User talk:Sangdeboeuf: Difference between revisions

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" There exist countless reliable, published sources pointing out that the sky is, in fact, blue. Beware of strenuous arguments for including more marginal information via comparison to this well-documented fact. No matter how questionable the sourcing, some editors will insist that various kinds of trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially regarding living people, are vital to the project, and accuse others of censoring Wikipedia to suppress The Truth™. Chances are that such arguments arise from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encylopedia and draw heavily upon confirmation bias in the absence of high-quality sources. See also Appeal to common sense.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

...for that series of edits to Gamergate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand for myself what the whole thing is. "Torturously complex" doesn't begin to describe it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you my thanks as well. Normally I'd use the thanks tool but you've been prolific and the sum total is just great. Goodonye. --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, can I get a link for this one? I've never heard anyone associated with a mainstream, left-leaning site like Wikipedia suggest Gamergate is in any way complex. All the articles I've seen seemed to be very strongly representing a particular media narrative and nothing else. Have I just been looking at the wrong articles? Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try reading the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for assistance and you responded by personally attacking me with sarcasm. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf made most of these changes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware, and I've looked, that there is any policy that says bibliographies should be alphabetical. When you think of what the reader needs, they're not going to be looking by author name. They won't know any of the authors (and the rare reader who does, won't be looking in our bibliographies).

When you put them chronologically, you're helping the reader see what is most recent, which is useful information. And on a highier level, which writings could have influenced subsequent writings, or had an influence at a particular time. There's an example of a chronological bibli9graphy, that got excellent reviews, at this link (I co-authored it.) Please reconsider. deisenbe (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're referring to this edit, I don't see how chronological order is an improvement. Controversy over the issue goes back to the 1970s; more recent sources are not necessarily more useful here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name makes me think of @Bloodofox:. Because I am bilingual, I cannot help but associate the two of you. Maybe if you two could categorically state that you are not the same user, that would help my addled brain to get a grip around these pseudonyms that keep cropping up on my watchlist. (Deep respectful bows for the folklore, Bloodofox, incidentally...) — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't me! Hello, all! Glad to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: "Where there is significant disagreement, good-faith discussion is encouraged, particularly with reference to any verifiable source which may present evidence as to the minority or majority status of a viewpoint. Where there is dispute, Wikipedia editors should not assume the prevalence of a particular viewpoint without providing evidence". It is not for you to dictate. You have to demonstrate good faith. [1] Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrspaceowl: the burden is on you to obtain consensus for this addition. If you want to start a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to obtain consensus for allowing 2% of an article to contain another opinion. I'm not going to call you a Nazi right now, because Jews didn't get that chance. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I appreciate that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the talk page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi there! This is just a note to let you know that I've closed the AN/I discussion that was opened involving yourself and Beyond My Ken. Please give the closing statement that I wrote a read, and take my words to heart. Like I said, your actions have more of an impact than you think. ;-) If you have any questions or need anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me on my user talk page. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Oshwah. It was a silly dispute and I let my impatience get the better of me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and no worries... We're not perfect, and I'm glad that you've reflected and since moved on. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do not think Talking Points Memo is a blog any more — it clearly employs reporters and editors, does original reporting, has editorial standards, etc. I mean, it’s a silly source for international news (it runs wire stories) and removing it was fine, but I don’t think the reason you gave was accurate. —JBL (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty surprised by the result here, and I'm not sure that it reflects the discussion. At the same time, I'm not sure if it would accomplish much to ask for a second opinion. Any thoughts? Nblund ^talk 19:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bad close for sure. Numbers alone are on the "no" side, and most of the "yes" voters who cited policy didn't actually explain how their favored policy was relevant. I'd support a review request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

meow

Yeoss Chrysalis (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I've opened a discussion on your name change on the fold (geology) article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence of the article during this day when you've been edit-warring over the notice reads: Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men and boys; and the adherence to or promotion of attributes (opinions, values, attitudes, habits) regarded as typical of men and boys. Split this line at the semi-colon, and you have a lead which describes two different topics:

• advocacy of the rights or needs of men and boys
• adherence to or promotion of attributes (opinions, values, attitudes, habits) regarded as typical of men and boys

No matter which word they use, its clear that the sources tend to use one or the other meaning. Wikipedia's articles are devoted to discreet WP:TOPICs. I placed the cleanup tag specifically to address this problem that the article is focusing too hard on the word use and not enough a clearly-defined topic area. In that tag, I simply paraphrased the first line for brevity. By removing the paraphrasing like you have, "Masculism and masculinism may be better treated as separate topics", you're failing to address the actual concern I have raised and making the notice unclear by using terms that are themselves unclear to you.

