This editor is a Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, and Sticky Note.

AN/IEdit

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)

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)
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)

FeminaziEdit

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).

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

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)

@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)

Whats in a name?Edit

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)

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

Please comment on Talk:Sarah_JeongEdit

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)

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

SorryEdit

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

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

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

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)

Riley ReidEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

A beer for you!Edit

  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)

Redirects at WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DailymailEdit

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[1][2] 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)

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)

Sangdeboeuf-publicEdit

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)

Re: “Why?”Edit

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)

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)
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)
Incorrect. The subject of that article is the person, not the name or the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not incorrect. I will let another volunteer edit-war with you, whatever. Born2bgratis (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologiesEdit

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)

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

White Hispanic and Latino AmericansEdit

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)

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

Sorry for bothering you, but...Edit

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)

French frigate PiemontaiseEdit

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)

@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)

CloseEdit

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)

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

April 2020Edit

  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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

HelloEdit

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)

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

TurkmenistanisEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

TurkmenistanEdit

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)

GreetingsEdit

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)

Reverse RacismEdit

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)

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)

Take a look at my talk page.Edit

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)

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

Internalized SexismEdit

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)

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

A goat for you!Edit

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)

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)
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)

Request for helpEdit

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)

Anita SarkeesianEdit

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)

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".[3] 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.[4] Any issues with the source itself can be raised at WP:RS/N. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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.[5] 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)

The Sinking of The TitanicEdit

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

Discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 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.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resoultionEdit

Hello, I am here to inform there is currently a resolution dispute as to the conflict on Anarchist Symbolism, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not edit warEdit

Your recent editing history at Anarchist symbolism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. You appear to justify this by simply wanting to have the article how you want it to be despite there currently being a edit resolution of discussion. You continue to revert the page. Please self revert, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

AlertEdit

 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Crossroads -talk- 22:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Trans title troubleEdit

Regarding the title for the Transgender article, I think that's a case where the current title isn't ideal but, then, neither are any of the alternatives. Transgenderism? Well, that word's unfortunately become associated with TERF activists and the like (although Julia Serano once wrote a lovely and thoughtful essay in defense of the word, and other "problematic" terms.) Transgender people? Transgender person? Trans person? Not terrible, but less concise, and I think less natural (a "natural" title being one, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles). WanderingWanda (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, but what about the title I proposed, Transgender identity? On Google Scholar, it returns ~14K hits, which is favorable compared to the historic, if outdated, transgenderism (~17K hits). Perhaps not too natural, but I think that's what redirects are for. But I'm not too worried about the Transgender article at the moment, partly because, yes, I recognize I'd be opening a semantic can of worms. I'm somewhat surprised at the resistance to Transsexuality instead of Transsexual (although not too surprised); that one seems much more straightforward. Maybe some people are confusing it with Transsexualism? Depending on how the RM goes, I may wait a few months and try again. (And thanks for pointing out that WP:TITLE does in fact suggest using other encyclopedias as a guide. I thought I'd seen that somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess in the end I wouldn't have very strong objections to either Transgender identity or Transgender people. Of the two I might lean towards the latter. The article leads with "transgender people" already, after all, and it looks like that term gets more hits on Google Scholar.
As for Transsexual/Transexuality, I may have an alternate proposal...but will have to mull it over some more. Stay tuned. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing. Another complication is the practice of using transgender as a noun for the broader phenomenon of transgenderism/transgender identity itself. (trans-gender, a specific type of gender?) Examples here, here, here, and here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

BulletEdit

You're simply technically incorrect about that. The intervening block element of the collapse table ends the list above it. Which you would know if you actually looked at the render output and the HTML element order, or even understood what you were talking about. The ferocity with which you are bludgeoning and OWN-acting in talk pages on topics you get overheated about is rising to pretty disruptive levels.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an HTML expert, sure, but you seem to be saying that the {{collapse}} template creates a new end to the list, where the list should actually end with the next bulleted comment in the thread. Instead that comment became the start of a new list, which in my experience changes how the list is rendered visually. You can see this in the before-and-after of this edit. I even previewed a test edit where I moved the whole collapsed portion to the end of the thread, and the stray bullet disappeared. I am not speaking from utter ignorance here. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
See the example lists below for an illustration. The first two are formatted identically except for the addition of the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates. Note how adding the templates causes the stray bullet(s) to appear, and moving the collapsed portion to the end makes it disappear again. You really don't need to be a tech genius to figure this stuff out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, once you realized that your "fix" was not accepted, you could have left it alone. Instead you doubled down, insisting that your "repair" was justified despite breaking WP:LISTGAP. Overheated indeed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
One final point: the implication that formatting talk pages should be left to those who can fluently parse render output and the HTML element order is simply elitist and goes against the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • List element 1
    List element 2
    List element 2.5
    List element 3

  • List element 1
    List element 2
List element 2.5
  • List element 2.5
  • List element 3


  • List element 1
    List element 2
    List element 3
List element 2.5
  • List element 2.5

Buff coatEdit

While the aurochs could be the origin of the term 'buff' it can hardly have been used to make 'buff coats' in the period 1620-1650, if the last known specimen died in 1627. Also buff coats were still in use in the 1680s, there is documentary evidence for this. I think your source may be a little unreliable. Urselius (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the source just says "European buffalo (or wild ox) hide". The only "wild ox" native to Europe with a Wikipedia article is the Aurochs. We know hunting was partially to blame for their extinction, so it's not inconceivable that the use of hides had something to do with it. But I agree the link could be misleading. And being used from 1620–1650 doesn't rule out later use ;-) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
'Buffalo' is a very imprecise term in English, really it just means 'a large bovine creature'. I have found another very detailed reference and it also says "European buffalo" without defining the term, but seeing that the Aurochs died out in Britain, probably, in the Iron Age and the last known specimen in Eastern Europe died in 1627, the aurochs is very unlikely to have been the "European buffalo". My new source says that the origin of buffalo hides was Germany in the Early 17th century, which makes the beast in question far more likely to have been the wisent, which still survives. Urselius (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case openedEdit

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your effortsEdit

  The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


Merry Merry!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sangdeboeuf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Nick CannonEdit

Hello. I did some digging and I found this old CfD: [6]. It basically says we shouldn't add value-laden categories (i.e, bias categories) to articles on individuals or organizations. It's a shame this hasn't been enforced enough. My apologies-- Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I'll keep it in mind for future discussions. As a side note, please remember to avoid leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments, since it makes things difficult for screen-reader users. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that! For some reason, it makes it a lot easier to follow the conversation on my computer screen when I add a blank line. And thank you very much for the barnstar! I hardly think I deserve it. You're the one who managed to keep their cool, despite my arrogance. For the record, I've removed numerous POV categories from BLPs: [7], [8], [9], [10]. However, in this instance, I thought the category was appropriate due to the multiple sources present in the article. Again, though, you were correct in your assessment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bigoted opinion pieces in character referencesEdit

Hello!

I was formally user 70.76.12.245 and just wanted to address our recent revisions. I love Wikipedia and all it has done for making information accessible on a wide scale and can tell by both your profile and lengthy tenure that you share this zest for promoting knowledge. None of my edits were meant as vandalism or had any kind of derogatory motive. I just do not understand why character reference pages cannot just be exactly that. If a user comes to a page in hopes of learning more about a character and the fictional world building therein, why is it necessary that they need to read about how “Random Bigot’s” opinion is that people should be subdivided by their race and/or gender? Why are articles promoting the notion that people can only like characters who are the same race/gender as them promoted as necessary to characters of fictional universes? I understand they have “sources” supporting these deplorable notions, but is “written somewhere on the internet” really the only hurdle that needs to be cleared? I ask in earnest because I really am dedicated to enriching the material and integrity of Wikipedia. Often times it just seems as though people are pushing their irrelevant opinions unnecessarily into articles as a plug for themselves or as if they are somehow an authority on the matter. I admit I am new, but just want to stress that my position is not one of malice or self-satisfaction and my only aim was to strengthen pages as legitimate references. If there is a better process for this can you please fill me in since I would like to continue improving this compendium for the greater good of knowledge accessibility.

