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)