User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Talk page

I linked to the Talk page discussion that I started in my edit summary, the one titled "Men and women" vs "males and females". I have no problem with the current version, but I am just curious why you think men and women is better than males and females? I do not care either way, I am only asking out of curiosity. DimensionQualm (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@DimensionQualm: My mistake. The link was dark blue (visited) because I'd been to the talk page on Femininity some time ago and it appeared black to me. I'll self-revert. I'm kinda torn about it now that I see the talk page discussion you linked to. Males and females is more inclusive I guess (though still excludes intersex folks), but I think it's more important to say that women as well as men can be masculine. Really all people can be (non-binary folks too). Hm... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@DimensionQualm and EvergreenFir: As I just mentioned at the Talk page discussion, I prefer "men and women" as it clarifies that the scope of the article is male and female humans, not any males or females. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Okay! I'm kinda ambivalent. Honestly wouldn't mind seeing it just say "all people" (though I can see an argument that those under 3 or so don't have or do gender). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I please get your opinion?

Hi EvergreenFir. The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting has been added to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries. The inclusion scope of both articles is "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause". Do you think that the sources (which I know you're very familiar with) support inclusion of the Orlando shooting in these list articles? - MrX 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I'll check them out! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I got mail

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated, just saving you some TOC space. Do community colleges offer courses in Wikipedia Editing? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I know some individual courses have assignments where students edit wikipedia in order to aide if the students' research and also to help wikipedia. Don't know about whole courses though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

LGBTs

This comment is related to a recent edit of yours of the Orlando shooting article. Having studied LGBT studies of various sorts for more than a quarter century, I can personally assure you that LGBTs is an accepted term. See, e.g., [1] and [2]. Just so you know. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: I've never seen such use that I can recall (and this is something that I am well-read on like you). I've looked at other dictionary and style guide type sources and do not see this use anywhere ([3], [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBT], [4]). It's an acronym of adjectives and nominalizing it making it plural doesn't make sense. Note the grammar usage on LGBT for example. When read verbally, it sounds like "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders", the first and last of which are rather offensive to most. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Though, admittedly, when I google "LGBTs" I do find some use of that term, most often in titles it seems. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've been seeing LGBTs, nominal plural, for as long as I've been seeing LGBT. In addition to my second source above, I'll point you to Google Scholar, where you'll find many scholarly sources of various sorts using the term, both in titles and text. Certainly we can both appreciate the absurdity of continuing this discussion in light of these many sources actually using the term. You'll have to understand that grammatical logic has little to do with these identity-politics/studies nomenclature issues, and that mainstream and/or online sources, including Wikipedia articles, are frequently incomplete and/or unreliable on them. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits in "white pride".

Clearly it is a viewpoint of "positive" regarding people who consider themselves white. How can you dispute that? Are you misreading my edit as if it were suggesting racism is positive in general? That's the only rational alternative I can think of. I see the racist former edits of the page, but man - actually read the edit. White pride is taking pride in being white, mostly used by racists. This goes WITHOUT QUESTION.

Return my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike13815 (talk • contribs)

@Mike13815: No. See Talk:White pride. This has been discussed to death already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your efforts on Omar Mateen. Keep it up. I'm sure there's more controversy to come. TimothyJosephWood 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Wow thank you very much! I greatly appreciate it. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Recent

Eh, I try to be polite. :) Trivialist (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Trivialist: A wonderful trait. I'm just done with that user. I've tried to reach out (e.g., user's talk page history). They ran out of patience from me though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all of your tireless work in important subject areas that demand attention, as well as extensive involvement most everywhere else! GABgab 21:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thank you!!! Very kind of you! Sorry took me so long to reply. Been offline most of the past 3 days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catfish and the Bottlemen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catfish and the Bottlemen. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stonewall

Hi, I edited without logging in under IP 76.84.23.253, can you please take your reason for your revision of Stonewall to the talk page? Much appreciated. DoomLexus (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@DoomLexus: will do EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Wiknic Invitation!

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

Chris Gilmour

Hello! Would you consider removing the AfD on Chris Gilmour? I agree that in its initial state for the Afd that it was lacking in eevry way. However after researching his work extensively I came up with many, many good references, which are now in the article. In my view there is not a chance that something this well-sourced would be deleted; with the added refs the reasons for the AfD are clearly gone as well.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: Join us!

Hi Evergreen!

In Columbus Ohio, several members of Wikipedia Connection are forming the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Our goal is to expand our efforts beyond Columbus to create an organized group that promotes Wikipedia, puts together events, and forms a better local community here in Ohio. We'd love to have you on-board as one of our founding members! Being a part of the user group will allow easy communication between active Ohio editors, notifications of upcoming events in the Ohio area, and, if you're interested, the opportunity to help organize events such as edit-a-thons or workshops. If our User Group is approved in time, we plan for our first event to be a Wiknic in early July.

If interested, feel free to add yourself to the list at the bottom of our page on Meta. Also feel free to contribute to the page itself, or ask any questions you may have. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tagging accounts

You may have missed some on the RFC—I've noticed that most of the redlinked usernames above what you just tagged have either been resurrected or are very new. Same goes for IPs. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dschslava: Just added some more. Was being cautious of edit conflicts. I'm being reserved in how I dole out the tags as I don't wish to offend or mistag anyone. There are a few account I chose not to tag (like one who edited recently, but that was the only other edit in about a year...) and a new account that did edit on other pages so I didn't want to call them an SPA. You're welcome to add tags if I missed any ({{spa}} and User:EvergreenFir/Zombie). Thanks for pointing it out there. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll have to go soon, so I'll try and tag some when I back in a few hours. Damn edit conflicts. I think I'll just pick through what you've left behind and tag as I see fit. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to start looking through this when I saw the effort was well underway. Good diligence. TimothyJosephWood 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A Rape on Campus

I was scared to click on the notification I just got, because I was worried someone reverted me and I really wasn't in the mood to deal with it at that second. I was soo relieved to see it was you "thanking" me. :) Do you think it's the kind of thing that can be erased permanently so it's not in the article history? And what's the page called where you can ask someone to remove that kind of stuff? I can't remember what it's called. Thank you! —PermStrump(talk) 04:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Hah! I know the feeling. You're thinking of WP:REVDEL. Might consider emailing WP:OS if you feel it warrants it. But REVDEL is your best bet. I usually try to see who's online recently and email them (see Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests). MikeV and Doug Weller are usually quick, but sometimes I see that someone else is actively editing (by stalking their contribs) and email them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Revdel, that's what I was trying to think of! Thanks! I don't know if it warrants it, so I wanted to see what they think. No legitimate newspapers are publishing her last name (most shitty ones aren't either), and it's still being redacted from court documents. Obviously they don't make those decisions on a whim and we have no way of knowing what the judge knows. Clearly the details RS published were false, but ~2 years earlier Jackie had reported a totally different story to her friends that was consistent with the story she told the dean, so my guess is that the judge knows those details and that might have something to do with why her name is still being redacted. —PermStrump(talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Violence against men

