User talk:Sangdeboeuf

239:

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'

1990: 83: 1019: 2137: 159: 4957: 3828: 3780: 3732: 3652: 3402: 3235: 2869: 2821: 1815: 1767: 1719: 1671: 1150: 1102: 1054: 967: 824: 392: 344: 4666: 2546: 701: 3287: 3597: 23: 1383: 3338:. And furthermore that this happened after the editor was apprised of the CTOP classification for gender etc. Do you think that is the sort of thing that one could make the core of an AE filing? (I've never done it before and having trouble finding an understandable answer to this question in the copious documentation around AE and CTOP.) If this is not of interest to you, sorry for the bother. -- 3521: 3458: 2766: 2703: 2640: 635: 489: 444: 2171:. I've often thought it was tedious putting these links together and there had to be a better way. They're probably second nature to you now, but I bet you remember the initial learning curve. Plus, once you have them, they look mysterious in the wikicode to the average editor. At the same time, there ought to be an easier on-ramp for other editors who feel comfortable enough using 2092:

sex positive movement. She has been a minor figure in the sex positive movement for years and also is a major sex-work activist which naturally is seen as a feminist issue. I don't know where we draw the line between dialogue and patriarchal intellectual hegemony on with respect to this page. Please help me understand more and teach me please.

798:, 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! 1926:" to categorize hate groups, without stating their rationale for no longer doing so? Your edits so far indicate a desire to portray pro-black groups & beliefs as hateful, contrary to what reliable sources state. Even if you believe this is true, Knowledge is not the place to make this argument. See 4055:

link as it is kinda redundant, but I won't relax my stance on direct link to pharyngula comment. This is the source material. Nothing is going to be a better source than a direct (albeit archived) link. Let alone providing a reader with a book citation that can't be accessed as easily is a little bit

2091:

As requested I added the citations you men requested in reference to Nina Hartley and her many connections with Feminism. I understand while the world would agree she is a feminist and that title is only given to a select few women of extreme prominence it is a known fact she is a minor figure in the

1532:

Yes, it's fine to just list the birth year in order to err on the side of caution in case the borderline notable person objects to its inclusion. This is clearly not the case here with Jenna Haze since the citation itself IS her publicaly disclosing that information. If you still object, I suggest we

238:

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

3159:

Of course I understand the sensitivity in this topic area and thank you for patrolling BLP violations in general. I wouldn't ask you to undo your reverts if these sources didn't appear to be explicit about DOBs. Referring to 2023-06-15 as "the day I turned 37" and identifying 2019-10-07 as the "Last

3879:

I stumbled upon something similar to this probably a year ago and forgot to save it. Unfortunately, I have no idea what noticeboard led me to it not the context of the page itself. All I seem to recall of it is it had red text with what the editor wanted to be changed ('this section should be moved

2266:

I did too, and started to reverse-engineer it, like you obviously did, too. Params rev and article are optional, and when neither is specified, it creates a link to the same page as the template (like sfn or harv). If you add the template to a mainspace article, it tries to link the full citation,

1197:

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

1283:

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

3575:

You know what this is about. You are treating the date of December 11, in a talk page, like an anathema, and you are dictatorially removing it. I do not have a problem continuing to post the date, until physically stopped by being blocked. I am trying to be civil, but you are exhibiting rude,

2979:

Hello again, I have added a few sources, deleted one sentence of OR, and deleted your OR tag. I will add further/stronger sources as I find them. This is now one of the better WP articles on a subject of this type, so if you still feel the need to tag it, a more detailed explanation would be

2290:

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

1555:

is borderline notable. Notability applies to the subject themselves, not just a given piece of information. Once again, if the subject is borderline notable as determined by coverage in independent reliable sources, it's fine to just list the birth year, whether they object or not. See

1262:

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.

262:

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.

564:

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.

2227:

Sfnlink is configurable in several ways beyond this; you can find details at the template. I haven't advertised it yet, and I've come to a stopping point in development, so I thought I'd ask for your feedback before I do. Let me know what you think. Cheers,

1649:

doesn't list the date of publication. If we're going to have the date in a footnote, then I don't think we should use this as the primary link. Marking the URL status as "unfit" hides the link so that readers are sent to the archived version with the date.

