User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Asking for a reasoned discussion

Is it too much to ask for a discussion before making significant changes to an article? You placed a warning on my page (without ANY explanation as to why), when I specifically asked a more experienced editor (such as yourself) to at least discuss the best way to make changes. Cavalierman (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I saw your discussion on the talk page, thank you. Cavalierman (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: I explained the warning. You cannot call living people "mentally ill" or "liars". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if their story is proven to be a lie by a reliable source?? Cavalierman (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially if there are court cases. The mental illness part too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Message from Rubi2014

Please understand that I mean no harm in the LGBT cartoon characters

I apologize if the editing I done was disruptive for you or to anyone else but as I try to explain in my summaries, the wikia clearly states for Marceline's and Bubblegum's relationships were friendship only and Olivia did state in a deleted tweet with the screenshot showed on that page that she was lying at the time when she said those two were in a romantic relationship and I was only just giving the people on the wikipedia the correct information. Also please don't threaten me if only we could talk first because I will have to report to the administators about this and I would prefer not to go to that point please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubi2014 (talk • contribs)

@Rubi2014: Wikia is not a reliable source. I was not threatening you, I was warning you about your disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Support

Hi, I have posted a comment of support on your claim of a users edit warring. You may find it at the linked text. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Transfer of report from AN/I to AN/Ew

At the time I thought it wasn't really a content dispute so I put it in the Incidents Broad. Thanks very much for your help. STSC (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Acid throwing

Hello, you seem to have reverted the edits I made to the acid throwing wiki page. Please take a look at the post I left for Rsrikanth05 on his page. I don't have an account and I fear that my edits will be undone again if I try to undo this again, could you please reverse your edit for me so your name shows on the edit page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.58.69 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Fox animated shared universe

Correct. If the SPI investigation shows that the material was created by a blocked or banned user it comes under the umbrella of the CSD criteria, in which case an admin can summarily delete it. First, though, you've got to prove the SPI is in fact a confirmed sock. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In the event that they are a sock, tell me and I'll G7 the template.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: thank you and will do. If they're not a sock, feel free to {{minnow}} or {{trout}} me for being overzealous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol. No it's fine. Either way you haven't done anything wrong here. It's all understandable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh

You just do not learn, do you? Admins are watching that talk page anyway, so no real need to go running to mummy. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice Sitush, but all I did was file an AE. I'll let someone else get it next time though. Getting tired of it myself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Would probably be a good idea. You could end up with an unwanted reputation and a lot of unnecessary flak if you persist. While EC has nothing at all in common with the Gamergaters etc, I'd be surprised if those idiots don't keep an eye on what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure they do tbh, but I don't think I'm too high on their list (and hope not to become so). Like I said, probably won't be the filer next time. They're a pain to create. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong - I'd like to hope that I am - but every time someone with your sort of generic profile raises their head above the parapet, I think you make yourself more likely to rise up their list. By "generic profile" I mean someone who keenly expresses their feminist position. This isn't about whether you should but rather about the horrific real world consequences while the Gamergate thing has a high profile and people who claim to be TKoP do things like they have done. I think LB rather shot herself in the foot in that regard but nonetheless no-one should be subjected to that sort of harassment. Equally, sometimes it is best to let things pass rather than to make a fuss about them. Easier said than done, I know, and perhaps very much a case of "do as I say, not as I do" but pinning a target on your back for a situation that really is rather trivial and that pretty much amounts to wikilawyering just seems crazy to me. I've not really delved into this but I rather think that the person who took Enid Blyton to FA status, and numerous other articles about women, is now effectively prevented from even protecting those articles against vandals because of a ludicrously wide topic ban that was in large part a reaction to a squealing mob of self-righteousness. I don't expect you to agree with my surmise, nor do I always agree with EC, but I do detest cornering people on technicalities when the issue at hand in fact does little harm to anything. Live and let live. You and I both have bigger battles to face, against people who really are intent on doing damage to this project.

