Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

...for that series of edits to Gamergate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand for myself what the whole thing is. "Torturously complex" doesn't begin to describe it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you my thanks as well. Normally I'd use the thanks tool but you've been prolific and the sum total is just great. Goodonye. --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, can I get a link for this one? I've never heard anyone associated with a mainstream, left-leaning site like Wikipedia suggest Gamergate is in any way complex. All the articles I've seen seemed to be very strongly representing a particular media narrative and nothing else. Have I just been looking at the wrong articles? Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try reading the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for assistance and you responded by personally attacking me with sarcasm. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf made most of these changes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RELAR. You have removed content citing WP:CONTENTFORK several times now, but merely duplicating content on several articles does not imply that the material is a content fork. This is only a notification, and I'm not watching this talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware, and I've looked, that there is any policy that says bibliographies should be alphabetical. When you think of what the reader needs, they're not going to be looking by author name. They won't know any of the authors (and the rare reader who does, won't be looking in our bibliographies).

When you put them chronologically, you're helping the reader see what is most recent, which is useful information. And on a highier level, which writings could have influenced subsequent writings, or had an influence at a particular time. There's an example of a chronological bibli9graphy, that got excellent reviews, at this link (I co-authored it.) Please reconsider. deisenbe (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're referring to this edit, I don't see how chronological order is an improvement. Controversy over the issue goes back to the 1970s; more recent sources are not necessarily more useful here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name makes me think of @Bloodofox:. Because I am bilingual, I cannot help but associate the two of you. Maybe if you two could categorically state that you are not the same user, that would help my addled brain to get a grip around these pseudonyms that keep cropping up on my watchlist. (Deep respectful bows for the folklore, Bloodofox, incidentally...) — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't me! Hello, all! Glad to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: "Where there is significant disagreement, good-faith discussion is encouraged, particularly with reference to any verifiable source which may present evidence as to the minority or majority status of a viewpoint. Where there is dispute, Wikipedia editors should not assume the prevalence of a particular viewpoint without providing evidence". It is not for you to dictate. You have to demonstrate good faith. [1] Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrspaceowl: the burden is on you to obtain consensus for this addition. If you want to start a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to obtain consensus for allowing 2% of an article to contain another opinion. I'm not going to call you a Nazi right now, because Jews didn't get that chance. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I appreciate that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you violated 1rr. Please self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I should have put "30/500 enforcement" or something like that in the edit summary. Reverts to enforce the 30/500 prohibition don't count toward 1RR, as pointed out here. See A/I/PIA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]