Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 23 February 2019

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue"There exist countless reliable, published sources pointing out that the sky is, in fact, blue. Beware of strenuous arguments for including more marginal information via comparison to this well-documented fact. No matter how questionable the sourcing, some editors will insist that various kinds of trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially regarding living people, are vital to the project, and accuse others of censoring Misplaced Pages to suppress The Truth™. Chances are that such arguments arise from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encylopedia and draw heavily upon confirmation bias in the absence of high-quality sources. See also Appeal to common sense.

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.

Thanks

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

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)

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)

Out of interest, can I get a link for this one? I've never heard anyone associated with a mainstream, left-leaning site like Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

Content forking

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)

Order of bibliographies

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian

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

idle question

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 00:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Misunderstanding of Due Weight

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, Misplaced Pages 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. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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

1RR 

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

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)

AE

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sangdeboeuf. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)