User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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)

Paris

Hi you reverted my (Francy888) edit on Paris. My contribution includes 3 parts : a link to an official source (Airparif, the government body for air quality in Paris region) rather than a generic link to a magazine a correction : Paris had no "stone" mines, but limestone a correction of a typo

I really wonder why you reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francy888 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I reverted it mostly because the link you provided was a map of pollution, but had no text. We need sources that summarize the findings and not leave it up to the individual reader to make a conclusion. Also you erased the concentration of pollution which seems like a useful statistic. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfC on Russia article

Hi! Sorry to drop it on you (per my comment on the Ukraine article RfC), but could you please request that an admin close the RfC (both sections) on the Russia article so that we can get on with opening it all up again on the Ukraine talk page (uff, this is so agonisingly protracted, and we shouldn't have to make proposals per article, but it's being foisted on us). I've been meaning to ask you if you could do so for the few days, but have now felt the shove to get on with it. Thanks! (How are you holding up?) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Didn't even realize it was still open! Yeah, I'll request it. Doing well, and you? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yeah, I'm fine. All sorts of DRN, ANI and edit warring 'situations' seem to have been settled, so I'm set for a pre-booked holiday next week and can take a wikibreak without feeling that anything is hanging in the balance. Smilin' on the inside and outside. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Paris

I am French and I assure you the Linternaute article is useless : an information from 2012, indicating nothing useful. I could not find the equivalent information on the official airparif site because pollution cannot be shown like that. Pollution maps are dynamic by nature, therefore is better to have all the historical data on the last few years (in the link I posted) rather than a reference to an old magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francy888 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from reverting others Talk Page Comments

Your recent editing history at Article 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.
Additional text

Do not revert editors talk page comments as done here 2X:http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Pommersheim&action=history See WP:TPOC Do not accuse editors of being socks as done above as it is uncivil. See WP:Uncivil Be careful to not bite or flame newcomers WP:NEWBIES. Newcomers are valuable to wikipedia and may fear being flamed from experienced editing and quit editing all together. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606684886 172.56.10.248 (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As EvergreenFir's suspicions about sockpuppetry were proven correct, it is not uncivil to watch and warn about further sockpuppetry surrounding the article. Your edits do you no favors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN. This is clear the same user as 172.56.11.196 EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

BRD on Ukraine Page

To Evergreen; Upon your request, I have initiated a BRD on the issue of the back-and-forth editing on the Ukraine page which you had previously edited. I have reverted your Bold edit of 30 April as it appeared to be an excessive cut to the material. You are invited to the BRD I have set up there which you appear to have overlooked doing yourself yesterday. Normally on invoking a BRD you are expected to start a new section on the Talk page there to initiate discussion for all editors involved. Please note that during the BRD you ought not to make further edits to the subsection on Intervention until Consensus is established following BRD rules. FelixRosch (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian war map

Israel is as involved as the United States is. Why do you need to add "Israeli occupation" in a Syrian Civil War map, this isn't about the occupation of the Golan Heights. —SPESH531 Other 04:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spesh531: Let's take this to Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Will post there shortly. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

RasGas

FYI, I reverted your speedy tag--there was a non-spammy version of this article that existed before the company representative(s) got a hold of it, so I reverted back to that version. Take care to check article histories before calling for deletion. Thanks! --Finngall ^talk 18:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Finngall: totally forgot to check history. My bad. Thanks for the message. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism hunting

Thanks for reverting that edit to Chained (2012 film), but remember that the user who made it has a brand new account; I think it was created a few hours ago. It could have been an accident, and I think templated accusations of vandalism might not be the best course to take so early. I've been trying to communicate with this user, but it seems like the conversation is a bit one-sided at the moment. I honestly think this user is attempting to contribute but doesn't understand how. Of course, I could be wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I won't further interfere with your attempt to communicate with them. I was patrolling the user creation log (looking for COI, SOAP, and offensive names) and saw that account. The username suggest a possibly disruptive intent and they made that edit after your welcome and talk page comment, so I used a level 2 template (which neither assumes good nor bad faith). I tend to use the various welcome templates (sometimes the "problem user" ones) if making first contact and the edit appears to be a mistake or well-intended. Often I just revert the first time without templating. Sadly, it seems like most new accounts I encounter are not here to be constructive however. I suppose I could stand to be a bit nicer at times though. I wish you the best of luck in talking with the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the username and the activity could be interpreted as suspicious. Then again, how many admins have names that are not much different? Well, maybe not many, but we do have dangerous pandas roaming about. I agree that it seems like there are vast numbers of nonconstructive users streaming in, but in edge cases like this, a bit of good faith can perhaps make the difference between a frustrated/aggrieved user who resorts to vandalism and a user who eventually becomes constructive. I've seen you around, and, for what it's worth, I think you do good work. I reverted this user's very first edit to Wikipedia, however, and that makes me feel a little responsible for blunting the resulting drama and perhaps offering a bit of guidance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Those pandas scare me too. Never know when they'll attack. But I totally understand how you feel since you made first contact. I'm going to self-revert that warning as so not to distract the user (hoping they haven't seen it yet). Also thank you for the complement! Again, best of luck! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor is edit warring on two wikipages simulateously.