4092:

Sorry, but you are using an argument of an article that isn't even real. How can a supposed who-know-when edit prevent an edit of a real, current article. Please allow this edit and then, when the time comes it can be remodelled as you or others wish.

3875:

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

4515:. So that means "I won't change my mind unless you can provide direct arguments against the content of that guideline", not that I will never change my mind. I mean - your previous arguments are fallacious and don't directly touch the matter of 2363:

and get the same result; how does that sound? So, to make sure I understand: the new output would be exactly as it is now, except no parens, so there would be one space following the name, and YYYY would follow the space; is that right?

1443:

A tweet by the subject saying "happy birthday 2 me" is not sufficient to establish the birth date of a living person. Different sources should not be combined to extrapolate the date of birth. This would be original research. Thank you.

4496:

I've just stated my current limit. I also said that secondary source can be dropped, so it shows I can be agreeable. I could've concealed that, but I'm mentioning that only after making sure I'm in the right by checking WP directions.

1487:

Regarding Jenna Haze, the difference between notability and verifiablity is noted. And the basis for you disputing the inclusion of her full DOB is per borderline notability despite the citation itself literally being the subject

2251:

of the article. The template looks much more logical and streamlined. I like the different options for linking to a named page as well as a numbered revision. What happens if neither the revision nor article are specified?

4559:, so it would not undermine the policy, but explain it, right? Policies you've provided don't say anything direct about our dispute (unless you can give me a quote, I've only skimmed through it). WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD does. 2156:

We are both members of a probably smallish club of users that are comfortable creating CITEREF-based wikilinks; I've seen your work at various articles, including complex examples such as the "power-user" one at

4015:

I haven't found any guideline that says it's only possible for "best" source to only be used and others should not be mentioned in the article, so you can clarify this also if you want. More important is that

2963:

Hi Sangdeboeuf, It would be helpful to know which bits you find problematic. There are only one or two sentences that aren't sourced and/or wikilinked. If they are the problem, I will be happy to delete them.

179:

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 Knowledge user Sangdeboeuf?" Regardless, made me chuckle and think of you :)

2398:

and see if it does what you want. (You don't have to put 'yes', you can put 'y', or '1', or 'true', or even 'no' and it will do the same thing.) Lmk if you find anything; also, it might not work at all.

2575:. 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 730:. 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 1496:

object to the inclusion of the info and therefore we need to consider supposedly "erring on the side of caution." If no other justification exists to dispute its inclusion, have I not met the onus?

4839:) in which you decided that the removal of unrepeated reference names was obviously incorrect and that spaces were better than hyphens without even having a discussion. Now please self-revert. 4579:

quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Knowledge, try not to

2520:

does. Unlike citeref, it works from any page, like this. This completes my activity with these templates, at least for now. Bug reports, enhancement proposals, and feedback always welcome at

4078:

It's a moot point, since that section has too many quotations as is. The Richard Dawkins quote is better paraphrased than simply copy-pasted, for which a secondary source is better.anywa.y —

3507: 3042:

As per title, really. It can be difficult to uphold policies when people are being largely uncooperative; as a passing editor, I have a lot of respect for not just giving up and moving on!

2337:

Not currently, but that would be an easy change. I'm trying to think of the best way to handle it to keep it simple for users who like it one way, or the other. Maybe a new sfnlink param

3880:

further down') and green or blue text with what they wanted added ('We should add a section here on how to properly leave a breadcrumb trail for users like Awshort who are forgetful.').

