User talk:Sangdeboeuf: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Massive Trophy
	hi K9Woof (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Here's a star for being great at Wikipedia. Have an amazing day. K9Woof (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you were talking about on the Help Desk sounds like a major change in how talk pages are done. This would require consensus, but you could propose the idea at

A Teahouse response also linked to

Just posting this up here to make sure you saw. Anon left no edit summary but it seems valid anyway. This is a contentious topic without using Original Research and Synthesis (and in the lede no less). My hope is that you either leave this removed or reliably source it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your spectacular and almost impossible save of the Toxic Masculinity article from buzzfeed standard to something decently constructed with sourcing to match. ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving me a barnstar, Sangdeboeuf! That was very thoughtful of you, and I appreciate your appreciation a lot. :) (Also, apologies if editing your talk page like this is not the best way to thank you; I looked around but was unable to find a clear guide on the proper way to respond.) Cardboardconfines (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May not have source it as well as you would have but i've added the necessary rebuttal to the topic if you want to take a look. Lets continue any discussions on the talk page there to keep it open to all. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please beware of introducing

summary of accepted knowledge on a topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia also does not Censor itself because someone may disagree with content. I have multiple reliable sources, including big name feminists openly declaring this as a myth and a tool to attack and reeducate men from an early age. If you disagree with that I expect you to take it to the the talk page. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In recognition of the exceptional, meticulous thought and work you are putting into cleaning up the Stolen Generations article. You are a credit to the project! Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sangdeboeuf,

You undid a two-line addition I made to

Sarsour has openly supported Sharia law (a system that punishes women and men with, among other things, flogging, amputation, and stoning). For example, Sarsour referred to Sharia as "reasonable," tweeting (in 2011): "once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense."

This 2011 tweet by Sarsour in support of

I'd also recommend reviewing

WP:WEIGHT applies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

reliable sources - one appears to be little more than an anonymous Internet blog, and the other is a right-wing house organ with no journalistic credentials or reputation. The only marginally-acceptable source there is Snopes, and if the only source you can find is Snopes, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sangdeboeuf, how many times have you reverted suer's edits on this particular page? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to have a loook at

complaints such as this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading

Hiding reinsertion of content under a "copy edit" summary [1]- content that was objected to by others editors and which can not be described in any way as a copy edit - is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, Iceman. If you read to the end of that paragraph you will see that Milo and Geller are mentioned already. When moving the text I hit "copy" instead of "cut" by mistake. You might want a refresher on

WP:AGF. Also, you just put their names back where they were originally, so what is your objection exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a 1RR vio of ARBPIA [2]. I urge you to self revert. Also, it would be nice if instead of blanket reverting you would fix the phrasing that you object to.Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made 4 reverts. Please self-revert and I won't report it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]