If you want to demonstrate that you're willing to collaborate, then change the wording to describe the topic conflagration concern I've raised by using the exact phrasing from the lead sentence, but the cleanup tag must describe the actual concern it was placed to address. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD a typo or is there a good reason it is necessary when we have MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD? Sam Sailor 11:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Android keyboard I use puts a space before words automatically, and sometimes I forget to correct it. So it's useful to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, of course you're right about the IP vandalism; I spoke carelessly when I said "in the past month" — I guess I was thinking "in June". But the May vandalism still isn't what we usually call "recent". I may have to warn Perfect Mask later, though, going by their answer to my alert, and their talkpage post. Thanks for answering them. I hope they take it on board. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for creating MOS: NOPIPE.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Is the space between MOS: and NOPIPE intentional? This honestly seems like it may be a case of CSD R3 but I wanted to check in with you first.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: thanks for your message. Yes, the extra space is intentional, à la WP: V, WP: N, etc. I sometimes find my Android device inserting the extra space before a word. For shortcuts in edit summaries, there's no way to go back and fix it, so I have created a few new redirects to handle those instances. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Sang de boeuf glaze had made it to the main page today as a DYK, and was admittedly somewhat confused, as I thought "Why'd they name a page after 'ol Wikipedia user Sangdeboeuf?" Regardless, made me chuckle and think of you :) I think it would be very fitting if you were to help take it to GA status... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see thar you have weighed in on the Twitter issue in the past. IS JBL always this condescending and dismissive? Or am I experiencing the unwantedness of a super tight club that feels superior to others? Rsarlls (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are experiencing that you raised a stupid argument in an assholish way. --JBL (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the accidental rollback. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the message. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that I reverted the last changes to the article because interviews are not completely disqualified from biographies. They should just be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Adult DVD Talk is a self-published source by one "Captain Jack", not a reliable independent source or Reid's own work. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-published. Captain Jack works for ADT but his work is overseen by the publisher/owner or whatever. If you are arguing that ADT is just not reliable, then that's a different argument that I understand. I generally view statements in interviews under WP:INTERVIEW even though it is not official policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. ADT is a group blog and not reliable. See explanation at WP:PORN#Self-published. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Feminazi. It still isn't great, but it was rapidly becoming another dogs breakfast of a culture wars article. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this RfD:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 26#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

The consensus of the Wikipedia community was to redirect

Wikipedia:Dailymail and Wikipedia:Dailymail

to

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC

In these edits[2][3] you changed the redirect to

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail

going against the consensus in the RfD. Please don't do that.

The many editors who have used this redirect (see the "what links here" page for each redirect) have pretty much all attempted to send readers at the Daily Mail RfC, not the perennial sources page (they tend to use WP:RSP when they want to send readers to that page) Many editors have written things like

"per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source."

or

"Daily Mail is not a RS as per WP:DAILYMAIL"

-- clearly wishing the reader to go to the page where it was decided, not to an explanatory supplement.

Please abide by the decision of the community and refrain from changing the redirects at WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:Dailymail.

