Jump to content

User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

New Page Reviewer

Hello EvergreenFir. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2017 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Eik Corell (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pioneer Cabin Tree

On 29 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pioneer Cabin Tree, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that cars once drove through the Pioneer Cabin Tree (pictured), which drew thousands of visitors annually? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pioneer Cabin Tree. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pioneer Cabin 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation: Your call

Regarding the recent "discussion" about Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations G10: I just wanted to clarify that at the time I was not accusing User:2600:1:b11b:69aa:48ea:4e45:ffce:6c7 of being a sock of User talk:DaddyDonnyTrump. The mention of the latter blocked user was just an example, a stab in the dark. If you would like to open a Sock investigation into either 2600:1:b11b:69aa:48ea:4e45:ffce:6c7 or his homie User talk:66.87.64.138 based on those 12 miles, go ahead, I'll testify or whatever. I'm not going to push it to the Noticeboards because I have never conducted a Sock investigation before, and don't know how, except pointing out that several IPs are doing the exact same thing and answering for each other. Thanks for your time L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I didn't think you were accusing them of socking, but that the IP claimed they were not a sock without prompting was curious. The 12 mile thing was just a remark about the likelihood that they were indeed the same user. I don't think an SPI is needed though right now. If disruption continues, then maybe so. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Anti Science is NOT an OPINION.

Hi,

Kindly refrain from entering arenas of discussion that you know nothing about. Self-elected administrators need not apply here. All of you losers have nothing else going for you in your life, so you project your own opinion onto actual scientists.

PS The only opinion here is yours, based on non-falsifiable unscientific material. I repeat again, I will tolerate no set consensus, but I will not tolerate any anti-science pertaining to bunk social fantasies that make everybody a shine little clone of each other. People are not the same, get over it. If you need to, I cna show you the sources.

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Kevin De Leon

Good morning. I saw that you reverted my edits to Kevin De Leon, on the ground that the sources provided appeared not to be credible. However, that is a mistaken assumption on the part that my two additional sources were meant to play. The video was by a user with a comical name; however, the clip was authentic, and the evidence it gave was undoubtedly true (although I will search for an alternate provider of the video). Regardless of the author's name, the veracity of the video is, at this moment, unquestionable. The other source provided was meant to show that AB60 is referred to as the "sanctuary state bill", not to say anything with regard to DeLeon. Additionally, my edits amounted to more that just the parts for which I provided the above sources. For these reasons, I will go back and revert your cancellation of my edits. Please respond on my page if you feel the need to cancel them again. Thank you, Ephraimhelfgot

PS: With changes, of course, to make it appear more dignified

Please comment on Talk:2017 World Rally Championship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 World Rally Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello EvergreenFir,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why delete www.painscale.com

There are tailored pain scales being developed with the head of Northwestern University's Anesthesiology department to be specific for different types of pain. Why does this get marked as spam?

This is part of an extensive research project with a $20B Med Tech company and 3 of the workd's leading academic medical institutions. It is still in stealth mode and scheduled to launch in June 2017 DigHealthEprt (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

AN3 report

While the report is not about you, you were mentioned on AN3, here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Comebacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Comebacks. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, EvergreenFir, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: thank you! I actually had no clue today was the day. Interesting info! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity how many years has it been since he has started to edit? Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wikipediauser123456: Four years. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Well happy 4th wikibirthday! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:100.35.57.135

This user has been making disruptive edits repeatedly on List of The Loud House episodes and has continued after me giving multiple warnings to this user, therefore i believe that this user should be blocked, on the grounds that he has constantly made disruptive edits, and/or bad faith edits, Thank you, have a nice day! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediauser123456: Report the user to WP:AIV if they continue. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Ok thank you, I'll keep track of him, Have a nice day! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello EvergreenFir,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

AFD of interest

Hello! As a participant in previous discussions about a related topic, you may be interested in commenting on this AFD. I am notifying everyone involved in previous debates on the subject. Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks and on the second fix of white washing, I thought I had deleted that line already. I even mentioned in my comment on the edit that it needed to be removed. Thanks for the catch that I missed.

- Tobiasthered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiasthered (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Strohbot

I removed your warning from User talk:Strohbot as it was incorrect. You may have like me noticed their name falls foul of the user name policy, but picked the wrong warning. As I only noticed it after adding such as warning I removed yours as two very similar messages might be confusing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: thank you for that. I clearly choose the wrong warning. Thanks for fixing the situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyberchase season 11

I linked a new source for the season 11 annuncement, it's the Pip Animation announcement form their website. They are the ones who animated seasons 9 and 10. 199.101.61.70 (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Reigns

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Reigns. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?

I personally don't know if all of these people are connected, nor do i know if i have enough evidence to actually declare this a sock puppet case, I would appreciate your opinion, as of now 1 account and 2 IP's have been doing the exact same edit, here is an edit from each account on the topic i'm telling you about,

Opopomud- Here is the first one (its an in-wiki page) 79.47.77.161- 2nd One (In-Wiki) 80.117.103.93- 3rd and most recent one (Also In-Wiki)

All of these are on one article, here are some from another article (Same edits, Same Topic, And Same Users)

Opopomud- Same user as above (Also In-WIki) 79.47.77.161- Same user as above...... (Also In-Wiki)

I Believe that these are the only articles affected by these users, anyways I would appreciate it, if i would receive your opinion I.E if this seems connected, and I.E if this is worthy of a sock puppet case.

Also, I came to you in this instance because you reverted some of these edits. Thank you and have a nice day! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediauser123456: They certainly look like the same person from their behavior. Both IPs geolocate to Italy. I would recommend starting a sockpuppet investigation over at WP:SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok Thank you! Have a nice day! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Am i required to notify the suspected sock puppets (I think i read somewhere that i am supposed to, but i need confirmation) Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediauser123456: You are not required to notify the suspected accounts for SPIs. Other places like WP:ANI or WP:AE you are required to, but not at WP:SPI EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: ok thanks! Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Good preventive advice

Starve them out
Your message here says you will starve these little folks. But I hope you temporarily relent and make an exception on St. Patrick's Day, as they are hungry and fond of Guiness Stout, Harp Lager and Corned beef. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

North Carolina IP Hopper

That IP Hopper from North Carolina who messed with you about Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness also did the same thing to me at Adventures of the Little Koala, The Lion Guard, Lilo & Stitch: The Series, and Wild West C.O.W.-Boys of Moo Mesa. I also didn't appreciate its attitude too. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Buckner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Buckner. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 1

Thank you for the notification! Yaa Harpo (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sexting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sexting. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 April 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, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Trivia primary human sexual fetishism involves the cause and the manifestation of diseases

However, there are subjects over which even heterosexuals homosexuals and bisexuals who are breast fetishists are tending to the baby born to manifest the diseases in the future could eliminate sexuality because it would decrease serious diseases such as autism, AIDS, such as Down syndrome they are caused by brain damage, and the latter the genetic damage to the cerebellum squint eye damage to the meninges due coincidentally the miringite. -- Greedfeder (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I did on Talk:Melanin theory could be constituted as vandalizing.

Choose your words more wisely.

If you're seeing more and more contributions that are effectively "This website sucks now", maybe you can glean something from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.26.234 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

One positive thing

Well there is one positive thing that has come out of this edit warring vandal over at Male privilege. It has convinced me that there aren't enough admins (particularly in my area of the world that might be up at this time of day) and given me the final push that I needed to go for RfA. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Certainly seems needed... :) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Green Eggs and Ham

The NC IP Hopper striked again, this time at Green Eggs and Ham (TV series). Sometimes I wish that Distributor Hater didn't came here in the first place. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me

It seems that you have it out for me and are trying to get me banned. I am returning and am trying to learn the edit, but your behavior seems in appropriate especially the threats about banning me for vandalism. Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ryanfinlayson1: You have vandalized pages I have on my watchlist. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
You're on my watchlist for abusing your power. I am trying to make good faith edits. If you can't see that, You need to self reflect. Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ryanfinlayson1: I recommend the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about editing on Wikipedia. Accusing people who deal with your vandalism of "stalking" isn't the best way of contributing. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Threatening people with bans for adding content that is content neutral isn't the best way to deal with new users. You should send them a notice about where to go instead of false flagging for vandalism. Vandalism has a bad connotation. So accusing me of vandalism when my editing is not out of malicious intent seems counter productive for free speech is it not? Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)
Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Which is why there are escalations in warnings. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
You really seem hell bent on stalking me. I'd appreciate if you cease and desist eaves dropping on conversations especially when you are taking them out of context Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
You want to talk about stalking? This is harassment. Stop it. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Norway

The perpetrators deny any allegations of terrorism or even Islamism, and according to his lawyer, Aase Karine Sigmond, this was a dumb boy's stroke.[1] Braganza (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Braganza: I'm working through Google Translate, so help me if I am mistaken. But it seems like authorities have not called the attack Islamist, is that correct? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Er sei kein Islamist und bestreite die Terrorvorwürfe. Means: He was NOT an Islamist and denounced the terror accusations. Braganza (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I personally think it would be best to wait until the investigators declare the attack Islamist terrorism, but you may want to seek second/third opinions on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://deutsch.rt.com/newsticker/49005-teenager-nach-bombenfund-in-oslo/

Black Supremacist article edits

Hello EvergreenFir!

First of all, I want to thank you for informing me of the 3 revert in 24 hours rule. Good to know.

In the future, you might want to indicate WHY you are reverting a revert; you simply reverted my revert without explaining why (fortunately user clpo13 did).

As for your assertion that I made a personal attack on an editor by referring to the editor as an activist editor, I can see how one might interpret my remark as a personal attack but that actually was not my intention.

In the future I will choose my words differently, and rather than refer to someone as an activist editor, explain why someone appears to be an activist editor.

I can appreciate why that is important.

That said, as I'm sure you know, the concept of an activist editor is actually something acknowledged to exist by Wikipedia. So the term is not necessarily a personal attack in and of itself, though I agree that it ought not be invoked without carefully explaining why you suspect one may be an activist editor.

Otherwise it is indistinguishable from an ad hominem attack.

You have a valid point there.

In any event, regardless of what you may think about me is my edits or my intentions here, I'm actually grateful for your comments.

It's actually very helpful advice.

Thanks! CannotFindAName (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@CannotFindAName: thanks for the message! Not to be too pedantic, but I double checked and I did give a reason in the revert ([1]). I've been trying to be better about giving reasons (takes more time but generally worth it). Just wanted to point it out. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leggings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leggings. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: "IP hopping vandal"

This is a mobile (AT&T) address, in use intermittently by numerous individuals. Tossing ad hominem onto its talk page will not accomplish anything. A shared IP block with a tag for suggesting account creation should suffice without having to accuse every new user who hops on the range of vandalism. 2600:387:2:813:0:0:0:AE (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:75.134.191.158

I saw your report at AIV, but I'm not really sure what we can do. The IP has a final warning, so it doesn't seem likely that further warnings will be productive. It's not exactly high-rate vandalism, averaging about an edit per day, and not all obvious vandalism. So a block would have to be on the long side to prevent much. I'm pretty reluctant to indef an IP, or to hand out a month-long block as their first. Any ideas? GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Honestly not really... one of those consistent but slow moving vandals. With the ridiculous amount of vandalism the WP:TV project pages attract, I'm admittedly less nuanced in my approach to vandals there simply due to sheer volume. If you think that a block won't do much here, I won't disagree. I will keep an eye on their edits though and see if it continues. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3)

I took the liberty to restore your edits on Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3). We better keep our eyes peeled in case that NC IP Hopper comes back again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I saw (opened the tab but haven't gotten to it yet). Thank you for dealing with it. I'll keep an eye out more in the coming days. Been so busy, barely time to even look. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Those episodes are not two parters, they aired as one whole episode, they only had one title card, those edits were and never will be vandalism, and that's the end of it! 2605:A601:7013:400:EC3E:C18F:1AB2:37D5 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Someday, we're gonna need to request a block range on that user. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Fish Hooks episodes

I also restored your edits on List of Fish Hooks episodes. I personally would rather listen to REAL Wikipedia professionals like you and most of everyone else than unprofessional ones like that user who removed your edit on that page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

MoS talk: ie, eg and etc

You have closed an RfC saying there are two on one page about the same topic and both started by the same user. Can you please check your reasoning, as I think you will find this is not true. --Sb2001 (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You removed referenced information and new citations

Two days ago, I spent an hour adding citations that were missing from Wikipedia's "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" page and adding additional information.

After finishing, I received this message from you: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted."

I lost my hour and all of my helpful edits because you decided that you did not want them. I presume that you did not actually look at them because, if you had, you would have seen that all of them were sourced with references.

I am an Oklahoma attorney who is intimately familiar with the facts and sources of information pertaining to the content that I was editing. I presume that you are not.

You have done a disservice to Wikipedia and to everyone who uses the "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" page for information.

On a side note: I'm glad that I'm not you. You must live a sad life if you spend it "policing" Wikipedia.

209.213.139.15 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@209.213.139.15: As an attorney I'm sure you understand the importance of rules, procedures, and proper presentation of evidence. To speak you're jargon, you added prejudicial information, i.e., information that presents an undue negative narrative and was, at the very least, unnecessary for a reader's understanding of the event. Just as with rape shield laws, you cannot bring in (mis)leading tangential information into the article to paint a skewed picture. For Wikipedia's rules on this, see WP:WEIGHT.
I'm concerned that as an attorney "intimately familiar with the facts" surrounding this case, you may have a conflict of interest. If so, please read that linked page.
Last, my sad life on Wikipedia is a hobby. While I take it seriously and enjoy it, I don't take it personally. I suggest you do the same. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Violence against women

Why?--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Because GBV is about either (1) violence rooted in misogyny or (2) violence that disproportionately or exclusively affects women and girls. It's not just any violence that occurs against women. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's the type of violence that occurs to women for being women.--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
By removing the "predominantly or exclusively" part, the sentence rads as if any violence that affects women is GBV though. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. The text doesn't make that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs)
Let's move this to the article talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blanca Lap: Sorry I've been busy at work. I'll take a look in a moment. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding reboots

Why are you removing the vast majority of reboots from the Reboot page? Jamster93 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catalan Countries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Paraphilia and Transgender Issues

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Brexit123 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fictional victims of child abuse

But... But... They are so wacko, they must be! Cheerio! Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Good Contributor Erusnika1 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian Connections

The opposition has provided no valid reason to remove my section, while I've provided evidence supporting my edit. The lack of consensus is due to partisan beliefs rather than scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC) So what exactly do you identify as a "reliable source?" A source that you like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Be sure to check for copyvios

In the article Discrimintation against women throughout the world you redirected it without first checking if the article was a copyvio, and it was, I've contacted the oversight team. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lil Johnny: Thank you. I actually did grab a sentence and toss it into google, but didn't find any matches 9[2]). Where did you find the original, if I may ask? I think I'll use Earwig's Copyvio Detector more frequently in the future though. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I used earwig's to check for copyvios. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Please be more circumspect in your redactions. Here you redacted a direct quote from the L.A Times. The individual is not named so WP:BLP1E does not apply. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The user really should include the source in the talk page comment, but I guess they're referring to a source on the page so it's close enough. Given their behavior, however, I'm concerned about blp-toeing counts like that. Revert me if you like, I won't complain. The first redacted comment, though, seems more clear cut. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. A related issue: I raised concern today at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard after an editor repeatedly described a journalist (whom he named) as a "neo-Nazi." The editor provided no source for that claim despite requests. Can you review it? The editor has recently reverted my removals and I'd rather not exacerbate the situation. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. And thank you got explaining your restoration of the comment I redacted. I found the source in the article that was being referred to and agree with you regarding the unredaction. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: given your history with that user (if memory serves), I think you are correct in not wanting to exacerbate the situation. That said, I have to agree with you and the other user (forgetting name and hard to go back on phone) that the phrasing is a BLP vio. The original wording about visiting stormfront wasn't an issue, but applying that label without referring another RS is. Just my opinion. I think the final comment on that section is a good one though; at this point but much else can be done on the RSN and it would be time to move to a different venue to address the issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you a moderator? If so, where is the label? VanillaDazzle (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe you mean administrator. To answer: no. But like any user, I can enforce policy and inform editors of possible consequences for violating those policies. Administrators can issue blocks, use discretionary sanctions, etc. If you feel a particular incident requires administrators' attention, please go to WP:ANI EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Geo Stubs

Thank you. What one would I add, to add a page to the list of rivers in New York. Also what stub would be added for Lake pages? Thanks for your help. Tripp155 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tripp155: My understanding is that you just add a stub template for the county, regardless of the body of water type. I think you'd be able to find them all in Category:New_York_geography_stubs and then look under the regional categories like Category:Central New York geography stubs for the appropriate county. The typical formatting is {{FUBARCountyNY-geo-stub}} but replace FUBAR with the county name.
There's also categories you can add to the page like Category:Lakes of Herkimer County, New York. For lakes, the generic category is Category:Lakes of FUBAR County, New York. You can find a list of those categories in Category:Lakes of New York by county. For rivers, it is similar. The list of categories is at Category:Rivers of New York by county and follows the same pattern of Category:Rivers of FUBAR County, New York.
I updated Woodhull Lake (New York), Perch Lake (New York), and Allen Lake (New York) that you can use as examples. Also, the articles talk pages can all have the same WikiProject templates copy-pasted on them for the lakes. Just change the Lakes project to Rivers if the page is a river. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The syntax for the talk pages for lakes would be:
{{WikiProject Lakes|class=stub|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject New York|class=stub|importance=low}}
For rivers, it would be:
{{WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject New York|class=stub|importance=low}}
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Jordan Edwards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesquite High School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in April 2017

This:

Note that while The Nation attributes the act to BRN, it could just as easily be PULO. If you want to include Thailand-related terrorism in your articles, let me know and I'll keep you posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.202.2 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Darmstädter Signal

Dear EvergreenFir,

thanks for your comment. The article shall become an English version of the German article "Darmstädter Signal". I will try to complete it during the next two weeks and hope that my time will allow that. References will be supplemented and the final length of the text should be similar to that of the German version.

With best regards Oeuesi --Oeuesi (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Steve Neill

This was already PRODed, so I suggest you de-PROD before someone makes a deal out of it :) Best,Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote: To the best of my knowledge, BLPPROD still applies because there are still no reliable sources (or any sources) in the article about a BLP. I understand that normally when a PROD is challenged, you have to go to AFD. But BLPPROD has a criteron that must be met before it can be removed. That criterion has not been met. The author of the page inappropriately removed the BLPPROD in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
From WP:BLPPROD: "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added." No reliable sources were ever properly placed after the original BLPPROD was made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I understand and I appreciate your time taken to respond. I would imagine that given the editor keeps on removing tags and PROD notices, WP:AfD might be a better venue for this. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape statistics

Is a POV editor magnet. What do you think of this edit: here? Reference removed, occurrence rate lowered. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Looking through the the edit history now... and wow, yeah, as usual both India and Pakistan's numbers changed majorly. That editor removed sourced info and replaced it with non-sourced info. Will revert and warn. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I had it backwards. The editor you linked in that diff was correct. Brain fail. Can't wait for summer break. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My brain wasn't working well either. Though, functional enough to dump it on you! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Controversial Reddit communities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Controversial Reddit communities. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

Why do you go out of your way to change this when the accepted term for illegal alien on the WP is "illegal immigrant"? (See Illegal immigration in the United States and Illegal immigrant population of the United States.) --IHTS (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the user is a POV pusher and WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me by following me around just to revert? It's called harassment and can get you blocked. I'm sure you know that though. I'd appreciate if you stopped calling me a "POV-pusher" for not being as liberal as you. Your only reasoning for that revert was just making a WP:PERSONALATTACK on me just for disagreeing with you. STOP. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Diaz: look at the page's history and you'll see I did not follow you. I stand by my statement based on your behavior over at Talk:Richard B. Spencer where you were warned by two admins about your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Evergreen, the user's edit was correct, your revert of it wasn't. I don't know the editor's editing history, but that particular edit was correct so can't fairly be considered an example of "POV pushing". So I ask again why you reverted a correct edit? --IHTS (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: it was already reverted by the user. I disagree with your conclusion but don't have the time to argue about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Hey, I just wanna point about Just one Bite was I got that info from the lost media wiki and I also saw it listed in the list of entertainment affected by 9/11. I don't wanna be blocked from editing. Can I ask? How long will you be banned from editing? Is it permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfluffypuff13 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello EvergreenFir,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Shashahan

Sorry we have done it by mistake. Adds we get from your page is business ads so please stop that ad hereafter. Thanks and regards. Shashahan (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Please do reply me Shashahan (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shashahan: I am not sure I understand what you mean about ads, but please do not vandalize Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My Johnny Mooring edits were NOT vandalism!

My Johnny Mooring edits were NOT vandalism!. They are based on a telephone interview I conducted with a source who was very close with the subject some years agoCorvallisJess (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@CorvallisJess: Please see WP:OR and WP:V. Also see WP:LIBEL. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
From a purely legal standpoint, it's not Libel if the subject is deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorvallisJess (talk • contribs)

Why does it have to be supremacist

Clearly the intent in calling him a "supremacist" instead of a "nationalist" is meant to slander. X06 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See the talk page archives. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

PRESENT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PRESENT. Since you had some involvement with the PRESENT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your revision of "homoeuropeeans" edit

I think you should revert that edit since the sources are outdated and the viewpoint offered is too narrow. The edit homoeuropeeans made was acceptable. Lightisthere (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lightisthere: I don't know which edit you are referring to. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Third_gender
On the 19th May, you Undid revision 780633251 by Homoeuropeean. The source is poor and the edit made the text more inclusive as those countries aren't the only countries with Hijra - in fact Hijra don't form a integral aspect of their culture in the same manner that it does in places like Sri Lanka. While the sources are generally poor for the topic, I suggest that the more "broad" terms used by homoeuropeeans is better suited and less controversial.
Lightisthere (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

I was trying to fix something and you keep complaining about it. Why is that? Could you please remove me from the report discussion? As I said, if you read the link to the TVshowsondvd page for the series, the later seasons were released as manufacture on demand titles. Plus, most wiki TV seasons only accept either promotional poster, physical DVD cover and or digital cover. If there were physical releases, then there would've been a press release by Fox. Just please let it all go for now stop confusing the mod titles with the real dvd covers. I am not a disruptive editor.Leviathan648 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're continuing the disruptive edit warring on the Bob's Burgers pages that you did back in January and as an IP editor. Discuss the issue over on WP: ANI please. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to stop by AN and say thank you. It's probably a sign of some of the toxicity we work with that when I saw a notification that I'd been mentioned at AN I thought, "Oh God, what now?" So it was a very pleasant surprise to find that someone had taken the time to be courteous. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I know exactly what you mean about the notifications! And I'm glad it was a pleasant surprise. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your nomination for deletion of my article

I feel it is foul play and malicious and my article was built and framed on a website that i own the copyright rights to, and later edited by me to make it compliant with legislations; which was ongoing when you rudely nominated it for deletion without proper care to look into the article and its founder. I will remember this, and shall not contribute to this toxic site again with the likes of you lurking and shadowing my every move to be as trolling as can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZroZlame (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@ZroZlame: Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and experienced users often patrol the new pages log. Because anyone can make an account on Wikipedia, we have no way of knowing if you own the copyright or not. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright assistance for more info. Understand that there is no malice in my nomination of your article for speedy deletion. Rather, it is to protect Wikipedia and you. Please consider asking questions at the tea house if you have questions or submitting your article to WP:AFC where there is a tutorial and helpful info about creating articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, where does the 'Oliver' part come from? It is not mentioned in the article at all. Should it not be called simply 'Silgram'? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC
I have updated the article and removed MY materials, that i authored and published... So it fits in the site anyway, i would like if you removed your noisy notice from my article please. The Oliver part is based on a nickname given to the drug by countless others, during http://www.diaglobal.org/ 's drug conference ther was mention of said nickname, i would rather you researched the name instead of calling it a lie and trying to get my article deleted.
@ZroZlame: Given your other article creations, I find your claims dubious. The burden is on you to prove you are correct though. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I am leaving this site, i find the people such as yourself to be roadblocks in the way of futurology and such. Doomed to be a blimp in the past, and shall remain forgotten — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZroZlame (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Talk:PhiloSOPHIA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PhiloSOPHIA. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Federer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roger Federer. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected your talk

I had to semi-protect your talk for a little while due to a vandal. Let me know if you want it lifted early. SQLQuery me! 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback

Thank you for your feedback. I added more below your comment as well. Scenicview1 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

Please comment on Talk:Toxic masculinity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Toxic masculinity. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn how to understand instead of attack

Hey revert warrior. You are a dime a dozen. You don't contribute anything. You are a self-appointed censor. I'm sure this fits your IRL mentality about how you like to be treated. Cut it out. Harassment isn't nice.

Adding things you think are related but are not supported by sources or consensus is not okay. Go to the article's talk page, not my user page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Something similar ought to be "see also" or "redirect". I did not expound on anything with OR POV. You ought to quit controlling the narrative only for your own narrow view. You yourself do not decide total consensus.

And I'll add that saying here that "You don't contribute anything. You are a self-appointed censor. I'm sure this fits your IRL mentality about how you like to be treated" is absolutely unacceptable and against Wikipedia's civility policy. Please respect EvergreenFir's wishes that you express your concerns on the article's talk page, and refrain from any further personal attacks. Any more of this will result in a block. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Timon & Pumbaa

Thank you for helping me with the Timon and Pumbaa page! That anon constantly changing the names was really starting to get on my nerves. --DeaditeWheatley (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Extra points for you...

... for using the word "perseverate" in a sentence. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message. I have observed that the user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/OPamuk1967b is editing Wikipedia to promote articles by "Franz Lidz" of Smithsonian Magazine. Most times this is in the introduction but other times further down. Please address this if you will!

@Pastoes777: Ah, okay, I see what you mean. I'll start a post at WP:ANI in about a half hour. We'll let an administrator decide if the material should be removed. Sorry for the confusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting My Comments Is Censorship

I see you delete my comment on the race and intelligence article. Just because I don't agree with your opinions about race doesn't mean you have to right to censor me. What I said was very relevant to the article in question because it stands in direct conflict with the theories of Richard Lynn, the Century Foundation, etc. It suggest there's either some fraud going on(a common accusation against Lynn and other race and intelligence researchers) or some error. You may not want to admit that studies from self proclaimed white nationalists aren't reliable, but this is Wikipedia. 107.77.164.46 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social network. If you want to ask questions, go to the WP:REFDESK. Article talk pages are meant for improving the article, not discussing the topic of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Barcade

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Barcade. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

keith mullins deletion

please do not delete keith mullins page, still working on it, i've got a few more sources including CBC, please be patient. Not Your Average Wikipedian (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Not Your Average Wikipedian: That sounds good! I would make a comment on the article's talk page about that. You might also look into working with WP:AFC to help create a draft page that you can work on slowly. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Parvenu

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Parvenu. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello EvergreenFir,

I am sorry to see the harassment and am happy to see that it got cleaned up promptly. Feel free to remove this message if you wish. Best regards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: no need to apologise at all. The troll was escalating quickly and so I reached out to the first admin I saw active. :D The nonsense that user was doing is nothing new (immune to that kinda trolling by now; they want a reaction is all). Thanks for messaging though! I appreciate it! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith Urban

Thank you for revising the Keith Urban page. I knew something was up when his last name was changed.--Caleb Woods

Meinrad Craighead

Hi there. I have added a several secondary sources about Craighead's work. Thank you for pointing out the gaps!

A

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading Indian educational attainment and bachelor degree percentage

The percentages of the Bachelor degree and educational attainment for Indians was 2000 and 2010 is 67.9% and 71%. Other wikipedia pages also show the same percentage decade ago show similar percentages

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Model_minority

And pre-2015 this was also the percentages for Indian bachelor degree and educational attainment.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Indian_Americans&diff=684948126&oldid=684892559

The edit for Indians havving 80.0% and 94.7% are complete recent edits by a wiki user that have nothing to do with statistic from 2000 and 2010 --77.100.234.159 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected your talk page

...obviously because of the persistent harassment. If you want the protection removed, let me know and I will do so :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended it to be a bit longer because... well... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, blocked the dynamic IP for 24 hours. If you want it longer, let me know. Account creation is not blocked, so I assume we will shortly have a SPA to block, as well. Will also semi your page if you like. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists of terrorist incidents

Most of these lists include the wording "including attacks by violent non-state actors for political motives" (I saw one that included 'religious motives' and something else, but didn't keep the url). That seems just plain wrong and sometimes a BLP violations. What do you think and if you agree, is this an NPOV issue or NOR? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's 100% OR to include that. And frankly I'd like the rule to be that the source must call the incident terrorism. Just because it was perpetrated by revolutionary, insurgent, secessionist, or other quasi-political groups like ISIL, Hezbollah, FARC, etc. doesn't make every act they do "terrorism". The entire series of articles needs revamping IMHO, but last time I tried to do anything I got shut down. Perhaps a VP discussion is needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Forgot ping Doug Weller. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Which VP? That sounds a better idea. Doubt I can do this for another 16 hours or so. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: probably WP:VPR? Make a proposal to overhaul terrorism lists and pages? I can piece something together if you want. We can co-propose something. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, and thanks. You can email me if you want. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
-- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Student financial aid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Student financial aid. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Immigration

Re [3]. I guess it's RS for its view on things. But in that case it needs to be clarified that this is ICE's assessment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for noticeboard duplicate/collision

Sorry I didn't notice the edit conflict; thanks for reporting the edit warrior on Gender dysphoria. Funcrunch (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Sorry about the bulldozing of your report. I added a link to it in the AN3 report. Looks like you added the report right after the IP blanked by original one. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the blanking must be why I didn't see your existing report when I filed mine. Well, hopefully they'll get blocked soonish. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours. You also broke 3RR on this article; consider yourself fortunate to not get blocked too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: seemed like vandalism at that point to me which is 3RR exempt. I've yet to see someone blocked for cleaning up after a nuisance. This went beyond a content dispute. Their revert at AN3 made that clear enough. If I'm mistaken in my interpretation, let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No edits I looked at suggest the editor was deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse, and all of them gave me the impression they sincerely thought they were doing the right thing. After all, isn't it rather POV to suggest somebody experiences distress over gender dysphoria? Genesis P. Orridge doesn't seem to have had a problem with it. Additionally, the IP's first edits gave a clear indication what they were doing in the edit summaries and you reverted them without any reasonably indication why. So I don't think you can claim WP:3RRNO on this. However, in pragmatic terms, I believe once I've told you "you went 6RR on this article, stop it", you'll leave the article alone and do something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I'll leave it alone. But you're incorrect that I didn't give an explanation on my revert. Since you did some research on it though, maybe you'd like to add to the article though I'm not seeing how Genesis P. Orridge relates to the general understanding of the topic. Perhaps the two other editors who reverted the IP multiple times (Jim1138 and Funcrunch) might be able to make to make connection I'm missing. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Independent of the number of reverts EvergreenFir made and whether or not they were justified, the IP's blanking of their report at the 3RR noticeboard was a clear indication of bad faith, in my opinion, as was their snarky "you all need to stop edit-warring" comment (made at around 7 or 8RR). I also don't see how Genesis P. Orridge relates to the discussion at hand. Funcrunch (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What does P-Orridge have do do with the gender dysphoria article? Credentials? The IP seems to be quite familiar with Wiki-lingo, I doubt that this is the IP's first disagreement. Jim1138 (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The version you reverted (preferred by the IP) said gender dysphoria "is a psychological condition wherein a man or a woman experiences a different gender identity than the gender which is typically determined by their sex", while the version you restored (preferred by you) says "is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.". Gen PO was the first example I could think of of somebody who changed gender without so much as a "meh" from people (as far as their article potrays, at least). So I personally prefer the IP's version of the first sentence. In any case, you made six reverts [4][5][6][7][8][9] in about 90 minutes, which is edit-warring, whichever way you slice it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW Ritchie, the "distress" part is part of the definition of dysphoria. To have a dysphoria diagnosis you need "significant distress or problems functioning," per the DSM-5. It is distinct from gender nonconformity - the distress/impairment is why it's called a "disorder," after all. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: the underlying problem with the IP's edits we that it was a thinly veiled attempt at the "there are two genders" vandalism. That's why they choose the "man or woman" language and tried to use did nonsense ref to the WHO. This was bad faith add demonstrated by the reverts on AN3 and the blanking of the user's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what Fyddlestix and EvergreenFir said here. Also, even if the IP's initial edits were in good faith, they failed to follow the WP:BRD cycle which is good practice on a controversial subject like this one. They were bold, they were reverted, they failed to discuss (even after explicit invitations to do so). There was actually recent discussion on the talk page about revisions to the lead, started during the time when the article was semi-protected; they could have contributed to that rather than repeatedly reinstating challenged edits. Funcrunch (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I admit that I went past 3RR and felt that was okay given the IP's behavior. Ritchie clearly disagrees. I'll be more careful in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It was another thinly-veiled attempt to rewrite the article to be two genders only. Vandalism which seems all too common on Wikipedia. More support needs to be given to editors removing this sort of thing. Jim1138 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind people disagreeing with my views (heck, if we all agreed on everything, it would be disastrous if we were all in fact wrong), but it isn't vandalism. Call it disruptive, POV pushing, abusive, tendentious ... but you can't prove the IP did it to deliberately screw Wikipedia up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vaccine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vaccine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Please don't use the {{Stub}} tag if you can find a more specific stub tag; stub sort whenever you are able. To do otherwise will backlog Category:Stubs. Thank you. (I realize some people aren't able to stub sort very well due to issues surrounding memory or feeling overwhelmed by the unfortunately long list of stub types; sorry if you're one of them). -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: okay I'll give it a try next time! Thanks for the info! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ezidkhan

I'm not sure this is of interest to you, and I'm also not sure if my actions are all correct, so I'm looking for other eyes here. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'll add it to my watchlist and take a look. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow Ted Cruz's activities will be unavoidable.

You can't even delay the inevitable 24 hours.

cheers, --Bojackh (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We aren't concerned with being OMGFIRST!!!!1111 with new sordid tidbits about peoples' lives. When and if reliable sources cover the issue in sufficient detail and depth, the incident will likely find a place in Cruz's article. But we can afford to wait and get it right, and not rush to throw in tabloid-trash trivia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Module talk:Basketball color/data

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Module talk:Basketball color/data. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Village pump

Not getting very far there, we may have to go ahead and propose it elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: ok I'll try to do that tonight. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mansplaining

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mansplaining. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon pagemove

I closed it immediately and reported the IP; it's another Gabucho181 sock. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: thank you. I didn't recognize him. Is this part of his new MO? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Sadly not new; they tried the same confusing rationale back in February before they got in a Dan Vs. will return edit elsewhere before their IPV4 at the time got blocked (I did add it to the LTA shortly thereafter). Nate • (chatter) 09:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mrschimpf: Good to know and thanks for updating the LTA. Gabucho hasn't been much on my radar recently (was nice while it lasted). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

CSI Miami driven

In real Life, a Smart Cop would Hav asked for Sketch Artist.

1. Try to Giv me 1 good reason why didn't Dumb Delko ask for Sketch Artist to Ask Hayden to Describe the Thief's face?(2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:93 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)).

I have no idea what you're talking about. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You edited season 4 csi Miami so Have You watched driven before?(2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)).
I edited that page over a year ago to change the infobox. I have never watched the show. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexism citation language edit

Hi there EvergreenFir, I thought I should further explain my edit in Sexism that you reverted. The issue I had was that the citation did not back up the statement. The statement was ... it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls.

The citation discussed usage of the term by references and scholars rather than particular documentation of it affecting girls/women.

So alignment with the statement is the issue. Citations of it's primary usage don't document it's affect. Do you have a suggestion for improving it?

Mention of terrorism in sources.

Hello,

I saw that you deleted the West Bank shooting because there was no mentioning of terrorism in the source. Indeed, the article from the BBC didn't mention the word 'terrorism', but other articles sure did. I've now put a new source to the list of terrorist incidents that mentions terrorism, but for next time, could you please put a litte more effort in finding a source that mentions terrorism before deleting the whole incident? For this incident there are plenty of sources citing an Israeli spokesperson calling the incident an 'act of terror'. In general, I do agree with your way of handling since many incidents are put on the list that aren't actually terrorism. But for the larger and more 'significant' attacks, could you do a bit more effort in finding better sources and replacing the once that do not meet the requirements?

Thank you. JBergsma1 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@JBergsma1: For wikilinked events, sure, I'll try looking for sources next time. You're right that I should have in this case. The issue with improperly sourced entries on these lists is such a problem though I admit to getting exhausted verifying them all let alone trying to find better sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Thank you, I appreciate that you endeavour to make wikipedia as reliable as possible when it comes to placing reliable sources. But for fellow Wikipedians, sometimes deleting material without improving it might cause a little bit of backlash among other users that have been working on the article. So it would be nice to discuss these issues on the talkpageJBergsma1 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@JBergsma1: I realized that and had started a general discussion at Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_September_2017#Verification_Failed. There's even some discussion about this general issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_regarding_WP:OR_and_terrorism. I'd love your input there. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I know that there are discussions taking place about these issues. I participated in one of them myself a year ago. But the problem is that many users are not aware of these discussions taking place or simply don't feel the need to read all arguments that are being made due to the lengthiness of these discussions. I've had this experience myself. It might work, however, to discuss the sources used on the list of terrorist incidents talk page. If you simply state on the talk page that a given source doesn't mention terrorism and other sources don't mention it either, then no one can say you're wrong about removing the incident.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hentai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hentai. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions

Why did you revert my cited material from List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America? And why did you call it OR? Please explain your rationale – in depth. Mojoworker (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You essentially made a warning to the reader based on your analysis of the article and image. Your concern about mismatched scope between the article and image is a legit one, but your solution seemed POINTy. Might I recommend you adjust the caption or include a footnote to indicate what the chart includes or defines as a "monument" instead? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See

this. I hadn't realised he never uses talk pages. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There is certainly a failure to WP:COMMUNICATE. But they've been adding good stuff recently. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. And now adding edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:State atheism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State atheism. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Supercars Championship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Supercars Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

SPI

About this comment I agree that it looks like the other editor is also a sock. (The characteristic "subtitle" to mean "section heading" is eye-catching.) --JBL (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: I was planning on keeping an eye on them, giving them WP:ROPE. If you think you have enough to file an SPI, go for it! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your approach. (Primarily because this one is much less disruptive.) --JBL (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to stop persistent sockpuppetry. Please see WP:Tirgil34, a related/similar case. The sockmaster is very active nowadays and as mentioned by an user here, he is probably a paid vandal. Many editors filed SPI cases and more than a hundred socks has been banned but the problem still continues. The last week, his sock vandalised a page with outdated (sources from 1800s, 1600s), unreliable sources and has been banned[10]. And his another sock, Hoze.amar has also been blocked on Wikipedia Commons just a 2 weeks ago. But the blocks do not work because the sockmaster is still active! [11]. See the edits by old socks: [12][13]. These pages hadn't been vandalised for a long time, but then, suddenly and dubiously has become the targets again by various "new" users. It is not a coincidence, for sure. The sockmaster has been actively socking for years. I think it is because only a few editors pay attention to this case, unfortunately. Therefore, I wanted to inform you about this long-term abuser, since you did an applaudable work on a similar case. Thank you. 5.165.200.153 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Political prisoner

User 212.169.202.5 is deleting my content even in the talk page. See Revision as of 19:00. What can be done to deal with a person who does not even want to discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorjjp (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that the page has been protected, and given that user 212.169.202.5 will never agree with me, what options are there? Just requesting lowering the protection will not work, as most likely this user will engage in another editing war. Is there any chance to request mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorjjp (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to reply on the last question in Talk:Circumcision#Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"?

Yes, I know about Wikipedia’s “NO Original Research” policy. I will be providing references for my writing.

About your suggestion in the talk page discussion to write on this under Category:Violence against men, my question is that, under what article can I write on this? Can I create a new article Forced circumcision of children? Or can I write on this in existing Forced circumcision or Circumcision articles?

As you can see, currently neither of the Wikipedia articles, whether Forced circumcision article or Circumcision article talks about forced circumcision of children.

Please review the full discussion at Talk:Circumcision#Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"? and answer to the last question so that I can proceed further.

Abir Babu (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir sir, this is a gentle reminder about my last unanswered question in Talk:Circumcision#Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"?. I am still waiting for your answers. Please read above and answer in the talk page so that I can proceed further.

Abir Babu (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABgab 16:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA pt.2

Hi Evergreen! Back in January we talked about the potential for you running at RfA, leading to an ORCP discussion and the conclusion that you would write some more content and consider again in a few months. I just wanted to check in to see how you thought about it now. I notice you've written a few more articles, and while none of them are GAs I haven't found that to be an issue provided a candidate has shown they could write a GA through their other content work. Let me know what your thoughts are - frankly I think you're over-qualified for the position and could do even better work here with the extra tools. I'd be happy to (co-)nominate you, and if we found another strong nomination I think you'd do fine. Sam Walton (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully support this, with one very important caveat: that you let me know before you transclude it so I can cast the first support. GMGtalk 13:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not ignoring you. Honestly still thinking on this and haven't been on Wikipedia much the past few days. I'll get back to your soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Grape-kun

Hello! Your submission of Grape-kun 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) 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Folkloristics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Folkloristics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Feature film response

Can we use critical response even if it's not released? I removed it from Coco (2017 film). I'm not going to do it if not. CriticismEdits (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy on Wikipedia

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. RedHermit1982 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Grape-kun

On 3 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grape-kun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Grape-kun, a Humboldt penguin, "fell in love" with a cutout of an anime character? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grape-kun. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grape-kun), 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) 00:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape of males Article

Is it possible for the suggested footnote to add the 1/71 penetrated rape stat with the 1/21 made to penetrate rape stat to get 1/16 chance of being raped? 1/(1/71+1/21) = 16.2

65.95.240.89 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@65.95.240.89: Do you have a good reliable source for the 1/21 statistic? I'm not sure about combining them, we could argue that it's WP:CALC but it would be best to have a source that specifies the combined rate. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf (Pages 25 and 26) The rate is now actually 1/17 or 5.9% for made to penetrate alone. And 1.5% for penetrated rape so 1/13 to 1/14 overall.

65.95.240.89 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Racism in South Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racism in South Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Racism in the United States article.

I invite you to refute my sources or offer reliable sources that state the opposite. Many of my sources came from non-Jewish science sites. I put up all those sources for a reason. Sources are always more important than consensus. Please refute sources or I shall take it to a noticeboard. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

An RFC might be a better route. But blogs are not reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you stating that every one of my sources are from a blog? That seems really presumptuous of you. I posted several I repeat several sources most of them are from science websites. My Sources include the BBC, Medical Press, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the New York Post, Science Daily, Science Direct, New York Times and LA Times. Those are I'm almost certain reliable sources. My "questionable" sources which btw I never hid that they were questionable include Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, World Jewish Congress, Be'chol Leshan, Jews Down Under and Haaretz which are questionable because they are Jewish sources. However I have seen many people using sources from the ADL, ACLU and SPLC in naming hate groups even though they are clearly biased so I'm not sure whether we should disqualify a source just because it is Jewish. That leaves the sources that I included because I don't know yet if they are reliable sources including free yellow, Arch Hades (Which is a blog but focuses on Anthropology), Damien Marieanthrope (probably my least reliable source), rasch (I know nothing about rasch so I can't tell you whether or not its a reliable source) and Trinicenter (same problem as Rasch). The only opposing sources never stated that Jews weren't Middle Eastern they only didn't include them on a list of Middle Eastern peoples. The opposing source also has been accused of antisemitism multiple times. First off, I'm not using reliable sources in an article specifically but to judge its placement in said article. Secondly, the rules do not state that because I put some questionable sources that all my sources are automatically invalidated. Thirdly, you could easily have taken this to a noticeboard rather than revert my changes. I see no rules on wikipedia where community consensus goes above sources and as I have proven at least a quarter and possibly up to 3/4 of my sources are reliable. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There's clearly a debate about it. Consensus does matter and silence is the weakest form of consensus. To be most honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just see a contentious topic without consensus. Perhaps your edit will initiate more discussion. Or a noticeboard post would work too. If you want, reinstate your edits boldly since you don't seem to be interested in edit warring (that's a good thing) if you think it will lead to resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Listen EvergreenFir, in spite of my possible tone towards you I actually do have a great amount of respect for you. Silence is the weekest form of consensus. I know that is part of wikipedias rules. However I don't want to wait around for weeks waiting for people to agree or disagree with a change in an article (I have done that several times). I know and as I pointed out have not tried to hide not all of my sources are rock-solid. The whole reason for posting them was for people to challenge them. I have been editing wikipedia for years but I still don't have a complete handle on what are reliable sources. For example does a University blog count as a reliable source if it is using professors of said topic, what about medical blogs put out by research hospitals, do sources that would normally be considered reliable become unreliable because they are too close to contentious topic? Are all biased sources necessarily not reliable? I think you misjudged my intentions with putting up the sources. It is a learning experience for me and since I wasn't actually using them in an article I thought it was beneficial to both the article and my learning. I still stand by my statement that at least some and possibly most of my sources were reliable so I think they should be challenged as a reliable source before they are taken down. I also want to thank you for all your previous edits on Wikipedia. I'm not sure you remember me but you left a great impression on me. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bak Chor Mee

Hi EvergreenFir, I believe you redirected Bak Chor Mee to Mee Pok a couple of months ago, a step which I generally agree with. I had opened the merger for discussion. Participation is a bit low, so I was wondering if you'd like to contribute a view so we can keep it as is or proceed to merge. Thanks pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

please dont remove terrorism realted accidents

a sucide bombing is also know as act of terrorsim you removed the whole article as i provided information you are removing stuff dont dont do that i also provided an good information you have no right to do that if someone provide legal information but this time i will say that isis is suspected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardon146 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mardon146: per Wikipedia policies, you cannot add entries that cannot be verified by reliable sources. The source must call the act terrorism. We, as editors, cannot claim it to be terrorism just because it was a diffuser bombing (see No Original Research). Editors adding list entries like this has been a persistent problem and has led to some editors being blocked. Please stop this behavior. If you have questions about a particular event, bring it up on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

hi its me again

alright you removed an articles most of Articles came from iraqi news if this type of incident happend only in iraq i readed it it says The bomber blew himself up while between security personnel which was sucide attack and you say Removing unverified incident again its not good i also added a upper entry quetta attack in 2017 which was not even removed ops sorry its my fault i readed a message that you replied me sorry about that https://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/twelve-police-personnel-killed-injured-suicide-attack-south-mosul/

The article says a person blew themselves up, but does not say the act was terrorism and does not say it was ISIL that did it. We cannot make those leaps, we can only say what the sources say. The list is about terrorism and "incidents by violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motives". It is not a list of suicide bombings EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir/Archive_14&oldid=1142993993"