Thanks, Jeyne. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote on the user talk page for your IP, Wikipedia is not censored. If sources which are generally regarded as reliable for a given topic area comment on a subject, then that material is potentially worthy of inclusion, whether any Wikipedia user personally finds it to be "bigoted". As I recall, the sources you removed all had some degree of editorial oversight and are considered reliable for TV criticism. The opinions of the authors were all properly attributed. More to the point, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. If readers want pure character bios, there are other places on the Internet for that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry to hear this. I’m sure the grand encyclopaedic nature of reliable sources such as “PopSugar” will continue to sow division and factionalism between human beings rather than uniting them in a never ending quest for “clicks”. I’m not sure if there’s some remuneration involved but it’s very disheartening that perpetuating these ideals is the ultimate goal here. Beware hubris.
Edit: I mean no antagonism but this is exactly what fell IMDB. There is now an entire generation of people who watch fictional stories without thinking “I can pretend that’s ME in the television doing the things!” without thinking of how their skin or genitals separate them from one another but merely appreciating the story told. This short term pandering will sink the credibility as a whole.
Jeyne Reyne (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, another prediction of Wikipedia's imminent demise. I'll add it to the list. One could make an argument that certain sites like PopSugar don't represent authoritative opinions (you could also check the Reliable sources noticeboard archives to see what other users have to say about the source's quality), but you didn't do that. You argued a priori that the contents of various sources were "subjective", "irrelevant", "perpetuating weird American prejudices", and now "bigoted", based on your personal idea of what is appropriate for "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away". That's an argument for censoring opinions you don't like, not anything to do with reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Importantly, Wikipedia articles are not just plot summaries of fictional works, but are written from a real-world perspective. So the character claimed to be from long ago and far away is actually from a show broadcast in 2019. Real-world events and perspectives since that time should absolutely be included. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent move/redirectEdit

I would ask that you reconsider and undo your redirect... as the article topic is about an entire class of objects (multiple offices... not one singular office) and classes are an exemption to SINGULAR. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I hadn't considered that. If you want to undo the move, I won't object. However, does the topic represent a group or class any more than the other topics listed at Officer? Consistency would suggest using a singular title, IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it does, because the offices are not really hierarchical (they are more job titles than ranks... for example, a lodges Secretary does not “outrank” the lodges Treasurer... they are simply different offices within the lodge, with different duties).
If you could undo the redirects it would be appreciated... I would probably screw it up if I tried to do it. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
As an alternative thought... this is more of a list article than an article “about” lodge officers. So, perhaps the article should be renamed List of Masonic lodge officers? Just thinking out loud. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Another option: List of Masonic lodge offices - shifting the focus to the office rather than the office holder. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
"Job titles" also applies to the various sub-categories of Scientist, Engineer, Lawyer, Health professional, etc. All are under singular titles. I think the exception exists mainly for things that are normally discussed as a group or class by published sources. A formal move request is probably the next logical step. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

SorryEdit

But exactly what community guidelines did I violate? 2A00:23C5:F983:C200:FD77:DFFD:96B2:16AC (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming [11][12] are your edits: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, for starters. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ObjectivityEdit

Just wanted to say I agree with your points on objectivity, but I'm trying to resist the urge to comment further on Talk:Gina Carano because as you can see there is an anonymous editor who does not seem to understand that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is very determined to have the last word. I very much appreciate your effort to improve the article, and remembering that just because one thing comes after another we cannot assume that one is because of the other. (From the substance of your edits, I expect you're already familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc.) -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my recent comment on the article talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative fans"?Edit

First off, I bring this up here because i don't want to repeatedly create new sections every time i bring this topic up. I probably spammed too much on the Gina Carano talk page as it is. You seem to have made a recent edit where you changed "conservatives" to "conservative fans", and this doesn't strike me as accurate. I'd be very surprised if any reliable pop culture outlets didn't cover this, seeing as it's a very well known issue within the Star Wars fandom, but these so called "conservative fans", collectively referring to themselves as "The Fandom Menace", are in reality a part of the online far-right hate group known as Comicsgate. Them, as well as high profile right and far right public figures are the ones expressing support for Gina Carano. The current wording makes it sound like there's some kind of split in the star wars fan community, when in reality it's just grifters and alt right trolls stirring the pot like they usually do. The support for Gina Carano is a direct continuation of a several year long line of online controversies which included the racially charged targeted harassment campaigns against John Boyega, Kelly Marie Tran and Krystina Arielle, the review-bombing of The Last Jedi and the recent wave of false rumors and conspiracy theories alleging some kind of "lucasfilm civil war" between John Favreau and Kathleen Kennedy Even if this isn't covered in this way in reliable sources, which i doubt, the current wording talking about "conservative fans" supporting Gina Carano is not due. If support for her has to be mentioned one way or another, talking about a simple conservative support and focusing of Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz as opposed to these supposed "conservative fans" is much more accurate and in line with facts. Just my two cents. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who added "conservatives", before changing it to "conservative fans" in line with the Vanity Fair article. I'm willing to believe all of what you say is true; in fact I'd expect just such a thing given what happened during #Gamergate. Unfortunately, we're constrained by what sources publish; it would be helpful if you had a source to back up your suspicions, such as one directly mentioning Carano in connection with the "fan[dum] menace" ;-) On the bright side, journalists eventually revealed #Gamergate to be a sham, so maybe the same thing will happen here in time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately the most damning evidence I can provide doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Namely the fact that Gina Carano has been actively engaging with members of the fandom menace. The youtuber who goes by the name of Drunk3PO, effectively acts as her contact with the group. He did a three part interview with her, props himself up as "friend of Gina Carano" on Twitter and even did a fundraiser with her to raise awareness towards human trafficking and child sesual exploitation. This might sound positive at first until you remember that gamergate did charity fundraisers as a PR move before, and that the anti human trafficking and child sexual exploitation campaign they raise funds for is actually a front for Pizzagate. The problem is, all of this is original research, so it's pretty much useless. Nevertheless, I do not think one needs to break site policy to avoid legitimizing the fandom menace. Using "conservatives" instead of "conservative fans" is still technically in line with what variety say. So is neglecting to mention conservatives fans altogether and just focusing on Cruz and Shapiro. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R rcat" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R rcat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Template:R rcat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

DiminutivesEdit

Please don't add diminutives to lead sections, per WP:DIMINUTIVE. This applies even to fictional characters like Cara Dune. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I think you are misreading the guideline. Discuss at Talk:Cara Dune#Nickname in lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@JJNito197: your recent edit summary indicates you don't think a given claim "needs" a citation. On Wikipedia, all information must be attributable to a published source. The source must support the text directly. Citing a general dictionary definition of a completely different word is not enough, and is a form of original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: I had no intention of rolling back this edit, and was not even aware that I had done so – an apparent drawback to the ease with which that button can be clicked while scrolling one's watchlist. BD2412 T 05:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the note, friendly talk page watcher ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin (politics)Edit

Love your edit in Jacobin_(politics).

That reference is for a set of 4 standalone books each with their own page numbering, covers and publication info. So there are multiple page 360s. The quote used is from the 2nd book - Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond or The Secret Witness with Related Texts (book cover within the set: https://books.google.com/books?id=J6otAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA355#v=onepage&q&f=false). Sadly the books are not distinguished by volume # and lack reference to being part of a set - so how to fix this? Maybe cite Ormond and add in some fashion: "In: Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland, Ormond, Arthur Mervyn, and Edgar Huntly"? Not sure how to do this.

As you note, the sentence covers attitudes in that period. This is noted in the article's United_Kingdom section. So the sentence could be moved there, but should be rewritten. Skingski (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Skingski: Interesting. I just used the page linked in the original citation, not noticing that page numbers were repeated. Since the quote is from the editors' introduction to a chapter in the "Related Texts" section, I don't think attributing the usage to the novel itself would help. I agree with moving the sentence to the UK section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I should've looked this up before. I just found the standalone book here: https://books.google.com/books?id=UuD5Vge4mTwC&q=jacobin#v=snippet&q=jacobin&f=false
Hmmm... attribution tough since the notes are for a work of fiction. So we delete this reference? I can move the sentence and add a "citation needed" tag. Skingski (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I think the reference is good, since the "related texts" are discussed in a real-world context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WokeEdit

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

Planet AidEdit

Just responded to your entry on my talk page. Wanted to let you know. 50.242.216.153 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Just StopEdit

Honestly every five seconds you find a new thing to complain at me for. Can you please leave me alone? I just want to edit in peace without this. Mohammad (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your beliefsEdit

Why would you claim another user advocates for white genocide, knowing it's a conspiracy theory with no grounds in reality? What were you attempting to do? 92.5.188.248 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I did. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's right there in your accusation, as unfounded it is. Detainment and/or deportation for acts of terrorism are not the destruction of an ethnic group. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Saying an entire ethnic group should be "purged" is the definition of advocating for ethnic cleansing, i.e. genocide. Please review WP:NOTHERE if you want to avoid another block (assuming these are your edits). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
White genocide is a conspiracy theory, nobody is advocating for genocide targeted at whites. That's a Fascist far right neo Nazi Trump supporting white supremacist talking point that only the alt right care about. The same groups who are pro genocide and support terrorism. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing Antiziganism categories from Neo-Nazis in politicsEdit

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I saw you've been removing antiziganism and/or racism categories from a number of BLPs. In plenty of cases I agree with you. But in a number of cases I'm concerned that you've removed categories that well describe and are in fact central to the BLP. For instance:

  • Ferenc Szaniszló - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Hungary" here [13], but Szaniszló is (in)famous for his anti-roma and anti-semitic politics [14][15][16], and is considered close to the neo-Nazi far right in Hungary [17]. This is well documented in the article. Szaniszló is on my watch list and that's how noticed a few more problematic removals.
  • Marian Kotleba - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [18]. Reliable sources write that Kotleba is a Slovak neo-Nazi, formerly the head the neo-Nazi Togetherness-National Party that's banned in Slovakia [19]. His anti-semitic, anti-muslim, and anti-Roma politics are well known and described in the article [20][21].
  • Milan Mazurek - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [22], but Mazurek is a deputy in the far-right People’s Party Our Slovakia [23], founded by Kotleba, who according to sources is a neo-Nazi [24]. Mazurek calls Roma "animals" (among other things) [25][26]. Local media write that Mazurek has praised Hitler in social media posts, and the Slovak Supreme Court removed him from parliament as a result of his statements [27].
  • Ján Slota - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [28]. Professor Cas Mudde has a lengthy commentary on Slota in his book "Racist extremism in central and eastern Europe," mostly pages 214-216 (Routledge 2005). He calls Hungarians a "malicious, nasty nation" that "came in" and "expanded"... from central Asia." He said that 70 % of Roma are criminals, many of whom should perhaps be killed. Mudde describes Slota's statements as "openly racist and xenophobic." Apparently the leadership of the youth wing of the party that Slota leads is often staffed by skinheads (neo-Nazis).

For these reasons, for these BLPs at least, I'm restoring these tags. Since many of your tag removals seem justified, I suspect you didn't look closely at these few far-right biographies. Really, individuals like this should be in categories related to racism, xenophobia, and neo-Nazi politics so that researchers or students can use the categories to study these phenomena. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I have come across this discussion [29] (permanent link here [30]) where you, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, William Allen Simpson, Masem, and Namiba - all editors I respect - decided on this change, implemented here [31]. I agree with you all that these categories are frequently misused and misapplied, and that this is a serious and egregious problem. Some of your recent removals of categories from a number of BLPs address these misapplications. However, many political figures really do lead fascist groups, or infamously describe Roma as "animals," etc. How are researchers using the encyclopedia supposed to navigate well-known fascist or ultra-right nationalist political figures? "Far-right nationalist" is often used as a euphemism for neo-Nazism or fascism in Europe, but I don't think we should be using euphemisms in a polite encyclopedia. Don't you think a larger discussion of this issue is needed? -Darouet (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom Hull BLPEdit

Hey man, I saw your name at the BLP project page and thought you'd be the right person to ask. Would Tom Hull (critic) encounter sourcing issues if I nominated it for GA? A lot of it is sourced to interview/self-published accounts by Hull. isento (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the GA process, sorry. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jessica Yaniv 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 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Moates 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 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person 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 18:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Added informationEdit

Greetings! I definitely don't want to make you feel like you should change anything, but wanted to provide you with some additional information that you can use, or not use, as you see fit: [32][33]. Okay, that's it! Now you can do whatever you want.

Good day, stay safe. Benevolent human (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If you thought I was unaware of that information, please see my edits to the article as well as this archived RfC. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ismail I 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 12:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RfDEdit

When nominating a redirect for deletion, please check if it's an AfC redirect, and also notify the requester of the redirect. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)