User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:EvergreenFir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Is there a reason you rolled back my edit?

hm? --Jayron 32 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: no, i have no recollection of that at all! Sorry about that though. There's no reason for a rollback and i hadn't made any other edits around that time... i'm UTC -5:00 so that'd be lunch. Accidental screen tap? Anyway, that was a complete error on my part. Again, sorry about that. And thank you Destroyeraa for reverting me. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. I figured as much. Just thought I'd check to see if I did anything wrong. Anyhoo, carry on. --Jayron 32 00:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please no "warning" templates on my profile thank you

It really pisses me off when people use these templates to stifle debate or discussion. Not very democratic when the purposes is to scare away someone who has done little more than calmly stating their opinion. Thank you.Php2000 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Php2000: Users must be warned of discretionary sanctions before admins can enforce them. You had made a revert on Hunter Biden and I felt it appropriate to warn you of the WP:1RR restriction. Further, Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a forum to opine on. Your comments ([1]) about a living person allege malfeasance without an accompanying reliable source. Please review WP:BLP if you do not understand why this is a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The White people edit warrior is a block-evading sock

Hi EvergreenFir,

Editor Cherteau (talk · contribs)^[noping] who warred with you briefly at White people (here, and here), is block-evading sock Krajoyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) (aka Gatedais (talk · contribs), aka Ingrede, Stumink, Minketorn, and dozens, or maybe hundreds of others), returned once again in their latest hydra head that will eventually need to be lopped off. You can consult with User:Doug Weller, who is familiar with their antics, and long history. Mathglot (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It looks like Favonian took care of it before I could. Thank you for letting me know though!. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good job protecting BLP issues! MONGO (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain?

I admit I am new to Wikipedia but I read the rules on Edit Warring and it says you can report whether their is a 3RR violation or not. Even one revert can be reported. In this case there are two. I never claimed 3RR. In fact I am deliberately avoiding edit warring. Shouldn't that be the desire of Wikipedia? It appears that you are advocating for me to initiate edit warring just so I can report per 3RR. They can simply make sure that they revert every 25 hours and it technically isn't a violation of the policy. I am not looking for the editor to be banned. I am asking for admin mediation to avoid further conflict and edit warring. Could you explain further your reasoning and maybe give me some insight on what I need to do? Thank you. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska: Hello! The main thing was that the other editor wasn't really WP:Edit warring at all. Just 2 reverts. That's fairly standard on Wikipedia (see for example WP:BRD). Usually, the non-3RR are for "slow edit wars" where someone's been reverting over and over slowly (say 5 reverts over 3 days). You did the right think to use the article's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately, things move very slowly on Wikipedia. Perhaps WP:3O or WP:DRN would be venues? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have never been to the Administrator's boards before so I was completely unaware even after reading the rules. I understand and can appreciate the slow movement of Wikipedia in some regards. I was trying to find every avenue I could use to avoid edit warring. It is just so pointless to me. I wasn't and haven't removed the comments asserted in the article. I simply wanted the POV cited. I know the other editor said it was a waste of time but I don't see it that way. Even with the slight rebuke and subsequent dismissal :-) I think it made my point clear and got their attention. I view that as a win for the encyclopedia and the fact that the information contained here should be cited and neutral based on those sources, not personal opinions. Again, thank you for taking the time to respond and I will look at those other options should the reverts continue. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Monstercat on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Whip It (Devo song) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"TRAP" from Article List of LGBT slang terms

The term "trap" from Article <List of LGBT terms> subsection <For transgender people> Has been removed!

I Stright up removed it... Artical was not about "Anime" {yah it's origins are from Anime)Plus it's offensive Plus Plus I can't think of any instance of usage in the General Community! Thedued (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

p.s The term "trap" outside of Anime is almost exclusively on Pornographic Video hosting sites!

On a side note if your userbox "This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Sociology." is true maybe there is a study for this term usage Phenomina.

Thedued (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

p.s.s my limited RESearch indicated offensive within the context of how the term is Applied on a Pornographic videoThedued (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Thedued (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Black market on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nikola Karev is Macedonian

When I edited the page I added link to the source. Not sure why Jingiby and Flix11 were undoing the changes even though I provided evidence of the source. "Cryptic Canadian" was OK with my edit after providing the evidence. Please make the changes and protect the page. Bellow are links to images from a Greek news paper interview (Akropolis, br.7608, Biblioteka – Star Parlament 8 мај 1903) with Nikola Karev, where he is stating that he is Macedonian.

edit Qnet article

Hi EvergreenFir --Zainabdawood77 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC) I was wondering how can I do the edits again on Qnet article, as I can assure u that I don't work or represent Qnet in anyway. My purpose of making such edits was to make the article neutral. I noticed that the article contains only the negative content without the positive one, I added the positive and the most recent achievements of the company to make the article balanced and let the reader decide.

@Zainabdawood77: I would suggest using Talk:Qnet and proposing your edit there. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wendy Carlos on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinion/Assistance Needed in Reviewing Merge Action for MBTI - Suggestion

Evergreen, you had been involved with some previous disputes and issues regarding the MBTI. Recently it would appear that two users who have been gutting and aggressive tagging all of the articles related to the subject (including the main page and all personality types) disregarded a vote and began heavily reworking the subject to their liking. I have not been involved with the editing on the page, but stumbled across it today. It seems to be more in your wheelhouse and feedback/insight/action from you would be appreciated. Please see this talk comment. Appreciate your time. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 01:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on talk:TERF

I thought that the comment fell on the "mention" side of the use–mention distinction; I won't re-revert, but I would ask that you perhaps consider reversing yourself. Cheers, gnu 57 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: There are ways to mention it without typing it out. Given the gravity of that term, I do not think it needs to be used casually as a comparison to a minimally pejorative term. Someone else can revert me if they wish. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I actually had a different question. If you feel it is grossly insulting or offensive material, I'm surprised you reverted it instead of deleting the revision. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Stub on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding closure of a section on the 2020 US Presidential Election talk page

Hi EvergreenFir,

Just wanted to follow up on my post at the talk page for the 2020 United States Presidential Election. My comment was closed for a WP:CRYSTAL reason related to "speculation on the highly unlikely."

My original comment may have been misunderstood. The following portion is critical: "Regardless of the eventual outcome of these cases, they are a notable facet of post-electon events". I was not making a prediction about the results of the lawsuits, but rather stating that the lawsuits are notable regardless of whether they will be successful or not. A long-shot lawsuit which is given attention from reliable sources is still covered in Wikipedia articles (see for example coverage of Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton during the 2020 Democratic primary election). Even lawsuits which are obviously frivolous on their face can still by covered by Wikipedia if their frivolity is notable or they are filed by an otherwise notable person. The primary change my comment was suggesting was not for the lawsuits in question to be given extensive and disproportionate coverage but rather to separate out the legal material which already exists into a separate section and then supplement as needed.

Let me know what you think. I'd appreciate the opening of the topic again if we can reach an agreement because I still feel that the article would benefit from the change that I suggested.

104.13.110.123 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

it's really nice to see non-binary adults/professionals (I'm technically an adult, but just barely) on the internet and doing cool stuff :) <3

Actiondegrace (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Chill it was a joke on Micheal jackson talk page

It was a joke chill can you laugh man Skippypeanutbutter (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't evan edit on there so how was I fandalising Skippypeanutbutter (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Who would think Michael Jackson died in 2017 Skippypeanutbutter (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Skippypeanutbutter: please just don't. Wasn't funny, just disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok Skippypeanutbutter (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Category deletion

Needs to be deleted again. Category:Children's Animated Programming. Magitroopa (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your impending 100,000th edit! Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you just watch an IP user?

Hello. You've helped me with some issues in the past, and so I'm back again.