I have no idea if someone can withdraw a complaint at AE. It probably makes no difference now that it is in the spotlight. But, yeah, I am concerned about the side-effects as they might impact on you and on others. We might disagree about some things butr I'm no misogynist etc and nor is EC: this is a downward spiral for you, for me, for him and for the project, and it serves no useful purpose. Off to bed, and am taking the advice of a woman who contributes here by trying lavender oil rubbed into my feet as a means to cure my horrendous and persistent insomnia. It wouldn't matter if she was a he or a they: just sayin' because we're all supposed to pull together here, not drive wedges. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just clarified here. I got a notification afterwards, so sorry for any confusion. These computers aren't so good at pre-emption as their artificially intelligent selves seem to think ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I appreciate you commenting and taking the time. I do disagree a bit, but agree with the take away. As for the AE, I'm just gonna refrain from commenting (despite the ad hominems and PAs). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol what a farce. Closed after 5 hours by an involved admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And then blocked by one of the most involved admins we have, who is also clueless when it comes to differentiating between disruption and plain policing and, of course, like Keyes, Gorman and co, has worked for the WMF - there is something about working for the WMF that seems perhaps to corrupt people's ability to think straight but, as always, first-mover advantage applies to blocks and GW knows it. Notice how she has also removed what she claims to be trolling from the LB case PD page, despite all those other admins having no problem with it for several days beforehand? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Celebrate

Let's celebrate yesterday's historic ruling, but realize it was a step, not the goal. We have much further to go before equality and justice are achieved. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for continuing to deflect those vandals from Bad Girls Club related articles. I know its a persistent and demanding job but here's a cookie for your hard work. Best, jona(talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

category:pedophile activism and To Catch a Predator

Hi EvergreenFir. I'm not sure why that description (pro and anti) is there on the page, when it also has a link to the category:anti-pedophile activism. I wonder if there was originally only one category and at some point they were split up and a few tags here and there have not been split either way. Please come to the talk page, where I originally questioned the link, at the category:pedophile activism talk page where I had the support of another editor before I made the change you reverted. I'd like to get to the bottom of these oddly overlapping categories. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

How odd. Thanks for alerting me. I've commented on the category talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

GB citing

Hey, since you were nice enough to thank me for reformatting a citation, I'll tell you the tool I used to do it, in case you don't know it yet. It's http://reftag.appspot.com, and it's a godsend.

While I'm here, maybe you'd like to look at the not-very-professional rewrite I just did of an extremely unprofessional section about the criminology of motherhood: Mother#Mother-offspring violence. No fun for me to do, so I'm sure it could be improved. FourViolas (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: - Thank you! I'll check out that page too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Message from seattleditor

We appeal to the highest authority

Say what you will, your user profile provides the casual observer with more than enough information to surmise that your criticism of this pioneering Sexologist's biography shows deliberate malice that requires admin review. Your further advocacy and creation of a biography page for a former colleague of the profiled biography in question suggests to me that you inject personal polemics into your role at Wikipedia and therfore represents a clear conflict of interest. Secondary sources are not required for academic or CV citations and both faculty and professional affiliations have been duly linked . One has only to glance at the number of complaints lodged against your behavior that are well chronicled on your user profile Talk and Archival pages to determine you are unfit for the editorial position you occupy. I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata. Your sarcastic reply was unfit for a sociologist. I have and will continue to appeal to all those in a position of authority to have you removed or disbarred from causing further harm and abuse to others. Seattleditor (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI in regards to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I should have pinged you in my recent comment. Once, or thrice. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose indef per WP:NOTHERE. I mentioned you four times. Is that "fice", or what?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• For archival purposes, the discussion (win) is now preserved forever at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Problematic_behavior_by_Seattleditor_-_Probably_COI.2C_personal_attacks.2C_disruptive_editing. For those who wish the brief overview: The editor who attacked above was blocked indefinitely, the article they wrote was deleted, and the image was deleted from Commons, primarily by me and @Beyond My Ken:, both of us could tell that the permissions were not accurate.

(As David Bowie would say, "Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.")

The editor, EGF, was not disbarred. That is not a logical conclusion. That's a very bad hallucinogenic fantasy. (Gimme' some of that, you're not doin' it right.)

"Oh Henry, get off the phone"   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarke's birthday

Hi. I saw that you reverted my edit on Emilia Clarke's article. Actually you're right, her date of birth should have a source. I found a website that may contain her birthday, TV Guide. It is used as a source in many actors' or actresses' articles for their date of birth. Here's the link. Unfortunately I don't have access to this website now since I have some connection problems. I came here to ask you to check this web. If it has her date of birth please add it in her article. Keivan.f^Talk 08:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally I opened the page. TV Guide says that she was born on May 1, 1987 (or maybe 86, I can't remember exactly. You can check it yourself anyway). But Business Insider says that she was born in the fall of 1986: Here's the link. Marie Claire's issue on April 9, 2014 says that she was 27 years old in that time which means she should have been born in 1986 (either in May or October). Keivan.f^Talk 08:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times also says that the actress' real birthday is on May 1, but she enjoyed a "name day" celebration on the set in October 2014. Other websites say that her birthday is in October and Wikipedia, IMDb and Google had provided wrong information. That's why her date of birth is changed in IMDb and Google. I'm really confused. Maybe we should have both of those suggested dates like Mariah Carey's article. Keivan.f^Talk 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to start a discussion on the articles's talk page. I copied the links and other information to the talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 09:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Gumball stuff

This is what's going down. The Egg (a season 3 episode) was pulled and replaced with the first episode of season 4. This does mean The Return is a season 3 episode, it's the first episode of season 4. Ben Boquelet stated this on his Twitter. The Egg will air at some point and end season 3. Whether you guys want to keep it as episode 114 or change it to 116 is fine, but The Return has to remain a season 4 episode, or else things will get quite confusing. -signed, Fluffydipper, cartoon enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffydipper (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Potluck

You reverted my addition to a list of potluck synonyms with a note "Need source". Only 1 out of the 14 synonyms has a source. My source for Jim-dangle is from an actual pot luck on the 4th of July. I couldn't believe it so I looked it up here and it wasn't listed so I added it. I live in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle). Please reconsider your reversion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

I can se you gave me a warning, but read the source that person was using. It might be from two sociologists from a small University, but they certanly did not write a good and factual book. Acording to the guidelines we need to have peer reviews and secondary sources when we are uncertain. And people from that field ..., well, I know we need a couple, and probably from different fields. Read it, and they don't even have any sources. It's just their thoughts, not facts. Olehal09 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article's talk page. We don't need "peer review", just reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and if the source can be deemed reliable in the field of sociology we need secondary sources and/or peer reviews. It's a biased field. Olehal09 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not how it works. Go read WP:RS. We don't get to claim a field is "biased". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But it states that we should use secondary sources, especially when we use such obviously biased books. Read it yourself, you can find a link on the talk page on the wiki article. Olehal09 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a secondary source... it's an edited compilation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources is not defined as a compilation, but such articles needs reviews of different academics too. Olehal09 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please return to the discussion on the article "white genocide conspiracy theory"

I'm still discussing and have read through the books and article used as sources.Olehal09 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I remind you of the discussion on white genocide conspiracy theory. When you ask for a discussion, you should hold your word. Olehal09 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

HELP!!

Excuse but I need help how do we add new topics and change line colors and stuff please I really want to contribute in this. and thanks. ThEdestrOYER101 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

VPP

In answer to this, WP:VPP. It will fail, though, in part for the same reasons that attempts to micro-manage/codify civility enforcement have failed. All you will do is gain yourself a lot more unwanted attention. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I broke the ice at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Adoption_of_a_non-discrimination_policy shortly after posting the above. It took a while to get any response other than Roger's direct answer to my query. If things pick up then at least you could comment there without having the troll-attracting burden of being the initiator.

If I were you I would hang fire at least until (if ever) some other comments appear from people who might be perceived to have less investment in the issue. Discretion, valour, etc. I hope this doesn't sound preach-y, as I know that LB tends to see that as an annoying and persistent trait in me. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Gabucho181

FYI - see WP:OP Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Had no idea that existed. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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