"Fellow workers of INTJs often feel as if the INTJ can see right through them, and often believe that the INTJ finds them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent in the presence of the INTJ often results in relationships which have psychological distance. Thus colleagues find the INTJ apparently unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate. Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. INTJs are high achievers in school and on the job. On the job, they take the goals of an institution seriously and continually strive to respond to these goals. They make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system." Keirsey, David; Bates, Marilyn (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types (Fifth ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 182. ISBN0-9606954-0-0.
This took some time, and research, to make. (The correct kanji, rendering the images, the board geometry.) --IHTS (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment, Max. And I do miss editing/contributing, and collaborating too. But the jurisprudence re article title Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack versus Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack has been poison to my system. Contenders claimed the hyphen was in published use. That is nonsense for more than one reason. Publishers don't care or have any MoS for those things, what they publish on book covers and in book text is subsequently meaningless. And one can't even put a magnifier on printed pages and say "That's a hyphen" or "That's a dash". Completely an inarguable point. We have a clear MoS, and the connector between two individuals is clearly a dash per MOS:NDASH. To subject this to !vote and an unqualified "judge" thinking both arguments have weight and a judgement needs to be rendered based on assumption the hyphen "arguments" make any sense, is a poison pill for me. I can't continue to be subject to mob rule like this, have witnessed too much of it on WP during my time, and I think this was the final straw. This wasn't a judgment case it was/is simple MoS. I give up, I'm dead. --IHTS (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with MaxB on this, I always enjoy checking out your chess edits, and also appreciate your work ethic. But whether you're stepping away because Wiki is intensely crazy, or you just want to relax a little and do other things, I wish you well. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post a similar message to Max a few days ago when I saw you hadn't edited for a while. Totally understand why you had to take a break - do hope you'll be back someday. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the consensus is "wrong", sometimes you don't get your way. That's wikipedia. Don't quit the whole thing over an n-dash. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is not a count of votes but of merit. There was no merit in any of the arguments. The decision was not "wrong" it was anti-MoS wrong. And it wasn't just an MOS:NDASH, it was an article title. And BTW a title that has meant something to me from the 1970s. It's too much, all rolled into mob rule and incompetent summary judgment. And *that's* Wikipedia. It's just too much to swallow. You've already stated in that discussion that the issue wasn't something you cared about either way. All Wikipedians aren't made of the same stuff. You might not have cared and don't care. I did and do. That article title is a permanent stain until presented Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack. I'm done. --IHTS (talk)
OMG! Just noticed this. Still in some shock/disbelief. (Never expected w/ *ever* be corrected.) Looks like will be creeping out of the lagoon of wikiretirement. Will take some time to regain pace. I prob never w/ have checked the article, so thx Bruce & Max for signalling me. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ihardlythinkso. I noticed that you are marking a number of edits as minor that aren't really minor edits. Some examples: [2], [3], and [4]. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I really only agree w/ the first example, though. (My bad. Will endeavor not to repeat. Thx.) On the other two, one was to reverse a markup deletion that messed up a template execution, my EDITSUM s/ have made that clear; the removal of text was incidental, part of that user's unfortunate edit, I reverted the entire edit based on the mess up, if the editor cherished their text, they c/ resubmit it. The last example is simply adding a ref, which wasn't really needed, except undefined user IcePage had placed a citation-needed tag. Adding a superfluous ref (the source re entire article was already listed in References sec) seems minor edit to me. (That's wrong?) Besides the first example, methinks you're being too picky. --IHTS (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. My editorship tendency/habit is to mark my edits minor, unless there is good reason not to, unless clearly content-related. I do so because my i.d. does show up in numerous articles' stats as numerically high, and as Wikifairy editor, don't like to obscure the true credit due the articles' creators & content contributors. --IHTS (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they are smaller edits compared to a lot of edits, but the flag isn't really intended to be used as broadly as any of those three example edits. Each is altering the information in an article.
Ultimately, the better default habit is to leave the box unchecked. You're allowed to simply never use the minor edit flag. Someone might disagree or find reason to improve or change your edit? It's appropriate to leave it off. Add or remove text, a citation, a template, etc.? It's appropriate to leave it off. Please read the minor edit information page for more information. You could also ask about those edits at the Teahouse if you'd like a second opinion. For several examples of minor edits, here are the last three times I used the minor edit flag other than cases where it's set automatically: [5], [6], and [7].
Also, please try to keep edit summaries focused on the change or reasoning. An edit summary like why the fuck did you do that?? is not in keeping with Wikipedia civility guidelines and it's much more likely to create or escalate a disagreement rather than avoid one. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That EDITSUM isn't my normal, the editor was inexplicably sloppy and it did damage and pissed me off. I really don't try to be a perfect Jesus if that is what you're expecting of me. I did review the minor edit info pg again, I think I'm using minor edit box close to properly, I believe it always crosses my mind the Q: "Is this edit potentially disputable?" and that seems to be consistent w/ the minor edit info page. Interesting, because I somewhat disagree on that page: "rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits". (Rearrangement of text, especially a major rearrangement, is a presentation factor, which can totally impact how content is perceived/absorbed, so I have an issue w/ that aspect of the minor edit info pg description/definition.) Last, I really don't like skipping the minor edit box as a better habit for future, because, those edits then default as "major", and the extent/number of cosmetic/Wikifairy edits I tend to make in articles w/ then obscure as mentioned the true creators/contributors in the Page statistics displays/graphs/counts/summaries. --IHTS (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
