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]

I left a message on the talk page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi there! This is just a note to let you know that I've closed the AN/I discussion that was opened involving yourself and Beyond My Ken. Please give the closing statement that I wrote a read, and take my words to heart. Like I said, your actions have more of an impact than you think. ;-) If you have any questions or need anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me on my user talk page. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do not think Talking Points Memo is a blog any more — it clearly employs reporters and editors, does original reporting, has editorial standards, etc. I mean, it’s a silly source for international news (it runs wire stories) and removing it was fine, but I don’t think the reason you gave was accurate. —JBL (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty surprised by the result here, and I'm not sure that it reflects the discussion. At the same time, I'm not sure if it would accomplish much to ask for a second opinion. Any thoughts? Nblund ^talk 19:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bad close for sure. Numbers alone are on the "no" side, and most of the "yes" voters who cited policy didn't actually explain how their favored policy was relevant. I'd support a review request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

meow

Yeoss Chrysalis (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I've opened a discussion on your name change on the fold (geology) article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domenico Losurdo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence of the article during this day when you've been edit-warring over the notice reads: Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men and boys; and the adherence to or promotion of attributes (opinions, values, attitudes, habits) regarded as typical of men and boys. Split this line at the semi-colon, and you have a lead which describes two different topics:

• advocacy of the rights or needs of men and boys
• adherence to or promotion of attributes (opinions, values, attitudes, habits) regarded as typical of men and boys

No matter which word they use, its clear that the sources tend to use one or the other meaning. Wikipedia's articles are devoted to discreet WP:TOPICs. I placed the cleanup tag specifically to address this problem that the article is focusing too hard on the word use and not enough a clearly-defined topic area. In that tag, I simply paraphrased the first line for brevity. By removing the paraphrasing like you have, "Masculism and masculinism may be better treated as separate topics", you're failing to address the actual concern I have raised and making the notice unclear by using terms that are themselves unclear to you.

If you want to demonstrate that you're willing to collaborate, then change the wording to describe the topic conflagration concern I've raised by using the exact phrasing from the lead sentence, but the cleanup tag must describe the actual concern it was placed to address. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD a typo or is there a good reason it is necessary when we have MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD? Sam Sailor 11:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Android keyboard I use puts a space before words automatically, and sometimes I forget to correct it. So it's useful to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, you've exceeded 3RR on this article today:

• 11:05, 5 June 2019 (a full revert)
• 23:10, 5 June 2019 (a full revert)
• 02:27, 6 June 2019 (a full revert)
• 04:01, 6 June 2019 (a full revert)

Is there any reason this should not be taken to WP:AN/3RR? -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]