User talk:Sangdeboeuf/Archive 1

Among Other Things
Thanks for the improvements you've been making to articles, and also, out of curiosity, does your username refer to a porkpie hat made of a coconut, or a meatpie made with coconut?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Aligning tables
How can I edit the following table to align it with the right side of the page? Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Add style="float:right" to the first line, see Editing Wikitext/Tables. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Placement of text/image
What is the best way to edit the following layout so that the table and accompanying text always appear beneath the map image? &mdash;Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Place  below the image. ''' Datbubblegumdoe  talk  contribs  03:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Making sidebar visible in mobile view
How can I make Template:Corporal punishment visible in mobile view (example page: corporal punishment in the home), as is Template:Martin Luther King, Jr. sidebar on the page Martin Luther King, Jr. Day? I checked WP:SIDEBAR for guidance, but didn't find the answer there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sidebars generally are deliberately not displayed in mobile view; the Martin Luther King Jr. one, which is not based on the sidebar template, is an exception. I would advise against following that example unless there's a good reason to deviate from the norm. Huon (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Playfulness


The article Playfulness has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Charity watchdog for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charity watchdog is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charity watchdog until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Following rules
Coconutporkpie, I do not mean to butt heads with you or offend you, and would rather work with you than against you. I certainly prefer to discuss when necessary than to edit war. But I do feel that you often interpret Wikipedia's rules too strictly. That's why I replied the way I did to you in this section at Talk:Child abuse, in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, and, most recently, in this section on my talk page where Checkingfax weighed in. Rules should be followed, but not so rigidly; this is why people point to WP:Ignore all rules or WP:Common sense, or even the "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." part of the WP:Words to watch guideline. I know that you and SMcCandlish disagreed at Talk:Child abuse, but he can explain better than I can what I mean about not being too strict when it comes to following the rules. So, hopefully, he weighs in here and offers some advice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

School corporal punishment
Hello, I was just wondering why you thought there were no schools in the sense that we understand them in the Middle Ages. At least in the UK there were grammar schools in that era -- and even before (my own school was founded in the 8th century). I believe the use of CP in schools descends directly from that culture. So I am not persuaded that it was right to remove the birching drawing. -- Alarics (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Image has been restored as of 25 November. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Help w/image template
Following one of the examples at Template:Multiple image, I've tried to make a layout (below) using three images from Commons, but the images don't show up on the page. What am I missing? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You missed the part of the instructions that said "filename only, i.e. without "File:" or "Image:" prefix". JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate attempts alter the talk page at Ajax (play)
Please leave the talk page alone. The record of your pattern of recent poor behaviour there belongs where it is.  • DP •  {huh?} 22:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you may be overreacting here. Would you care to define "poor behavior" and provide examples of specific edits? —Coconutporkpie (talk) Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I would define poor behaviour as the latest in a tediously long line of inappropriate behaviours that the edit page details.  • DP •  {huh?} 01:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Your recent editing history at Talk:Ajax (play) 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit-war. I'm referring to this edit here, plus this edit and this edit. I would call that a perfect example of how not to follow the three-revert rule. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It takes one to ignore several editors' requests that you stop.  • DP •  {huh?} 01:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note
If archiving or moving of discussions has been objected to, please do not repeat the action unless there is consensus to do so. --Neil N  talk to me 00:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The AN3 complaint is now closed with a warning that you may be blocked if you archive again at Talk:Ajax (play) without getting prior consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "User:Coconutporkpie . . . appears to believe that it is fine to move material to talk archives against the wishes of of the other participants" – While I find such efforts at mind-reading to be impressive in terms of their audacity, it might be simpler to ask me what I believe. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have removed threads from Talk:Ajax (play) nine times since August 30. In most cases, someone else then reverted your change. A fact that suggests your removals did not have consensus. It also indicates a pattern of edit warring, which is a basis for admins to take action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And which of those things proves "belief" exactly? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for me to comment further here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that a way of saying that you cannot answer the question, or that you find the question to be inappropriate? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:EW is a policy, and it takes precedence over the guidelines you cite in edit summaries as reasons for archiving, such as WP:TALKO. If you believe that User:NeilN and I warned you inappropriately you can appeal at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Flight International. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Using sources
Supernumerary staff are additional staff members who complement the regular staff of a society or company. In the practice of human resource management, supernumerary staff are generally given a particular mission, which may or may not resemble the work of the regular staff. Their contract is generally temporary, although it may happen that they are their contribution is needed for the long term. The practice of remuneration may vary from either high remuneration to non-remuneration.

The two sources cited here define the concept of supernumerary staff members only for very specialized contexts, namely, that of the employment of European Space Agency scientists and staff members of Deakin University in Victoria, Australia, respectively. Therefore these sources are inappropriate for factual claims about the general nature of supernumerary employees. Basing generalized statements on these specialized sources would be a form of original research – see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the following citations that do not sufficiently verify statements made in the article:



The Québec government page once again defines supernumerary only in a very limited context, and so is inappropriate as a source for general factual claims; the Birmingham government page simply says nothing about the topic; the presence of a painting in a museum collection with supernumerario in the title verifies nothing about supernumerary accountants; and a curriculum vitae, as a self-published source, is not a reliable source of information for an encyclopedia article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition, none of the sources listed here show significant coverage of the topic as required to establish notability. All the mentions are essentially trivial ones. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hostile and ignorant AfD
Your substantial blanking, and then subsequent AfD of an article on the most well-known and long-standing aeronautics journal was either significant ignorance or a disruptive push. Doing it over the Christmas holidays makes it look even more like disruption. Now don't persist in edit-warring to blank most of it over and over again when you obviously know so little about the subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviation for "subspecies"
Hi, in the English Wikipedia, we always use "subsp." not "ssp."; see, e.g., Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You began reverting again, without talk page consensus, as soon as protection ended :-( Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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

Original theories on talk pages
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 WP:VP I'm reluctant to say WP:VPP because I got criticized for starting topics there, but I'm not sure WP:VPR is the right place either.

A Teahouse response also linked to Help talk:Using talk pages. That might be a place to propose the idea.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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

Original theories on talk pages
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 WP:VP I'm reluctant to say WP:VPP because I got criticized for starting topics there, but I'm not sure WP:VPR is the right place either.

A Teahouse response also linked to Help talk:Using talk pages. That might be a place to propose the idea.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity affects health?
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 Jenova  20  (email) 08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: 15 June 2017
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)

Toxic masculinity
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 Jenova  20  (email) 12:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please beware of introducing false balance into articles; criticism should always be treated with due weight. And Wikipedia doesn't publish "rebuttals"; it is not a debate society or a soapbox, but a summary of accepted knowledge on a topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 Jenova  20  (email) 08:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my edit referencing Sarsour tweet on Sharia law
Dear Sangdeboeuf,

You undid a two-line addition I made to Linda Sarsour's Wikipedia page, stating (bizarrely), "Not a reliable source." I used that particular source (out of many possible) because it alone posted the ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL, i.e. the actual image of the Sarsour tweet I quote (which is what is important -- as opposed to your personal opinion that CNSNews.com is not as reliable as Nytimes.com). Here was my addition:

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 Sharia law is quite infamous and well known. Its inclusion in a Wikipedia section on Sarsour's "Controversies" is vital as it may be the MOST controversial thing she has said. And, just as importantly, Sarsour's tweet provides CRITICAL context for the following paragraph on the statements by Ayaan Hirsi Ali about her. Are you even reading additions in context? The Ali paragraph is infinitely more coherent with my addition.

I must question your disinterest as regards Ms. Sarsour. Methinks perhaps it is not the source material that is "unreliable"... Christian B Martin (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at Wikipedia's policy on material relating to living people: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement [...] Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."


 * I'd also recommend reviewing WP:SYNTH on the topic of drawing inferences based on primary sources. Finally, if the only source to reproduce the original tweet is an explicitly partisan or ideologically-focused source, then WP:WEIGHT applies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Christian B Martin, Neither "TruthOrFiction" nor "CNSNews" are acceptable 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)

Sangdeboeuf, how many times have you reverted suer's edits on this particular page? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You may wish to have a loook at WP:BRD. A refresher on WP:AGF wouldn't hurt either. But article talk pages are not the forum for complaints such as this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries
Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption.

Hiding reinsertion of content under a "copy edit" summary - 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)


 * 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)

1RR vio
This is a 1RR vio of ARBPIA. 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)
 * WP:3RR and WP:1RR do not apply to removals of poorly-sourced, contentious material from WP:BLPs. Try again with reliable sources that actually support what you want to say without involving original analysis and interpretations. See also WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

3RR
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Please refrain from adding poorly-sourced material against consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am giving you one more chance to self-revert. Here are your 4 reverts    James J. Lambden (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Keegan
Not intending to badger but from your comment at Talk:Gillian Keegan I think you may have not seen the third photo. That is the cropped version which was in the article until earlier today and is probably the better of the two green ones. It is linked near to the top of the RfC but not displayed on the page. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, you may want to amend the RfC to show all three images. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that but, stupid though it may sound, I've never done an RfC before and I'm not sure that I can amend it without someone kicking off. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny that I should be mentioned as somebody who may add that pic. I actually tried earlier today, but I am incompetent in these things and gave up. The preview had the image twenty times bigger than the two extant images. Good grief;) -Roxy the dog. bark 21:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julie Payette
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julie Payette. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I still say the page looks scrubbed. Randal Oulton (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, suggest whatever addition you think is appropriate. But please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to spread sensationalistic claims. The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered. Any allegations of impropriety need documentation from multiple published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Generations
You maintenance tagged it in March as having OR/Synth and I can see since then you have made a large effort in improving the article. Does the issue still remain? I cant see anything in the current version that really qualifies as OR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lada (mythology)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lada (mythology) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lada (mythology)
The article Lada (mythology) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lada (mythology) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Teresita (given name)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Teresita (given name), Sangdeboeuf!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice work! Keep up the good job. :-)"

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 13:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row incident
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row incident. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Your recent editing history at Cathy Newman 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Neil N  talk to me 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You know you're risking a block, right? --Neil N  talk to me 20:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1.) is unsourced or poorly sourced". All my reverts have been justified. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're counting on the BLP exemption for WP:3RR... don't. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't speak veiled threat, sorry. If I have misread something in Wikpedia's policies, kindly say so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The lady doth... phrase or line
Re my revert of your recent edits to The lady doth protest too much, methinks, if you really want to describe this whole sentence as a mere phrase, I suggest you raise a discussion on its talk page. Batternut (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The lady doth... get better by the day
Just in passing, while we may take different views upon formatting, I'd just like to give some thanks for the work you have put in at The lady doth protest too much, methinks over the last week or two. The general improvements are not going unnoticed! Batternut (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please explain reversion
I don't understand your reversion of my summary statement in the lead of the Linda Sarsour article. My statement is abundantly verified throughout the article, and a lead is proper if it is a good summary, not a repetition of all the points it refers to. Would it help if I pointed out to you the places where "She has demonstrated an interest in a wide range of human rights issues, and has advocated for such consistency," or is there something else you are looking for? Jzsj (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't state that someone has "an interest" in something as if it were fact. Interests, feelings, motives, etc. are internal states – they are not observable and thus not verifiable. We can only state what a person has said about their interests etc., as long as enough reliable sources have mentioned it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But I didn't say she "has" an interest, but that she "demonstrated" such an interest (which may be phony but her words and actions referenced in the article are a "demonstration" of such interest). Again, would it help if I pointed to the diversity of her interests in the article? I'm not sure what you want to make the lead acceptable. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how a person can demonstrate an interest without first having an interest. At any rate, your statement appears to be a novel synthesis of various sources, which would be original research and therefore prohibited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice you've put a lot of work into this article and know a lot about the subject, but prefer not to fulfil this requirement yourself. I'd like to if you tell me more clearly where my effort falls short: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. Would you see the following rewording as satisfying the above conditions given in the guidelines for lead sections: "She has been active in a wide range of human rights issues, and has advocated for such consistency." How much of a detailing of issues do you require in the lead, when it seems evident that her Muslim experience is what triggered her activism. How do you better summarize her diverse involvement, with all its nuance? Jzsj (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything more to add. This is a topic better suited to the article talk page anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Biographies must also avoid promoting their subject in subjective terms. That's a big part of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a truism. But please see my response just above. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)