Editor is is edit warring on two wikipages simultaneously (Ukraine, Russia) and is violating BRD rules and Wikipedia policy for BRD resolution. The normal BRD process is that Wikipedia policy is that it is the "Encyclopedia which anyone can edit." If as an experienced editor you wish to Revert such an edit by the BRD policy which you have invoked, then normally you are expected to initiate a Talk page Discussion by opening a new Talk page subsection in order for the Discussion cycle to commence so as to establish consensus (normally a 48-72 hr process). You have failed to do this. As a courtesy to you, when you failed to do this, I opened the BRD discussion for you, which You requested, by reverting your "Bold" edit from 30April when you did what appeared to be an excessive ten thousand byte paragraph blanking at the Ukraine page. Your response was then the violate BRD policy by deleting the Revert placed under BRD rules and procedures which you had requested without first establishing consensus. You must establish consensus on the Talk page Prior to making any changes to a BRD revert. You presently have no consensus. You have also made a false allegation against me on the edit history page (posted below) since I have followed the BRD rules and am posting this BRD for the purpose of curtailing the edit warring on this wikipage consistently over the last two months, and you appear to be a major source of the edit warring. Your edit warring on the Ukraine page has included the following diffs:

(cur | prev) 04:22, 11 May 2014‎ EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)‎ . . (247,780 bytes) (-2,418)‎ . . (Undid revision 607921982 by FelixRosch (talk) sigh... BRD says the NEW material should not be added until consensus. Discuss on talk page and stop edit warring) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 15:24, 10 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (250,321 bytes) (+2,418)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Revert of Bold edit by Evergreen for BRD discussion established on Talk Page. See Talk Page BRD subsection. By BRD policy no further edits on this subsection should be done until consensus is made on Talk Page.) (undo)

And you are also edit warring here:

(cur | prev) 21:39, 9 May 2014‎ EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (247,824 bytes) (-1,966)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by FelixRosch (talk) to last revision by Philpill691. (TW)) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 21:36, 9 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (249,790 bytes) (+1,966)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention: Update of 2014 Geneva Pact progress with Notable quote of Putin indicating that he is ordering the military de-escalation of border troops and support 25 May Ukrainian elections to take place.Include cites and Url on Talk page.) (undo) [automatically accepted]

On the Russia wikipage, you are edit warring on the following diffs:

(cur | prev) 19:29, 29 April 2014‎ EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,526 bytes) (-857)‎ . . (WP:NOTNEWS, reporting on someone's opinion, and not encyclopedic language) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:06, 29 April 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (204,292 bytes) (+857)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Update with report from The Economist regarding assessment of 2014 Geneva Pact. Previous version did not include it.) (undo)

Your edit warring on these two wikipages (Ukraine, Russia) must stop, and you must stop violating BRD policy and procedures. You may make no changes to a Revert in B"R"D until you have consensus established First on the Talk page. Participate in the BRD constructively and everyone can benefit from knowing what to include and what to exclude from the results of the BRD once it is closed out by a neutral administrator. It normally only takes 48-72hrs if everyone follows the BRD rules and abides by the Revert when it is posted and a Discussion subsection has been clearly posted for you to post your Oppose-Support opinions. FelixRosch (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Sigh, you have a clear misunderstand about what the bold edit was (it was your edit, not my trimming which was discussed and had consensus) and Wikipedia policies in general. NeilN has already reverted your edit. I made my comments on the talk page, but you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Your edits are clearly WP:UNDUE and 4 experienced editor have told you your edits are not constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Felix, you have been asked to discuss your edits many times on the talk pages of both article which you have not done. EvergreenFir's reverts have nothing to do with edit warring, but following the consensus (although, as pointed out above, it doesn't need consensus) based on policies, guidelines and WP:COMMONSENSE interpretations in line with aims of the project. I'm just finishing packing to go on a holiday, so probably won't have an opportunity to participate further in this discussion until my return on May 17th. Until that time, I will ask (yet again) that you read the talk pages of both pages where the policies and guidelines were presented, and that you don't make such unfounded accusations against EvergreenFir again. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts, and training

…and anyone that's a colleague and collaborator with Ninja is likely 100% right with me. Curious, though, why is the Talk section arising from the IP editor's concerns at Human Sexuality "closed". This seems a very unusual course to me, and I assume there must be a backstory. By the way, I just did a careful review of the citations there, and his suggestion of "unscientific", though poorly elaborated, is pretty spot on. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to self

Note to self http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/game-of-thrones-recap_n_5307394.html EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the ECHO notification

I clicked on Kitchenfix's user page and there it was. So I have blocked. However, on further examination, it seems that it was Premisys (talk · contribs) who made the edits.

