit". --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{tps}}Do you think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=865822239&oldid=865789590&diffmode=source this] is constructive? Disrespecting valuable editors and picking fights over days-old comments with no clear end goal? Seriously? Knock it off, get over it, and stop throwing your toys out of the pram just because you read something you didn't like. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{tps}}Do you think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=865822239&oldid=865789590&diffmode=source this] is constructive? Disrespecting valuable editors and picking fights over days-old comments with no clear end goal? Seriously? Knock it off, get over it, and stop throwing your toys out of the pram just because you read something you didn't like. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
: Having given this all due consideration, go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. My patience for people who argue that copyright piracy is not ''illegal'' as such, is limited. If you edited Wikipedia on the same principles you display in that talk page discussion then I you would have been banned ages ago. You may well believe that Sci-Hub are some kind of latter-day Robin Hood, and I might even agree with you, but what they are doing is, according to the sources, not lawful, and arguing about which exact word to use to describe their illegal behaviour on the basis that you don't like the fact that it's illegal is pure disruption. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:50, 26 October 2018


Arbitration case request declined

The recent request for arbitration involving you has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't break references

Look better, thanks. --Nemo 10:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That edit shows no evidence of broken references. Nothing red int he Reflist, for example. What is the problem? Guy (Help!) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same troll?

Me thinks the same troll has hit both of our talk pages:

Their messages have strong similarities. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're back and using their talk page to hurl insults again. There's a chance this is just a parting shot, but if you haven't watched their talk, you might want to, to see if they need TP access turned off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's trying to get himself unblocked, so you may wish to weigh in there. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polarizing remarks with offtopic references

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Sci-Hub#Illegally_sharing_or_illegally_accessing? for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.


Do you think this is constructive? You could have conveyed the same meaning by saying e.g. "terminological sophistry" rather than "Clinton-level bullshit". --Nemo 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Do you think this is constructive? Disrespecting valuable editors and picking fights over days-old comments with no clear end goal? Seriously? Knock it off, get over it, and stop throwing your toys out of the pram just because you read something you didn't like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having given this all due consideration, go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. My patience for people who argue that copyright piracy is not illegal as such, is limited. If you edited Wikipedia on the same principles you display in that talk page discussion then I you would have been banned ages ago. You may well believe that Sci-Hub are some kind of latter-day Robin Hood, and I might even agree with you, but what they are doing is, according to the sources, not lawful, and arguing about which exact word to use to describe their illegal behaviour on the basis that you don't like the fact that it's illegal is pure disruption. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]