If I’m on a mobile device sometimes I can’t get the “copy” option to appear (though I generally do eventually).
In addition, there are ways to code a web page so that it can’t be copied, at least not easily. I encounter that from time to time though it’s pretty rare, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it on a reputable news site. Here’s an article discussing how to do such a thing.
Now, if you’re saying the URL of the page you’re on can’t be copied… I have no clue how that’s supposed to have happened.
I don’t read twitterX, reddit, quora or that other junk. Ever. Not subscribed. When y’all use cites from these places I can’t read any but the first few words before I get a pop up to subscribe. Nope. Not important to me. I’ll just have to trust what you say.
Don’t do Facebook, so know nothing about that.
I’m suspicious about Wikipedia, Google and any pop up clicks about news, or anything important.
If I had time and patience I might could find truth.
It just seems like so much wasted time to scroll forever for a nugget you might be able to prove.
I can’t figure out how to post a cite on my tablet or phone.
I can copy the URL. But then be told “you want us to do your research for you?”
Either way, I’m going on trust. That’s all I can do.
@SuntanLotion, don’t sweat it, just don’t repeat shit you read on those sites. You’ll be fine.
I understood it to mean when you’re off topic it’s a thread shit.
When 6 people posted about it(a item that was talked about on MSNBC about the topic, no less) before you, and you directly reply to one, Is it a thread shit?
In a thread full of out right thread shits. It’s me. Always me.
You should be. Any and all info on Wikipedia is contributed by random people.
On the other hand, the better stuff is cited, and you can follow those cites to find more verifiable information, either to back up what was on Wikipedia or to discover a better source of information.
I donated a lot of time to that web site so I absolutely think it’s valuable, just be cautious about how you use it.
You’re right that the thread is full of off-topic posts, but you do it more than most. There’s only one other Guy that I’ve noticed who Loves Starting Long tangents as much as you.
Maybe don’t worry about other posters. Try reading the thread topic (and any mod instructions), then stop and think if your planned response is on topic, instead of just typing whatever random thought comes to mind.
(And I disagree with one of those. I just replied to a thread shit, not the same)
BTW, don’t compare me to anyone else. How 'bout we start there? Quit being so jumpy that someone might say something everyone else is thinking about and being triggered that it might sound like another poster you dislike. I’m not that person, I will never be that person, Thereby, I can’t sound like that person.
You know, I’ve been involved in two tangents. Against my will, both times. I can’t imagine where the idea I start them comes from. Because I don’t do it.
It’s funny how people stick labels on others. Why? Because they think it’s cute? Or they’re listening to others who are misinformed. Don’t read enough real posts or the whole thread? Or they’re just hateful and contentious? I couldn’t tell you.
You can poke me all you want. Do your worst. I can’t be harmed by this foolishness anymore.
I’ve read many many hours on this board, I know who the troublemakers are.
They are not me.
I never ever mean harm to anyone. But I will defend myself.
I won’t let it hurt me.
This is always my response to comments like “you can’t trust Wikipedia, because anyone can contribute to it”. Yes, but Wiki standards require cites, and if you’re doubtful about something, check the cites.
My humble opinion on this is that, starting from the same level playing field as everyone else, you’ve accumulated a fair number of mod notes about going off topic in threads where that’s generally frowned upon. “Thread shitting” may not be quite the right term for off-topic frivolity, but the point is that when someone becomes known for a particular behaviour, it’s much more likely to be noticed the next time they do it.
We love you, Beck, but you should try to stick to the topic in serious threads, and go wild in your own “bad, bad, bad” threads!
Yes. You can have an article without cites, but generally if a topic has no cites there is nothing showing its notability, and they tend to be deleted. Generally done through a proposal for deletion, rarely do you need to go through an whole article for deletion discussion unless some dork fights it and demands you keep the article despite having no cites, but those don’t stand a chance of surviving the process. If an article has no cites, it’s because it hasn’t shown up on anyone’s radar yet.
The problem is that those citations are only as good as the citation itself. Wikipedia has this weird thing where it really does not like primary sources but only secondary sources. It also has a problem with what’s been coined as citogenesis: Citogenesis: the serious circular reporting problem Wikipedians are fighting.
Thank you, of course I value your opinion, immensely.
I was told I was threads hitting and I don’t think I was.
Or maybe I was, like about 100 other posters. I’m following the thread. Uncalled for jokes are still being made, as well as clear outright thread shits.
My so-called TS was about Trump and what happened at the time of the shooting.
I still think it qualifies as being on-topic.
Some nit-picker flagged me, Mods were already riled up about the thread and very harried, I’m sure. Makes me the big loser.
Again.
My bad timing is legendary.
ETA, I still wanna know why his shoes came off and why the heck he was so worried about them after being nearly killed? I think it’s a legit curiosity.
