Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 546:

::Six days is probably not enough time for the [[WP:DEADHORSE|equine zombification process]] to take place, unfortunately. Seconding the call to hat and move on—surely there are other non-[[WP:SNOW]] ideas for improving the article.[[User:Drseudo|drseudo]] ([[User_talk:Drseudo|t]]) 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

: @evergeenfir Sure, so if the controversy is notable, then why not define it as a "controversial movement" ? As I said before, this article may very well be someone's *first* exposure to wikipedia. If I showed the article to my 11 year old cousin or 85 year old grandmother (using two examples of people who would be unfamiliar with the controversy/movement), I think it's safe to assume they would have more questions than answers after reading it. I guess what I am trying to say is this article could be much cleaner. You could probably define the whole kerfluffle in four or five paragraphs tops. But I get the impression that *any* edit, no matter how small, is going to be met with a committee group clamoring against it. [[User:Marcos12|Marcos12]] ([[User talk:Marcos12|talk]]) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

::deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)