I suppose the block was right, though this sort of isn't covered by the username policy. I wonder if this was an attempt to do an end around? Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Odd but it looks like Premisys made the other account as well Special:Log/Premisys. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly evidence of a connection (but it josses my theory that they were trying to skirt policy). Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonconstructive?

I don't know if my edit to AIM-68 Big Q was nonconstructive, but I was shrinking the article by using slang (inspired by tiny.tw). Adam and Eve (your ancients) (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adam and Eve (your ancients): It is nonconstructive. Please read the manual of style. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only nonconstructive, but if it continues, clearly disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing speedy tags

I am not an admin, but I want to explain that _anyone_ other than the article's creator is permitted to remove a speedy tag. When you reverted my changes, you also removed the formatting that I had added to the references. You are welcome to take the article to AfD, but I think that the references probably are enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Already commented on your talk page. Let's keep the discussion there. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:WSCL Workshop

Could you please explain me in which way "WSCL Workshop" shall be a misleading username? Did you read my user page(s) before you asked administrators to block that account? There was no way for you to ask me, a longterm collegue, what I am doing there?! --Martina Nolte _talk 01:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of word supposedly in the White privilege page

Hello,

the addition of the word supposedly in the first sentence of the white privilege page should be allowed. It reflects the fact that white privilege is a theoretical concept and not an empirical reality.

Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: Please discuss it on the talk page where we're discussing the lead. Personally I reverted it per WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a reply on that pages talk page. Thank you ACanadianToker (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Jon Taffer

Can you please explain your "not constructive" comment? Seahorserancher (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Seahorserancher: Another use has been edit warring on that page. You reverted by revert of an edit warrior who insists on adding info about a "butt funnel" despite it being not a reliable source and self published. We need WP:SECONDARY sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I know this is a BLP, but I believe that WP:PRIMARY sources can be acceptable for limited factual assertions such as this. If not, how would you suggest citing this notable, well-reported, fact? It may sound inappropriate, but it is an important design element in modern bars. Seahorserancher (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Seahorserancher: Okay, so I looked for some better sources. How about we use http://www.pbpulse.com/news/entertainment/television/royal-palms-jon-taffer-saves-struggling-saloons-in/nMSCY/ ? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This works too: http://www.spike.com/video-clips/g6mb3z/bar-rescue-the-butt-funnel Will get the citation text for you in a second. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't figure out what episode that is :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks! I will make the update with better sources. Seahorserancher (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Source of vandalism

Re your message: I figured that. The semi-protection should put a stop to that particular target. I issued a pile of blocks which should help, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Thank you. I'm watching the thread for more targets. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: May 2014

Could you please explain: how are my comments "innapropriate" and "highly offensive"? What is offensive, precisely? It would be great if you could be more specific. --46.171.197.14 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the question above. The IP is the user in Poland who added an inappropriate comment on Talk:Conchita Wurst yesterday. Adding it back again today resulted in him being given a one year block for violations of the BLP policy, so he has been properly taken care of... Thomas.W ^talk 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thank you! I saw the user's comments were removed from the edit log yesterday after I posted the warning on their talk page. Glad to see they were blocked after repeating the behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of religion

"Freedom of religion" is a ponderous, overly wordy way of saying "religious freedom", which is what most people say, rather than what academics say when they want to stuff their sentences with extra syllables.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Irvi H

Why did you tag this userpage for speedy deletion? Other than the infobox (which is not problematic in itself), it looked like an ordinary user page to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Mildly promotional and WP:FAKEARTICLE. I'm fine if you declined the CSD. Just struck me as problematic. Also what's with those language links? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Dear EvergreenFir, I award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy for making an effort to resolve the dispute on the Halloween article! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy the barnstar! I've also opened a thread on the talk page so feel free to participate! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anupam: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Jodie Foster BLP

EvergreenFir I'm banned from transgender issues - any of them or any topic where transgender issues are discussed, Jodie Foster isn't in that category, the discussion here is whether a category of of "gay","Lesbian" or "bisexual" can be used to describe her. So as far as I know, I'm okay to post in this particular discussion. Kosh Vorlon 10:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon - Up to you. Since we are discussing the LGBT category, thought it might be something you'd avoid. I should have said "Aren't you topic banned" instead of asserting it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, I don't actually think this violates my topic ban, since my topic ban is for Transgender topics, but, I'll gladly stop posting any more on Jodie Foster as well. Kosh Vorlon 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear User as you know Director and myself experience often difficulties in communication. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about this problem. I must confess that I genuinely believe he deals with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And may be I am the guilty one.

