User talk:JFG/Archive Fun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dabbling
I cannot stand saying LOL, but this time I actually did laugh out loud
...the article should mention the issue of [something substantive with long-term consequences which came up during the campaign cycle but which was later deleted from the article covering the events] other than from a sensationalist angle… Good luck with that :) — JFG, 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That is pretty classic. I'll frame that quote on my wall or something. :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Are you tired of winning yet?
This edit...
...had the best edit summary. Really great edit summary. Everybody says so. Edit summary so good it'll blow your mind, believe me folks. MWGA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I just love seeing playful edit summaries on my watchlist. Especially on political articles.
- We're only getting started, folks, believe me. Those editsums will fly around so fast, your head will spin! — JFG talk 03:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Who's "we"? Never did hear the explanation for that one? SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- "We" is the first person, plural personal pronoun (nominative case) in Modern English. @SPECIFICO: I advised you repeatedly to stop trolling my talk page. I mean it. — JFG talk 19:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not "trolling" and can't understand what you'd mean by that, since it's a clear question. Yes, we know it's plural. If it were only your own behavior that's "just getting started", I'd have expected the singular. Hence my question. However, I note that you haven't answered it and you're not obligated to answer it now. To your request, I will not ask this question again on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- When you and VM asked "who is we" in some discussion on the infamous Russian interference article, I gave a straightforward reply and VM accepted it. Only you keep insinuating bad faith, collusion and whatnot. This is sanctionable behaviour and you know it. That you are now intervening in a humourous discussion between MjolnirPants and myself to re-iterate your aspersions can accurately be called "trolling", to which I answered in the most polite and humorous way I could muster. Peace be upon you! — JFG talk 20:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not "trolling" and can't understand what you'd mean by that, since it's a clear question. Yes, we know it's plural. If it were only your own behavior that's "just getting started", I'd have expected the singular. Hence my question. However, I note that you haven't answered it and you're not obligated to answer it now. To your request, I will not ask this question again on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- "We" is the first person, plural personal pronoun (nominative case) in Modern English. @SPECIFICO: I advised you repeatedly to stop trolling my talk page. I mean it. — JFG talk 19:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Who's "we"? Never did hear the explanation for that one? SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- We're gonna build a wall around this talk page. And SPECIFICO is going to pay for it, I guarantee! (Seriously man, we're just joking around, don't try to turn this into another content/conduct/POV dispute.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Damn right! Ever noticed her name rhymes with Mexico?
— JFG talk 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- JFG - couldn't resist...when you get a chance, see #Arbitration enforcement warning and hover over the diff so you can see what it was I said that caused the fallacious warning (which was eventually repealed after I jumped through rings of fire). The emoji truly was a software malfunction (dashboard was doubling over on itself), but the malapropism was a brilliant piece of work, if I may say so myself. 🤣 Atsme📞📧 18:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Old habits die hard… I noticed that people who insist on calling others conspiracy theorists tend to have a rather unshakable faith in their own impression that everyone they disagree with is complicit in some massive delusion. Always fun to behold.[FBDB] — JFG talk 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- JFG - couldn't resist...when you get a chance, see #Arbitration enforcement warning and hover over the diff so you can see what it was I said that caused the fallacious warning (which was eventually repealed after I jumped through rings of fire). The emoji truly was a software malfunction (dashboard was doubling over on itself), but the malapropism was a brilliant piece of work, if I may say so myself. 🤣 Atsme📞📧 18:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Damn right! Ever noticed her name rhymes with Mexico?
You can run, but you can't hide
You've escaped justice for now, but you can't escape it forever.
Just when you think it's safe to remove the truth from an article based on your churlish WP:BLPREMOVE claims, one of your betters will make a 10,000-word post arguing (successfully) that maybe there were no BLP implications after all, thus you've violated 1RR on an article subject to discretionary sanctions—whose purpose is to ensure that the truth is not improperly removed from WP articles—and all of a sudden, BLAM, you'll be indeffed without discussion. Book it. Your days are numbered, troll.
lololololololol Factchecker_atyourservice 19:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Factchecker atyourservice: As far as I know, I have never interacted with you, and I fail to understand the purpose of your sudden rant against me. If you have a legitimate complaint against my edits, Wikipedia provides plenty of venues for grievance: WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N, etc. Finally, I would remind you to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Maybe WP:VNT and WP:RGW would help give you a deeper understanding of Wikipedia principles as well. Thanks, — JFG talk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG: Apologies for provking that response, my comment was supposed to be a joke (hence the "lolololololol"). The "joke", in my mind, was that this massive discussion unfolded at BLP noticeboard on the substantive merits of a content dispute, and countless users chimed in with very thoughtful responses, yet one user kept a rather insistent position that the real issue was that you needed to be blocked for violating 1RR because, allegedly, your claim of BLP exemption was false. To me, it seemed like a case study in questionable priorities. Also I recently came off a block for 3RR for reverting material that had obvious BLP problems, so I felt like I was in a similar boat. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Factchecker atyourservice: Oh I see, hadn't noticed the <smallest>lololololol</smallest>, sorry! Well it's a fact that certain editors are contributing more noise than signal; c'est la vie… The same people can insist that something they don't like is a BLP violation, whereas something they like is not, while making evasive responses to any issue of substance. C'est la vie sur le wiki… — JFG talk 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- After another look I see the "lolololol" looked like it was part of my sig. Now you can see one reason why I've failed as a comedian: awful delivery. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Factchecker atyourservice: Oh I see, hadn't noticed the <smallest>lololololol</smallest>, sorry! Well it's a fact that certain editors are contributing more noise than signal; c'est la vie… The same people can insist that something they don't like is a BLP violation, whereas something they like is not, while making evasive responses to any issue of substance. C'est la vie sur le wiki… — JFG talk 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG: Apologies for provking that response, my comment was supposed to be a joke (hence the "lolololololol"). The "joke", in my mind, was that this massive discussion unfolded at BLP noticeboard on the substantive merits of a content dispute, and countless users chimed in with very thoughtful responses, yet one user kept a rather insistent position that the real issue was that you needed to be blocked for violating 1RR because, allegedly, your claim of BLP exemption was false. To me, it seemed like a case study in questionable priorities. Also I recently came off a block for 3RR for reverting material that had obvious BLP problems, so I felt like I was in a similar boat. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI
(in reference to a "cut-the-crap" edit)
The definition for "child" in Webster includes: an immature or irresponsible person
Atsme📞📧 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- This goes right into my Fun section hall of fame.
Facepalm — JFG talk 17:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)



