User talk:Sangdeboeuf

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue." There are countless published, reliable sources confirming that the sky is, in fact, blue. Beware of the use of WP:BLUESKY to justify inclusion of less reliably sourced information such as trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially regarding living people. Some people will insist that this information is vital to the project and will accuse others of censoring Wikipedia to suppress The Truth™. This comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encylopedia and relies on 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.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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]

Thanks for the notification of the woke article. Espngeek (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can anybody say that saying that melanin people are superior than the white race as racism when melanin people have been hearing that same notion from white people all our lives. We as melanin people are very special beings and scientists have also acknowledged that without a doubt and have been puzzled trying to figure out our DNA going back so long ago so having a opinion is your right but let's speak facts and science our DNA is very different and our genes are very special in all aspects without a doubt there is something special about us and scientists and the government knows this and bee trying to study us to try to figure us out and that's why history is a lie and everything that everyone has been taught in school is all a lie and finally the truth is starting to come out about how superior we are just think about it why is every Egyptian statue nose have bee tampered with or most of the statues have been reconstructed claiming because of damage smh yea ok so not true we have been around as kings and queens from the beginning and all of the deities and God's look like no other but us beautiful in every shade shape and height so please wipe all what you have learned and do your research the correct way and you will see us In another light ASE' Tamekab1234 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the date of birth identified by the subject at Adriana Chechik. Per WP:TWITTER, it is acceptable to use a tweet by the article subject for unextraordinary facts, for which a birth date certainly qualifies. In this case, the subject's claimed date of birth is consistent with the age of the subject reported in various reliable sources stating her age. Please restore this information and citation. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Linda Gerdner 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 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsensical revert. A page about antifeminism has to cite content about antifeminism. "A Voice for Men" is an antifeminist site. Was it not relevant, it wouldn't have its own article. The removal of "Who Stole Feminism?" is even worse because it's a book written by a feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers), i.e. it's not even entirely anti-feminist per se but a critique to the excesses commited by one branch of feminism. The Red Pill is a documentary about men's issues that feminists claim that do not exist: as mentioned in the Antifeminism article, antifeminists do think that feminists indeed ignore men's issues and claim that men only have "privileges".

The cherry of the cake is that I sorted those references in alphabetical order, but your revert also undid this.►Sampayu 04:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you linked to are antifeminist propaganda, not content about antifeminism. Who Stole Feminism? has been heavily critiqued for decades in this regard. As Beyond My Ken stated to you at Talk:Feminazi, your declared stance as an "antifeminist" makes your own edits appear WP:TENDENTIOUS. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to disseminate your personal opinions from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kara (South Korean group) 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 17:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the edits and fixes on the "List of age-related terms with negative connotations" article! PetSematary182 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan 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 10:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder 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 14:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Goguen 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, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, the social media segment of Alejandra Canadellos page has already been discussed two times so far, and neither time has there been a clear consensus reached on removing that info. The same excuses don’t hold water and it’s blatantly obvious now that it’s partisan left wing supporters of hers simply trying to remove any and all negative info, essentially turning her page into an endorsement of her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Digital Herodotus (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about what consensus is required; see WP:ONUS. Personal attacks may work on 4chan and Reddit, but they won't help you here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing when I saw the edits. Thanks for your action. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is known and it is not debated that Nina Hartley is a feminist. There are countless sources on her role in the feminist sex wars and she is listed in an article about sex positive feminism and her book sales have probably made more money than your yearly salary several times over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderateasneeded (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I don't watch porn and the first time I heard about Nina Hartley was in college when I was required to read her content. I still don't watch porn so I only know about her from her public appearances, talks and the book she has written. We know she is a porn star but she is more than that when you compare her to other people in the industry with respect to her other publicly know life interest. I don't know why you are so passionate about this lol... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderateasneeded (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is known is beside the point; Wikipedia requires independent, reliable sources. A person's income or life interest(s) are not inherently noteworthy or WP:DUE. What are the countless sources on her role in the feminist sex wars (lol)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t do it tonight but I think it’s ANI time. I may do it tomorrow. I’d block but am involved. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already there. They took HandThatFeeds to ANI. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited Tory Lane's social media account. Why do you claim that's a poor source? Also, please view my revert/edit summary on Jenna Haze article. IPIPIPIP (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tweet by the subject saying "happy birthday 2 me" is not sufficient to establish the birth date of a living person. Different sources should not be combined to extrapolate the date of birth. This would be original research. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is different than verifiability -- not all verifiable info needs to be included per WP:ONUS. If the subject is borderline notable, it's fine to just list the birth year. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jenna Haze, the difference between notability and verifiablity is noted. And the basis for you disputing the inclusion of her full DOB is per borderline notability despite the citation itself literally being the subject themselves publicly disclosing that info. It's not merely an isolated third-party source independent of the subject whereby it can possibly be inferred that the subject may object to the inclusion of the info and therefore we need to consider supposedly "erring on the side of caution." If no other justification exists to dispute its inclusion, have I not met the onus? IPIPIPIP (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, notability is different than verifiability. If the subject is borderline notable as determined by coverage in independent reliable sources, it's fine to just list the birth year. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine to just list the birth year in order to err on the side of caution in case the borderline notable person objects to its inclusion. This is clearly not the case here with Jenna Haze since the citation itself IS her publicaly disclosing that information. If you still object, I suggest we solicit third-party opinions from other editors on the article talkpage or elsewhere in order to reach a consensus. IPIPIPIP (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information may be verifiable, but the person is borderline notable. Notability applies to the subject themselves, not just a given piece of information. Once again, if the subject is borderline notable as determined by coverage in independent reliable sources, it's fine to just list the birth year, whether they object or not. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I learned something new today. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a new user and hope it is ok to reach out here to ask about a recent action you took.

You marked a link on the Pearl Mackie page as "Unfit" (it was for the Gay Times article, currently ref. 19)

I was reading about unfit urls, but I find it a bit confusing. Would you mind explaining why it was used here? I'd like to know when to use it myself.

Thanks in advance for your help!

QuiteBearish (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuiteBearish: the current version of the Gay Times article doesn't list the date of publication. If we're going to have the date in a footnote, then I don't think we should use this as the primary link. Marking the URL status as "unfit" hides the link so that readers are sent to the archived version with the date. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Boris Johnson 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 10:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Isla Bryson case 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, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden 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 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daya Mata 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 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User indeffed as WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate the copywriting instead of just reverting, can you help me understand why we'd include the SPLC's POV instead of just their numbers? Trying to act in good faith, but I don't understand why I'm taking hits on bias and pov, when the sources themselves contain bias and pov? Unwokengarvey (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. We strive to put data in context according to reliable sources, and the SPLC is considered a reliable source on hate groups (WP:SPLC). Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased (WP:BIASED). Neutrality on Wikipedia is about summarizing sources accurately and fairly, without editorial bias (WP:NPOV). You introduced bias when you selectively cited certain details out of context. Why would you include the fact that the SPLC used the term "black separatism" to categorize hate groups, without stating their rationale for no longer doing so? Your edits so far indicate a desire to portray pro-black groups & beliefs as hateful, contrary to what reliable sources state. Even if you believe this is true, Wikipedia is not the place to make this argument. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We worked together on the past on alligator bait. If you're at loose ends at any point, I would love your ruthless red pen input on Kingstree jail fire. I've also filed a copy edit request but wanted to ping you as well. Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance if there's anything you can do. Cheers. jengod (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sangdeboeuf. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, following your idea on creating an article for the discrimination against men, I've started working on a draft. Please would you review it or provide feedbacks? The article is Draft:Discrimination against men. Thanks! Panamitsu (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I added the citations you men requested in reference to Nina Hartley and her many connections with Feminism. I understand while the world would agree she is a feminist and that title is only given to a select few women of extreme prominence it is a known fact she is a minor figure in the sex positive movement. She has been a minor figure in the sex positive movement for years and also is a major sex-work activist which naturally is seen as a feminist issue. I don't know where we draw the line between dialogue and patriarchal intellectual hegemony on with respect to this page. Please help me understand more and teach me please. Torah mishna (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf, I know you have left a message with this editor regarding previous accounts. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naarter. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hi, Sangdeboeuf,

We are both members of a probably smallish club of users that are comfortable creating CITEREF-based wikilinks; I've seen your work at various articles, including complex examples such as the "power-user" one at Talk:Toxic masculinity involving a citation from a specific version of an article, and many more. I've often thought it was tedious putting these links together and there had to be a better way. They're probably second nature to you now, but I bet you remember the initial learning curve. Plus, once you have them, they look mysterious in the wikicode to the average editor. At the same time, there ought to be an easier on-ramp for other editors who feel comfortable enough using {{sfn}}, but are too scared off by the intricacies of CITEREF to create links of that nature.

