User talk:Dumuzid/Archive 1

Things that make me go urgh...
Expanding on the discussion over there ... I think, from some of your previous comments, that we might share a common affinity for things being done the right way. In my case, and beyond the current discussions, I have pet peeves for, amongst other things, explicit vote counts or vote tallies in RfCs; for mid-discussion claims of consensus by involved editors; and for the use of the word "sources" in article text. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes, I certainly have a fondness for process, in all its multifarious forms. And I can get on board with the platform you present.  I too am peeved by vote tallies.  That's not how things are supposed to work!  But even our mutual peeving is not, to me, reason enough to remove a comment.  As I see it, many less-than-brilliant things are said on Wikipedia, and most deserve to stand.  It's a stretch for me to see the offending section as 'disruptive' when collapsed.  I understand your issue about the drive-by nature of the comment, but I still don't think that rises to the level of removal.  We both know the light/heat ratio on all things Gamergate is suboptimal.  It's Sayre's law come to digital life.  I'm not quite sure where I'm headed with that, so I will simply say have a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversial Reddit communities
Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I apologize, I'm not sure I'll be of much help. There are some pretty reliable sources which call SRS "controversial."  Now I think that controversy is all about denizens of less salubrious subreddits being, for lack of a better term, jerks, but unfortunately, whether for good or bad reasons, it seems like a fair characterization given the sources.  If you want to tell me why you think the adjective doesn't fit, I'm all ears.  Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not asking for help, was asking for your input as someone who is an established editor. "Controversial" in the sense of the wiki article is related to objectionable or illegal content, or that generated sizeable actual controversy such as the_donald, rather than controversial because they came top of a pop culture analytics "poll" for relative toxicity which the writer of outlined reasons against taking at face value.
 * In the end, whether it is included or not, I would rather have other users input as to what the content should say rather than the SPA's current motivated narrative. Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dumuzid, for being reasonable about this. I have no axe to grind, I am not an SPA, and I don't want to cause trouble.  I read an article saying SRS was controversial and I attempted to add it.  It has been an unmitigated disaster ever since.  I actually would also welcome your input - whether you feel it does or does not belong.  You are one of the few editors who remains level headed during disputes so your opinion is valuable.  76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize yet again for mischarecterizing your request! It strikes me that you've nicely identified the problem, that is, differing semantic values of the word "controversial."  I'll think about it and leave any thoughts I have that I deem worth sharing.  Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about my feelings, I just want to avoid cruftiness and forced POV. The IP has demonstrated through additional comments that they have an axe to grind with SRS, which was obvious from the last attempt to force their synthesis into the article. If SRS is controversial, I expect it would not be hard to actually find a real article to back it up in an encyclopedic way. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1710 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs
Hi Dumuzid,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Artifact
In archaeology, artefact is the common British spelling, artifact the common American spelling. We use whichever is suitable for the variety of English used in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I basically agree, but it's a bit more complicated than that, as it seems "artefact" is something of a recent British preference, and both spellings are viable in Britain, while "artifact" is dramatically preferred stateside (see, e.g., https://writingexplained.org/artefact-vs-artifact-difference ).  As such, I am all in for the "i", but certainly not something about which I have strong feelings (like other minor grammatical trifles).  Cheers, and thanks for stopping by. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit more complicated, I agree. Just like archaeology/archeology, both of which are now used in the States. Doug Weller  talk 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the survey
Thank you for helping me out with the study! I have a quick question - do you think VP Misc is the right place to post that kind of message? Could I repost it somewhere else to get more visibility without annoying anyone? Allikka (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- no problem, and as I said, good luck! I can't think of a better place off the top of my head, but it's probably better to ask a more involved administrator.  I'll think about it a bit and let you know if anything occurs to me.  Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
It seems, based on your current edit warring, that you're unfamiliar with the concept of WP: ACTIVISM. Go ahead and take some time to get familiar with it. OnceASpy (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not at 5RR--to be clear, activism does not provide an excuse for 3RR violations. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vocabulary award

 * , why thank you! The wages of an overly bookish youth, I think.  One of those words that you very rarely encounter, but once you do, you never forget it.  Have a great day! Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is important
that you sleep well at night. Carptrash (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And in style, for that matter!  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

When in doubt...
... hadn't you better stand back and watch a minute or 300 to see if someone else, who's more certain of what the right thing to do is, comes along? Regards! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 04:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, certainty is a suspect quality to my mind. That being said, it also means I'm wrong a lot.  But such is the nature of a sublunary existence! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate! See you around. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 05:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CLEANUPTAG
Cleanup tags are not to be removed without discussion. Please restore the tag at Antifa (United States). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you have my apologies; I must have somehow gotten confused with diffs. That was not my intention and I have restored the tag.  My mistake. Dumuzid (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement on the Bob Lazar article
Hi! I've added a new section to the discussion of the Bob Lazar article, about the statement that his claims were unproven. In my opinion the source is too weak to make that statement. Please let's discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutter (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)