Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Various talk pages Doug Weller talk 12:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

i have no clue what this is in regards to. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 23:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That's worrying. Can you explain how:

hawaiian shirts under military gear is their dresscode.

what reason would they have to all wear the same dresscode and join this rally? 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 01:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

is not a forum type post? Or this?

Exactly! it wasn't Trump.

it was Bush. :^) 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 00:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Doug Weller talk 13:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

the first is discussing content of the page the boogaloo boys.

it is the equivelant of saying people wearing swastikas at a neo-nazi rally are probably neo-nazis, and no additional confirmation would be required.

the second one is a joke, i agree that was a bad idea, my bad. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 14:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The first was still a forum style post, didn’t discuss sources, guidelines, policies, no way it could be used to improve the article. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

it did discuss a source? the picture.

it improves the article by creating consensus on whether the image is relevant. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

No, you're just asking questions with no comments on sources, policies or guidelines. And it isn't even clear what your opinion is. Doug Weller talk 06:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The stance is for their inclusion, but i'm using the socratic method to avoid the negative sociological effects of asserting that a person is wrong. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 07:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Citing policies or guidelines is a nice cudgel, but if i can refute the central point by its own logic, that seems sufficient as wel. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 07:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not trying to cudgel although admit to disliking using talk pages as a forum. I like the Socratic method but it's not appropriate here and not everyone is as intelligent as you are. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I hope you have a nice day :D 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There must be something about not being logged in that triggers this response.

I can only assume you thought i was trying to treat it like a forum.

I thought it was clearly about improving the article.

I'll log in tommorow and do it myself, because i was clearly discussing content and how a wp:due fact as seen from a major pov wasn't included, it wasn't chitchat and it had sources. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 00:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Talkpages aren't fora for individual opinions on the relative allocation of resources in emergency situations. Please resist using talkpages to editorialize. They are for suggestions for specific edits, not soapboxes. There has been coverage in reliable of the perceived disparity in resource allocation..You do not need to use talkpages to embroider or amplify with your analysis. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! I just wanted to reach out and let you know that I've reverted your contribution on 2023 Reddit API Controversy as the sources you cited, although WP:RS, are unrelated to any coverage of the matter. While your points may be valid, they are WP:UNDUE, so please make sure your contributions are related and are covered within the scope of the matter. Thanks! Fuser55 ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

If i can get a bunch of relative nobodies to point out the connection between current events and that literature about this phenomenon already been written, can it be added back?

It is a major POV, it just hasn't been worded to apply to this specific instance beyond "hu, it's similar to a strike ey" 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 85.147.66.47 if you can find WP:RS that find the controversy is rooted in the phenomenon you tried to add to be WP:DUE, then yes. Fuser55 ( talk) 03:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

just has to be an RS of opinion, right? since the facts have independant citations. 85.147.66.47 ( talk) 08:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Largoplazo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Credit card, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Largoplazo ( talk) 00:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi 85.147.66.47! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Credit card several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Credit card, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Largoplazo ( talk) 00:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply