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 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)[reply]

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 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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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 Arbitration Committee has authorised 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]