User talk:EvergreenFir

Articles for recreation Deri Lorus

Hi EvergreeFir I request you to recreate the article on Deri Lorus. It is deleted, under criteria G4. Deri Lorus is notable persons is past days, but now he is leading composer in Tamil film industry in India. Some rude administrators blocking other persons who are not even connected to the sockpuppetry. To be noted: I'm not connected to Deri Lorus but I live in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. He is notable in our State and in India. I strongly believe that he completely notable to WP:NMUSICIAN

You can see article about Deri Lorus in Spanish and French Wikipedia

1. Spanish
2. French

You can know about Deri Lorus in Internet

If he is not notable, then how it is possible to live article in Spanish and French Wikipedia , even Deri Lorus verified on Facebook [1] you can check on that link. Dear admin, you already knew that Facebook or other social network doesn't verify non notable people. You can see more news and blogs about him, there are more than 35 sources on the internet. I am very strong in my view that Deri Lorus is notable to create article about him. I hope you will understand and Thanks in Advance!

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eritrea on a "History and geography" 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, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:BBC Sport 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 02:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Democracy Manifest 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 23:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Gosar

Since we discussed it on Boebert's article, I was wondering what you think of this one. It states him to be far-right in the lead, but as I mentioned in the talk page of the article, only a few reliable sources occasionally call him far-right, not anywhere near the one other congressperson listed as far-right (Marjorie Taylor Greene). I do not want to remove it from the article, since two editors voiced disapproval, but since they have not responded on the talk page yet, I was wondering what you thought. Bill Williams 01:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Succession (TV series) 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, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Random IP

FYI, I asked if that IP was you here [2], because they were using your signature [3] Bogazicili (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: Oh! That's unusual and sus. It also says 2013 in the header. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 05:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Race edits

Im having a hard time understand why the race is mentioned? It seems irrelevant and biased to add that in for a shooting or murder of someone by police. It does not matter what race the officer, nor the deceased is so why is the information placed in the first sentence? If anything it should be placed in a section related to ensuing riots/protests not front and center. Will you find an edit on a wikipedia page for the numerous Blacks killed by Black police officers? Im finding that not likely, nor the opposite Asian victim, Asian officer. If anything this furthers a divide and promots racial bias to the sunject of cases of potential police brutality and make it more or less and aggressive tone right off the bat when reading. Please discuss or revert the simple edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowboy06 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yellowboy06: Thanks for reaching out. The reason race is mentioned is because WP:DUE requires us to mention it; it's mentioned widely by reliable sources as an important aspect of the event so Wikipedia needs to reflect that. Indeed it's a central factor to why those police- involved shootings are notable enough to have their own articles. Whether we as editors think its right or not has minimal bearing on it and Wikipedia shouldn't be a venue for "fixing" social problems (see WP:RGW).

My slightly heavy-handed response is because this specific topic often becomes a WP:BATTLEGROUND and because of you're past inappropriate edits about Obama. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

November, 2021

Could someone please help. I am having disagreements with anonymous users on the projects and timelines Jeff Bergman voiced Tweety in, and I’ve doing research as carefully as I could. I tried to reason with these editors, but they seem to totally disregard my reasoning and what I have requested (please to do not revert back to "present" unless you have found another production that came or is set to come after 2018). I would like to have a protection template on the Tweety article and have it last longer. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Lies and Corruption on Rittenhouse Case

Why would you close the discussion when it's not done being discussed? There's nothing stopping one from also finding reliable sources showing the lies and manipulation from the media and the political left to show the truth. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:RGW. Any negative claim about a living person must have a reliable source. Telling me they exist is insufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn't even allow for discussion, you closed it the moment you saw it. That's not how you get to the bottom of things, that's how you force a narrative. 2600:387:F:451A:0:0:0:3 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That's how you enforce WP:BLP and I'm a glorified janitor tasked to do that. Nothing is stopping you from getting sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Except this isn't a biography, it's an analysation of the lies spread by media outlets and the corruption that took place during a court case. How is that a biography of a living person anymore than the rest of the article? 2600:387:F:451A:0:0:0:3 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

talk page

Hi EvergreenFir,

I love your name by the way. It makes me think of nice green trees. I made a note in that talk page for antifa as you suggested. No worries to me either way, I just say that that was the verbiage used across the RS cited inline on the article (and as an aside bias to be fair, I think it reads better), but regardless, is more true to the RS cited. Have a great day! And thanks for all you do. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Falsifiability 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 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

List of ViacomCBS television programs

Hello why did you deleted them I added them for a reason so can you reverted them back? If you do it you may have to stop deleting content just like you did at List of ViacomCBS television programs because if you do you will be blocked from editing. 148.252.128.98 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can you please unblock this article List of ViacomCBS television programs? 148.252.128.98 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything you added was unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for your edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No he won't because what you did is disruptive. It may be unsourced, but it was his hard work so please stop your disruptive editing. If you do that again just like you did at List of ViacomCBS television programs you will be blocked from editing. 85.255.237.94 (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You can't claim the removal of unsourced dubious information is "disruptive". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually your edits were disruptive and had to be removed like the other time you did something. So please stop your disruptive editing. 148.252.129.26 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing if you continue to disruptive Wikipedia like you did at List of ViacomCBS television programs. 148.252.129.26 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, repeated addition of uncited material can result in a block. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kim Seon-ho 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 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well do go on, I welcome the criticism.

The "knife fight escape" is a lie. It remains on the article. Where lie the "SO VERY HIGH STANDARDS" you talk about? Lie, I guess, just like bodies on the pavement. People put it in out of the blue, less than word of mouth of an unsourced journalist, only to provide some sense of explanation to not see with their own eyes. Who would escape through the one and only worst avenue in the town anyways.

Break your chains and step out of the cave. The editor shouldn't feel harassment, but embarassment of spousing such a stupid and improbable idea of an "escape gone wrong". Also, the guy tried to run some other person over less than a month ago.

MAYBE IT WAS ANOTHER KNIFE FIGHT ESCAPE RIGHT, I MEAN THE OOOOODDS!

How can someone be so blind. BLIND. The whole talk page is atrocious. If any one editor had written it like it was, shit would've been over by now. But no, wokepedia needs to reassure their snowflakes that they are in the right side of history lest their mental fortitude falters when they realize that if here they were wrong, where else, too, they might be?

There is a lot of fixing to do on that article but sure, shying away correct information seems to take precedence around here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14d:4ca9:81c4:e87d:465b:64ff:e514 (talk)

So, instead of relying on reliable sources (the very backbone of Wikipedia), you'd rather us report your personal beliefs about what really happened because you think the official reports are wrong? I think you have us confused with OANN or something. clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For starters, your "reliable sources" are not that reliable. It is more of a fault of the believer, not the snakecharmer. They were doing their job, propaganda. And in that dimension they couldn't be wrong, since they were never trying for truth. Nothing changed from the facts on the ground. People claimed it was an attack yesterday with the same exact information available. Some people just broke their chains really and no longer watch the shadows dance.

4chan did the whole research. As usual, autists on that forum overwhelm in aspiepower all the alphabet agencies in your country together. You are welcome to check them yourself, if you can so briefly suspend the inclination to attack the sources and reflect (in the sanctuary of your conscience, where else) if this is the badge you brazenly wear. And no, I don't give a shit about conflict of interest; we'd both need first to pretend WP is something it's not. https://archive.md/txGp9

An encyclopedia isn't built on sourcing. It is built on truthness. Gettier truth. Strict methods (go mathematical sociology), hypothesis testing and logic are the building blocks of truth and knowledge. Where they are lacking sourcing can fill. But when lazyness enshrines the latter, we arrive at where we are: contaminated sources and peabrained zombies can't build an encyclopedia. Matter in fact they've destroyed one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14d:4ca9:81c4:e87d:465b:64ff:e514 (talk)

> 4chan

Suddenly it all makes sense. I doubt you'll read it, but WP:TRUTH is extremely relevant here. Wikipedia's reliance on sources over "truth" is nothing new. Also, remember Reddit and the Boston Marathon? Crowdsourced research can be just as off-the-mark as the journos, especially where the terminally-online are involved. Anyways, if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are too restrictive for you, I'm sure there are other options you'd be more comfortable with. This clearly isn't the place for you. clpo13_(talk) 22:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

All I have to say is oof. What a mess. IP, if you're not here to build an encyclopedia, please leave. Let me know if you need help leaving. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There are two of you? Really confusing. It seems none could hold judgement of the source and went straight into pretending whatever it says doesn't exist. At some point you gotta rebrand yourselves from encyclopedia builders to copyists monks, minus the neat calligraphy. Or a radio repeater for media.

> WP:TRUTH is extremely relevant here

I think you mean "truth is extremely relevant here". WP:TRUTH is far from it and was tailored to allow barely educated people to do minor less cognitive intensive jobs; of course the anointed think very highly of themselves and soon all it did was transform WP in an echo chamber, curating narratives. WP:TRUTH would have burned Bruno earlier.

> Also, remember Reddit and the Boston Marathon? Crowdsourced research can be just as off-the-mark as the journos, especially where the terminally-online are involved.

So maybe they should be accepted prima facie on equal grounds and be judged on the merits of the information provided. It's not rocket surgery. The central tenet of offshoring sourcing relies on having strong independent media vehicles. Journalism is dead and is one of the most oligopolistic industries in your country. WP is doomed if it stays the course, maybe regardless. I don't know, how does the Wuhan lab leak conspiracy is going? Are you stripping all those media vehicles from the trusted list? Or comforting lies don't count? Even the 4chan Biden staffer who said he was on diapers and didn't offer any proof seems quite convincing now after the Pope ordeal (I wonder if they have a Codex on their gold inlaid bathrooms so that you can read some Roman Catholic Church:TRUTH guidelines while you're at it).

> are too restrictive for you, I'm sure there are other options you'd be more comfortable with. This clearly isn't the place for you

I thought it read "feel free to improve this article". (And I didn't even try to "improve the article" to get this boot, I went straight into the talk page. My oh my.) Must have been somewhere else. This is not the free encyc right. A group of dedicated custodes, all of which employ -coyly- methods to shove people away from their pet project of writing their passions true.

> if you're not here to build an encyclopedia, please leave

I'm not sure you are here to build an encyclopedia either if you immediately dismiss a source that might challenge your views. People die on their hearts and minds sooner than physiologically. Death in a sense is due to come with the decline in neuroplasticity; learning gets tough. But letting that childish curiosity go sooner still is such a sure way to never escape your bubble. You cannot *possibly* believe that regurgitating whatever comes out of a select list of vehicles constitute knowledge building. And to top it off with some "it's the policy, nothing I can do about it" positivism crap. I saw the badges you flash. I refuse to believe any one would describe that activity as scholastic or even intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Why did you block it again? The article List of ViacomCBS television programs was recently been unblocked and why did you unlocked it again? 213.107.66.214 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.132.27 (talk)

You must put reliable sources to support your edits. I semi-protected the page because IPs (you?) have repeatedly added unsourced content. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No it's not because we found out on IMDb it's not it has to be re-added. 148.252.132.27 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually we IPs don't know how to add reliable sources and you know YouTube and IMDb sources are not reliable. I don't you're keep reverting our edits on List of ViacomCBS Television programs and you don't have the right to it. Your reverted edit is Unexplained and removing content is not acceptable so you gotta have to stop it if you do that again you will be blocked from editing. 148.252.132.27 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I know the learning curve on Wikipedia is steep, but you must provide reliable sources for your edits. It is not optional. IMDB is not a reliable sources. Neither is Youtube. I recommend that you first go do the tutorial and then read some of the how-to articles on Help:Directory. Other places you can learn about how to cite sources is WP:TEA and WP:HELPDESK.

Please stop telling me I "have to stop" and that I may be blocked from editing. You are not an admin that can block others (I am one though). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, who is "we IPs"? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

IPs will never ever do IPs so stop reverting things on List of ViacomCBS Televisions programs if you do you will blocked form editing! 148.252.132.27 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)