I have US Dollar on my watchlist, and I saw an edit by IP user 180.251.184.74 which added the Israeli shekel as a currency which is supposed to be pegged to the US Dollar. No reference was provided, and after a preliminary search, I didn't find any evidence of this being the case. So, I reverted the addition. (It is very common to add random currencies to this list; just look at the article's history.)

I took a quick look at the user's contributions and saw some other edits which I have reverted:

an edit which changed data for the import partners of Brunei. The change is directly contradicted by the CIA factbook source. (which is here)
an edit which just removed a quotation mark " despite it being necessary to close a quote.
an edit which included North Korea in a list of countries where Russian is a recognized minority language, which was not supported by the source which was provided (here)

Based on the above, I suspected that this edit to the Clearview (typeface) article was also vandalism, but since I can't read Indonesian (and can't use Google translate to automatically translate the scanned PDF file) I can't verify it. I included this lack of certainty in my edit summary.

I also did not verify the addition to the Rat king disambiguation page as I am not a native Japanese speaker. I didn't revert this but I am nonetheless suspicious of it.

It's possible that this IP editor is performing a mixture of under-the-radar vandalism along with some genuine editing. I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking you to just keep an eye on this user and see what you think of the edits. Also, I don't use Twinkle and I wouldn't know precisely what to say, so I haven't added any kind of warning to the IP user's talk page yet.

Hopefully I've done the right things so far. I'm letting you know about this because you probably know what course of action is best, and also because I don't want to be the only one watching this IP user for under-the-radar vandalism. In my opinion, that kind of vandalism is some of the most difficult to get rid of, and can linger on articles for years without notice. I don't want any of that.

Well, stay safe and have a nice day. BirdValiant (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: I'll keep an eye on this one and check out the /16 range as well. Thank you for your vigilance! Stay safe as well :) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Friend of yours?

How shall I put this... it's quite hard to AGF that the username EvengreenFir is just serendipity. But I have acted like I do, and merely softblocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Could you please verify the recent edits since yours at this page Baked Alaska (activist) Frankthetankk (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Look at imdb you will see that rugrats last release was in 2006 I'm right that dude is not it was sourced before the edit was evan made and you can just look at the episode list not the overview the page it's sourced Overdrive999 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Overdrive999: The direct-to-dvd stuff does not count. And IMDB is not a reliable source. Go use the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Korrectorr block

Can you please revoke TPA? He has continued to make PAs. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Discretionary sanctions", eh?

Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

It's funny how these "discretionary sanctions" are only ever imposed one side. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@DetroitWheels74: I wonder if Mark Berenstein agrees. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Uyghurs

Why are you removing other's contributions to improve knowledge of the Uyghur peoples in the article under the guise of disruption, when clearly you are the one who is being disruptive for the simple reason that the reality is different to your biased and unscientific views, and indeed your conclusions from reasoning based on false assumptions? 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.173.239 (talk)

@109.151.173.239: Make proposed changes and stop treating the talk page like a forum to discuss Uyghur people, DNA, ethnicity claims, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Killing of George Floyd

In the Talk: page you asked me what I was trying to do. I tried to change the word 'killing' to 'death'. The change was reverted and I was told to discuss on the Talk: page. My contentions are:

1) The autopsy does not mention the word homicide 2) The word homicide appears in the Press Release report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BRnlE0VA9bl3WNYZiFa6fi2EEEOK0DMd/view?usp=drivesdk 3) The word is in the Manner of Death section 4) There is a Comment section describing the use of the Manner of Death section 5) The section is described in a Wikipedia page of the same name where only 6 words can be used

My contentions is that the autopsy does not support the widely-reported assumption that the death was consequent to the actions of law enforcement.

As a separate matter, I noticed but didn't comment on, the fact that the link to the autopsy report was broken. Are.u.sure (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: coroners make the final ruling. Nearly all WP:RS say homicide. You need extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims (e.g., contradicting the overwhelming majority of reliable sources). You've not provide any such evidence. And please see WP:SECONDARY EvergreenFir (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Coroners emphatically don't. Read what I've written. I've taken pains to make it clear. Are.u.sure (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They do, but generally not in the autopsy report itself. Press releases and death certificates, sometimes in court. Fir, may I discuss non-political aspects of specific semi-political cases under an AP2 ban? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, not worth it, just wanted to tell Levivich his latest idea isn't the greatest, probably would've went south quick, cheers instead! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Hey, sorry I'm just getting to you. CenturyLink was down nearly 24 hours. My honest advice would be to stay away from AP2 altogether. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

All good, I realized on my own that even death, crime and police can be corrosive and explosive areas, thanks for confirming, sorry about your outage. What about opposing an ITN blurb for a US fighter pilot, but on the basis of his peacetime test flight alone? Strictly physics, or still too close to his wars? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: if the blurb (assuming Chuck Yeager?) is only about the flights and not politics, go for it.

Cool, already did, will treat others the same going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Racist term

Why? Donarius (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donarius: "Black" is not a racist term. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Then if I will call someone „you, Black guy”, he wont be offended? Donarius (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If black was a racist term, unlikely that BLM would have called itself Black Lives Matter. But, using it in the context of your example would most likely be offensive. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donarius: It's context that matters. "Hey you, black guy!" is off-putting, and saying "a black walked into the store" is passe bordering on offensive. But saying that someone is Black (especially when capitalized) is considered correct now. I think a good parallel would be the term "queer" which used to be pejorative but now is commonplace. While it's okay to say "Elliot Page is queer" (queer as a descriptor/adjective), saying "that guy is a queer" (with the added indefinite article making "queer" a noun) would be offensive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanation. Donarius (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ruled a homicide by the medical examiner

How does that != Ruled a homicide by the medical examiner? Are.u.sure (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: the sources i linked explain it. A criminal charge is separate from a death ruling. Homicide is a cause of death. some homicide is criminal, some isn't (e.g. self defense). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Look again. my whole argument is that the word is being used in two ways. In the legal sense and as a simple label in the autopsy. 'George Floyd' is a label in the autopsy. But the autopsy makes no statements about which of the 6 labels apply for manner of death. A homicide case exists so that label is used. Are.u.sure (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ME ruling of homicide is necessary but not sufficient for a criminal charge of homicide. The ME says the cause of death was law enforcement action. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

They didn't need the autopsy. The lawyers had the power. They chose to suppress the autopsy and so did the press, to the extent that they didn't read the Press Release in the Comments section. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that makes your viewpoint and intent clear enough for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW

I've been wondering how long it will be before someone says that WP:ROPE encourages self-harm. It's only a matter of time. E Eng 01:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I remember a discussion about that a few years back. The alternative I recall was WP:STRIPES. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Stripes? E Eng 17:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh... yeah it was for "Let the tiger show its stripes". Similar idiom to "give enough rope". EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Never heard of it -- must have gone out with Two gloves do not a hat make. Meanwhile, what did the good folks at VP ever do to you [2]? E Eng 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha well I've had some dust-ups there ... but perhaps hearing from other users will help solve that "cognitive dissonance". EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A cognitively dissonant leopard once told me the key is not changing our spots. Then a chimp swung in, whacked us both with a stick and told us we should adapt to our changing environments. Next it started to pour on the savannah, and the rain seemed to sing, "What problem, I don't have a problem, that's your problem, be like water and go with the flow!" When I woke up, half my pillow was spotty and half was sticky, but it was all wet. Anyway, compartmentalization is a hell of a headache and gutrot cure! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Classic turfing. —valereee (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Twelve of you. Are.u.sure (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Revoke TPA for Thelinkster2141; deleted block notice. Shinyedit (talk)

It has happened again. Shinyedit (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shinyedit: They're allowed to remove it (WP:OWNTALK). I'll keep an eye on it though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay didn't know. Shinyedit (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...

re: this. I have already told them if they continue this upon return, I will be requesting either an indefinite block or a topic ban, as it's evident by their other edits they have an agenda and are POV pushing a specific narrative. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: definitely a pov pushing issue. i think such a request would be appropriate if the behavior continues. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ron Johnson

I believe you were in error in replacing the edits. A fact is not a point of view nor is this a minority point of view. Through multiple legal cases being out forth there has been zero evidence of substantial voter fraud. This falls under conspiracy theory, which he has put forth in the Senate. Second point, as to lead or not. Johnson has done very little on the national stage. Having a Senator putting forth voter conspiracy theories is noteworthy as it has become a major point in his Senatorial career. Jdmiller42 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Or please feel free to document where I have erred. I wrote the update and cited to a credible news organization and not an opinion of someone at a news organization. Please put forth documentation as to any false statements that I have made. I correctly identified who the party is. I put forth the correct date of an incident. I included what the incident was. Are you indicating that wide spread voter fraud is not a conspiracy theory and that it in fact happened? If so please document said voter fraud proof, even as multiple recent court cases has yet to yield any. I understand Mr.Johnson may not like that it was out forth on his page, but that does not negate the facts as they stand. There are many individuals on Wiki that have negative points on their pages that is not a character assassination its just the facts, unless you're advocating for all negative aspects to be removed from individuals Wikis Jdmiller42 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jdmiller42: Wikipedia is cautious in labeling living people with negative descriptions (even if technically applicable). In the case of RoJo, we'd need multiple reliable sources describing him as a peddler of conspiracy theories and, moreover, that this description is defining enough to categorize him as such (see WP:CATDEF). Unfortunately, many Senators could be described this way. But what matters to their biographies (see WP:BLP) in this encyclopedia is the overall big picture and how those reliable sources describe these people (see WP:DUE and WP:NPOV). Neutrality doesn't mean we cannot say negative things or that we need to counter those with positive things (WP:FALSEBALANCE) but rather that we cannot put undue emphasis on certain issues if reliable sources do not reflect that emphasis.

All this is to say that we should categorize these statements as false and hoaxes but that we should not label RoJo in the same way we might label Alex Jones. Unless, of course, sources widely use these labels (as they have for President Trump). If you think there is widespread use of these labels (conspiracy theorist) or that this recent event is enduring (see WP:NOTNEWS) and defining for RoJo, please make your case (see WP:BURDEN) on the article's talk page.

Last, I know Wikipedia's rules and jargon are frustrating at best. I do appreciate your interest in adding to this article and willingness to reach out about it. And if this were the EvergreenFirpedia of my views, I'd agree with this addition about my Senator. But it's not and we need to focus on making this an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, didn't say Rojo was peddling many conspiracy theories, just to the fact that he did in fact put forth one in the Senate. Not a simple one of a second shooter for JFK or Roswell, but one that thoroughly undermines voting and the govt in which he represents. As for multiple sources well even a simple Google search will pull up scores of reliable documented news sources as well as the actual video of said spoken conspiracy. Is he the same as Alex Jones, not quite but vastly more as he is in a position of power. Jdmiller42 (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I did also include a cite to my statement. Didn't use inflammatory or derogatory terms. Was clear and concise in just a pure statement of fact. Jdmiller42 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Reparations for slavery in the United States

Thanks for your revision, this page is constantly under attack by vandals. Is it possible to place this page in protective edit status to reduce vandalism? Robjwev (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robjwev: There doesn't seem to be quite enough activity to warrant semi protections, in my opinion. I have it on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it though. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A little whodunit

Hi EvergreenFir, you beat me to deleting Dog Legislation Council of Canada. While background checking, I got engulfed by some other contributions of the article's creator, which they brag about at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SirIsaacBrock/Archive. The gem was the centuries old hoax uncovered through the meticulous work of Hans Adler, Andrew Dalby and Doug Weller at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 6#Eyes needed: "Gratius Falsius" and the "Procurator Cynegii" in Roman Britain. ◅ Sebastian 09:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, that was fun. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm and Doug Weller: How strange! First socking sagas of cats and now dogs? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you expect? You're owned by cats, and Doug is owned by a dog. ;-) ◅ Sebastian 20:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

PJ Masks

I've been wondering. What's difference between an encyclopedia and a guide for fans? I thought info on character lists is about things that are typical about the characters as well as their origins. Wubzy (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wubzy: Sorry to take so long to reply. My general advice would be to ask: would my parent/friend/boss want to know this information should they look up the show? Or, if you prefer sports, would I find this info on a Pokemon-esque card? Basic things like name, actor, description, etc are appropriate. Major character points (e.g., used to be a villain) could be included as well. Some characters become notable in their own right (e.g., Homer Simpson or Philip J. Fry) and more detailed content is appropriate for those articles.

What we're trying to avoid is the level of detail you might find in a book published just for fans of the show. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is aiming for more summary-level content. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ghost and Molly McGee

Hey, by any chance do uou think you could lock the Ghost and Molly McGee page. Somebody keeps adding fake dates and voices that the creators even debunked on their twitters.

thanks Spuffy (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spuffy: done! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions

Thanks for the notr Haerdt (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon Network

Hello, EvergreenFir. Sorry for my late response as I am new to Wikipedia. I noticed you reverted my edit on "Cartoon Network" about the age group. I think it's for 6-14 because Cartoon Network follows the "American TV Rating System". Basically, Cartoon Network airs TV-Y7, TV-Y7-FV, and TV-PG programs. Similar to the rating title, Y7, and Y7-FV both have shows appropriate for seven years and up. I personally think TV-PG is for more grownup kids approaching the "tween" age, and then they become a teenager at age 13. It does not have to be exactly 7-13, it can be 6-14 because it does not make much of a difference. I respect your effort trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A different Trump

I got drawn into a recurrent content dispute regarding Trump, but it's purely related to his pro wrestling days, his single biggest day in particular. (April 1, 2007). I think that's legal, predating even his awareness of Obama, much less their feud or anyone considering him a serious political contender. But I can also kind of see how the word "Trump" alone can be seen as indicative of a political fight breaking out online. Can I get some advice on how or whether I may proceed? In either case, here's a 🍕 from me to you, in the spirit of giving, not open bribery! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: imo, Trump's TV career seems outside the topic ban to me. But be wary that some might try to pull you into a political debate to mess with you. Prudence would suggest to leave it alone, but it's not a violation per se. Merry ChrimaHannuKwanza! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

These days, bidding no trump in a game of bridge may start an argument. Merry happy. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You edit-conflicted me for that? You're lucky I'm feeling jolly and cautious! Long story short, I think my expertise in the important and pertinent arena can help everyone understand the topic better and allow me to see a turn, screwjob or hoodwink coming a mile away (but not confident about having the WWE section reflect the known knowns, per overall anti-wrasslin' mainstream pop sentiment, which remains firmly stuck in the zeitgeist). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you know how hard it is to perfectly time an edit conflict? One of my few skills. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

'Tis true, you did it again when I tried to clarify something stupid, probably for the best. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I was recently tempted into squashing the baseless claims of a second gunman in the Capitol Hill shooting. I still hold the truth to be source-evident, regardless of politics, but admit the wider story is an obvious political topic. Just openly disclosing my proximity to the line, in case it would seem I'm trying to sneak past it (I am not). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk topic ban violation

It's been less than a day, and the user has already violated the topic ban you imposed, on Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol. The relevant section concerns the shooting of Ashli Babbit. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It has not been less than a day, it's been over five weeks. And it concerned how many cops fired their guns. It was one, once, and that's just plain fact, in a figures sense. It wasn't controversial or disruptive, it got done, affecting nothing political. Then you jumped in, calling me obsessed in my own voice. Had to debunk that much, wouldn't you? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't note the time. I only saw your topic ban the day prior, so apparently I conflated that. My mistake. Regardless, it doesn't matter. You shouldn't be making any edit requests to any of those articles. And this is something you've said multiple times, including on Jimbo Wales' talk page a while back, in which you vowed to do your best to avoid the topic, and he wished you well in your attempt to avoid American Politics. Obviously, that didn't happen. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you can't abide by even a time-limited topic ban. 12:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm abiding just fine. Haven't had a political effect for 36 days, and this apolitical change was cordial, relative to the nearby actually politicized disputes. If I said this (whatever "this" is) multiple times, link one. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For those not following along in the edit history, the complainant surrendered ("disengaged") at 12:38, after briefly issuing a cryptic statement at 12:29. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also see User talk:InedibleHulk#American politics topic ban and the discussion at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Babbitt shot once. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Eastern Europe closed

Clarification request: Eastern Europe which you filed has been closed. You can view a permalink for that discussion here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

List of PJ masks episodes

Okay, we have confirmed the episodes till Feb 22. Check the link:

https://cabletvt.powerrangermail.net/index.php/topic,6758.0.html

Also, the summary for Sploshy Splash is on disney Now and apple.

https://tv.apple.com/us/episode/octobellas-garden--sploshy-splash/umc.cmc.20dmalaj3bqhzl9xvh019vsfl Awikiuserintheworld (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Awikiuserintheworld: the first link is to a forum and not a reliable source. i'm fine with the episode summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then try https://pj-masks.fandom.com/wiki/Season_4. These episodes are real. Octobella's Garden & Sploshy Splash got their reference from Cable Forum. Sorry if I'm being rude.

More link(s): https://www.tvpassport.com/series/pj-masks/302263 (SEASON 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awikiuserintheworld (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Awikiuserintheworld: Sites like fandom are not reliable sources because anyone can edit them. TVPassport is new to me. It's not listed on WP:TVRS. I'll start a section on WT:TV about it. If you can find it listed in one of the reliable sources listed on WP:TVRS, that would be awesome. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of 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/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Sorry ...

...but i was harrased first. [will be.... (?)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKim (talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Batman on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Talk:Yi Seok on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:2021 in heavy metal music on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Talk:List of later historians of the Crusades on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:Variant of Concern 202012/01 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on WS-10 and J-20 page

There is the user called Revolving Personality Construct who keeps removing sourced materials on the WS-10 and Chengdu J-20 pages. He asked me to reason with him on the talk page.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:RovingPersonalityConstruct

After many attempts to reason with him and proofs with reliable sourced materials. He still goes by the same behavior. He never made any constructive edits on practically any articles, simply removing materials based on his personal agenda.

Please take a look at his behaviors and his disruptive editing here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history

He keeps arguing with empty air, never tried to come up with anything constructive, never showed me a good reference to prove his point of view. I tried to reach an agreement with him but he ignored. After all attempts failed. I ignored him and treated him as a disruptive editors.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Shenyang_WS-10

He was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and edit wars.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARovingPersonalityConstruct

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mexico on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Vamlos Thanks EvergreenFir

Thanks. I'm absolutely different to that person.Kazakhstan's Uyghur DNA You can see that even replied me and contradicting my answers. We different people. I post links many times in my reply but he never does, his english is way better than mine.Vamlos (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vamlos: My apologies for the block. The IP I thought you were is most likely a very persistent (and racist) sockpuppeter. Again, sorry about that. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Another user copying your userpages

Hi there, i'm quite at a loss as to what to do with this. A new user, User:Davidkucas637 (contribs), has been copying some of your userpage content (diff). They also copied your sandbox over to.... another account's sandbox, User:SDVD90 (diff). Out of curiosity I peeked at that old account, and it was CU-blocked (I don't know for what) but that seems suspicious given that old account also copied over your talkpage recently (diff). I don't know if any of this is actionable to the point of a CU check for socking but I thought I'd let you know. Zupotachyon (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Well that's a new one! How strange. I guess I'll delete the pages and file an WP:SPI. Thank you very much for the heads up. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ponyo as they made the original CU block on SDVD90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any info on this? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There a bunch of socks here. If you received a few "failed login" notifications a couple of days ago, it was one these socks trying to login to your account repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: i did indeed received failed logins EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Economy of Italy

Hello, in the section of companies you have to put (fashion) after YOOX (then food & beverage starts) the category (transport) has been left out, where at least Grimaldi Group and New Passenger Transport must be added Third thing to add some southern companies (such as Grimaldi Group) because there is not even one on the list while in the source there are many. Thanks. --Kanoawi (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop

You are vandalising everything that i changed. Kosovo has 98 recognition and its been like that since 4 September 2020. How did it go back to 95 today? Do u have a source? Please change the recognition back to 98 as thats how it was yesterday and since 5 months ago Albaniakosova14 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Albaniakosova14: Please provide a reliable source for your edits EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They were reverting the removal of sourced content by a possible sockpuppet (User:PeterSwensen and User:PhilipCrouch used the exact same edit statements other than the countries listed). Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.kosovothanksyou.com/?p=608 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Marshall_Islands https://balkaninsight.com/2010/10/22/kiribati-recognises-kosovo/ These countries are the countries u removed, however they did recognise kosovo Albaniakosova14 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why didn’t the other guy need to provide sources? The countries that the guy deleted were already sourced. Please understand this, he deleted 3 countries off that have recognised kosovo for over 10 years Albaniakosova14 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please understand that i wasn’t the one editing, i was the one reverting unsourced edits. Please can you change it to my original version since that is the correct one Albaniakosova14 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on trying to figure this out. Like Jimfbleak said, both of you are edit warring and it takes a minute to figure stuff out. That said, I found this link that says 98 countries recognize Kosovo. The edits you were making were about the sum total of countries, not the 3 you linked. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, User:PhilipCrouch removed 3 countries from International recognition of Kosovo then was changing the 98 on other articles to be 95. Emk9 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Emk9 and Albaniakosova14: Okay I think I've got it now. I filed an SPI before seeing Emk9's comment (100% correct though that they're using same edit summaries and everything). I'll work on restoring the articles now. Albaniakosova14, sorry for the trouble. In the future, WP:ANI is a slightly better place for this sort of report. But I think we got it figure out. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and sorry for the trouble. Oh sorry if i didnt use the right place im quite new. Thanks a lot though Albaniakosova14 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Albaniakosova14: Completely understandable! And thank you for pointing out my mistake! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE versus ACDS

Hi. My understanding is that a WP:NOTHERE indef, as a subset of a WP:DE block action, supersedes WP:ACDS. Which to say, you may indef someone for, say, AP2 grounds without needing to invoke (or log) it as an ACDS action. See, for example, my log entry directly above yours, which reads: Noting for the log that I have NOTHERE blocked the user. While blatant topic ban violations were reported at AE, the nature of the provocations and fabrications were not even close to being nuanced enough to bother with any sort of AE action (diff). Anyway, this sort of "normal admin action" is fine for instances that are of an obviously disruptive nature. Hope you've been well. Kind regards, El_C 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Ah, okay. I wasn't quite sure about that. I think the NOTHERE portion of that block was clear, but since they were AP2-related, I thought I should mention it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's all good. No harm in recording it in the log. Just wishing to spare you the bother. El_C 17:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has become the theme of the day! [Unrelated-related reason] (diff)¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 18:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Capsaicin MEDRS?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Capsaicin&oldid=prev&diff=1003154664&diffmode=source mentions that the edit doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS, even though it says that "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.". The linked article is a review article, so i don't understand what makes you think it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. L29Ah (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@L29Ah: I wasn't able to find the article when I searched the journal's page itself and the journal's about page says that original research is peer-reviewed but did not mention "reviews" like that article. Are there any other sources we could use to back it up? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your arbitration

Thanks for arbitrating the earlier matter. I'm tired of getting stalked and harassed by TheTimesAreAChanging, most recently in the last couple weeks simply because the rest of Wikipedia disagreed with the claim that some personal blog website was a reliable source. His upsetedness is evident in the repeated threats and clamoring for blocks.

I noticed above that he claims innocence on all counts despite you intervening as a result of personal attacks, and continues his attacks on me. Just to point out his denial of wrongdoing such as WP:HOUNDING and other matters holds no merit, on both the Racism in the Arab world and Ba'athism articles, both he and Qahramani44 stalked my history to edit war and attack me there. He claims "no diffs" despite this having been been covered in the 3RR noticeboard, extensively. Short timeline: 1) After 2 months of discussing across Wikipedia the "reliability" of a blog website, I removed it as a source on Iraqi invasion of Iran [3]. 2) Qahramani44 responded with looking at my recent contribution history and reverted edits I'd made on two other articles in revenge, despite no prior activity on either article. [4] [5] and calling me, a white American Iraq War vet, "Arab nationalist", [6] after misconstruing the comment he replied to which is not the only time he'd used such language against me. This was followed by edit warring. 3) Several hours after Qahramani44's initial reverts and subsequent edit warring on those two articles, TheTimesAreAChanging did the same on both articles [7] [8] and the respective Talk pages.

Regarding the lack of genocide denial, claiming that a figure generally if not universally academically regarded as being responsible for genocides on the order of 15-60 million deaths such as Josef Stalin has done no genocide generally fits the criteria of genocide denial. As I mentioned on my Talk page, I agree it's not good language to use, but it's not untrue as he claims. This was just a couple days ago where he removed an editor's revision and insulted their reading comprehension, simply for including a source on Stalin having committed genocide[9], and engaging in some form of argument of why Stalin didn't commit genocide because the consensus isn't to his liking.[10].

____

The above was just to point out that his accusations are disingenuous and his attempts to excuse himself of wrongdoing don't hold a basis, and it is unfortunate that a Wikipedia poweruser has been engaging in reverting whatever they don't like, "policing" various articles, and engaging in uncivil behavior against any user that challenges or disproves them for a decade now. Thanks again for your arbitration. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User continues edit warring after your page protection expired

Hello EvergreenFir, on Jan 20 you had page protected this article for a couple days. After its expiration, one of the two users who had originally stalked my activity history to the article and engaged in edit warring there, is continuing to do so with this edit. [11], reverting a paragraph again from the last form it was in prior to your page protection. [12]. Not only is Qahramani44 continuing their edit warring from earlier in January, but their edit contradicts the content in the book such as changing the timeline in the second sentence and removing part of the author's final point which changes the meaning (both of which would be WP:OR on Qahramani44's part) and uses POV language. Thanks in advance. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30: I'll check those edits momentarily but I must insist that my user talk page does not become a proxy for the for this dispute. Further, in my view, you have engaged in more vitriolic and combative personal attacks and responses than the other two users. You were not, for example, called an Arab nationalist, just your argument was. This BATTLEGROUND behavior needs to stop. Please see my forthcoming warning on your user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you. I added a Talk section with more details, comparing the revert with source content. Yes agreed, I'd also shown you with diffs to prove the stalking and harassment across various Wikipedia articles (which you'd also seen in the 3RR noticeboard discussion), and that TheTimesAreAChanging makes disingenuous claims and accusations as I'd also substantiated. I agree with you that the BATTLEGROUND needs to stop, but you should note I'm not the one WP:HOUNDING and attacking users for revenge because RSN and other discussions agreed with me that a personal website is not RS. For example, the situation you're looking into currently was the result of Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging stalking my edit history and engaging on other articles. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sorry to respond again, but the reply to the previously linked Talk section I made pointing out OR is a personal attack[13], in case you were not clear on his intent.Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable revert

I'm leaving a note here to state my displeasure at your barring me from responding to Saucysalsa30's comment dated 02:06, 31 January 2021. While I have questioned the WP:COMPETENCE of this user, with good reason, I have never resorted to gratuitous personal attacks such as those Saucysalsa30 has been throwing at me (and many other volunteers, especially at Iraqi invasion of Iran) in sustained fashion for months. For example, in his most recent comment Saucysalsa30 described me as "a Stalinst genocide denier whose entire activity on this website is aggression, pathological lying, personal attacks, edit warring, and stalking/harassment," citing no diffs or evidence. In addition, Saucysalsa30 accused Qahramani44 of being a Persian chauvinist engaged in "some sort of ideological battle for you against 'Arabs'," again citing no diffs or evidence. In my opinion, repeatedly casting such aspersions without any diffs or evidence should result in a swift WP:NOTHERE block. However, you have taken it upon yourself at this late stage to simply admonish all parties and to actually prevent me from responding to many of Saucysalsa30's serious charges. I understand that you are a volunteer admin without sufficient time to review all of the underlying evidence in this case, but that's not a good reason to take actions that will likely be counter-productive. Because of your decision, Saucysalsa30 has good reason to think that he can repeatedly violate 3RR and repeatedly call other editors genocide deniers or racists with virtual impunity—and, indeed, that the targets of his attacks will be admonished to watch their own tone when they respond! Is there any point at which an additional accusation of genocide denial or racism, or yet another 3RR violation, could convince you that Saucysalsa30's conduct is severe enough to warrant sanctions?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: thank you for the message. I understand your displeasure and you are entitled to it. IMO, stopping the disruptive "discussion" needed to occur and that meant stopping both parties. I'm sure this probably feels like the wiki version of the Duluth Model. That said, I do not think both parties are on equal footing; I recall the recent 3RR notice board post and the content there and I'm not surprised at the recent comments by Saucy. I'd gladly accept outside input from other admins (pinging: @Drmies and EdJohnston: who had previous involvement). For now, I encourage you to step back and possibly let WP:ROPE happen. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm of the old school where I think we should indeed defer to admins to nip things in the bud if that needs to be done, but EvergreenFir is also correct in talking about "not of equal footing". Thing is, the article talk page is not the place to have the more personal disputes out, and while I'll be happy to have a look later, in my view it's probably better to plaster the appropriate warning templates on the other user's talk page, giving administrators a good indication of who is being disruptive and where. Maybe you did that already--if so, good, that will make it easier for admins and it strengthens any argument made in an ANI thread, for instance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still getting attacked by the editor you warned. Could you please arbitrate?

Hello EvergreenFir, following your warning to Qahramani44 for edit warring [14], the user responded by attacking me on the article Talk page. [15] [16] Could you please arbitrate the matter? Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Deri Lorus

Hi EverygreenFir, could you take a look at the Deri Lorus page? It was recreated after being deleted via AfD (and a declined draft). Also the user continues to remove the CSD tag. Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet Accusation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MosMusy

Neither Gregathon nor Greglawl accounts belong to me. Please unblock me. There are several people using the same ip address, and one opened an account, however, not me. Let me know what further evidence you need. MosMusy (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging SQL and Oshwah. We may have another case like GoatLordServant. Again, the 2 "greg" accounts seem clear to me, but I'm willing to entertain the "shared ip" argument as MosMusy doesn't seem to overlap with them. Could a CUer take another look here?

@MosMusy: evidence or info might help if, say, you have a school-issued laptop or VPN that may be causing the apparent IP sharing and other technical details. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is shared internet in my domicile, which will explain the same IP. You can see that my account has been open for many years and look at the history of my edits, though I haven't been editing in recent years very much. Doesn't make sense why I would all of a sudden open some new accounts and begin getting infractions, it is obviously a different person. Thanks. MosMusy (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

MosMusy isn't blocked, as they posted here. It looks like QEDK blocked them back in November for a month, which has since expired. Everything at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MosMusy is archived, and there is no active investigation at present, nor the threat of being reblocked that I can find.

I'm not sure what the requested outcome is here - or what valid reason there would be to use the CU tool in this case, at this time. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: I believe that MosMusy would like to be disentangled from the other two Greglawl/Gregathon accounts that were reported on that SPI (archive link) last week. Is that possible? Based on behavior, I do think MosMusy is not the same as Greglawl/Gragathon but I do not have anything other than behavior to go off of thus the CU request. If CU is not an option, not a problem. I would just like to keep track for the sake of tracking the socks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

User links for reference: Greglawl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gregathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what can be done here tbh, at that time, both of these accounts were highly involved in the same area and the technical evidence made the case all that more compelling. As in all cases, there is a chance that they are not the same person but I'd still pin it as unlikely. They aren't blocked anymore (and I think they should remove the notice saying so). --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@QEDK: Okay thank you for looking into it. I thought the attempt was worth making and appreciate you do it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The School for Good and Evil (film) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

I saw you recently blocked the 2601:1C1:8904:EA50:0:0:0:0/64 range. Looks like they're back now at 2601:1C1:8A01:8860:6831:2C76:26B0:F05D... Magitroopa (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like that entire range is actually block evasion, see here. Magitroopa (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Yep! I can block the /64 range, but that ISP serves a too-wide-to-block range so the user might return. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Recognition Of Kosovo

Hey, I wanna ask you if you can edit the recognition page of Kosovo since Comoros didn’t actually revoke recognition as Comoros sent a letter to Kosovo saying that they still recognise Kosovo. I’m still new so im not that sure how to add a country on the table etc and im scared if i will ruin the whole page. Thanks! Albaniakosova14 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello EvergreenFir, can you please read the official letter that the state of Comoros send to former foreign minister Behxhet Pacolli. I think it is more than clear that they still recognize the Republic of Kosovo. The withdraw letter was not official at the time and you still removed it from the list. Please be neutral on this point. I will contact an admin to check the situation. Kreshnik Prizreni (don't wait, TALK) 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Blscholljim (talk)

Hi there! You blocked User:Blscholljim (talk) for 31 hours as he was involved in edit warring despite of being invited to the talkpages of articles (Economy of Karachi, Economy of Lahore & Lahore). Moreover, all of his edits were also unsourced and disruptive. Now although his block is expired but still he is using his IP address as a sockpuppetry for adding same type of unsourced additions on these three articles. With due respect, I therefore, request you to semi-protect these 3 articles and please take an action against him so that he'd be more careful in future. You can also reconfirm by checking the edit history of these articles. [17], [18], [19] Kind regards, Innocent Paki (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Innocent Paki: Thanks for the notification. I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, Sir thank you so much for the timely action. Please semi-protect article Economy of Karachi also. I've mentioned it above because this article has also faced alot of unsourced editing by the same user. Thanks once again:) Regards, Innocent Paki (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Innocent Paki: Done! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Alvalade XXI

Just FYI I'm seeing a persistent pattern of disruption by this user whom you had occasion to block twice in recent months. Quite a few editors have been expressing their frustration at User talk:Alvalade XXI but this user appears to be simply ignoring community feedback at this point. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

List of countries by average wage

Hello there EvergreenFir! I've seen you have reverted my edits on the list of countries by average wage article. So essentialy what I did was, since the list is from 2015, I went on the economy of a certain country article and looked at their most recent average monthly net salary in $. So when I looked at that, it came out that, for example, Bosnia has a bigger average monthly net salary than Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Montenegro, while Slovenia's, Germany's and others ones were smaller than the current number in the list etc. You can just look that up on their economy articles. I had also added all the UNECE members whose average monthly net salary I could find, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and so on. So, is it okay for me to manually revert those changes back to mine, so again updating the current average monthly net salaries and adding back the UNECE members I firtsly added? I know that the info says that it's from 2015 and is referenced and I do of course understand your revert, but I want to put in the most recent numbers for all the countries and make the list look "right", if you understand haha. I hope to get an affirmative answer. Thanks in advance! Bakir123 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bakir123: Please feel free to revert but please do add a source or explanation. Thank you for reaching out! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Thanks for adding protection on Horrid Henry (TV series)! I give you thanks! :)

-User:TVFan88 (talk) 3:11PM EST — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the Looped page

I was tired of that one person changing the date over and over again for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolman971 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, EvergreenFir. The admin-only protection you imposed on International recognition of Kosovo a few days ago has now expired, but the indefinite auto-confirmed protection level which was imposed by Jimfbleak in January ([20]) seems to have also been inadvertently scrubbed and the article has now been left with no protection at all. Could you remedy this? Thanks. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: Done! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

BU Rob14

Please unblock. This is a doppelganger account, as can be seen in the creation log. The AIV report was filed by a long term pest, which I have blocked. Widr (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Widr: My apologies. I'll unblock now. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a big deal, as BU Rob has retired anyway; just something to keep an eye on when patrolling AIV. This troll finds joy in filing these reports every now and then, apparently when they're not able to clutter up various stewards' talk pages with their nonsense. Widr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD closure

I came across your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_13#Peppa_is_Fucking_Dead. While I don't doubt that the redirect should be deleted, isn't it a little hasty to close an RFD discussion 8 minutes after it was opened with no comments? Looks like it's probably R3 eligible (looking at deleted history it's not G7), but given that the deletion rationale is the unattended, 8-minute-old RFD discussion, I'm assuming this is a misclick? Hog Farm _Talk 04:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: sorry didn't realize it was 8 minutes. I deleted it assuming it was just vandalism. I'll try to be less hasty. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No harm done, that could conceivably have been G3 and almost certainly R3. It just caught my eye that that was closed early. Nothing of any potential use was deleted. Hog Farm _Talk 05:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

I am asking for this and this revision on Animaniacs (2020 TV series) to be hidden from public view for RD2, and for this revision to be hidden on grounds of RD3. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: Partly done. The one about the "trash reboot" wasn't that offensive imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010

Why is this NOT a valid member?: 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Explain why Trump was there on the 6th if not to unconstitutionally delay the certification of votes? This was an obvious attempt to undermine the US Constitution and therefore unconstitutionally hold power by a show of force! How is this NOT a coup ATTEMPT??

[This Is a Coup] article - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/attempted-coup/617570/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.200.76 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus for its inclusion. Some have argued that it's not a coup without military backing. Some RS have called it a coup, but not many. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How do we measure consensus? The majority (57%) of the US Senate thought the President should be convicted of treason in the coup attempt....and the majority of the US population thought it was a coup attempt (51% according to this poll) [21].

What percentage constitutes "consensus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.200.76 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with an article

Sorry if this is really incompetent of me, but I'm struggling to deal with the persistent, seemingly good-faith-ish, but still bad edits at Thiruvarur, such as x, or y. It doesn't seem to me to be disruptive editing or vandalism, so I don't think the page could really be eligible for semi-protection, and I don't think the users ought to be blocked. However, the state of the article is only worsened by the edits, and individual reverting is not fun. I'm not good at interacting with other editors, and if it isn't too much to ask, leaving warnings on their talk pages and/or rolling back the most recent changes would be very helpful. Sorry if this is bothersome, or if this request is in a very wrong place. Thank you for any help. Starkenborgher (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-reporting violation, asking leniency

I corrected another editor's reading of a source at the "storming" talk page. Obviously a political topic, so technically guilty. But the clarification is in the interest of verifiability, accuracy and BLP concern, not any side of the current event, so go easy on me? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reoffended there, this time making my own POV relatively clearer (though implying the news is fake does not mean I support Trump, I've been saying that since 2001). While I feel I "had to say it" for "a greater good", and could pass the buck to "emotions boiling over", that'd be immature and irresponsible. I don't ask forgiveness for strike two, just fairness. Can you block me for 28 days rather than indefinitely, if you decide to block at all?

Alternatively, if you must block longer, might you wait till I've had precisely 15 years, 15 days and 15 minutes of online fame/shame (06:27 UTC, 18 February 2021)? To be clear, simply not viewing this as an actionable offense in context is also fine by me. Just letting you know I'm not being evasive, and also not tempted to branch out to correcting any other glaring errors in that article or any branch thereof, even the "impaled" part. Have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Hi Hulk! I meant to reply yesterday but some family medical stuff has taken priority. My view of the original "offense" was to do a partial block of 1 year from Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I'll be honest and say I don't think your t-ban violation was qualitatively disruptive or egregious, but you self-admittedly have a self-control deficiency (okay, now I sound like i've been reading medical literature too much). Sanction is indef block from the storming page a 15 day, 15 hour, and 14 minute site-wide block to give space between you and the source of temptation to reëngage in political discussions.

