User talk:Bloodofox

Hello! Please note that if you leave a post at the bottom of the page, I will also respond to it on this page. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My feedback: The parasitical Wikimedia Foundation needs to be disbanded and dissolved. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

I see from the extent of your archives that you have been around here long enough to know about WP:BRD. If two editors revert your bold edit, then counter-reverting is pointless. All you have to do is produce the citation, which should be trivial to do if it is "fundamental". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's cited in the article. Use Google Books for citation hunts. If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else. A reminder: "A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead" ((WP:LEAD). And maybe learn something about what you're revert-warring about before engaging in a revert-war. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When an article relies on WP:LEADCITE, it is polite to say so at the top. Which I have now done. And if you had said "it is cited in the body" in on the edit notes with either of your first two reverts, the dispute would never have arisen. Just shouting louder is generally counterproductive. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe you could briefly glanced at the article before you decided to try to revert war? Maybe invest in a punching bag rather than trying to take whatever it is you're dealing with out on random Wikipedia volunteers. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I came to this page in order to suggest, in what I hoped you would take as a friendly and constructive manner, that your edit summary for this edit might have been phrased better. When I got here, I saw your message immediately above this one. Please reconsider both of those messages, and try to be civil to other editors, whatever your opinion of their editing may be. JBW (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand by and amplify my comment. We need editors who can actually take the time to read, not more edit-warriors wasting the time of those of us who are here to build quality articles. Please direct further reprimands to editors causing problems and support editors solving problems: this is disruptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Svarog

Be careful with challenging someone's credentials. Quite recently I was smeared with shit and threatened with actions when I questioned expertise of one wpedian with high-brow friends. --Altenmann >talk 02:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, this account has been subject to repeated attempts at outing, including a harassment campaign (which ended up aimed at someone completely unrelated) and it has had any number of threats aimed at it, including death threats. Unfortunately, I can't say I see things getting any better here any time soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)