User talk:Sangdeboeuf/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reverts

Hi Sangdebouef, responding to talk messages. Your threshold for what constitutes it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public (WP:DOB) is obviously stricter than mine. Our past no consensus discussion concerned the clearness of phrasing in WP:ABOUTSELF DOB sources in this topic area. In good faith, I'm asking you to unrevert here and here, where the subjects really do say "today is my X birthday" or similar (one says she turned 37 yesterday, another that she turns 50 tomorrow, and other posts affirm the respective dates). Thanks. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Posts like "307 is a good number, on the day I turned 37, no less", "Last day in my 40s", and "I'm turning 50 an YOU are invited!" are not explicit regarding the actual date of birth. As I said earlier, Something along the lines of "today is my [xx] birthday" would be something like "It's my [xx] birthday today" or "I'm [xx] years old today". The cited WP:ABOUTSELF sources are more vague than this. Combining these with other posts would be WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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 day in my 40s" are in the same spirit as "today is my [xx] birthday". They're not vague when there's no other way to read them (is there?). Other posts aren't used for synthesis, only as evidence of clear declarations of their birthdays (so that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object 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. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, though. An explicit reference would be something like "today 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, WP:V requires that sources directly support the given material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Pornography Barnstar
		For your work in WikiProject Pornography Demt1298 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

AE

Suppose, hypothetically, that there were an editor engaging in very battleground-y behavior on Talk:Sarah Jeong and also simultaneously on Talk:Gender (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 Pornography. 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. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically, there would be a very good case for a strong warning from ArbCom and possibly sanctions, especially regarding WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLE. Filling out a request at WP:AE is actually pretty easy; I've done it once I think. The edit window has instructions on what documentation to provide. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've given it a shot. Thanks for your advice (hypothetically speaking). --JBL (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)