On a side note, your interest in WWE might give you small joy to know we have a few "county road HHH" here in Wisconsin. For some odd reason, they name county roads by letters in this state. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Blaire White

Excuse me, but I am not sure I understand your insistence on prohibiting the use of "transgender woman" in the Blaire White Wikipedia article. I know that you desire users to "gain consensus" first on the Talk page (though the consensus is a relative measure and has no holding on anything), but I see two issues with that. Rather than just flat-out block/ban me, I'd appreciate it if you'd spare me the grace of engaging in respectful and intelligent conversation on the matter first. I know I am just some random, no-name account with no fancy embellishments or degrees to show for, and I may not be as "woke" others, but I still am a sentient person with an opinion.

Firstly, a quick browse of White's YouTube content will reveal that her identity as a transgender woman has a large place in her career as a content creator. Furthermore, it is something that is important to be aware of when viewing her content. As such, any person who does an internet search of "Blaire White" will surely find the Wiki. Since it is relevant information, I would say that it should be included in the introduction paragraph.

Secondly, I assume that the reason you do not wish Blaire White to be listed as a transgender woman is that she doesn't conform to the political and social views that one would expect a transgender person to follow. Very little research will reveal that many LGBTQ-identifying, left-leaning creators online tend to disown White as a transgender woman, blatantly refer to her as a man, and overall try to erase her opinions from the LGBTQ community. Furthermore, and I mean this in the most polite way possible, I do believe you are doing the same thing.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Blaire White makes a point to refer to herself as a transgender woman. Not even just a "woman," but a transgender woman. Regardless of how she politically aligns with others, she has medically transitioned just shy of bottom surgery, socially transitioned, and lives her life with the identity, "transgender woman." From a moral point, there is no reason to disallow that identity to be represented in the article covering her career.

So, I am curious as to why "transgender woman" isn't allowed. May I be enlightened, please? Or perhaps may I be allowed to add two relevant words, one relevant detail, to the free encyclopedia for the betterment of free information for the people of this world? EMW23 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EMW23: I honestly don't know anything about this person and cannot comment on White's online presence. For me (and other admins) the issues are (1) there's been discussion on this in the past and the apparent consensus at the time was not to include it and (2) we require reliable sources, especially for issues around gender identity. To me, the latter is far more important. WP:BLP is close to supreme law on Wikipedia and, for marginalized groups, labels for self-identity must be strongly supported by sources. For stigmatized labels (e.g., addict), we prefer self-identifying sources by the person themselves. If, for example, Blaire White has a verified Youtube channel or Twitter and clearly states they identify as trans, then we should include that.

FWIW, the templates and warnings were more a response to your "sucks to your consensus" in your initial edit summaries. For me, it has nothing to to do with the subject's politics (c.f., Caitlyn Jenner). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, well I do sorely apologize for misreading your intent. I have had too many similar conversations and am left with an overall very bitter outlook I suppose. White does, in fact, have a verified Twitter and verified YouTube. While, as of right now, neither's bio says she identifies as trans, she states it in nearly all of her YouTube videos and various Tweets as well. What would be the appropriate way to cite this information then?

Reversion of antifeminism page: specific and general problems.

Hi there! I’m going to be blunt, but as precise as I can. Please forgive my getting right to the point. The antifeminism article is biased to the point of being totally one-sided. My strongest evidence of this is that the articles (only?) sources as to the nature of antifeminism are feminists. In my perusal not only did every “authority” turn out to be a gender studies professor or sociologist associated with feminism or in some other way an obvious feminist, but of course the other side of that coin: no antifeminists are cited. Now while it might be more understandable that the feminism page, say, only cites feminist authority, never quoting an antifeminist, to have the SAME state of affairs on the ANTIFEMINISM page is so slanted it cannot be overstated.

The entire page needs massive rework, of the likes I am not completely competent to perform. What I *could* do would be to help the page in some small ways to reflect the views of an actual antifeminist. But that can’t happen if any change I make to reflect a more authentic view of what antifeminism is all about is immediately reverted because the “mainstream” view of the majority of academics happens to be feminist (and therefore confused about what antifeminism actually IS).

It will be sad if in the end my suspicions prove correct that the reason the page is as atrocious as it is is that antifeminist scholars *don’t bother trying to correct it.* I know for a near fact that the two leading authorities I know of, professor Janice Fiamengo and Karen Straugan would be more than happy to write or at least be cited on the Wikipedia article purporting to explain what THEIR PHILOSOPHY means.

Unfortunately my best guess is that this letter will be summarily dismissed, maybe with grand excuses, maybe not, but either way I will have learned the lesson:

The feminist perspective gets a monopoly to the point where *its* exponents get to write the article on what *their opponents* supposedly think and stand for.

Imagine, if you will, letting the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer or the American government be the sole sources of authority on the page describing what “anarchism” means. Imagine that and you’ll be getting close to how the anti-feminism page reads from the point of view of someone who actually takes the view of the antifeminism.

To say the least it’s hardly up to Wikipedia‘s normal standards let alone it’s self-image. Destrypants (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Destrypants: I assume you are referring to this edit I reverted? I will be direct as well: Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources on topics don't always match what individual editors consider the "best" source. We could get into a Foucaultian discussion on power and truth, but that honestly won't change Wikipedia. The edit in question was reverted because (1) it did not accurately summarize the article per WP:LEAD, and (2) was an apparent insertion of one editor's opinion. In the definition section there is some discussion about how some scholars take issue with specific tenets or ontological stances. But the term is by-and-large defined by the history of political opposition to feminist social movements (e.g., Phyllis Schlafly).

You comparison to the white supremacist group Proud Boys is offensive, a false parallel, and incorrect. We allow fringe organizations like the Proud Boys to define themselves, but we (Wikipedia) note that the definition is their own and that reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize them differently. Further, they do not get to define anarchism because they are a fringe viewpoint. Wikipedia is admittedly a reflection of the hegemonic discourse. If you are here to "fix that", you will be disappointed.

You are of course welcome to discuss your WP:BOLD changes on the talk page (see bold-revert-discuss cycle). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

“Wikipedia is admittedly a reflection of the hegemonic discourse. If you are here to ‘fix that’, you will be disappointed.“ At least that one part is correct.

The comparison was not offensive it was a mirror analogy. The degree of extreme difference of opinion is analogous. And then allowing someone who has that extreme difference of opinion to define the “other” is the point of the analogy, which happens to be perfectly within the realm of basic accuracy. An anti-feminist being defined by feminists is perfectly analogous to letting the ideological opponents of anarchism define anarchism. This is a very simple comparison, very straightforward, nothing offensive, at least to reasonable people.

The above quote from you is the closest you come to a substantive reply, actually quite accidentally honest. I agree. The rest is quite ideologically convenient red tape of the sort that would’ve probably made the Soviets proud.

I wonder if one day the bulk of those in charge of gatekeeping at Wikipedia will wake up to their liberal, slanting toward neoliberal bias.

It is the opposite of science. And of course you also made my point for me: even the proud boys get at least a soundbite or two on the proud boy page, at least so you claim. I’m sure it will be years, if ever, before an actual antifeminist philosopher in the modern era is quoted on the page purporting to explain her views. Destrypants (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not accidental. It's my assessment of how Wikipedia works after years of editing here. To edit here constructively, one must accept that they are working to narrate the hegemonic discourse of the day. I've accepted that. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. And ironically honest. Or maybe not ironic coming from you since we are discussing pages not editing them. Your model would predict that if I tried to edit the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia to more honestly reflect what it reflects I would fail. Because Wikipedia is currently perceived not as a description of the hegemonic discourse of the day but as an attempt to offer descriptions of objective reality.

In fact as a mainstream media source Wikipedia reminds me more and more of Chomsky and Herman’s theory about the media, particularly that their “propaganda model” will never be accepted by or even comprehensible to the mainstream media culture it describes.

In fact after publishing my last rant above I consoled myself and felt a calm when I realized that even Chomsky himself has probably rarely if ever attempted to edit an article here, understanding it to be futile. He’ll write on Quora or answer emails or talk endlessly. But no point ever bothering to try and correct the official record.

It’s a Sisyphean task in an Orwellian reality. Destrypants (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, one of the links you provided lead me to this https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, and I have come to the view that your reversion is not, in my view, in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia: bold edits are encouraged, unnecessary reversions discouraged. My good-faith edit may not have *helped* the article substantially in your view, but it does little or nothing to *harm* the article, and was certainly not vandalism. If anything it merely restated in words of a different tone without adding or subtracting any real data.

As I don’t think, in my view, that you should have made the immediate unilateral reversion of an edit that was merely of *questionable* value (but very clearly not a serious or substantive disimprovement), I am re-reverting in good faith.

Also, my apologies for my above rancor. I found your keeping-of-your-cool admirable.

Sincerely Dp Destrypants (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

February flowers

... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! I love hellebore (Lenten Rose)! Though ours are covered in a couple feet of snow at the moment. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I returned to the place today, and they bloom! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Urbina spamming

You might like to check these users Nicole Hartman, JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman and Holla92211. Lyndaship (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Oh boy! I'll take a look. We'll likely have some results by this evening. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

can this IP be blocked?

Hello, can IP 2600:1017:B0A8:3B08:248D:F498:3CFF:B59F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please be blocked? They are evading the block of some blocked user, self-confessed and are making personal attacks. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile:

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Ashley yoursmile! 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The condemnation of sex drive in Christianity

Hi. For what reason? --Puszczanin (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: For "no original research". You need to provide a reliable source that says "Christianity views sex drive... [blah blah]... verses highlighted are used to justify this view...". You cannot make that claim on your own. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What the hell WP:OR if I adduced quotations? I can also add "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Co:7:1) etc. Is a quotation from the Bible "original research"? --Puszczanin (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: It might sound silly, but you need a reliable source to say that bible passage is about sex drive. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking. It's a well-known fact. As an example, take

On Exhortation to Chastity. by Tertullian or

On Marriage and Concupiscence. by Augustine of Hippo. Everybody knows that sexual desire is a sin in Christianity. It's known even to the reader unversed in philosophy and theology. Is Wikipedia engaged in censorship that suppresses Christian views on sex? --Puszczanin (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: I doubt my Japanese friends would consider that a "well-known fact" that the verses you quoted were illustrating that "sexual desire is a sin in Christianity" (it's not WP:BLUE). Wikipedia does not only cater to readers raised in Abrahamic religious societies. If it's well-known, a source should be easy to find, and the WP:BURDEN is on you. I know it's frustrating when something we as individuals consider completely obvious is challenged as needing a source (I know this personally when it comes to my area of scholarship), but it is unreasonable to twist that frustration into suggesting censorship. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added some sources. Yet it seems to me that you're cavilling at words because of following information in the article: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sexuality is noble and worthy" (Human sexuality#Roman Catholic Church). --Puszczanin (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: it's generally good practice to not try to surmise motive or worldview of other editors. If you are suggesting I am asking for sources due to being Catholic, I suggest you look at my user page where I make my stance on religion public. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Block needed

Hello EvergreenFir could you please block Special:contributions/David Pahrohahro and revoke TPA? They're an LTA. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Done EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir, they're an LTA. Could you please pull TPA - they normally abuse it sooner or later? I can send you details of the master if needed. Pahunkat (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Can you email me the alleged master so I can compare? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, ok, will do. Pahunkat (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Pahunkat (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add that they're good at impersonating new users, they have done that before (see my talk page entries for Chuck Mincho and The Road to Paradise. Pahunkat (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from JalenFolf

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 81.99.175.183 again. I see you previously blocked this IP, and was hoping you'd be willing to assist in the matter again. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: Thanks for the heads up. IP is now blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi.

How was this edit "Incorrect"?.

Per source: "in the United States ... an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender." and the only related mention to a country other than the US was "in the United Kingdom ... suggest that perhaps 0.1% of adults are transgender". Given these, "99% of cases, the child's gender identity matches their sex assignment" does not seem to be supported by the source so I changed it to more accurately match the actual numbers in the source. 80.221.244.5 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Under the How many adults are transgender? section in the source it mentions multiple numbers (0.5%, 3.2%, 0.1%, etc.). Specifically, "Conway (2002) suggests that between 0.5% and 2% of the population have strong feelings of being transgender and between 0.1% and 0.5% actually take steps to transition from one gender to another. Researchers in the United Kingdom (Reed, et al., 2009) suggest that perhaps 0.1% of adults are transgender (defined again as those who have transitioned in some capacity)." It is incorrect to say "99% of cases, the child's gender identity matches their sex assignment" given that (1) there's clearly sources showing more than 0.1% and (2) the one that you point out only measures transgender as those who have transitions in some capacity, not necessarily gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Julius Evola

Hi!

You semi'd this article. You might want to consider upping the protection to ECP, as there's an editor who refuses to follow the consensus on the talk page and is editing disruptive against it.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saffron (color), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alpine. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Just a shout-out to say thank you for the time you put in mopping up disruption at BLPs and contentious AP2 articles. It's noticed and much appreciated! Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, EvergreenFir,

I just ran into some misguided edits done by 151.192.242.186 and noticed that you issued two blocks to them. Since you are familiar with their work, I thought I'd check in with you to see whether you thought an extended block was warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC) @Liz: Yeah that IP and others within the /16 range have been at it for a while. I'll block again for continued behavior and check for other IPs. Thanks for reaching out. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking vandals!

I'm seeing my watchlist light up with you blocking all these people I'm reporting. I appreciate the quick response to the reports. Thanks a ton! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This section is still open so I'll just post here. Look at the user page of User:RedSwan69 and User:Tuatara89. Both with the mention of spending all their time in their mom's basement to fix wikipedia. Additionally the same vandalism on the same articles. If necessary I'll try and figure out how to open an SPI, but I think it's pretty clear. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like he got blocked for a username violation. If I see the same guy pop up again I'll try and figure out SPI. Thanks again for handling all the vandal blocking requests! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocking

I’m sorry I forgot to include User:ElvisisDEAD69 previous account where they have been adding falsified information to Natalie Maines. Their old account was User:Factturtle Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:British royal family on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Talk:List of military disasters on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Nancy Pelosi and Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:Nora Fatehi on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Molly of Denali

I know you have contributing to the Molly of Denali page, so I'll ask you - should this line below be removed from the article?

"There are also shows coming on IRIB TV2 in Iran, Canal Panda in Portugal, E-Junior in UAE, Minimax in Central & Eastern Europe, Arutz HaYeladim in Israel, KiKa in Germany, ABC Kids in Australia, and DeA Kids in Italy."

The first 6 words of that sentence makes no sense, and last time I checked I couldn't seem to find proof the show aired on those channels.

I'm pretty sure that this show is renewed for Season 2, but PBS KIDS hasn't made a press release about it. When I added that, you reverted it, referencing speculative information isn't allowed (which I didn't know). VGPCVGCP (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@VGPCVGCP: If that is unreferenced, it absolutely should be removed. Even if it is referenced, I think it should be removed until the show airs on a station as a non-original broadcast before we report it. But that is mostly just an opinion and not a rule. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JCarr8Wiki

Their deletion of the following posts on my talk page was clearly an accident. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Good to know! Just saw it pop on my watchlist and reverted. Glad it was a good-faith error. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)