On the additions in question, extensive references have been added and all this content is copied from other wikipedia EN articles which have been heavily discussed. Please post in talk page before removing cited, valid content. Thank you.PolarYukon (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Already did. Please reply there. See WP:BRD. Your edits are still OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bad Girls Club

This looks suspiciously like block evasion by 68.187.108.155 given the similar contributions.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

I assume congratulations are in order so, congratulations. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Thank you! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Hi, since we interacted on the article White pride, I'm reaching out to you for an opinion. It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz. I've seen you edit controversial topics with balance and NPOV, and I would value your opinion on this matter.

I would welcome input or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I'd be happy to take a look. Thank you for thinking of me. :) Sorry took me so long to reply. Been offline most of the past 3 days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The discussion has been quite lively. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I'm sorry I've been negligent with this. Been busy and absent minded. Would you still like me to look it over? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate your thanks on my edits on The Adventures of Paddington Bear. I find it so embarrassing that the IP user thought the show was an American co-production. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Wiknic Sunday

I'd encourage you to try to join the Wikipedia:Meetup/Columbus/Wiknic/2016 on Sunday, there are quite a number of interesting and friendly Wikipedians attending (including some travelling from far away) I think you'd enjoy getting to meet.--Pharos (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pharos: I greatly appreciate the invite but will be unable to make it. I just defended my dissertation last Wednesday, am packing to move to another state, and still have edits to make on my diss before the graduation deadline. Again, I really do appreciate the invitation. Just not a good time for me. Thank you though! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michel Foucault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michel Foucault. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "Black Lives Matter" article

You erased my "Talk" claiming "This is not a forum to discuss racial inequality."

What??? Are you insane? How much more relevant could it be?

Your ignorance is overwhelming!

This is why I hesitate to participate more often.(The shaman poet (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC))

@The shaman poet: Because you were opining about race, not discussing improvements to the article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. The talk pages are not places for you to discuss the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack.

Hi Evergreen. I think that was to avoid repetition. --Peaceworld 06:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: I see what you mean and where I misread. Sorry about that. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop restoring Dektor Counterintelligence and Security's wikipedia page

The changes made to the Dektor Counterintelligence and Security page were in no way vandalism. What was removed was a largely fictitious section falsely supporting claims of an association between Dektor Corporation and Dektor Counterintelligence and Security, and many other false claims made on the Dektor Corporation website (www.dektorpse.com). The changes include a link to much more detail relating to just a few false claims made by Dektor Corporation. The original company (Dektor CI/S) was started by my father and ultimately went bankrupt, later Dektor Corporation (similar name) started selling a reverse engineered piece of equipment (named it the same) (selling is legal because the patent had expired) but making claims about his new device that were related ONLY to the old device. Please leave the restored changes intact. NOT VANDALISM! - Dirk Bell, bellda2005@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:C201:D924:555D:9FE2:73B2:658C (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

kindly read before edit warring

I already posted a link to news sources confirming this information before your last ridiculous editing of my post. So its not a problem. Dream Focus 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A google search is not a reference. Try again. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers

Hi, you're not new, and the page is tagged as BREAKING NEWS, so, in light of WP:RAPID your repeated comments (first comment: [6], urging deletion of 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers ‎ seem like a waste of your time - and that of other editors. Maybe better to just make a note to yourself to revisit later.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm mostly aghast that we've merged with wikinews apparently. I know and afd is premature and a csd would be declined. I'm trying to be patient and see how the news covers it I'm the next 12 hours or so. The problem I have is that it's too soon, assumes a connection to recent events, and currently is just another mass shooting. We really need to wait in these things. But I'd rather be cautious and not disruptive and wait to see if it becomes something more. But that just encourages the too soon creations in the future I fear. Imagine if I created an article for each of the thousands of police killings of civilians that made the news? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point, but on the other hand it is a fact that the shooting of police officers in the U.S. is a relatively rare event that for a variety of reasons tends to attract a great deal of coverage, and the shooting of multiple officers, even in a robbery gone bad, is likely to be national news and discussed for a long while.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Fair point... the news does cover (care more about?) shootings of police... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No doubt.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Please comment on Talk:List of mascots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of mascots. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club again

The comments made by Clippers18 on User talk:Clippers18 seem very similar to those made by 68.187.108.155 on his/her talk page. Given that 68.187.108.155 was blocked on 28 June and Clippers18 didn't start editing until 6 July, it seems very likely that they are both the same editor. We know that 68.187.108.155 has evaded his/her block in the past, and Clippers18's edits started the day after the last IP stopped editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Yeah I had my eye on that user a few days ago but have been out of town and not following as close the past couple days. If you think SPI is appropriate, I'd support you. (Also I'm kinda getting sick of the BGC articles as they always get those changes and I don't know the series ...) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

How to create talk page archives

Hey! How exactly do you create a talk page archive? I can see you have such archives and I would like to make some of my own, since I just noticed my own talk page is getting a bit unnecessarily stuffy. Is it simple? Or do I have to go through a whole process? Thanks! Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: It's pretty easy when you just copy-paste the code. I've added it to your talk page. Set it to archive after 14 days (14d) and a minimum of 3 threads left on your page. You can tweak to your preferences. Hope you don't mind me just adding it. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just like that? I thought that wouldn't be allowed. And it's okay, I don't mind. Thanks! :D Parsley Man (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Yep that's it! I put it on new article talk pages too. The {{talk header}} also automatically creates links to archive pages and a search bar once an archive is created. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. And my talk page discussions are automatically archived? Or do I have to do that myself? Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Automatic. It might take a day until the bot gets to it, but it will eventually. If it doesn't, ping me. A typo will make it not archive... and I'm prone to them. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, gotcha. Thank you for the help! It's very much appreciated! :D Parsley Man (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

whoops

My bad... I was watching the recent changes for vandalism and his the button too quickly. My apologies on reverting your talk page :) --KevCor360 01:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevCor360 (talk • contribs)

@KevCor360: No worries! Was confused but figured that was the case. I'm repeatedly guilty of it (especially when using my phone). Thanks for letting me know! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow

I was going to report that IP for the 3RR violation too, but it seems you beat me to the punch while I was trying to figure out the reporting process for the first time. Kudos to you. :P Parsley Man (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: All thanks to WP:TWINKLE. I was stunned at how fast NeilN resolved it though. One other thing I now sometimes it's hard to just let something go like that when the other person is the one in the wrong. The urge to revert/edit war is hard to fight, but imho it's best to let others take care of it if it gets to that point... especially hard on current event articles where things move fast and patience is limited. Otherwise might end up in both being blocked. Just my advice fwiw. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the advice! I'll try to refrain myself a little. :D Parsley Man (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, I can understand the urge! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Some cases are easy. Reverts of multiple editors, warnings, talk page discussion - check, check, check (or decline if a condition hasn't been met). Some cases take a bit of work to untangle. And some cases will catch my eye and I'll look at, and look at, and finally say, screw it, I'll leave it for EdJohnston. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hah! That sounds familiar (when I'm using STiki or trying to do some conflict resolution stuff). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Some 3RR reports are just gray and never become clear no matter how much you study them. Then you have to decline, protect, or warn both. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Broken episode table conversion

Just something I noticed while cleaning up Jennette McCurdy's filmography – your AWB-assisted edits to convert the episode list table code to the template have broken a few tables due to a typo (|aux2 instead of |aux2=). I have fixed the ones related to Mad TV. You might want to check if you happened to make the same mistake on other articles. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Found the typo and fixed it. Thankfully I don't think that was a common regex used (it was for "guests" columns) but I'll go through and look for mistakes. Thank you for alerting me and fixing the Mad TV ones! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Tested script on mistake from the Mad TV pages ([7]). Went through my whole list and didn't find any other mistakes. Thanks again for pointing that out and fixing the Mad TV pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment

The talk page is locked down, so I can't make an edit request there, but these two diffs: [8] [9] seem to go against the consensus formed on both the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. Would you mind having a look?142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So you know/FYI

The whole point of assuming good faith is seeing an edit that isn't clearly appropriate and going, "Well, maybe I'm just missing something." I transcribed that request onto Talk:Anita Sarkeesian knowing full well it was going to get denied, but that section on WP:RFPP isn't just for edit requests I think will pass muster. Per the evidence you gathered, it's really obvious that editor is User:Comet Egypt and the IP deserves to get the hammer. You did the right thing hatting that thread. RunnyAmiga (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: I totally get why to transcluded it and assumed good faith. That was the right thing to do. Sorry if the SPI made it sound differently (NPR just had a segment on Science Friday about how difficult tone is to convey on the internet). I just recognized the sentence in question and made the connection to the other account. That you took the time to move the request was above-and-beyond the call of duty imho and was kind thing to do. :D EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Shawshank tree

On 3 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shawshank tree, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the iconic 180-year-old tree from The Shawshank Redemption fell in July 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shawshank tree. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shawshank tree), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

You reverted the edit in the circumcision article referring to a study published in the Royal Society of Medicine on the basis that the source did not comply with Wiki standards. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2014 impact factor of 2.118 on what basis then do you consider it does not live up to standards for medical sources?

Tyreric (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tyreric: Please see Talk:Circumcision. I and others have commented there. The main issue is WP:MEDRS. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Explain why my edits were unconstructive

I don't see how my edit was unconstructive as I merely pointed out a redirection and added more pages and articles of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateoski06 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orange County

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orange County. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision

Hello, I'm new here and I was trying to edit the circumcision page. At first, I linked some articles which expressed some very plain information about the sexual side-effects of circumcision from a peer-reviewed article. But then I found out I can only cite secondary sources. I see the argument there, research papers can be fallible as they are basically pieces of new information.

It seems very unethical to me to not show both sides both for and against circumcision with regard to adverse affects. I would like to give both sides of this debate fair representation. Of course, I wish to express the other side in the proper fashion.

So, as I'm new, I'm not really sure what sources I need to find. I felt they were sufficient before but I was wrong. For example, I felt this was sufficient:

" The foreskin contains specialized sensory tissue that is removed during circumcision. Some men believe that the end of the penis becomes less sensitive when the foreskin is removed and that sexual sensation may be decreased. "

as the uptodate.com is" the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by healthcare practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine, and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes.", I feel this is a sufficient secondary source. Is there any reason why this statement would not be acceptable if I submitted something like this again?

Apologies again, I'm not really sure how wikipedia works as I'm new. Lots of people get information from this site, I feel it is only right to give people both sides of the story.

References

ANI

The irony isn't lost on me that a misunderstanding over these scientist articles has probably helped them out quite a bit. You find yourself helpful in ways you don't even mean to be. TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Right? I was actually really glad to have learned that it was an editathon and not some paid editing farm. Hoping that it makes things better for them in the long run. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the editors, your comments are appreciated JarrahTree 02:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

New matter regarding 2016 Milwaukee riots

Hey! I'm going to need your help in making sure this poorly-sourced edit does not make it in the 2016 Milwaukee riots article. The user in question has pushed for its inclusion before (it actually got him banned for 31 hours as a result) and I am now discussing it on the talk page. I would very much appreciate any assistance I can get, because I don't like the WP:POV manner of that edit. Thanks! :D Parsley Man (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Orlando "victims" list format

Re: [10]

My section heading was incorrect and misleading. Apparently some feel that the perp should be in the list, as was done in articles like Sandy Hook and VA Tech, and Mateen is listed at the end of the prototype box. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I would hope we could avoid a big debate about it. Assuming he stayed, what would your suggested box title be? My rationale for the single word was "don't state the obvious", but I can see the view that it's awkwardly terse, and I'm flexible on that point.

I ask because I'm going to restart the poll with an uncollapsed box, and I'll change its title as well.

