Talk:The Merchant of Venice

message: I've restored to a stable version and EC'd two days. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone cares what a random arrival thinks, the material removed absolutely demanded removal. Someone who thinks that an article should simply state, in its own voice, that  has no idea what he's doing. Even a high school student would know better. EEng 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you agree with me, of course I care about what you think. Yeah, that one stood out for me too, commented on it above, you can find it with ctrl-f bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad he got blocked, because I would have like to have learned from him what, say, Muslims and Buddhists are like too. Very tidy having everything neatly packaged like that. EEng 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, if we're going to have a "historical inaccuracies" section, it should probably include that English wasn't commonly spoken in 15th-century Venice. Not sure how AlexAndrews missed that. EEng 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: And being too lazy too post this anywhere else, I'll say here: it's fairly obvious that User:Hwan aleon is a sock. (I'll leave it to you to guess whose sock.) EEng 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as it doesn't get used for block evasion it matters little. Xover (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  EC 2 days 

message: @Xover, this article is a merry mix of ref-tag and sfn refs, are you planning to "enforce" consistency? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm planning to convert everything to short refs, yes. Xover (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll follow that model henceforth, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CITESTYLE]] 

message: I see that user @AlexAndrews was blocked from Wikipedia after making the following comment (in section "Procedures"):
:
:The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy".
:
:The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
:
:Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that.
:
:In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there's a reason: it's sophomoric nonsense showing you are unable to comprehend basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please stop referring to yourself in the third person; we're not fools. EEng 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  /  - I don't know if you are planning to make an appeal against your ban at some future point but, if you are, running a sock puppet during the term of your ban isn't going to help. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But... but... you can't tell AlexAndrews what to do! He's an ubermensch, and has the right to do things we inferiors aren't allowed to do! EEng 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: And FTR, AlexAndrews is merely blocked, not banned -- yet. But the above, combined with whatever he did to get a 6-month suspension of UTRS access , may get him there in record time. EEng 21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  User @[[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]]