User talk:JorisEnter
|
This user is an inactive tech.
As a part of our guidelines surrounding Techs, Techs who have been inactive for more than 2 years have their tech rights temporarily suspended to prevent abuse. If you are this user:
|
|
On Milo Being a 'Professional Victim'[edit]
The cite note links to a Mashable article which, at no point, shows Milo describing himself as a professional victim. You need to either A) Reinstate my edit. B) Update the cite note to one in which Milo describes himself as a professional victim. Or C) remove the phrase "self-described".
My edit was 100% valid given this site's policy against libel in articles about living people.— Unsigned, by: DeusKek1987 / talk / contribs 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- See this.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't address my criticism. We could argue until the cows come home over whether or not he's a professional victim but the fact is unless you have a quote in which he calls himself a "professional victim", it isn't "self-described." DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can't demand a public apology without the implicit premise that you have been victimized by the relevant party. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I tweaked the phrasing slightly. Your thoughts? DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems perfectly fine to me. The man is a professional victim. The question of if he self-describes as such is contingent on finding a quote where he does that. I couldn't see that he did in the source, so your edit appears factual to me. Importantly, we still underscore that the man is a professional victim — which is also factual. Everybody wins. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. He'd never self-identify as a professional victim even though he undoubtedly is one. Cheers. DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems perfectly fine to me. The man is a professional victim. The question of if he self-describes as such is contingent on finding a quote where he does that. I couldn't see that he did in the source, so your edit appears factual to me. Importantly, we still underscore that the man is a professional victim — which is also factual. Everybody wins. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I tweaked the phrasing slightly. Your thoughts? DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can't demand a public apology without the implicit premise that you have been victimized by the relevant party. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't address my criticism. We could argue until the cows come home over whether or not he's a professional victim but the fact is unless you have a quote in which he calls himself a "professional victim", it isn't "self-described." DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Das war ein BEFEHL!!![edit]
You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.
All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Vandalizing Spree[edit]
Help? Please? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Feminism[edit]
I changed it from "women and people who self-identify as women" because it implies trans women aren't women. Snokw (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello![edit]
Long time no see, fellow editor? How do you do? Nerd (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)