Or, given your comment, Sum up the content sufficiently so the reader could choose to expand the list or not., would you be ok with "Killed" if the box were not collapsed? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Previous RFC being ignored

Hello, you kindly weighed in on a previous RFC Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#RFC_-_Antisemitic_incidents which I am trying to use as precedent for a similar issue on another page where I am meeting resistance and an apparent lack of engagement with the relevant wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if you could weigh in on the issue at Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France#Don't just list incidents. Thanks. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Excellent sleuthing"--you took the words right out of my mouth

Hello EGF, I just wanted to take a minute to say what a nice catch that was, recognizing the pattern of what turned out to be the mixed result of a Wikibomb event. I think you and the others involved in the ANI discussion are handling the matter in just the right fashion needed in order to attempt to maintain those new volunteers while also cleaning up the content that is not policy-consistent. The truth is, we really need new editors, not just in general, but in this area in particular. So I hope you manage the clean up while encouraging, rather than discouraging, those new potential editors--and I think you are all approaching the matter in exactly the manner which gives the best chance of that outcome. Anyhow, if not for the fact that I am exceptionally busy this week, I'd like to offer a hand with that important effort, but I figured at the very least I could give a shout-out/show of appreciation.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For an exceptional application of scrutiny in recognizing a problematic addition of inter-related content and then a calm and considered investigation of the cause. Snow let's rap 23:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thank you so much! This was very thoughtful of you. Sorry I took so long to reply; I've been without data/internet for 4 days or so due do moving to another state and just getting internet to the new place today around noon. I will do my bast to help out, but I might not be too active for the next few days as I'm unpacking, getting work organized, etc. Again thank you for the barnstar and lovely comments! :D EvergreenFir (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Back finally, sorta

@Parsley Man, Mandruss, and Dan Eisenberg: Sorry about the long delay. I just got internet back at noon today. My mobile carrier doesn't have data out here either, so I was mostly offline for the past 4 days. I am still unpacking and all, so I might not be very active until next week. I will try to address your messages soon. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH, WP:WIP. Welcome back. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked you something? Well, whatever it is, it's archived and long forgotten. It's okay; I don't care. :) Parsley Man (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BRD

Why do you cite BRD, revert, then not discuss? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I had to go AFK and the onus is on you. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Genderqueer

Hi. Discussing race can be a bit stressful, so I think a little chit chat helps. I notice from your user boxes that you're genderqueer. What is that exactly? I've never heard of it. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tiny Dancer 48: Hi there! Best description is at genderqueer or at GLAAD's reference list. Basically the same as non-binary; not man or woman in terms of gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ratings table

Your AWB edit to Boy Meets World (season 1) broke the ratings table (though it was commented out anyway, so no big deal). I fixed it. The other seasons don't seem to have been affected. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maelbros

Hi. I had another thought after I closed the discussion you opened at ANI. Assuming you want to keep track of these IPs, it might be better if there are future problems to create a new SPI with just the IPs. If you want to throw in a reference to the Maelbros SPI to give it some background, that'd be fine. That way, annoying CheckUsers like me wouldn't close them as I did at the Maelbros case, and you'd therefore be more likely to get some remedial action. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I completely understand why you declined the Maelbros SPI and I would have too. Like you said at ANI, he's on a different continent. Usually I report these to AIV, but in this case I reported prematurely it was declined as well. So, after the user continued disruption, they were blocked but I went and looked at the range's edits and found I had missed a bunch and that the edits were confined to the range so I went to ANI to ask for a rangeblock. I think I was unclear at ANI that I didn't think it was Maelbros (as much of the discussion was around that point), but I'm glad KrakatoaKatie implemented the rangeblock.

Do you think it would be most useful to start SPIs for the various IP users I'm tracking (see User:EvergreenFir/socks)? Or just to keep the evidence there and use AIV/ANI when necessary? I don't wish to burden the SPI/CU folks too much as I know that board is already busy. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. Hopefully, the backlog at SPI won't last although it's been going on for at least several weeks. Also, if you recall, DoRD didn't think your report should have been filed at ANI, but perhaps if you don't couch it as a socking issue, i.e., having a named account, you could get through it. Not an easy thing. Maybe we should talk about it again when and if it becomes timely. Hopefully, the range block will do the trick.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that an SPI or LTA would be useful. Maybe an LTA would be better? Not sure. There's another range (two? I could go look but that would, you know, require effort) in the midst of the ANI list; it was stale so I didn't block that /64, but it would certainly be helpful to have them all centrally located for reference. I'm not a table wizardress genie, but the ability to sort those IPv6 addresses would be very useful for us rangeblockers. Katie^talk 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

COI case against Dan Eisenberg

Good day, I have created the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dan_Eisenberg case, of which you may be interested, since you were a participant in his RfC in the Antisemitism in the United States article. Please weigh your opinion in that COI case. Thank you! -- 178.121.228.214 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPP discussion about terrorism

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Because you do such good work tracking all these vandal people. And because I didn't have to bake it, because that would, you know, require effort. :-) Katietalk 21:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you! :D EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Defamatory"

I fail to see how content is "defamatory" when it is truthful and does a valuable service of warning the public about the sketchy business dealings of a sharp firm.

All you moderators know how to do is complain about anything and everything that didn't come out of your own little heads. Heck, I understand: I was a sys admin when I was sixteen, too!

By the way, it's considered mature to use your own name as your login, not some nonsense like EvergreenFir. Be proud of your work and advertise your identity--unless you have a clear reason to hide.

2601:581:300:FB5:D5FB:9DFF:2EE5:6063 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@2601:581:300:FB5:D5FB:9DFF:2EE5:6063: Honey... go read WP:LIBEL and just stop. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to vent on. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, you seem quick to redact a copyvio, but slow to admit your POV isn't an academic consensus. Could we get your view on that? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tiny Dancer 48: Mostly because I'm a bit busy IRL and getting mired into this would take time. Removing a link took 10 seconds. But I think I've said my piece. I'll make an explicit statement if it helps. Kinda want to drag out some text books and see what they say though. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't know what you are talking about and constantly asking me to "seek consensus" is a dishonest time wasting stratagem? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tiny Dancer 48: Are you putting words into my mouth to misconstrue my comments to advance your own POV? Just stop that please. It was annoying the first dozen times. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. It reasonable to question why you would ask me to seek consensus when you haven't looked at the issue. It seems completely pointless and patronizing. Of course I was seeking consensus. That's why I posted sources supporting me. So I suggest you make some useful statement rather than patronizing me with polucy. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eritrea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your error on Hillary Clinton

Just letting you know I have undone your obvious error and poor judgement on the Hillary Clinton article. [11] No biggie. I'm not offended and I don't take it personally. But please, do be more careful in the future EvergreenFir, with your hasty reverts and then slapping it on my talk page. I don't see how you could have possibly interpreted it that way, but you obviously thought you knew best, and we all make mistakes don't we. Best wishes.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

An excellent example of the passive-aggressive response that featured so highly in Charlotte135's recent AN/I case- with shades, of course, of the famous so-called 'olive branch.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, just had enough bullying Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. And as for passive aggressive comment, you're not so bad your self.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've encountered Charlotte135 in the past and I know this is typical. I tend to avoid her tbh, but saw the tban stuff and thought her edit on Hillary Clinton was a violation. I was mistakenly confusing the scope of her tban with WP:ARBGG, however. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

When you added your provocative addition to my talk page, and got it wrong, how did you think Hillary Clinton related to gender anyway? Even though now you admit it doesn't apply to me, and I accept your apology, your editing seems to show you hold very strong personal opinions, and expertise, on gender, sexual identity and women's rights. You're probably the leading gender expert on WP, so I'm interested in how Hillary Clinton is a gender or sexual identity related article?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton would fall under the WP:ARBGG's discretionary sanction on "any gender-related dispute or controversy" broadly construed. She's been the target of gender-based harassment and her current campaign has as well. At least that's my opinion on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, EvergreenFir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:NeilN. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Underride, uh, did you click the link in the message? We were having a bit of fun. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Lol! Well, I can see why they might template me for that. But as NeilN said, it was meant to be humorous. Poor NeilN had to watch a Bad Girls Club trailer... and bleach is the only good solution. Get the chemistry joke too?! :D EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did after, but drinking bleach isn't something I think should be joked about, seeing as how many young people kill themselves that way, or at least attempt to. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: I gave NeilN bleach for his brain (or his eyes if he preferred), not to drink. I was not recommending suicide. Not something I'd joke about during National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month (or really any other time). I know humor is hard to convey via text and I'm not an artist at it, but I didn't think the post was that literal seeming... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: See r/Eyebleach. TimothyJosephWood 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Start date and age favor

Oh hey there, I was wondering if you could add the Start date and age template from the current "|firstdate = August 1, 1968" to {start date and age|1968|8|1} to correspond to Weekly Shōnen Jump's first publication date? I'd normally ask for an edit request myself, however, the talk page is also protected unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.29.72 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@108.45.29.72: Done here! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you once again, EvergreenFir. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.29.72 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with another user

I'm having problems with another user on Talk:The Bachelor (season 21) and I was hoping you could help me with it. The users name is Starbucks6789. After both of us reverting each others edits back and forth, I went to the talk page and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you please help resolve the discussion? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was I flagged with a "disruptive edit"?

I am a relatively new user. If you could, please explain and let me know why you flagged that edit as vandalism.

Edit: Forget it. If moderators are going to use bias as a reason to flag someone with vandalism in those types of articles, I'll just stay out of articles all together. Firehawk31329 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2016 (EST)

@Firehawk31329: I put a welcome template on your talk page. Some things you might want to be sure to read are WP:5P, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Your edits are disruptive because you're removing sourced material based on your own personal opinions. Reliable sources call it a false allegation. We don't use false balance or false neutrality for the sake of sounding neutral if sources we're using don't treat the subject neutrally. We are a tertiary source which reflect secondary and primary sources. If those sources by and large have a certain position, we reflect that. For example, we aren't neutral on something like NAMBLA because sources aren't. WP:TRUTH might be a useful essay here. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in the talk-page run-off voting for the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing 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—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.
You've deleted that Africa info at least twice times now XavierItzm (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Honey, if I give you a template, you can be assured I know where I stand with the revert count. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just wanted to note that the issue was being discussed on TP and there was no consensus to delete even as you deleted twice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No consensus puts the burden on inclusion. See WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shooting of Terence Crutcher

The article Shooting of Terence Crutcher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. no indication of WP:notability

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. noq (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of disability-related terms with negative connotations page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging you

Hey, EvergreenFir. If you'd rather that I not ping you to disputes I'm involved, such as this one and this one, especially those concerning gender matters, just let me know and I will stop doing that. I want to go ahead and be clear that I'm open to your opinions differing from mine. I don't expect you to always agree with me. If some of these cases are simply cases you'd rather not weigh in on, for whatever reason, I understand that too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Hey! I'm sorry! I don't mind you pinging me at all. I did get one of those, opened the tab at home, and forgot to reply since I've been using my work computer mostly. I didn't get the other ping though. Again, sorry for my airheadedness. I totally do not mind you pinging me. If I ever neglect to reply, a message like this will help. I'll try to reply tonight or tomorrow (just finished a 13 hour day). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Just keep in mind what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Galway United F.C.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Galway United F.C.. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You say this is appropriate for WP:ANI when previous attempts in other venues have failed. Why then do you say my post to ANI is disruptive editing? 86.136.230.56 (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy-pasting tons of past conversations into ANI is not appropriate. If you have a specific issue, start a fresh new thread. If this has already been addressed by ANI, then watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiny

Doug and I together blocked your Dancer. I assume there will be more on the SPI; I left a note on the ArbCom mailing list as well. One of the IPs pointed to another sockmaster, but I think that was a false trail. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies! Rather expected the outburst. Got to add to my collection of insults! Curious if that one IP was similar to Ralph Roadrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at all. They were attributed to another sock, but look like Mikemikev from behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I do wonder how Mike V got his name. Tiptoety, you may be interested in this as well. How do you remember that from a year ago? Yes, it looks like Mikemikev. Anyway, your User:Ralph Roadrash links to User:Quack Hunter links to User:Goblin Face links, via the SPI, to User:Anglo Pyramidologist. Is that, in the end, the same racist? Drmies (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I wish my memory were that good. I saw User:Ralph Roadrash while collecting diffs on Talk:Race (human categorization) for the Tiny Dancer/Mikemikev SPI and was very surprised that Ralph Roadrash was tagged under another sockmaster. Might be worth digging into? There's no shortage of racists on the internet, so I wouldn't be shocked if they are not the same. But I wouldn't be shocked if they are... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But...but...racism is over! Drmies (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That linked info is totally false, Drmies, the Scalia quotes are false, the source is unreliable, it's all BS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But who better an authority to declare racism over than an Italian? TimothyJosephWood 01:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fuck. Racism is NOT over??? It was all a hoax? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Snobby elitism and racism are as inherent in humanity as just about anything else. John Adams said it pretty well: "I believe there is no one Principle, which predominates in human Nature so much in every Stage of Life, from the Cradle to the Grave, in Males and females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, high and low, as this Passion for Superiority." And my Adams quote is better than your non-quote from Scalia, you lowly internet denizen.😜Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. Well, I saw it on the internet. That is, I googled it and copied the first hit that would load quickly on my old netbook. Argue with that. Next thing you know you're telling me the Civil War was fought over slavery or that 9/11 was not an inside job. EvergreenFir, I think some better control over your talk page is necessary, lest all kinds of crazy theories seep into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

😂Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol how'd I miss this? I hope that they seeped well though. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that in 2016 a racist is writing about race. Was the racist trying to claim races are not equal? Obviously they are equal. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist. QED. Racists just don't understand logic. The racists Richard Chepstow (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hark, Drmies and Doug Weller! A hear the call of a duck upon mine talk page! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, can I ask you to look at this one? You're cleverer. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(Already blocked since CU confirms them as a sock of Tiny Dancer--and any old music will do.) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Although Tiny Dancer is a sock of MikemmikevDoug Weller talk 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jules Feiffer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jules Feiffer. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Scott wife and gun

Hi, Regarding your edit [12], and edit summary "Come on... this is being discussed on the talk page... (TW)" – Here's the item, "About a year before the shooting, Scott's wife filed a restraining order against him saying that he carries a 9mm gun." I didn't see where this item was being discussed on the talk page, so I started a new section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Thank you. I was referring more to Talk:Shooting_of_Keith_Lamont_Scott#Please_give_your_opinion_on_whether_or_not_this_information_should_be_included where we're discussing his past criminal history, but a new section is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be OK with you if I put it back in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Sorry for the delay. I replied on the article talk page. I don't think it should be in the article, but I won't revert if you re-add it. I'm getting a bit exhausted with this and it seems not everyone agrees with me on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to need help

Once again, there is some dispute over including certain incidents over at the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 and List of terrorist incidents in September 2016 articles. I just got out of a block for edit-warring, I'm already at the edge of my rope here with all of this conclusion-jumping, and I'm not in the mood to get myself blocked again. Mind helping me out with my case if my reversions are undone yet again? I have alerted the other users involved to bring the issues to the talk pages, but I can tell someone's not going to listen. Parsley Man (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of awareness ribbons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of awareness ribbons. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Small note clarifying clarity

Thank you for your patience dealing with all that train-crashing nonsense. I felt it worth mentioning that, as the man on the Clapham omnibus -- although actually I was on a Stagecoach Manchester bus at the time instead -- I found your comment "You cannot suggest someone intentionally derailed a train. That would be a criminal act" to be perfectly clear, and obviously referring to intentionally derailing a train as the criminal act. That unregistered editor seemed to make some really rather unreasonable assumptions. MPS1992 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you. Probably shouldn't have entertained that IP editors' comments so long, but oh well. I thought I was clear, but I could see how someone could, if they tried, interpret it the other way around. Didn't matter in the end since that user didn't want to hear anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Onnit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Onnit. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

RcF on Shooting

I am an editor considering closing the RfC on the Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott on which you have offered some commentary. You misspelled "purpose"/ "propose". I only mention it because it degrades your argument (which is otherwise interesting). Please be careful about things like this!!! Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: - Nothing personal, but ... 1. You corrected an innocuous typo, contrary to the first sentence of WP:TPO. 2. You implied here that a typo somehow reflects negatively on the quality of the argument. It does not.
I suppose I can't stop you from closing that, but I would like to state my preference for someone with more experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Spelling and tone have no bearing on the logic or meaning of an argument being made. It's fallacious to disregard a message because of the delivery of it instead of its content. Given that you base conclusions on presentation instead of substance, I would object to any close you make. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Open (snooker)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Open (snooker). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Some help...again

Once again, there's problems regarding JBergsma1 posting certain content in the List of terrorist incidents in October 2016 article. The user believes a mere shootout with police is a terrorist attack, all because the shooter was a neo-Nazi. However, WP:RS doesn't even mention such an official classification as far as I'm concerned, and I've already pinged NewsAndEventsGuy and Doug Weller to participate. However, that doesn't seem to stop him, since he reverted my second reversion of that material. Parsley Man (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

He's now causing trouble, claiming Wikipedia is being politically correct whenever we classify attacks by Islamic fundamentalists as acts of terror. I'm really alarmed by this guy's behavior now. Parsley Man (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest ANI and maybe a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion since I have not looked at the edits, but I do think that if you believe there is a real problem, ANI is 'way better than pinging eds you think will help because there is a fine and maybe blurry line between good faith pings of that sort and WP:CANVASSING. After starting an ANI you can always post a generic FYI link to the ANI at the article's talk page. That way, eds who are really interested in the article (including ones that may oppose you) will see it even though you haven't sent individual pings (to ones you think might support you). That preserves the appearance of neutrality. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry been busy irl. Will try to look into it tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.45.47 (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Same user as from this ANI report. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidence, please, or are you merely guessing? Would you apologize if somebody else made an edit, and then you claimed HE was [fill in the blank], and you were provably wrong? Think carefully. There may be a test. 174.25.45.47 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump - Smear Campaign

The section of the Donald Trump article that was deleted has restored and slightly modified. See Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

What specifically are your concerns about the article?

I've added a reference to a statement by the Trump campaign.

I believe the response from the Trump campaign should be included in order to ensure the article is neutral. I also believe that it is helpful to link this article to articles related to other presidential campaigns and political tactics so that readers understand the context in which the allegations of misconduct are being made.

I think it is preferable to improve articles rather than delete them. Please note the section was just added today. Typically articles (and sections) mature over a few days or weeks and therefore the first few additions may need additional referencing and polishing. I believe quick deletion should be avoided.

Your comments are appreciated!

WSDavitt (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why have you removed mention of 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS ; Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein? I can understand the community's concerns around presenting the case in a balanced way, and think it will likely take multiple editors to produce something fair, unbiased, and 'encyclopedic'. But to delete any and all mention of it doesn't make sense. This is a real lawsuit - the case files have been unsealed by the District Courts for Media to report on. Many have done so, including The Atlantic, Guardian, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for Endurance International Group article

Hi, I'm Melanie and I'm here on behalf of my employer, Endurance International Group, to propose updates to the existing Wikipedia article. I am hoping to find a neutral editor to review the proposed draft mentioned in this edit request on the article's talk page. I won't edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but hope you might be able to help since you've made several edits to the article between 2013 and 2015. I am leaving talk page notes for the other editors I pinged before, too. Thanks for your consideration. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pedals (bear)

Hello! Your submission of Pedals (bear) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Natalie Portman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Natalie Portman. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#Towns Hill

These are technically ban violations, as you point out. But others (User:Mar4d, User:Kautilya3) argue that Towns Hill makes useful contributions. He was allowed to appeal his ban after six months, and the six months have passed. What would you think of my lifting the ban, a thing which I am able to do as the banning admin? We'd be assuming that his editing will be an overall benefit in spite of the occasional problems. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I guess I have no major objection to it. The only reason they came back on my radar is that someone was warning (?) them on their talk page about other edits. If you feel they're more productive than not, I trust your judgement. I'm just annoyed that the user has zero intention of abiding by their tban and no one seems to care. But if folks feel the tban is not helping, then remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pedals (bear)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Train Simulator (Dovetail Games)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem at 2016 Ohio State University attack

We have an editor who's persistently trying to categorize the article as an Islamic terrorist attack, despite the talk page discussion. I've already wasted my three reverts and am definitely not going to shoot for a fourth. I need some help here... Parsley Man (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox NFL biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox NFL biography. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

My comments

Sorry but I fail to see how I "attacked" other members. Maybe they shouldn't insult me and label me as a racist. I think that is a crime and is racism itself. I'm failing to see how "White Pride" is a racist motto. The wikipedia page is wrong and needs changed. If it is your intention to silence me then I'll advocate on Facebook and other social media for help. This is why racism will never end. It is very clear to me that Wikipedia is very one sided and racist. Change is needed

ActorBoss (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@ActorBoss: Insulting other users is consider a personal attack. While your input on white pride is certainly welcome, your opinion is not reflected by the reliable sources or the consensus of the Wikipedia community. I recommend you read WP:CANVASS. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AccountForANI (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artur Aleksanyan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Artur Aleksanyan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I was rather surprised

at how quickly you came back with Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage until I looked at your user page, then it sort of made sense. i started poking around that category and quite quickly discovered Sex Panic!, an article that states, 'It was founded to oppose both mainstream political measures to control sex, and elements within the gay community who advocated same-sex marriage and the restriction of public sexual culture as solutions to the HIV crisis." and I am wondering if that really puts it in the Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage? it says, to me, that the organization opposes it for one reason (to combat AIDS), but it dos not state that the organization is opposed to same sex marriage. Or does it? I thought you might just know the answer off the top of your head. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jollof rice

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jollof rice. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump photo RfC

Re [13], that thing may never bot-archive if people continue to ignore the close and add out-of-process comments like this. I don't think removal of the comments is allowed under WP:TPO. Maybe you know how to manually archive it, I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If it happens again I'll archive it. Or maybe just later this afternoon. It's been a bit over 48 hours, but it's not a massive thing so leaving it up a bit longer for folks to see isn't the worst imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thigh gap

Hi, as someone who has contributed to the thigh gap article, you might be interested in this discussion. – Smyth\^talk 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Organizational behavior

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Organizational behavior. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bing. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

British spelling

Hi, following up on your edit, do I understand correctly that 'organizers' is not British spelling, but 'organized' and 'organizations' are British, per the edit before mine? Possible I suppose, but confusing to me! Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Video comics from nickelodeon

Where can i find it? Arielluisfernandez (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mistake, right?

I assume you removing my comments on Mlpearc's talk page was an innocent mistake, right? [14]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: yes sorry about that. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted 3 edits by Samwaisgamgii (talk): Sources must explicitly call it sexism else it's WP:OR. Also WP:BRD

My goal is to make the text more inclusive. I think the perspective in the text is lacking. The text itself talks about stereotypes and the manner how the sexes are portrayed in the media(ads) and its effect. Sexism includes gender prejudice. I think my sources are very relevant,important and very similar of the sources already there. Open up about ur reasoning please. --Samwaisgamgii (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but sexism needs to be called "sexism" to get into the Sexism article. Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwaisgamgii: the problem is that the sources you give need to call the objectification a form of sexism since that's the topic of the article. Otherwise, you are the one making the leap from objectification to sexism, and that would be WP:SYNTH. The other issue is that we do not want to create false balance; the majority of sources do not treat the objectification of men the same as that of women. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I see. I need to find better sources then that say the word "sexism" out loud. Might be hard to find because men aren't as much trendy in the victim games because sexism. Ironic. Also if you see inclusiveness as false balance why does the article have "Sexism can affect any gender" instead of "Sexism can affect both genders". That argument by your logic is out of proportion and implies there actually MANY people who don't identify as male or female and we should not send that message. Same logic applies for "advertising used to portray women and men in obviously stereotypical roles" vs "advertising used to portray women in obviously stereotypical roles" that you don't allow. The article anyways emphasizes heavily of women(see the pictures etc.) and even points out that these issues are documented mostly to be affecting women. Don't you worry about creating false balance. --Samwaisgamgii (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Rape culture

Sorry, did I do the same thing you did? My editing is as valiable as the one you re-add. So please, don't delete what I put for no reason. Be able to explain what's the difference between "Around the world" and "Societies whitout rape culture". And don't say it has nothing to do with rape culture, and if you do it, explain me why because I don't get how it is possible to be OK to put the article "Around the world" and not what I put.--Blanca Lap (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. I'm growing tired of trying to explain this to you. Sanday's rape proneness is related but not the same as rape culture. You need to find sources that make that link. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And I'm tired of trying to understand WHAT "link" are talking about. Like, have you even read the links and sources I put? Blanca Lap (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You have no reason no delete it!--Blanca Lap (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Blanca Lap: I'm tired of arguing with you about it. You have a case of WP:IDHT. Go seek a third opinion, start an RfC, or something. Stop just trying to shove it back in there. It's synthesis. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on! Peggy Reeves Sanday is not the only one. Have you read the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs) 08:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

https://shareok.org/handle/11244/1308 Blanca Lap (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop now please? Blanca Lap (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I give you books and articles written not by Sanday but by other scientist in which they talk exactly about rape culture and you keep ignoring them Blanca Lap (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Death of Emilyn Villanueva

Hello EvergreenFir. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Death of Emilyn Villanueva to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: OK thank you! Honestly wasn't sure since CSD kept saying organized events in some parts and events in other parts. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional article for Betsy and Me

Hi, I placed a question to be able to talk to someone about the Betsy and Me entry. It was removed, as I expected (although I had quite a giggle about the robot's insistance that my entry was wrong). It concerns this: I am very pleased to be quoted for my blog work on Betsy and Me and I believe it is rightly so. Nothing wrong with that. But whoever put together the article missed my article in Hogan's Alley #16 about Dwight Parks, who took over the strip from September 9 to the end of the year. In the article (based on an interview with his son David - with illustrations from his father provided by him) I reconstruct how Parks was chosen to be the successor of Jack Cole after his suicide and how the arrangement from the beginning had been that Parks would only fill out the contracts for that year. This is important because some people have written that Parks' version was a failure, while in fact he was picking up new papers as late as October. Since I am the writer of that article I probably can't make the adjustment myself, so how do I go about that? Also, later this year there will be a new article in Alter Ego about a different strip from that same period, where I reveal that a famous (like really famous) duo of creators tried out for the take-over as well and didn't get it, despite producing a full week of samples - copies of which are in my collection. Please contact me here or at geapelde at upcmail dot nl for further actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.229.62 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Calaveras Big Trees State Park page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. Testing EvergreenFir (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Buck Angel(Jake Miller)

Why you deleted his legal name? --Lava03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job on Pioneer Cabin Tree. Losing the DYK on a technicality sucks. But the article abides. On to the next project. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:wikilawyeringThe spirit and letter of the rule comes through. The obituary was premature. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In the News

On 10 January 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pioneer Cabin Tree, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

107,000 page views And 48,000 pages views here. Whoopee! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome! :) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeepers

Hello EF. Thanks for reporting the legal threat stuff to ANI. You probably noticed the nearly ten year gap in that persons edits. Do you think they were in school getting their law degree? :-) Thanks again for your vigilance and have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Or served a 10 year term? Anyway happy to help. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hello, I'm contacting you as someone involved in the Wave of Terror in Europe merge discussion (which has incidentally been renamed if not merged). this article appears to me to have similair issues, borderline PoV fork, borderline OR, questionable commonname and same tendency to list every event as ISIS-related with little attempt at context. I wonder if you have time to take a look and give an opinion? Thanks. (please 'name' if replying here) Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Those look quite similar... and likely could be merged. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Hi EvergreenFir. I wondered if you've considered running for adminship? I'm looking for suitable candidates and an investigation through your stats and contribs leads me to believe you would be a good candidate! Given the quantity of vandals and socks you seem to deal with I doubt anyone could argue that you didn't have a need for the tools :) Let me know what your thoughts are; I'd recommend a listing at ORCP at least. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: thank you for thinking of me! I thought about it for a bit last night and today and yes, I think I would be interested in adminship. Seems like it would be a net positive to me and to the project. I'll look into ORCP tonight or tomorrow. :) Thank you again! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Great! While I'm 99% of the way to be happy nominating you, I think ORCP would be a good idea; I'd like to avoid a situation like with Onel where a few diffs are found during the RfA that sink it, and getting that general feedback beforehand is never a bad idea. Sam Walton (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were already! Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

How are you feeling about the responses at ORCP? I've been doing some digging and reading and have started to make some notes for things that would be worth saying in a nomination statement, it's certainly the case that nothing there has put me off. I can't honestly say what your chances are because I suspect it will depend in large part how many users come out to vote who are still sore over the Eric Corbett affair or can't separate editing in contentious areas from being a contentious editor. I think a lot of the assumptions can be dealt with in a good nomination statement though, and I would want a solid co (or even primary)-nom alongside mine; I'm of course happy to discuss the nomination with you beforehand. At the end of the day, though, it's up to you if you want to run. There's no pressure to do so right now, and certainly no pressure to do so before letting your poll run longer, I just wanted to check-in on your thoughts. Sam Walton (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you for all your effort and help with this. I am still on the fence about it given Ritchie's comments. I emailed Drmies for his opinion on it (I feel like we've rebuilt a cordial relationship) and his comments reflected what the ORCP said. At this point I'm thinking it might be best to wait a couple months so I can work on some of Ritchie333's suggestions (e.g., doing a GA or two). I think it would be good regardless of the RfA, but would perhaps help build some bridges too. This will also allow me time to get adjusted in the upcoming semester. I think having the mop would be a benefit to the project as I seem to gravitate toward vandalism mitigation and LTA (e.g., this ridiculous socking report on Mangoeater1000 yet again). But I understand people's hesitations since it can easily be abused. I think the Corbett thing has caused some folks to write me off entirely and others to be very wary of me, and I can understand that. If I were to redo those events, I would not have made that particular report (if any), though being accused of or associated with the subsequent events certainly doesn't help (I notice some people are calling it "harassment", though that was CarolmooreinDC mostly, not me though I can see the association has stuck). I don't want to be in a position of having to defend myself too much (if you have to counter every negative comment, it's not a good thing), but I think I will have to try to demonstrate the ability to separate personal feelings from mopping or editing. That said, I feel I have shown I can be neutral when needed, assess consensus and opinions of folks, and know when to step away/back.

Tl;dr - Think waiting a short while and building more trust would be good. But I am still interested in doing an RfA eventually. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite sensible. Honestly, I think people are just hesitant over users who were anywhere near the EC case; from actually looking into it I can't see that your actions in reporting for AE were at all wrong, and I was quite taken aback by the vitriol and aspersions directed at you as a result of your reports. Doing a GA or two would be certainly be a good idea; feel free to get back in touch if/when you're ready to run if you'd appreciate a nomination from me. Sam Walton (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing you might want to have a go at, that is easier than diving headfirst into GA-quality writing, is The North America Destubathon. It's one of several editing improvement projects set up by the prolific Dr. Blofeld who is probably one of my favourite WP editors. All you need to do is pick a stub from a category such as Category:Wisconsin stubs and expand it so it is at least 1,500 characters long and completely cited inline to reliable sources. If you know the subject material, you should be able to do one in an afternoon, provided you're au fait with our basic writing and referencing guidelines. If people see you gnoming away on a project Blofeld started up and is passionate about, I think that will go a huge way towards building bridges between the "content creation" crowd. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your email. I was actually already thinking of doing what you suggested, but your email was very helpful, as it contained quite a few diffs, saving me some searching. I see that the problem has been going on since at least as far back as November 2015, and since then the article has been protected six times, for periods of either a week or a month. I have now protected it for two years. It seems obvious to me that if repeated short term protections have failed to stop a problem, and if that problem has been going on for far longer than any of the protections, then there is no point in just doing exactly the same again, but evidently not everyone agrees. Anyway, thanks again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Persian people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Persian people. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wisconsin pronunciation

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on Wisconsin when I changed the /ɪ/s to /ᵻ/. Would you mind elaborating on why my change was wrong? For people who have the weak vowel merger (like me), those vowels do, in fact, end up being pronounced like [ə]. --Clorox (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we'd need a source saying that's a common or acceptable pronunciation. If you're basing it on your own pronunciation, it becomes original research EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The pronunciation you reverted back to is unsourced as it is, and it literally violates English phonotactics because the /ɪ/ phoneme cannot occur in an open syllable. I'm going to assume you reverted my edits in good faith, and re-add the /ᵻ/ diaphoneme. --Clorox (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tanjkica

Hi, why did you revert page that i have corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanjkica (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tanjkica: assuming you are talking about this edit, you removed content from the article without explaining why. Such edits tend to get reverted, for obvious reasons. Then someone not logged in, did the same again and also got reverted. You should be explaining the content changes you want to make at Talk:Intersex. MPS1992 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Content that i have been deleted does not belong there since it is not considered as intersex condition. That is why I have deleted. And I didn't know where and how to leave reason. Cause this way of communication is soooooo confusing. Tanjkica (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC) tanjkicaTanjkica (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh noes~!

What will I ever do if you ban me? How will I ever live with myself when I can't make articles for free that don't benefit me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It'll be a great loss to both Wikipedia and you, but we'll get through this. I promise it'll be okay. (But seriously, please stop). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• OP blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)