| Revision as of 15:53, 11 September 2023 editZilch-nada (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,494 edits →Walls of text and WP:SYNTH: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:23, 16 September 2023 edit undoZilch-nada (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,494 edits ←Blanked the pageTags: Blanking Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Please don't move pages before getting agreement == | |||
| See ]. Also note you seem to be confusing "Christian Identity" (upper case I) with "Christian identity". ] ] 20:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder that you have CT alerts for Abortion, American politics and gender == | |||
| Feel free to delete this. It's so it shows up clearly in your talk page history as I'd forgotten which ones I'd given you. ] ] 07:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2023 == | |||
| ] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of ], such as the edit(s) you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and have been ]. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our ]. You can find information about these at our ] which also provides further information about ]. If you only meant to make test edits, please use ] for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ] (]) 04:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@], I left my response on the . I do not see how my edit was disruptive, nor how it warrants a response in my own talk page. ] (]) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is a standard courtesy when reverting edits to let editors know on their talk page about having been reverted. | |||
| ::You are free to remove any content from your ] page and do not need to keep it here. (It will still be in the page history). | |||
| ::I replied on the article talk page to your comment. ] (]) 14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Far-left == | |||
| I went ahead and archived that old talk page section; it had veered so far off the rails that it would be more efficient to start a new thread than to resurrect that one. If you choose to do so, please be more civil and hold the "or get out" sort of comments; thanks. ] (]) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I said get "X nonsense out of here"; I resorted to no personal attacks, only that to of his argument. Aside from that, I agree that the talk has went completely off-topic, so thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I never said anything about a personal attack. Civility goes beyond merely avoiding personal attacks. ] (]) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't dispute that. I was being straight to the point in disputing an argument. That could be interpreted as the virtue of "boldness" on Misplaced Pages. I will be civil next time, but "civility" is, of course, subjective. ] (]) 19:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Boldness is about not needing anyone's permission to make wise improvements to the 'pedia, not about being terse on talk pages. Sounds good. There's some general advice at ]. Happy editing! ] (]) 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Walls of text and ] == | |||
| I noticed that you've written a great deal at ] and ], many thousands of bytes in fact. Since your views have gained very little traction with fellow editors, I would ask that you read the ] essay and consider ]. These excessively long comments can easily cross the line into disruptive editing. | |||
| I would also remind you that we write articles based on what reliable sources say about the topic. You seem to be bringing tangentially-related sources into the mix and using them to argue against the sources that directly address the topic; this is called ] and is not allowed. You will have a much stronger case for your desired changes if you reference the sources used in these articles and only bring in additional sources if they are directly related to the topic. –] ] 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :With the Reverse Racism talk page, I ''have'' dropped the stick for now, and intend to bring it to a noticeboard, because it is my opinion that consensus on that article consists of a small number of editors who have been editing it for up to six years. I accept that there is consensus against me in the talk page; I just think it is a very narrow consensus, and so aim to widen the discussion. | |||
| :With the Gender-critical feminism talk, it is just not true that my "views have gained very little traction with fellow editors". | |||
| :"against the sources that directly address the topic"; I couldn't disagree more with this, as my agruments are mostly based on how the ''current wording'' is '''not''' supported by the current sources that link to it. The additional sources I refer to, I very much believe, address the wording much more - i.e., ''they'' "directly address the topic." ] (]) 15:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) | |||