I finally decided to do something about it, and the result is {{sfnlink}} (alias: citelink). Here's one example; this code, adapted from a Talk page comment of yours at Talk:Rebecca Watson, and recast to use {{sfnlink}}, will look familiar:

• Sources such as {{sfnlink|LeDrew|2016|p=198|rev=990826574}}) and {{sfnlink|Meagher|2018|p=101|rev=990826574}} do suggest the reaction was overblown ⟶ Sources such as LeDrew (2016) p. 198) and Meagher (2018) p. 101 do suggest the reaction was overblown

Sfnlink is configurable in several ways beyond this; you can find details at the template. I haven't advertised it yet, and I've come to a stopping point in development, so I thought I'd ask for your feedback before I do. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks! I discovered WP:CITEREF anchors by just copying and pasting from the address bar of the article. The template looks much more logical and streamlined. I like the different options for linking to a named page as well as a numbered revision. What happens if neither the revision nor article are specified? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did too, and started to reverse-engineer it, like you obviously did, too. Params rev and article are optional, and when neither is specified, it creates a link to the same page as the template (like sfn or harv). If you add the template to a mainspace article, it tries to link the full citation, hopefully found in "References" (or "Works cited", etc.); if the template is on a Talk page, it'll look for something resolved by a {{reflist-talk}} on the Talk page. For the link-to-same-page case, template {{harv}} is an almost equivalent option, although you can't change the link text in that one. Feel free to adjust the doc, if you think this needs to be clearer, or I could.

By the way, I did a bit of research before I started, and afaict, you're one of the major power users of #CITEREF, at least recently, assuming advanced search gives unbiased results. I'm hoping this template will make it easier for the power users, and make it possible for casual users where previously it was out of reach for them.

One other thing; I've been considering a change of name; feel free to opine at Template talk:Sfnlink#Title about that (or anything else). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: is it possible to suppress the parentheses around the date for Harvard-style referencing on talk pages etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, but that would be an easy change. I'm trying to think of the best way to handle it to keep it simple for users who like it one way, or the other. Maybe a new sfnlink param |nb=yes would suppress parentheses, and then we could then easily create a wrapper template {{sfnlinknb}} which would invoke sfnlink with the param, so you could code either {{sfnlink|nb=yes|other params}} or {{sfnlinknb|other params}} and get the same result; how does that sound? So, to make sure I understand: the new output would be exactly as it is now, except no parens, so there would be one space following the name, and YYYY would follow the space; is that right? Mathglot (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the sandbox, but untested and I have to run. If you want, you can try it out by coding {{sfnlink/sandbox|nb=yes|other params...}} and see if it does what you want. (You don't have to put 'yes', you can put 'y', or '1', or 'true', or even 'no' and it will do the same thing.) Lmk if you find anything; also, it might not work at all. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its working live, now: {{sfnlink|Meagher|2018|article=Rebecca Watson|nb=y}} → Meagher 2018. I don't have the wrapper {{sfnlinknb}} yet, but I'll get to it eventually, and in the meantime, it should work with the 'nb' param. The template doc page should answer any questions. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the wrapper, so you should be able to use {{sfnlinknb}}, now, and not have to code |nb=yes anymore. I tagged it as beta until we have sufficient usage of it. In the meantime, please add any bugs or comments to its Talk page. Hope you find it useful! Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to round out this thread, here's a link to {{Remoteref}}, which has a function similar to that of {{sfnlink}} of being able to link to any citation with a CITEREF-based anchor, but links it via a numeric superscript tag, just like a regular footnote or {{citeref}} does. Unlike citeref, it works from any page, like this.^[1] This completes my activity with these templates, at least for now. Bug reports, enhancement proposals, and feedback always welcome at Template talk:Sfnlink. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect MOS: HYPHEN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: HYPHEN until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect MOS: NOPIPE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: NOPIPE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect MOS: SURNAME has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: SURNAME until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vanessa Marquez 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 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons 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, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is IAFD a reliable/appropriate source with regards to citing how many films a performer has appeared in? IPIPIPIP (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. IAFD is still user-generated content regardless of whether it's personal info or filmography. At the very least citing user-created databases lend undue weight to such trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, It would be helpful to know which bits you find problematic. There are only one or two sentences that aren't sourced and/or wikilinked. If they are the problem, I will be happy to delete them. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have added a few sources, deleted one sentence of OR, and deleted your OR tag. I will add further/stronger sources as I find them. This is now one of the better WP articles on a subject of this type, so if you still feel the need to tag it, a more detailed explanation would be appreciated. I am looking forward to being done with Uschi. Best, Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you want to, see Template:Contentious topics/alert/DS. Confusing at times. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per title, really. It can be difficult to uphold policies when people are being largely uncooperative; as a passing editor, I have a lot of respect for not just giving up and moving on! Couruu (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdebouef, responding to talk messages. Your threshold for what constitutes it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public (WP:DOB) is obviously stricter than mine. Our past no consensus discussion concerned the clearness of phrasing in WP:ABOUTSELF DOB sources in this topic area. In good faith, I'm asking you to unrevert here and here, where the subjects really do say "today is my X birthday" or similar (one says she turned 37 yesterday, another that she turns 50 tomorrow, and other posts affirm the respective dates). Thanks. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posts like "307 is a good number, on the day I turned 37, no less", "Last day in my 40s", and "I'm turning 50 an YOU are invited!" are not explicit regarding the actual date of birth. As I said earlier, Something along the lines of "today is my [xx] birthday" would be something like "It's my [xx] birthday today" or "I'm [xx] years old today". The cited WP:ABOUTSELF sources are more vague than this. Combining these with other posts would be WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand the sensitivity in this topic area and thank you for patrolling BLP violations in general. I wouldn't ask you to undo your reverts if these sources didn't appear to be explicit about DOBs. Referring to 2023-06-15 as "the day I turned 37" and identifying 2019-10-07 as the "Last day in my 40s" are in the same spirit as "today is my [xx] birthday". They're not vague when there's no other way to read them (is there?). Other posts aren't used for synthesis, only as evidence of clear declarations of their birthdays (so that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object per WP:DOB). I'll leave you with that and understand if you're not persuaded. Please refrain from sending me templates in the future. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sources say, though. An explicit reference would be something like "today is the day I turned 37". The sources don't actually identify the day in question. Regardless of how you or I read the intent of these posts, WP:V requires that sources directly support the given material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia 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 07:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Pornography Barnstar
		For your work in WikiProject Pornography Demt1298 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose, hypothetically, that there were an editor engaging in very battleground-y behavior on Talk:Sarah Jeong and also simultaneously on Talk:Gender (after having made contentious and swiftly reverted edits to both, though not edit-warring), and also pushing some obviously argumentative content into the lead at Pornography. And furthermore that this happened after the editor was apprised of the CTOP classification for gender etc. Do you think that is the sort of thing that one could make the core of an AE filing? (I've never done it before and having trouble finding an understandable answer to this question in the copious documentation around AE and CTOP.) If this is not of interest to you, sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, there would be a very good case for a strong warning from ArbCom and possibly sanctions, especially regarding WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLE. Filling out a request at WP:AE is actually pretty easy; I've done it once I think. The edit window has instructions on what documentation to provide. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've given it a shot. Thanks for your advice (hypothetically speaking). --JBL (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Hitchens 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 08:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Evolved Apes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Evolved Apes until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect One World (imprint) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § One World (imprint) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what this is about. You are treating the date of December 11, in a talk page, like an anathema, and you are dictatorially removing it. I do not have a problem continuing to post the date, until physically stopped by being blocked. I am trying to be civil, but you are exhibiting rude, unprofessional, conduct. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C028:6865:A4E7:19EF (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gigi Hadid 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 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

I have appreciated your thoughts and comments on the Black nationalism page and would like to request your input to resolve a dispute over at White trash (see the talk page for details). I've already received one reply but would like one or two more.

Lewisguile (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frederick the Great 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 02:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity 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 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 20:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the resident editors who has a lot of experience with wiki markup, I figured I would ask you this. (You were one of the first people I ran across who used note subsections in talk page discussions with efn, so I've been a huge fan since :-)

I stumbled upon something similar to this probably a year ago and forgot to save it. Unfortunately, I have no idea what noticeboard led me to it not the context of the page itself. All I seem to recall of it is it had red text with what the editor wanted to be changed ('this section should be moved further down') and green or blue text with what they wanted added ('We should add a section here on how to properly leave a breadcrumb trail for users like Awshort who are forgetful.').

I figured if anyone knew of a way to do it in markup or similar or what helps pages to read for it, it would be you,

Thank you in advance! Awshort (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sangdeboeuf

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bgsu98 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Lebanese Forces Cross, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Lebanese Forces Cross.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bgsu98}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of {{high traffic}} to Nikki Benz may be germane to your interests. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like that you reconsider your stance on my edits: [1][2] I haven't found any guideline that says it's only possible for "best" source to only be used and others should not be mentioned in the article, so you can clarify this also if you want. More important is that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD supports my position:

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

Your argument about "sometimes" don't agree with the rest of the sentence, because "such as when you are supporting a direct quotation", directly shows an example where that "sometimes" is appropriate. This is literally the situation we have here -- my source supports a direct quote.

If you want, I can drop https://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ link as it is kinda redundant, but I won't relax my stance on direct link to pharyngula comment. This is the source material. Nothing is going to be a better source than a direct (albeit archived) link. Let alone providing a reader with a book citation that can't be accessed as easily is a little bit "privileged". Konradmb (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Konradmb: It's a moot point, since that section has too many quotations as is. The Richard Dawkins quote is better paraphrased than simply copy-pasted, for which a secondary source is better.anywa.y —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are using an argument of an article that isn't even real. How can a supposed who-know-when edit prevent an edit of a real, current article. Please allow this edit and then, when the time comes it can be remodelled as you or others wish. Konradmb (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very real; see MOS:QUOTE: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotations are incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style... See also WP:NOFULLTEXT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can throw the ball in your court in the same style as you've responded to me: It says "Too many ", and we don't have too many, but only two. Nevermind, it can be only one - primary citation to original comment.

WP:NOFULLTEXT is a strawman - I'm not an author of the change that included the full quote. Konradmb (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing to keep it, are you not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what? Citation - as in - a link to https://web.archive.org/web/20110818212451/https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comment-4295492 at the end of a quote? Yes. Konradmb (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly arguing to keep the full quote. is getting tedious. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. It's not my edit. You've seen my edits from IP. It's just links. Two links. Konradmb (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it to the article talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. The Dawkins quote is not what I would call "brief". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's a mystery why you are so fixated on the primary source for the Dawkins quotation. Do you doubt the authenticity of the book citation currently in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

1. Book is inaccessible to many. In this case - it's preventing the access to public content behind paid copyrighted work (which the comment was originally not!).

2. Hard to even fact-check because of the 1. reason.

3. If the original material is so easy to access, why obscure it behind book?

4. Books can misquote. Original comment can't. (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD argument) Konradmb (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting Dawkins comment was misquoted in the book we cite? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. "why you are so fixated about this" ;) Konradmb (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then your fourth point is irrelevant. Please stop wasting my time with this. If you have further comments to make, take them to the article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Konradmb (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be reliable. They don't have to be accessible or convenient. See WP:FUTON. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book citation is preferred because secondary sources are preferred according to Wikipedia policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the time comes is literally any time. Since we're talking about it now, it may as well be now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any refactors of the original article right now. Is this a joke? Konradmb (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note also that saying I won't relax my stance is not a great indicator of good-faith dialogue or consensus building. I would reconsider that attitude. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stated my current limit. I also said that secondary source can be dropped, so it shows I can be agreeable. I could've concealed that, but I'm mentioning that only after making sure I'm in the right by checking WP directions. Konradmb (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that "I won't relax my stance" is all based on what is said in WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. So that means "I won't change my mind unless you can provide direct arguments against the content of that guideline", not that I will never change my mind. I mean - your previous arguments are fallacious and don't directly touch the matter of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD content. Konradmb (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, PRIMARYNOTBAD is an explanatory essay. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, an explanatory essay is well explanatory, so it would not undermine the policy, but explain it, right? Policies you've provided don't say anything direct about our dispute (unless you can give me a quote, I've only skimmed through it). WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD does. Konradmb (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Once you are familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines, we can continue. You might begin here: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strawman - I'm arguing about citation, you're giving me a guide for quotations, as per my original edit of the article. Konradmb (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the more important issue here, as I originally stated. The exact citations are a moot point if the material is WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Therealteal (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf,

Imane Khelif has a WP:1RR restriction in place.
With your edit at Special:Diff/1242067001 you reverted my edit at Special:Diff/1240058034.
With your edit at Special:Diff/1242260741 you reverted my edit at Special:Diff/1242135731.
You have reverted on the article twice within a 24 hour period and therefore have violated WP:1RR. Please self-revert your last edit to remedy breach of WP:1RR.
Note: you have previously received contentious topic notifications for GENSEX and BLP at Special:Diff/986014533 and Special:Diff/853475561 respectively. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First one wasn't a revert, and second one was more than 24 hours after the first. But if you want to report me for removing two hyphens, good luck. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just outside of 24 hours counts as a breach of WP:1RR. First was a revert as it removed a reference name that I had added. TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of the reference "BBC Sport-2024a" to a more useful one that mentioned the author's last name. If you really think this is worth administrator attention then file a complaint at WP:ANEW. Frankly I think it's a waste of my time and yours. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a revert. What concerns me more is the second revert (the one which actually breaches WP:1RR) in which you decided that the removal of unrepeated reference names was obviously incorrect and that spaces were better than hyphens without even having a discussion. Now please self-revert. TarnishedPath^talk 09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you decided that hyphens were better without even having a discussion, ignoring WP:BRD entirely. This smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of your prior edit/s to replaces hyphens with spaces until after you made the second revert listed above and I looked at the article edit history. So lay off the WP:ABF please. When presented with clear evidence of breaching WP:1RR the appropriate response should be to self-revert regardless of your thoughts about being right or how trivial it is. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You should find something better to do with your time than this. --JBL (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Imane Khelif 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 12:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I appreciate your flourish of dropping bad faith assumptions in edit comments - but you do you. Feel free to weigh in at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore the 2023 Supreme Court case that you deleted from the Reverse racism article? Stonkaments (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add the material yourself, provided you cite sources that support the addition in the context of reverse racism. The previous text I removed didn't do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It would be nice if you could just admit you were wrong. Stonkaments (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got to disagree with you there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her biography is very protected and is hard to add relevant information. Like her participation in a music video by Karol G and Becky G that has millions of views, her New York Times interview, her rebranding as influencer with the help of fellow influencer Bella Poarch along with appearing in her music video Build a Bitch, her participation in fashion week and her talk at Oxford University. It would be useful if you allow that data to be added, or you added it in case of being necessary. Sunem21 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance is determined by published, reliable sources, not by what you or I think is necessary or popular. You're welcome to suggest additional sources at Talk:Mia Khalifa. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) edited 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't allowed me to add new information period. Independent of sources. Sunem21 (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have already made a request to add material at Talk:Mia Khalifa. There is nothing to stop you from making another such request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sample text here.^[1][2] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ Citation ^ Citation

---

Sample text here.^[1][2]

Sources
^ Citation ^ Citation

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC) (signature after template)[reply]

Sample text here.^[1][2] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sample text here.^[3][4]

Sources
^ Citation ^ Citation ^ Citation ^ Citation

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sample text here.^[1][2]

Sources
^ Citation ^ Citation

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that you are reverting sourced and useful edits on the Kagney Linn Karter article regarding her singing activities. It is fairly well established that she used the alias Kagney Necessary in her discography, even if additional citations might be needed to be found. Tsarivan613 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]