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)