3585: 3570: 2591: 2069: 2068:

Hello, following your idea on creating an article for the discrimination against men, I've started working on a draft. Please would you review it or provide feedbacks? The article is

746: 2560: 715: 4265:

As an aside, it's a mystery why you are so fixated on the primary source for the Dawkins quotation. Do you doubt the authenticity of the book citation currently in the article? —

4887:

I wasn't aware of your prior edit/s to replaces hyphens with spaces until after you made the second revert listed above and I looked at the article edit history. So lay off the

2626: 434: 5042:

You're welcome to add the material yourself, provided you cite sources that support the addition in the context of reverse racism. The previous text I removed didn't do that. —

3923: 3540: 3444: 2752: 3577: 2689: 647: 625: 479: 456: 2785: 2722: 2659: 501: 3477: 4032:. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. 680: 654: 3334:(after having made contentious and swiftly reverted edits to both, though not edit-warring), and also pushing some obviously argumentative content into the lead at 2287:

is an almost equivalent option, although you can't change the link text in that one. Feel free to adjust the doc, if you think this needs to be clearer, or I could.

4337:

Then your fourth point is irrelevant. Please stop wasting my time with this. If you have further comments to make, take them to the article talk page. Thank you. —

4282:

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

4951: 3870: 3822: 3774: 3726: 3646: 3396: 3229: 2863: 2815: 1809: 1761: 244: 4169: 4005: 2463:

anymore. I tagged it as beta until we have sufficient usage of it. In the meantime, please add any bugs or comments to its Talk page. Hope you find it useful!

1713: 1665: 1144: 1096: 1048: 961: 818: 386: 1492:

publicly disclosing that info. It's not merely an isolated third-party source independent of the subject whereby it can possibly be inferred that the subject

3242: 1284:

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...

4113:

While quotations are an indispensable part of Knowledge, try not to overuse them. Too many quotations are incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style...

4613: 4564: 4524: 4502: 4447: 4356: 4328: 4296: 4213: 4181: 4145: 4098: 4061: 2453: 2429: 2345: 831: 781: 678: 652: 338: 3565: 1637: 1621: 660: 524: 2158: 1966:. I've also filed a copy edit request but wanted to ping you as well. Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance if there's anything you can do. Cheers. 1615:

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

3900: 2876: 474: 240: 3713: 3581: 2684: 4670: 3502: 2810: 2213:

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

2012: 513: 2747: 1884:

I appreciate the copywriting instead of just reverting, can you help me understand why we'd include the SPLC's POV instead of just their numbers?

4609: 4560: 4520: 4498: 4443: 4352: 4324: 4292: 4209: 4177: 4141: 4094: 4073: 4057: 2917: 1534: 1497: 1429: 1428:

I cited Tory Lane's social media account. Why do you claim that's a poor source? Also, please view my revert/edit summary on Jenna Haze article.

2510:

of being able to link to any citation with a CITEREF-based anchor, but links it via a numeric superscript tag, just like a regular footnote or

2435:

yet, but I'll get to it eventually, and in the meantime, it should work with the 'nb' param. The template doc page should answer any questions.

4817:

to a more useful one that mentioned the author's last name. If you really think this is worth administrator attention then file a complaint at

3446: 3034: 2618: 2018:

Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Knowledge’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.

1241: 773: 4065: 3895: 3202:

is the day I turned 37". The sources don't actually identify the day in question. Regardless of how you or I read the intent of these posts,

1922:). You introduced bias when you selectively cited certain details out of context.Why would you include the fact that the SPLC used the term " 1303: 4994: 3865: 3817: 3769: 3689: 3439: 3272: 2906: 2858: 1852: 1804: 1887:

Trying to act in good faith, but I don't understand why I'm taking hits on bias and pov, when the sources themselves contain bias and pov?

1756: 1708: 1187: 1139: 1091: 1004: 861: 429: 5004:

I can't say that I appreciate your flourish of dropping bad faith assumptions in edit comments - but you do you. Feel free to weigh in at

209: 2108: 1242: 813: 381: 1257: 3961: 543: 3176:

per WP:DOB). I'll leave you with that and understand if you're not persuaded. Please refrain from sending me templates in the future.

2267:

hopefully found in "References" (or "Works cited", etc.); if the template is on a Talk page, it'll look for something resolved by a

2220: 3787: 3051: 2216: 1109: 259: 1643: 53:. Some people will insist that this information is vital to the project and will accuse others of censoring Knowledge to suppress 2989: 871: 4241:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.

2538: 2008:

team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.

