User:IvoShandor/Random comments

Random comments (added occasionally)


 * I love when bots come by pages I created a long time ago. It happened today, a bot came by Talk:Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois) and I ended up making tweaks to all of the Egyptian theatre articles on Wikipedia. That's why I love bots, except for Hagermanbot, grrr. : ) IvoShandor 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find lameness sometimes, such as calling this paragraph controversial: A lava lamp is a novelty item typically used for decoration rather than illumination. The gentle flow of randomly-shaped blobs of wax suggests the flowing of lava. The lamps are available with a wide variety of container styles and colours of wax and liquid. Lord help us all when the Lava Lamp cabal can descend and erase all traces of Lava lamps from the face of the earth, welcome to Wikiality. :-) Hmm, bold added. IvoShandor 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was editing one day and realized the only real contributions I want to make are decently written, fairly broad, well-referenced, well-illustrated articles. That is what I have mostly been doing since earlier this year. I am on a mission to photograph and document as many of Illinois' listings on the National Register of Historic Places that I can. IvoShandor 08:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have become frustrated with DYK recently. Maybe I just don't get enough sleep, probably the case. But I love DYK. I cannot resist. I think I will stay away from the list, and just ignore comments from now on, unless they aim to help. Either way, I suppose I get enough of them that it doesn't matter if someone's opposition stops one or two from making it. IvoShandor 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the cruft on Earth sits around here. I take the time to expand and reference Ivo Shandor and someone comes along and spoils the fun of having a user name with an article. Ah well, now if we could just get rid of all the Pokemon articles! Grrr. IvoShandor 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe my best typo ever, maybe (at least on a user talk page). I will look on ProQuest Historical New York Times when I get shot (which may not be before the GA nom is reviewed) and see if I can dig up anything about its history, as I did with The Century (building). (emphasis added) (diff). I really shouldn't edit so late. Two posts here in one day? IvoShandor 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am getting to the point where if I see unreferenced, OR on video game and pop culture fictional characters I am going to AfD it and to hell with the outcome. IvoShandor 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP sometimes acts as a censor. It is really nonsense. IvoShandor 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a new messages bar for a reason. It is disrespectful to other editors to imply you are too important to reply to a message on their talk page. IvoShandor 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * GA and FA are both nice, both imperfect. The two things they both do fairly well are, make sure an article isn't a grammatical and structural nightmare and make sure that insane claims aren't sourced to dubious publications or websites. They both do this fairly effectively. The only reason I use GA more is because of less emphasis on MOS items, which is cool for someone who spends hoardes of time researching, writing and photographing for articles. Both GA and FA also let my articles join a list of articles that have risen above the crap that infests much of the 2 million+ articles around here. With GA, I can leave the article for someone else to fix the details or I can set the article up to do it myself and get it to FA. Either way, I see no reason for the consistent bad blood between the two "factions." The one thing neither process does well at all (save for on occasion when reviewers are right) is vet articles and sources for accuracy, just not enough experts, ah well, can't have it all. IvoShandor 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose your opposition on the basis of WP:NMFP, aka, Wikipedia:No More Fucking Policies. While some can't seem to resist the urge to throw policy in your face and build such policy to throw it your face later, I myself prefer to let common sense reign, and apply policies using such sense. IvoShandor 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a whole cadre of editors who do nothing on Wikipedia but waste their time, removing red links, fixing redirects that redirect just fine, etc, etc. What are you, stupid? IvoShandor 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)