User talk:Strugglehouse

User talk page: This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Strugglehouse.

Porsche

I'm not going to edit-war over something so idiotic, but if you are going to defend your ideas, please use acceptable arguments. You cited MOS:FIRSTCORP which includes, written in green, "Generic Publishing Corporation Ltd." Generic Publishing Corporation LIMITED is the full legal name, not Ltd. because, as I said here, these words merely indicate the company types. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 02:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

No, my point still stands. In a case like this, the company can be legally registered with either "Ltd" or "Limited", and the correct "full legal name" is whichever of these the company is legally registered as.

"Generic Publishing Corporation Ltd." is an example company, so we can't show an actual source for it's registration, but we can use real examples to show this.

For example, Goalhanger is legally registered as "Goalhanger Podcasts Ltd" (the abbreviation), and its page reflects this.

Waitrose is legally registered as "Waitrose Limited" (the full word), and, again, its page reflects this.

Template:Infobox company/doc, which I also cited, specifies that the |name= parameter should be "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." This shows that the definition of full, legal name includes abbreviations or lack of abbreviations.

Following these, we should be using the full word if the company is registered as such, which they are, as can be seen from the cited company registry. You can also see this directly on the Unternehmensregister. Strugglehouse (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Are you a sock puppet of User:Angryskies? ~2026-43317-99 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ~2026-43317-99 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are making this claim. Myself and the other account are not editing the same articles or getting involved in the same disputes. You are making crazy claims in order to justify your breach of the Manual of Style. You have provided no reasons for your edits, and no proof for your claims. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Vodafone. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Your editing has been criticised at AN/I. Please take note. ~2026-45411-20 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

So have you and your many other accounts. You are the one starting edit wars and breaking guidelines. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Er, no I have not. Can you provide diffs? ~2026-45411-20 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In that same thread. The other temporary accounts mentioned in that thread are clearly owned by you. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but my editing wasn’t criticised (except by you). ~2026-45411-20 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, yes, by me. You've still been criticised, so I am correct. While others weren't involved in the discussion, others clearly disagree with you as they have been reverting edits.

You are continuing to make edits completely against the Manual of Style, rules, guidelines, and documentation of Wikipedia. You have given no reasons for this, and you are being disruptive. All you're doing is following me around and undoing my edits for no reason.

Please stop. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Dolly Parton edits

I'm not sure why you want to make the section long and repetitive for no reason, and you keep edit‑warring, which you have been told about before. Take it to the talk page. The way you are writing it is repetitive; it has nothing to do with chronological order. ItsShandog (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I had assumed that it was being changed due to edit conflicts, not being actively removed. No one gave any reasons for changing it or even mentioned it.

I'm not sure how this is repetitive? I haven't repeated anything. All I wrote was:

Parton was hospitalized at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, on August 21, 2026. She died there on August 25, aged 80.

It's pretty much exactly the same as what was on there, just in a different order. There's no repetition. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

So what is wrong with 'she died at' and then the hospital name? Why do we have to put 'hospitalized' and 'died there'? Why can't 'when she was hospitalized' come after? Where does it say it has to be in chronological order? Surely the info about her death is more relevant than her being hospitalized. It is repetitive saying 'died there' when it clearly says in the sentence before where she was hospitalized, so where else was she going to die? If she died somewhere else then you would put that. We are just repeating where she died when it already says it, and 'aged 80' is more common in British English, 'at age 80' is more American English. ItsShandog (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The minor grammatical things aren't too important, I just think it makes more sense to say she was hospitalised, then she died, as what happened. The rest of the article is in chronological order. We don't put a more popular/notable song release first in the Career section just because it's "more relevant", so why should we move things around in the Death section? Strugglehouse (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Then you need to think of a smoother way to do it, because I did it the way it is as that is the smoothest and least repetitive. At certain points I usually try to do chronological, but if it is not working there is no point forcing it. ItsShandog (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how anything is repeated, apart from the word "August". If you really want to avoid that, then what about something like:

She was hospitalized at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, on August 21, 2026. She died there four days later, at age 80.

This is pretty much exactly what's there now, but just in the correct order, saying "four days later" instead of "four days earlier". Strugglehouse (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Saying "there" is repetitive when you already said she was hospitalized there. I think it is more relevant to keep the date she died instead of the date she was hospitalized her death is the more important information. ItsShandog (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not actually repeating any words, so it's not really "repetitive". If I was saying "She was hospitalized at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, then she died at the Center" or "then she died at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center", that would be repetitive. Saying it was "there" is not repeating anything and is just telling readers what actually happened. "She was hospitalized at this place. She died on 25th Aug." doesn't give the information on where she died, and reads as though she could have died anywhere. Adding one extra word is really not that crazy, and gives required context/information. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Someone has now done it in a chronological way that works better. ItsShandog (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. I made a request on the talk page and this was added shortly after. While I do think a "there" could be useful, I'm happy with how it's been done. The chronological order was the more important part. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)