If you want to partecipate to the discussion as a "User who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional user endorsing this cause for concern") you can do at [[2]].

To avoid the suspicion of canvassing I am contacting all the users involved in the previous and present dispute. If you think I forgote someone please tell me. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement article probation

Thank you for the warning. I was unaware of the exact terms of the article probation. --Killheart (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Gold Label Entertainment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol, guess I technically created the page... but appears Skamecrazy123 has retracted the CSD anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Deletion retracted because it was a promotional username problem rather than a problem with the user page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Not a problem. I've done it myself actually. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was Huggles fault, I swear :P --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for my new little kitten!

Awww! Thanks, EvergreenFir!! It's very nice to be recognized; thank-you! Prhartcom (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User messages.

I guess you missed the part where I said I have ZERO interest in what you or anyone else has to say. Yet you left a message anyway. Also, I'm mortally allergic to cats. Piss off. BelziBhaal (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry this new person is behaving this way, especially when that way is directed towards someone like you, who doesn't deserve anything like it. Let's stop. Let's take no action for awhile. After 24 hours, let's see if things have simmered down and if stability has returned. Naturally action can be taken if article space is disrupted. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dates

So why would you change the dates THAT I ADDED? I world is on dd mm yyyy format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Find a cure for ALS (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ZayJR

There's nothing wrong with writing an article at your userpage — plenty of people do it, and there's no need to move it anywhere else. Yes, it's somewhat inconvenient, but nothing prohibits it. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Many other admins seem to have a different take on it ask I've CSDed many pages like this and they've all been deleted. Moreover, the "article" is about the user and violates WP:UP#PROMO and WP:FAKEARTICLE. At the very very least, there should be a {{userspace draft}} or {{User page}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also seen plenty of people move a page and tag the redirect under R3, and I've seen plenty of admins delete such a page, even though it's explicitly prohibited by that criterion. Once again, non-promotional drafts, such as this, are permitted in userspace; this page warrants no action. You're free to take it to WP:MFD, but barring a deletion discussion or a request by the creator, this page should not be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'll add a template to it then. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

White Privilege

Absolutely not my intent. I am merely trying to establish a new consensus. If you have some concerns about the edit I made please feel free to comment on the relevent talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Proposal_from_ACanadianToker

A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"page=96"

"Brain" is nowhere on the page 96 according tp the search, thank you. The phrase is completely idiotic (people who go to the college don't have their brains magically grow big and heavy) and likely invented. --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Niemti: The person who put the ref in likely made the mistake of putting the number of pages in the book (96) and not the location of the info. Happens a lot. I cited two pages where he talks about it. Amazingly he does argue that brain growth detracts from body growth. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And even more likely it's bullshit/trolling. "Brain" is not on 96 at all. Also I don't know why it's so important if this guy doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. --Niemti (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. As I'm sure you know, some academic forms of citation require you to put the number of pages in a book. This is a common mistake on WP. I gave you two pages where the book does talk about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

PS - How can you see p. 96 anyway? It's not available for me on Google Books. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't show on search for the word (93 does). Also the book is written before even the term "feminism" was created, and so it can't be antifeminist. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring up that issue on Talk:Antifeminism. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation warning

[3] Adding pejorative information or labels to a BLP when there is no consensus to do so on the talk page is a clear BLP violation. If you do it again, I will report you to WP's administration. Disagreements on content are fine, but we don't, based on hard experience, screw with people's lives via their BLP. If you need some examples of why we handle BLPs with kid's gloves, I can point you to them. Cla68 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68: An admin already locked the page once with that wording in response to your edit warring. Revert again and it's back it AN3. ~~Looks like you already did. Will report.~~ Different userEvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

<

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, EvergreenFir! Thank you for your contributions. I am JordanKyser22 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! JordanKyser22 Talk / Edits / Boxes / Subpages 23:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@JordanKyser22: Um, thank you(?) for the re-welcoming! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia

why did you revert my edit without explanation? Egyptian445 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Egyptian445: I made a mistaken. Sorry about that. I meant to make a WP:Dummy edit. I reverted myself. I think your edit is fine per WP:CALC. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

Just noting that I'm explicitly stating that discretionary sanction apply to Roosh V, making no comment on your edits to the page so far. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Am I reading this correctly that this applies to all BLP articles? That's a pretty far-reaching decision. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, a form has existed for quite a long time (see WP:BLPBAN) ArbCom has just recently changed them to discretionary sanctions. They are pretty rarely used (unlike WP:ARBEE or WP:ARBIPA for example) as you can see at WP:EDR#BLPENFORCE. But are there if needed, especially on controversial articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Okay thanks for the explanation! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk)