Open main menu

This editor is a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil.


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

Just trying to understand for myself what the whole thing is. "Torturously complex" doesn't begin to describe it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I want to give you my thanks as well. Normally I'd use the thanks tool but you've been prolific and the sum total is just great. Goodonye. --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Out of interest, can I get a link for this one? I've never heard anyone associated with a mainstream, left-leaning site like Wikipedia suggest Gamergate is in any way complex. All the articles I've seen seemed to be very strongly representing a particular media narrative and nothing else. Have I just been looking at the wrong articles? Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe try reading the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I asked you for assistance and you responded by personally attacking me with sarcasm. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf made most of these changes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Content forkingEdit

Please read WP:RELAR. You have removed content citing WP:CONTENTFORK several times now, but merely duplicating content on several articles does not imply that the material is a content fork. This is only a notification, and I'm not watching this talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Order of bibliographiesEdit

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#ChristianEdit

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

idle questionEdit

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

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

Misunderstanding of Due WeightEdit

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

@Mrspaceowl: the burden is on you to obtain consensus for this addition. If you want to start a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You want me to obtain consensus for allowing 2% of an article to contain another opinion. I'm not going to call you a Nazi right now, because Jews didn't get that chance. Mrspaceowl (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Great. I appreciate that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


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


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)


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

Thoughts on Omar RFC close?Edit

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

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

A kitten for you!Edit


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

Geological foldEdit

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

Cleanup noticeEdit

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

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

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

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

MOS shortcutEdit

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

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


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)

Please comment on Talk:Donald WuerlEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Wuerl. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lil Nas XEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lil Nas X. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley KubrickEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TennisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protestsEdit

Please comment on Talk:Emerson, Lake & PalmerEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NormaniEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Normani. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald TrumpEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 September 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:Boris JohnsonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sangdeboeuf".