Talk:Reply guy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

US note

Is the Trump anecdote really necessary? Nominating it for removal. 2406:2D40:69F8:5C10:0:0:0:969 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not uncontextualized like that, and not in an article of this length (WP:UNDUE). I've removed the sentence. Looks like it was added last November without anyone noticing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm going to ask you to expound on what you take issue with as this seems to be a response not really conducive to discussion. What do you mean by "not uncontextualized like that"? And what do you mean by "it was added...without anyone noticing"? It seems you're implying the the addition was vandalism, are you sure you are WP:AGF? Furthermore what does the trump anecdote have to do with the article's length...are articles not supposed to be lengthened when there's additional relevant information? The information you've removed is sourced by Rolling Stone magazine, WP:RS states that

There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).

I guess that's not good enough?

Please do expound on what you take issue with. Kind of interesting that on this low-importance start-class article where you have not previously made an edit, a random IP took issue with this and "nominated" it for removal, and then you came by and agreed the next day. Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material again so that this discussion can proceed. As this involves a BLP, we should treat the info with caution, and WP:ONUS applies.

First: uncontextualized etc. This article is 228 words long without that sentence. When an article is this short, a prominent mention of a particular person's reply guys can give that information undue weight. Compare that to something like enshittification, where the term's history and usage is at least discussed in some depth—could use more—before it brings in multiple examples with significant surrounding contexts. (Although in this particular case, I'm not so sure we'd really want to list all the people who have media-authenticated reply guys.) In addition, viewing that sentence through the lens of BLP leads me to lend more credence to the WP:UNDUE concern.

Second: my statement said nothing about the motivations for adding that info to the article. I just noted that it wasn't seen previously, so no one had discussed it. No bad faith assumed.

Third: yes, the information was sourced, but that does not mean we have to include it. WP:VNOT applies here.

Fourth: and speaking of faith! That last sentence reads an awful lot like you think I contrived this situation. I did not. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]