You are free to post a new RfD if you think the community made the wrong decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I didn't see that RfD until after I made the edits. Your comments on the issue make sense to me. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm as to whether or not Sangdeboeuf-public was indeed created by you. I have hard blocked it in the meantime as you have made no edits to the account's userpage nor listed it on your userpage nor did you create it while logged in through Special:CreateAccount. If it is you, I will happily unblock. Also, if this was you, please understand that this is done in order to protect you from impersonation. No ill intent is intended. Best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for being vigilant. Yes, the account belongs to me, for editing while using a public computer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I've unblocked the account and removed my notice, linking to your response as confirmation. Would you like (extended?) confirmed on the alt or are you wanting to get those "organically" with it? (I am honestly fine with granting or leaving, it's your call.) My one suggestion for the future would be to create any alt accounts whilst logged in so that it shows in the logs (and/or place the valid alt template with this account). Otherwise, the likelihood of them being blocked as impersonations (until cleared up) is high. If you need anything, just give a shout --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Good advice; I didn't know one could create additional accounts while logged in. Since you mention it, extended-confirmed access on the second account would be very useful. Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad I could be of assistance. Yes, you can create accounts any time by going to Special:CreateAccount while logged in. Also  Done. I also threw confirmed on there for 3 months. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why. Because the title of an article is not a metalinguistic use of a term, so the use–mention distinction does not apply *to it* (and it’s not a foreign word either). The use of italics in the rest of the article are correct—it’s only italicized when warranted, and not in every instance. —Born2bgratis (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title of an article is not a metalinguistic use of a term... Correct. It's not a use of the term in this case at all, but a mention of the term. The term itself is the subject of the article, whether or not it's always italicized in the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I meant by metalinguistic use (it is equivalent to mention). We don’t italicize the title of the article Donald Trump even though [t]he term itself is the subject of the article Born2bgratis (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The subject of that article is the person, not the name or the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not incorrect. I will let another volunteer edit-war with you, whatever. Born2bgratis (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding religious views, I mistook the nominator and wasn't directed to you. I will edit my input. Sorry EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The celebrities described in the pictures all were of majority-European descent, and would be classified as "white" under the census or any other government/official agency. I don't understand why all the pictures were deleted; they were constructive examples of white Hispanics who correct a common misunderstanding amongst non-Hispanic whites that all Hispanics, regardless of race, have the same complexion. Blacklister3000 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, provide a published source saying so and I'll restore the images myself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; the community consensus per WP:ETHNICGALLERY is to avoid this kind of collection of images. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, Why did you remove the date from the title? 1) It was doing no harm. 2) The launch year date helps situate the vessel in time, not just disambiguate it. 3) If there is another French frigate Piemontaise somebody is eventually going to have to disambiguate it and reverse your change. 4) I can't see how removing correct information makes an encyclopedia better. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin: Then why not just call it French 40-gun Consolante-class frigate Piémontaise (1804)? Would it do any harm? Article titles should ideally be only as WP:PRECISE as needed to identify the topic, and no more than that. Only the name is really needed here; compare with Queen Elizabeth 2. If there is eventually another French frigate Piémontaise, somebody can disambiguate it then. I'd be happy to do it myself, in fact. The information hasn't been removed from the encyclopedia, because the article still gives the launch date. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please have another look at Don Quixote (Teno), which you've just relisted after many weeks of discussion. The bottom of the discussion shows a consensus formed for Don Quixote (Kennedy Center sculpture). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I only saw that the RM was backlogged. Since discussion is ongoing, I'll wait to see if Another Believer or anyone else responds to your recent comment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pilferage; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using a template message. If you believe the article should be reverted back to being a redirect to Theft, then fine. But if it's going to be a dab page, then the burden is on you to gain consensus for your changes. – Uanfala (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:AN3 if you like. I'm not sure you'll be able to convince the admins that your bold edit represents the consensus version. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this message, there probably wasn't a need – it was simply born out of a momentary annoyance. I regret getting annoyed. But I guess you must be aware that people might get annoyed if you revert them again and again, and they can get even more annoyed if you go about doing it as if you're enforcing some fundamental policy. This is not a question of policy. It's not a question of guidelines. It's not about the manual of style versus something else, it's about your own application of the manual of style versus another editor's interpretation of the very same manual of style. I hope you see my point. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how one would interpret "If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page" as meaning anything other than that the article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You thanked me for an edit to simp. What's an thank mean in wikipedia? Like does it mean anything? New3400 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it means "thank you" :) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing manipulative edits. First you redirect Turkmenistani to Turkmenistan, then you put Turkmenistanis in bold in article Turkmenistan. What's this about? Beshogur (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what's your objection exactly? As I explained in my edit summaries, Turkmenistani is the term used to refer to the country and its people, according to an independent, published source, namely The World Factbook. It's in bold because that's what MOS:BOLDREDIRECT suggests. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And? You should redirect it to Turkmens not Turkmenistan. That's not how Wikpedia works. Are you going to do the same with all other countries? Beshogur (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how does Wikipedia work, please? Turkmens states, Big communities have traditionally lived in neighboring Iran, Afghanistan and sizeable groups of Turkmens are found also in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus (Stavropol Krai). Those are Turkmens, not Turkmenistanis. The latter are citizens of Turkmenistan, and may be Turkmens or some other ethnicity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on my talkpage, but I will also leave the answer here. I removed that part because there is only some article with a name, but not a single document was provided. Going by this article, the name "Republic of Turkmenistan" existed after independence in 1991 and according to the UN, starting from 1992 it was already just Turkmenistan. If you think we should go into this much details about it, I will correct that part accordingly, but I also remind you that we don't have a document that would prove the name from 1991 to 1992, and such a document would be a declaration of independence which was adopted AFTER the referendum. I was able to find only the 1990 declaration - https://www.gorby.ru/userfiles/turkmenistan.pdf but it still uses the old Soviet name and was adopted before the referendum. Faust-RSI (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use multiple accounts. Occasionally I forget to sign in and edit with IPs. Which is the edition you suspect? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you responsible for getting my remarks on reverse racism removed? If so, please explain why.

I said absolutely nothing unreasonable, and I imagine my remarks were removed because you personally didn't "like" them because they didn't agree with your stance on the subject. This is not the way Wikipedia's talk pages are supposed to work, nor are they your personal "province" to police as you see fit.

I strongly object to the assertion that my remarks were "vandalism". They were valid, and I would be grateful if you world restore them as soon as possible. 86.14.40.196 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was a personal attack and contained no discussion of article improvements. For more information, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mr. Wrestling II on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glenda Gray on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really weird. Fortunately I no longer live in Florida, can't stand the sun and humidity. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way ;) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting edits to a clearly sexist and transphobic version of the article. Please accept my corrections to make the article accurately gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.119.233 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your valuable contributions so far. Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58? Everyone would appreciate it.

Ysangkok (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I haven't contributed to that article at all. My last edit to cryptocurrency-related articles was over nine months ago. Please take a minute to review Wikpedia's policy on canvassing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have received the policy as you requested, and I cannot fathom how you could think I am in violation of said policy. The comments are neutrally formulated (not coercing you into taking any particular stance), and I write you because you have previously commented on these matters, which is an expression of interest. See User_talk:Guy_Macon. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Shellenberger on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I came across your proactive contribution to Internalized sexism. Recently I have initiated a new article @ Draft:Sexual politics and I am looking for some proactive support in updating and expansion of the article. Please do help in update and expansion if topic Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your Wiki etiquette into balance. Reverting edits and saying "I don't like it is not a reason" is completely out of order when I stated reasons which you did not address. Colin Campbell remains irrelevant but I suppose you added his piece to "For further reading" just because. Polygon itself has been fraught with problematic issues even after Vox Media took over. Polygon recently got rid of Campbell. Sarkeesian was not that important in the grand scale of things. And I am sorry, I can't provide a reliable source for that. It's just common knowledge. She was popular among a certain set of people with a particular mindset and she was wildly unpopular with other people. But she didn't change the world, not even the gaming world. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The other reasons you gave were "this was due to greater societal changes", which you didn't substantiate in any way, and that the material was "in the wrong part [of] the article".[4] Well, if that were true, you could have moved it to a better part of the article. But the comment about "hero worshipping" is what gave the game away. Whether you or I have a positive opinion about Sarkeesian's work is irrelevant. As for Campbell's departure from Vox Media, his was apparently one of many layoffs due to the effects of COVID-19.[5] Any issues with the source itself can be raised at WP:RS/N. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a problem at Toxic masculinity, which is subject to Gamergate sanctions and where Sangdeboeuf and another user appear to have been edit warring in May and July (see article history). My first edit to this page was followed by a confrontational post on my talk page and a prompt reversion.[6] Please consider that other editors may have valuable perspectives, too. Repeatedly and immediately reverting multiple other editors should be reserved for blatant policy violations, not highly subjective disagreements about nuances over policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please disambiguate these links. wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Steven Hatfill on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]