1906:. We strive to put data in context according to reliable sources, and the SPLC is considered a reliable source on hate groups ( 1398:

button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks!

1299: 1278: 1198:

supporters of hers simply trying to remove any and all negative info, essentially turning her page into an endorsement of her.

693: 253: 3353:

Hypothetically, there would be a very good case for a strong warning from ArbCom and possibly sanctions, especially regarding

882:" is even worse because it's a book written by a feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers), i.e. it's not even entirely anti-feminist 544:"an observation, ironically spoken by Gertrude, on the overacting of the grieving Player Queen in the play-within-the-play in 3092:(one says she turned 37 yesterday, another that she turns 50 tomorrow, and other posts affirm the respective dates). Thanks. 3013: 1235: 4769:

First one wasn't a revert, and second one was more than 24 hours after the first. But if you want to report me for removing

4170:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110818212451/https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comment-4295492

2054: 1335: 275: 3001: 2614: 974: 769: 686: 2165: 2144: 332: 313: 166: 4912: 4882: 4856: 4830: 4808: 4782: 2995: 1939: 1212: 294: 3365:

is actually pretty easy; I've done it once I think. The edit window has instructions on what documentation to provide. —

2120: 1659: 5079: 5065: 5051: 4933: 4410: 3531: 3513: 3468: 3450: 3028: 2776: 2758: 2713: 2695: 2650: 2632: 1629: 1370: 643: 627: 527:. How is "meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed" ironic? 497: 481: 452: 436: 4895:

the appropriate response should be to self-revert regardless of your thoughts about being right or how trivial it is.

3883:

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

194: 3388: 3374: 3302: 3219: 3189: 3154: 2081: 1061: 898:

article, antifeminists do think that feminists indeed ignore men's issues and claim that men only have "privileges".

36: 4639: 4617: 4595: 4568: 4550: 4506: 4491: 4465: 4451: 4433: 4392: 4360: 4346: 4332: 4314: 4300: 4274: 4252: 4231: 4217: 4203: 4185: 4163: 4149: 4128: 4102: 4087: 2952: 2444: 2408: 2387: 2373: 2332: 2307: 2261: 1569: 1542: 1533:

solicit third-party opinions from other editors on the article talkpage or elsewhere in order to reach a consensus.

1527: 1505: 1478: 1453: 613: 588: 574: 559: 1411: 1040: 955: 191: 5017: 4528: 3409: 3185: 3101: 2610: 2472: 765: 351: 108: 104: 100: 96: 3721: 901:

The cherry of the cake is that I sorted those references in alphabetical order, but your revert also undid this.

4573:

Fine. Once you are familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines, we can continue. You might begin here:

4000: 3739: 1980: 2973: 2939:

regardless of whether it's personal info or filmography. At the very least citing user-created databases lend

1355: 49:

to justify inclusion of less reliably sourced information such as trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially

5005: 4684: 2533: 2237: 2063: 280: 3971: 3641: 3313: 4763: 3942: 3558: 3495: 2803: 2740: 2677: 2584: 1600: 1295: 1274: 739: 4482:

is not a great indicator of good-faith dialogue or consensus building. I would reconsider that attitude. —

2101: 4919: 2916:

Is IAFD a reliable/appropriate source with regards to citing how many films a performer has appeared in?

2596: 1726: 1208: 1031:

Thank you for the edits and fixes on the "List of age-related terms with negative connotations" article!

751: 579:

Fine. Ignore my previous comment. We still go by what RSes say, and this one says the usage is ironic. --

138: 1418: 233: 2985: 2969: 2828: 1927: 1437: 536: 504:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —

2195: 2168: 2107:

Sangdeboeuf, I know you have left a message with this editor regarding previous accounts. Please see

1595: 1394:

to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the

650:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

459:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

5027:

Can you please restore the 2023 Supreme Court case that you deleted from the Reverse racism article?

4048:" is appropriate. This is literally the situation we have here -- my source supports a direct quote. 3615: 2050: 1192: 1157: 1975: 5036: 5013: 3605:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

2295: 1903: 1896: 1678: 1036: 309: 301: 148: 4977: