User talk:Sangdeboeuf

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

Whats in a name?

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)

A goat for you!

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)

i√ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:798:46A2:2F6E:68FE:422D:97EE (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Nick Cannon

Hello. I did some digging and I found this old CfD: [1]. 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: [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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 references

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/redirect

• You recently moved/redirected Masonic lodge officers to Masonic lodge officer, citing WP:SINGULAR as the rational.

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)

Sorry

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

Assuming [6][7] are your edits: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, for starters. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

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"?

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)

Diminutives

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)

Jacobin (politics)

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)

Woke

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

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)

Planet Aid

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)

Your beliefs

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 politics

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 [8], but Szaniszló is (in)famous for his anti-roma and anti-semitic politics [9][10][11], and is considered close to the neo-Nazi far right in Hungary [12]. 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 [13]. Reliable sources write that Kotleba is a Slovak neo-Nazi, formerly the head the neo-Nazi Togetherness-National Party that's banned in Slovakia [14]. His anti-semitic, anti-muslim, and anti-Roma politics are well known and described in the article [15][16].
• Milan Mazurek - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [17], but Mazurek is a deputy in the far-right People’s Party Our Slovakia [18], founded by Kotleba, who according to sources is a neo-Nazi [19]. Mazurek calls Roma "animals" (among other things) [20][21]. 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 [22].
• Ján Slota - you removed "Category:Antiziganism in Slovakia" here [23]. 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 [24] (permanent link here [25]) where you, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, William Allen Simpson, Masem, and Namiba - all editors I respect - decided on this change, implemented here [26]. 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 BLP

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)

Added information

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: [27][28]. 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)

RfD

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)

Reversion of edit to Rule of Thumb

I had done some editing and reorganization of the article and found it reverted with a reference to MOS:LEAD. I did remove a substantial amount of text from the lead, but that text was verbatim copied from the text below, and though it referenced an aspect of the phrase, it by no means was the most significant aspect, and certainly not a deeper discussion within the article lead itself.

In addition, I changed the opening test from the extremely opaque "The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation" to "In English, rule of thumb refers to an approximate method for doing something, based on practical experience rather than theory" (which was the secondary definition previously).

I don't want to revert a revert without a discussion; can you offer some thoughts here? I would like to revert back to my version of the article; if you feel that the lead is now insufficient, a better approach would be to add additional text as a summary of the content below, not a direct copy of the content below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauciusa (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead section exists to convey the most important points of the article. The folk etymology is the aspect covered in the most published sources; therefore it is highly significant. If you feel that the lead is too wordy or repetitive, a better approach would be re-wording it to be more concise, not removing whole paragraphs outright or adding examples without citing any sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Woke

Thank you for you feedback. However, wikipedia has to be balanced or neutral and written as an encyclopedia by including a variety of perspectives. The woke page already cites commentators (one could argue some of these are random such as a writer for Vox) and suggests that woke is only criticised by the right to belittle BLM etc, or is inherently a good thing. The tone of the page has been edited and gatekeeped in that direction. I would also say John McWhorter isn't a "random" commentator, but is an academic and writer who has covered the subject. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not what "balanced" or "neutral" mean on Wikipedia. We follow the most reliable sources; we don't invent arbitrary litmus tests for a source's political leanings. McWhorter is a linguist. His political commentary carries no special weight. If there are other opinion commentators cited, they should be removed as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Racism in Japan

The current title was endorsed without a single dissenting comment just few months ago: Talk:Racism_in_Japan#Requested_move_19_March_2021 . If you'd like to change it, please start your own WP:RM, but please consider that pretty much all other articles in Category:Racism by country use the simple Racism in Fooland name. Exceptions can IMHO only lead to whitewashing ("no, my country has no racism, just ethnic/racial issues"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case the lead section doesn't actually describe the topic of the article. In addition to a lead re-write, maybe some of the material under § Demographics and § Japanese ethnic minorities could be merged into a different article, say, Demographics of Japan. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are right about the fixes needed. It's an artifact of the old name which conflated racism with vaguely defined 'ethnic issues' I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade

Thanks for your edits on Nicholas Wade. However, be warned you are likely to face a heavy-handed and vociferous armada active at Talk:Nicholas Wade. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem; I don't have a horse in this particular race. See my comments at Talk:Nicholas Wade § "See also" link. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Theory

Glad to see your participation there even if we don't end up !voting the same. I understand where you're coming from to have the same concerns as mine, if we didn't have COMMONNAME I'd most probably select "claims". Per one of my comments there, it might even be "conspiracy theory" at some point in the future, or "<name> lab leak incident", who knows. Just friendly chat that I didn't think belonged on the article talk page... —PaleoNeonate – 04:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Time

Time is relative when you are moving quickly; it's the theory of special editing relativity. I apologize. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I hear trout is tasty this time of year ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But an appropriate fish would be three weeks or so old. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverse racism

My edit to this page did not introduce any controversial new statements, as you claimed. It was a correction of the definition and presentation of the concept; the previous version of the page blatantly tried to present "reverse racism" as a made-up term used by racist people, rather than one referencing very real phenomena. Yuotort (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, "anti-white racism" was previously a redirect to "reverse racism", making the page's presentation as it has been particularly inexcusable. Yuotort (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not cite a source for your supposed "corrections". See Talk:Reverse racism#Recent edits. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: 2019 El Paso shooting

Apologies, I meant to hit undo, but somehow I ended up rollbacking instead, which is supposed to be reserved for vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm mystified how anyone can read This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas as anything other than an expression of white supremacy. In any case, I've added two more RSes; hopefully they prove satisfactory. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WTF dude?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Yuotort_reported_by_User:Sangdeboeuf_(Result:_) As I've repeatedly said, I am not adding any contentious material whatsoever, I'm just correcting ignorant and biased wordings. You specifically have acted on this several times now. Stop stalking me. Yuotort (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Like, how the actual fuck is "reverse racism" supposed to be a conservative practice? Please show me some examples of conservative agendas perpetuating unfair advantages to black people? Yuotort (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You could try reading the cited sources for starters. Cheers! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mia Khalifa

Please argue in the talk page why you think the sources are unreliable. You cannot revert a referenced edit without giving valid arguments. --BartocX (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like your addition was reverted again per WP:BLPRESTORE. It's on you to show that the sources are reliable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

You come across as a leftwing activist who uses Wikipedia as a platform to spread bias and misinformation, believes that ethnic populations in America are tribal who are in competition referring to the white population as 'domaninant" Doesn't belive in reverse racisim on the bases that minority's arnt the "domaninant" group. Plumb7589 (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Those words, incidentally, are spelled aren't, minorities, and dominant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. Need your advice as a specialist. A journalistic investigation was released about the huge amount of real estate in one of the persons. There is no confirmation of this official information. This person claimed that this was not her property. The source in which the journalistic investigation was published is not authoritative, but the information from this journalistic investigation was literally reprinted by several well-known and authoritative publications. Just reprinted it, without analyzing this information and evaluating it. Can we add this information by referring to these authoritative publications? Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:43D5:327A:4D0F:9AB5:FA43:3C44 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Eternity News updates.

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

IAFD

I read your edit summary and just wanted to mention here that in my latest edit I didn't re-add the birthday or other info sourced from IAFD. 156.204.196.58 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say when they were married, and self-published sources should not be used for material about third parties anyway. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I found this source [29] stating Dave Naz filed for divorce from Oriana Small on January 22, 2019. Can it be used? 156.204.196.58 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the last names being different, court records should not be used as BLP sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

You undid my edit on the stolen generations. Why?

The satatements were WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE. Discuss on the talk page please. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that. Can you explain why other than linking me two wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If you knew they were WP:UNDUE then why did you add them? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean that I already knew that you linked to those articles. What I'm asking is why that is. The view that the SG is a myth, while a minority, has been vocally made by numerous people and has been published in news articles before. This is a minor section, so it is not detracting from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree. Take it to the article talk page please. It would be helpful if, when you start a discussion there, you could directly cite the news articles you mention. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory, Rufo quote

Hi there, complete Wiki luddite here but a couple of days ago I happened to view and confirm the uncited Christopher Rufo quote which I now see was removed in this edit: 20:34, 4 November 2021‎ Sangdeboeuf talk contribs‎ 81,334 bytes −276‎ →‎United States: Quote not in source, "misuse" is POV

"Misuse" in the original version does seem like loaded language, but the quote itself - "I am quite intentionally redefining what 'critical race theory' means in the public mind, expanding it as a catchall for the new racial orthodoxy. People won't read Derrick Bell, but when their kid is labeled an 'oppressor' in first grade, that's now CRT" - can be confirmed in various retweets from a Google image search, for example three distinct versions/times:

https://twitter.com/Dialoguealways/status/1415654803141693452 https://twitter.com/frerogogo/status/1415026671003054096 https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1453837451408015360

With citation, it seems quite relevant to the controversy. Regards, Mithrae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.5.88 (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweets are self-published and not generally usable as sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Utada Hikaru 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, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taneli Tikka 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 10:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jack Posobiec 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 02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Latinx

Hi,

You recently undid one of my edits for the Latinx article, declaring that a non-notable polling firm is unsuitable for use in the lead. If this is the case, why is non-notable polling outfit "ThinkNow Research" allowed as a reference in the very same (lead) paragraph? See statement: "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx." Please clarify or revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the paragraph again. The references are to Fortune and Pew Research Center, not ThinkNow. The addition of the Bendixen poll does not meaningfully alter the statement either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

With the widespread coverage and the fact that the term has always been controversial, I don’t think it should be reverted. It isn’t undue and recent doesn’t really work with the something known to be unpopular. 2600:1700:1111:5940:297E:F34:CA72:1E71 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Sangdeboeuf read the paragraph again. The Forbes article explicitly says "ThinkNow launched a nationwide poll with a 508-person sample of Latinx/Latino/Hispanic people that they say is demographically representative of the census." You should actually read the article cited next time before making incorrect statements. In the interest of fairness, I still think my edit should be reverted, or the ThinkNow poll reference should be removed. Loltardo (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

So what? The paragraph says, "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2 to 3 percent use Latinx." It doesn't single out any one poll in Wikipedia's voice. Why should we do that with this latest one? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"How to Be an Antiracist" John McWhorter

I do not understand your stance on John McWhorter and why you believe his criticism of the book should be excluded from the page. You cited that he is not an expert in the field; which field? He has taught classes and lectured on the topic of race at Columbia University and based his critisims on that subject. You called two of the sources in my edit "propaganda;" to me this accusation is both unfounded and unfalsifiable, but I would like to hear what you were trying to say. Sorry for being so horribly blunt. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jim Henson 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 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Areo Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Areo Magazine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Areo Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[30]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lee Soon-ok 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 01:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Renzo Gracie 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 04:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth Olsen 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, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 19#MOS: TITLEABSENTBOLD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Louis X of France 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, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Evangelos Zappas 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 11:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution (Reverse Racism)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Gumbear (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

21 Convention (Manosphere)

Is Jezebel considered a "quality source" for a reference for mentioning "The 21 Convention" in the Manosphere article? Curious. Thank you. Related: Jezebel article Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful; see WP:JEZEBEL. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alice Walker 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, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Climbing bean" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Climbing bean and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Climbing bean until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"MOS:LONGDAB" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:LONGDAB and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#MOS:LONGDAB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Regarding this edit summary. How is "meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed" ironic? Kire1975 (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The cited source says so: "an observation, ironically spoken by Gertrude, on the overacting of the grieving Player Queen in the play-within-the-play in Hamlet". If you doubt the source's reliability, feel free to take it to the talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That source doesn't say "meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed". Even if it did, that's a literal not ironic definition. Alanis Morrisette said rain on your wedding day is ironic. It doesn't make it so. Kire1975 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Ignore my previous comment. We still go by what RSes say, and this one says the usage is ironic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This one says it's ironic, but it doesn't clarify why it's ironic. It's a WP:REDFLAG, at best: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Kire1975 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"MOS: HYPHEN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS: HYPHEN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#MOS: HYPHEN until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Same with MOS: NOPIPE and MOS: SURNAME, which I didn't realize you also created. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Adriana Chechik self-identified date of birth

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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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)

Nonsense

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)

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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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)

Alejandro/Social Media

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naarter

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

Nina Hartley

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...