Jump to content

User contributions for ExplodingCabbage

Results for ExplodingCabbage talk block log uploads logs global block log global account filter log
A user with 673 edits. Account created on 3 October 2011.
Search for contributionsshowhide
⧼contribs-top⧽
⧼contribs-date⧽
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

27 December 2024

10 December 2024

9 December 2024

7 December 2024

  • 09:5909:59, 7 December 2024 diff hist −240 Inherent vowel "Wikipedia" -> "Wkpeda" example is confusing/wrong here; if we were indeed following the rule for writing vowels in Meroitic script, "Wkpeda" would mean "Wikipeda", not "Wikipedia", because "da" would correspond to "da" and not "dia". Reverts a 2015 addition by User:Tarchon. Not categorically opposed to trying to put some other, better example here, but personally I think it's almost impossible to give an example based on Latin script here that won't confuse more than it clarifies. current

6 December 2024

3 December 2024

  • 11:5411:54, 3 December 2024 diff hist −1,047 Evil eye Delete entire section on Christianity, which appears to just contain editors' own WP:OR interpretations of Bible passages that personally I don't interpret as having any connection to the evil eye (as defined in this article) whatsoever. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evil_eye#The_evil_eye_in_Christianity. If this stuff is gonna be restored, it should be with secondary sources supporting the idea of a connection.
  • 11:5011:50, 3 December 2024 diff hist +1,955 Talk:Evil eye →The evil eye in Christianity: Reply Tag: Reply
  • 11:1311:13, 3 December 2024 diff hist −1,030 Evil eye Remove claims about folk Christianity that is sourced to Dracula. We are literally citing a work of *fiction* here, and inferring with no non-fiction source at all that the superstitions of one (fictional) group of Romanian peasants in the 1890s are broadly representative of "folk Christianity" today in Europe. Clearly an unreasonable inference. If this is a real folk Christian belief (I am skeptical of this), find a non-fiction source that says so.

2 December 2024

  • 10:4610:46, 2 December 2024 diff hist −958 Needle spiking Delete pointless Social Media section that effectively contains zero information. If individuals had written viral stories about getting spiked, that might be worth mentioning, but we don't say that; the claim is effectively just that the issue has been mentioned a non-zero number of times on social media, which is *obviously* true and of absolutely no significance. (The claim deleted here would be satisfied by e.g. The Guardian's twitter account posting a link to one of their spiking articles.)
  • 10:3010:30, 2 December 2024 diff hist −224 Needle spiking Replace stat from The Guardian on number of reported cases with stat from the Home Affairs Committee inquiry, which 1. covers a broader time period (and so is more useful in a general article about the topic) and 2. is probably a more reliable source here & more likely to be accurate. Note the stats on reports given in the inquiry vs the Guardian article are not even remotely consistent, so one must be utterly, wildly wrong. I am assuming the Guardian is the one that's wrong.
  • 10:2210:22, 2 December 2024 diff hist +34 Needle spiking Note time period for 1 in 692 stat in intro; IMO this was misleading before. By the time the 1 in 692 stat was published, there were over 1000 reported incidents.

29 October 2024

26 October 2024

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ExplodingCabbage"