User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Edit Warring at Frank Pommersheim

Your recent editing history at Frank Pommersheim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 3RR and have come no where close to it on that article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will let the evidence speak for itself; Also note it does not require 3R's to edit war.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606280411 @ 04:18 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606349505 @ 16:25 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427474 03:41 30 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427517 03:42 30 APR 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.196: You need to read WP:3RR. EvergreenFir has done one revert and one removal of an unsourced item. The first was adding a speedy deletion tag (not a revert). The second was a revert. The third added tags (not a revert), the fourth removed an unsourced claim with significant wp:puffery. I don't see a 3RR issue. Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct the first one was a speedy delete on an article less than 2 hours old that was being worked on by a new editor. See WP:BITE The subject is notable and due diligence was not performed. He then started a COI on the new editor 5 minutes after nominating the article for speedy delete. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion Scroll up to see Speedy delete. Then 12 hours later he reverted 5 edits of the same new editor on an article he wanted deleted. ??? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606292739 He then was shot down for speedy delete by User_talk:Y. He then reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606427246 If this was the only edit it would not be an issue. But it could appear to the new editor or a reasonable outsider that he is being stalked and harrassed. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Turning over to There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.196: For a 'new' editor, you have an amazing grasp of Wikipedia templates and ANI, but little appearant grasp of wp:five pillars Jim1138 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your "thanks" regarding Jodie Foster

Thanks. I have a niece I truly love who legally married her long-time partner one year ago. The very long drive to her wedding and the chance to spend a couple of days with her and her bride and her various new extended family was a delight for my wife and I. My niece has never used the "L" word in my hearing or reading, and therefore I don't use that word to describe her. My respect for her is complete, including using the words that she uses to describe her bride and her marriage. I extend the same respect to Foster. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Self identification is very important, as is the lack thereof. And congrats to your niece! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

She is a beautiful, intelligent, charming young woman who was given up for adoption at birth and unknown to us until we reconnected about seven years ago. She looks so much like her birth mother, my sister, at the same age that it is stunning. She shares personality traits and talents with my sister as well. On the other hand, her adoptive parents are wonderful, loving people, and very proud of her. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Boyfriend

My apologies. I am not trying to be disruptive, but trying to stand up for what is right. I do not believe you have to have a sexual relationship with someone to have a boyfriend. Audiluver (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Audiluver: the article does not say it has to be a sexual relationship. It specifically uses "and/or". It can be a solely romantic relationship, a solely sexual relationship, or a romantic and sexual relationship. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but girlfriend was different until I edited it. Audiluver (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Enginecompany/sandbox

Sorry, but I've declined your speedy there. That's what a sandbox is there for. That class of speedy is really only for fantasy football (or fantasy whatever), and CVs on the user page. This looks like a draft article, and as it isn't spam, attack, or (presumably - I haven't checked) copyvio, it's OK. It may fail notability, but that's not applicable to drafts. If it stays there for more than about six months without anything being done, maybe. There's always misunderstanding when new CSDs appear - you aren't the first one. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks for letting me know about U5. It seems like G11 would apply though. I will tag as such and let a reviewing admin decide. I'll save the U5 for the stuff you mentioned. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, I agree it's more a draft article. No CSD. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not vandalism, just removing Irrelevant Information

My changes in Strong Objectivity were because describing the polítical positions or believes of someone are not relevant on science and the article explains a Sociology Theory.

About your the warning of being blocked, I recieved 5 warnings by bots and I reported 4 of them as false positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drankie (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drankie: Standpoint feminism isn't a political position, it's an academic school of thought that is the basis for strong objectivity. It's nonsensical to remove it. As for the "false positives", did you report them? Why were human users also giving you warnings? Regardless, you have a level 2 warning and another discussion about your edits on your talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to a level 3 if it matters any. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I already said I reported the false positives but anyway. About the other two discussion about edits on my talk page, if you check properly one was already solved, was a mistake on my first edited article that I corrected when I received an editing advice by the person that warner me and I will try to solve the relevance of a fact in an article in the next hours.

Standpoint Feminism is the basis of Strong Objectivity, and Marxism is the basis of Standpoint Feminism and will be nonsensical to say that all Standpoint Feminist are Marxist. Anyway I think is something with no relevance to the article but is not harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drankie (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Using article talk pages

Take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Basically, since the editor wrote on his own talk page, I'd say he has the right to remove his own edits that you moved there. He doesn't have the right to remove anything you wrote there. What I'd advise is just to edit the article talk page again summarizing the dispute in your own words and being very careful about how you describe the other editor's position on this - if appropriate, just say there's a disagreement and state your position. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Thank you for the reply. The editor removed the comments after a 4th warning (and another warning from Zero), so I just reported to AIV. I will edit the talkpage however. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Sexuality -- Building Consensus

My interest is that the article on human sexuality say something about the sexes in the lead paragraph. How can we accomplish this? Mrdthree (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

More on Ukraine

EvergreenFir, besides the references I posted in the WP article on Ukraine, you may also wish to see this YouTube video and the testimonies of the scholars and Professor shown in the video on the atrocities committed against the Poles and Jews during the 1648-49 Cossack rebellion. [[1]]

Be well, Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Thank you for sharing! I'll check it out! And thanks for finding those sources! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)