I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Endwise
Thank you for creating We Can't Consent To This campaign.
User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for the redirect!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SunDawn: It was a redirect created automatically via a page move, not really my doing
Endwise (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah but the Curation Tool send the thanks your way. But how do you put smiling face? That's the question :) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
{{smiley}}
Endwise (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Thanks!
This will really help in defusing situations. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah but the Curation Tool send the thanks your way. But how do you put smiling face? That's the question :) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright
![]() | On 20 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the emo-revival album Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright contains samples from Malcolm in the Middle on three of its songs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- 3.5k views! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Important notice
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Far-left
Hello, you put "See talk" in your edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaneFar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to the discussion I was having at Talk:Jane's Revenge#Some problems with this article. Regarding "far-left", the TLDR is that reliable sources don't tend to call them that, so Wikipedia shouldn't either; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Endwise (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd normally agree if not for the fact that far-right is perversely used to describe anything considered evil. Those supposedly reputable sources never once provide an actual explanation behind the terminology of "far-right", yet the term is abused anyway. LaneFar (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even if there was a tendency for the media to use the term "far-right" perversely as a buzzword or whatever, I think Wikipedia has an obligation to reflect the bias of the mainstream media, to an extent. Both because if we stop relying on these sources we'd have little to go off but the opinions and biases of ourselves as editors (making political Wikipedia articles little different than culture war twitter threads), and because we have an obligation to our readers that they can check that whatever we're saying is just coming from the sources we have on the matter are saying. Wikipedia does get this wrong, and use terms like "far-right" even where the media/reliable sources tend not to, but I don't think that's a good reason to get it even more wrong by inserting "far-left" into places where reliable sources don't. Endwise (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd normally agree if not for the fact that far-right is perversely used to describe anything considered evil. Those supposedly reputable sources never once provide an actual explanation behind the terminology of "far-right", yet the term is abused anyway. LaneFar (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)