Kurt...!, going after Kelly Martin's record Options

[The Joy]

And there it is! NYBrad has reached the fabled 300 mark. Congraduations!

It's primarily your forum, Moulton. Otherwise, it's just yelling and screaming all day long.

You can get all that for free on Wikipedia!

[Kelly Martin]

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up.

Nonsense; I have been a regular reader ("user") of Wikipedia for a long time; this hasn't stopped just because I no longer edit.

You people still don't get that Wikipedia's real users are its readers, not its editors and certainly not the silly buggers who mainly habituate its drama pages.

I haven't been on IRC for years - the wikipedia channel was sewage then. I've always assumed there were various unofficial channels of better quality (can't believe #wikipedia is as good as it gets).

There are quite a few useful channels out there, mostly dedicated to productive activities. I'm personally a regular in a few ham-radio specific channels on a couple of networks, where we actually talk about ham radio type things. Funny how that works.

[The Joy]

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up.

Nonsense; I have been a regular reader ("user") of Wikipedia for a long time; this hasn't stopped just because I no longer edit.

You people still don't get that Wikipedia's real users are its readers, not its editors and certainly not the silly buggers who mainly habituate its drama pages.

Wikipedia's primary stakeholders have always been the readers, but Wikipedia's "regulars" have yet to realize this.

Good point.

[Newyorkbrad]

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up.

Nonsense; I have been a regular reader ("user") of Wikipedia for a long time; this hasn't stopped just because I no longer edit.

You people still don't get that Wikipedia's real users are its readers, not its editors and certainly not the silly buggers who mainly habituate its drama pages.

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread. You stated that you were not longer a "user," which I reasonably understood to mean that you were no longer editing the site (which at least under this account name is clearly true), not that you were no longer reading the site (about which I could have no knowledge one way or the other).

[Obesity]

And there it is! NYBrad has reached the fabled 300 mark. Congraduations!

Moulton, someone is pwning all your ArbCom candidate questions b/c you are a banned user.

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread. You stated that you were not longer a "user," which I reasonably understood to mean that you were no longer editing the site (which at least under this account name is clearly true), not that you were no longer reading the site (about which I could have no knowledge one way or the other).

Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

This post has been edited by Obesity: Wed 3rd December 2008, 3:28am

[Newyorkbrad]

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread. You stated that you were not longer a "user," which I reasonably understood to mean that you were no longer editing the site (which at least under this account name is clearly true), not that you were no longer reading the site (about which I could have no knowledge one way or the other).

Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

I think this is where I'm supposed to fall into the trap of saying "checkuser would never be run without a good reason," and then this thread spins even more off-topic and turns into the "checkuser abuse" thread?

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad: Wed 3rd December 2008, 3:51am

[Shalom]

Re: Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

I am not a checkuser, but I don't think so. At least in the past it was not possible, but maybe it's been added. Checkuser can definitely check edits, account creation, and that an account sent an email by special:emailuser without discerning the contents of the email (recently added). As far as I know, that's all. It seems rather pointless for the database to maintain records of who logs on and off and at what times: if the users aren't actually doing anything, it seems without purpose to keep track of them.

[Alison]

Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

No.

[Kurt M. Weber]

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTME
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Newyorkbrad]

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTME
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But how would doing that benefit my individual self-interest in the Randian sense?

[Obesity]

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTME
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's a Kurt sentiment to which I can fully relate.

[Newyorkbrad]

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTME
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's a Kurt sentiment to which I can fully relate.

It struck me as being the same Kurt sentiment as in every other Kurt post he's ever made, only capitalized.

[Anonymous editor]

now that's funny.

[Kelly Martin]

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread.

You mean the sense you had used it. My usage was intentionally ironic, and was intended to see if you would make the mistake of agreeing with my claim that I was no longer a user. Gotcha.

[Viridae]

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTME
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's a Kurt sentiment to which I can fully relate.

It struck me as being the same Kurt sentiment as in every other Kurt post he's ever made, only capitalized.

Giggle.

[Lar]

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread.

You mean the sense you had used it. My usage was intentionally ironic, and was intended to see if you would make the mistake of agreeing with my claim that I was no longer a user. Gotcha.

You're saying that agreeing with you is a mistake?

That may be a bit too involuted for me to keep up with.

[Peter Damian]

Call me sick but I do..., well for 6 candidates. Besides BLP issues brought, not much questions about anything on content directly and if it is asked answers are usually vague and unsatisfactory so it's a total waste of time reading them.

Why couldn't the candidates just form into parties, then the parties could have a single manifesto and a press officer to field questions.

And what would the parties be?

[Newyorkbrad]

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread.

You mean the sense you had used it. My usage was intentionally ironic, and was intended to see if you would make the mistake of agreeing with my claim that I was no longer a user. Gotcha.

So you used "user" the way the Wikipedia set-up uses "user" ("user" = "editor"), and since I followed suit you now claim that my usage of "user" was an improper use? It was all a trap for me? Geez, I feel ... used.

[Kelly Martin]

So you used "user" the way the Wikipedia set-up uses "user" ("user" = "editor"), and since I followed suit you now claim that my usage of "user" was an improper use? It was all a trap for me? Geez, I feel ... used.

Was it good for you too?

[Newyorkbrad]

So you used "user" the way the Wikipedia set-up uses "user" ("user" = "editor"), and since I followed suit you now claim that my usage of "user" was an improper use? It was all a trap for me? Geez, I feel ... used.

Was it good for you too?

I think we're supposed to be talking about Kurt.