User talk:The Squicks

Archives

Archive 1

You...sire...

Are needed in ever single I/P article. Thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts..

..on how best to persuade Jimmi Hugh to play nice at Geert Wilders and comply with guidelines etc ? It looks like he's going to continue as before rather than just finding a source for Heckler's Veto or letting it drop. His behavior is bit puzzling especially the personal attacks and odd edit summaries. I'm holding off on escalating it in the hope that he might see reason eventually. Anyway, let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huey Lewis and the News

Yay! I am VERY happy to see other people using the userbox I created. Thank you Fore! adding it to your page! ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on. The Squicks (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar; your input on that page is likewise appreciated. Very difficult to keep a rational discourse going while personal attacks are flying but you keep a cool head under pressure. csloat (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob.

P.S. Given that the discussion at Talk:Juan Cole seemed ended (noone disputed the consensus, and noone wanted to put sanctions on any editor) I went ahead and closed it. The Squicks (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one. You insisted on fighting with me, but I thought it be easiest just to walk away from it. As for the resolved tag, generally that's a poor idea on a very recent discussion that could still be live (if, for example, someone else wanted to weigh in). You're free to tag whatever you like; I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag, but otherwise, knock yourself out. IronDuke 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote But I said I wasn't going to fight over it, and I'm not, unless consensus should change at some time in the future, which I don't have any specific reason to anticipate will happen. Cheers.

So, you are taking that back? The Squicks (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... what gave that idea? IronDuke 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you just posted "I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one" and "I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag".

Which is it? Are you saying that the issue is at least temporarily closed (of course, you and I can't see into the future) or are you saying that you want to keep this going? The Squicks (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in translation

Your post below bewildered me: 'Regardless of whatever prior feelings I had toward the Palestinians, the image that Sceptic linked to of a Palestinian man brutally mistreating a harmless pink fluffy bunny that only wanted to be his friend has torn it.

I bet they kick puppies in their spare time as well. / sarc'

Can you say it again? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian news article that you linked to had a picture of a man throwing up a pink bunny up in the air. I then joked about the stupidity of the newspaper's picture. The Squicks (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen

No, I have not violated that policy. The policy you cited says "three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". So you are actually closer to violating that policy than me.--NewLionDragon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]