User talk:EvergreenFir
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Wondering
Hello. Just thought I ask, is Chris Savino's middle name is Mason or Michael?--Funnycoolman (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Where's my equanimity?
I would not have been able to react with such equanimity as you did, here. How do you do it? Was dying to post a link to WP:CABAL, or to the image, but managed to restrain myself. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Talk:Atheism#Institutional atheism - some sort of agenda pushing? Doug Weller talk 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mathglot and Doug Weller: Appears so, but
WP:ROPEWP:AGF. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mathglot and Doug Weller: Appears so, but
- Thanks. I had no idea he was that bad. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: to be honest, neither did I. I was worried I was being overly sensitive or something, but I could tell this wasn't just typical trolling or foolishness. I'm glad others chimed in and put a light on the entire thing. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Having commented and !voted in the thread, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing the discussion (even with the WP:SNOW result), given the resulting consensus of a sanction. But I can't tell you how tempting it is to do so, so as to have an opportunity to begin with: "
In the name of Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of America and Her other Realms and Territories Beyond the SeasAs per resolution of the High Council of the great unseen Homosexual-Atheist Cabal In accordance of the precepts of the Allegorical Reptile-Illuminati alliance Per the consensus of the Wikipedia community..." Snow let's rap 22:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Having commented and !voted in the thread, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing the discussion (even with the WP:SNOW result), given the resulting consensus of a sanction. But I can't tell you how tempting it is to do so, so as to have an opportunity to begin with: "
- @Doug Weller: to be honest, neither did I. I was worried I was being overly sensitive or something, but I could tell this wasn't just typical trolling or foolishness. I'm glad others chimed in and put a light on the entire thing. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had no idea he was that bad. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
"Color-blind casting"
You reverted my edit to the page Color-blind casting with the explanation of "As I made clear in my edit summary, this does not belong." However, your last summary was "Try that again", quite the opposite of saying that "this does not belong".
Before that, you removed my entry with the explanation "The Wiz is a reimagining, not a simple race swap", which is why I reworded the entry to: "The Wiz "re-imagined" L. Frank Baum's classic 1900 children's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which had previously gained popularity from the film adaptation 'Wizard of Oz' in 1939. Michael Jackson played the Scarecrow, previously adapted to 'Scarecrow', portrayed by Ray Bolger; Diana Ross played Dorothy, previously adapted to 'Dorothy' played by Judy Garland; Nipsey Russell played the Tinman, previously adapted to 'Tin Man' played by Jack Haley; Ted Ross played the Lion, previously adapted to the 'Cowardly Lion' played by Bert Lahr." What makes you believe (incorrectly, IMO) that this "does not belong"? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Race swap isn't the same as color blind casting. The casting was intentional. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough - then where is the page regarding "blackwashing in film"? Walterblue222 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't one. It's not a thing RS talk about. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, what? I'd appreciate if you would be specific. Why is there not a "blackwashing in film" page? "Blackwashing in film" obviously takes place, because that is your argument for denying my contributions to the color-blind casting page. If there is not a "blackwashing in film" page, you seem to have no valid reason to deny the entry I added on the color-blind casting article. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Walterblue222: because it's not something discussed by reliable sources and not a topic deserving of a page. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. No matter how obvious something bought be to us, it "doesn't exist" to wikipedia unless reliable sources say it does. Afaik, RS don't say "black washing" exists except as something people claim when doing backlash against whitewashing.
- As for The Wiz, I don't think it counts as color blind casting as it was intentional, not blind. If you find reliable sources that support its inclusion, use them and present them on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hahaha, are you serious, EvergreenFir? You lecture me about WP:NPOV directly after making a statement that is extremely opinionated ("not a topic deserving of a page"), claim that "it "doesn't exist" to wikipedia unless reliable sources say it does", without considering the possibility that there could be reliable sources that acknowledge it. You claim that "black-washing" doesn't exist - and in the very next sentence you provide an example of intentional black-washed casting. ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Do you have memory problems or do you always contradict yourself like this??? I don't know if I should laugh, or be seriously concerned for your mental health... Walterblue222 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, what? I'd appreciate if you would be specific. Why is there not a "blackwashing in film" page? "Blackwashing in film" obviously takes place, because that is your argument for denying my contributions to the color-blind casting page. If there is not a "blackwashing in film" page, you seem to have no valid reason to deny the entry I added on the color-blind casting article. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't one. It's not a thing RS talk about. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough - then where is the page regarding "blackwashing in film"? Walterblue222 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- After doing a few minutes of research, I found out that yes, the 'color-blind casting' page IS completely appropriate as a place to provide examples of "black-washing". The page "blackwashing" here on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Blackwashing redirects to "color-blind casting". So, Wikipedia DOES recognize the existence of "blackwashing", and has the term conflated with "color-blind casting", therfor my additions WERE applicable and you should NOT have removed them. I'll wait for you to reply before adding more examples of "blackwashing" to the "color-blind casting"/"blackwashing" page, but your error is quite obvious in this situation. Walterblue222 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Walterblue222: Love the personal attacks but those need to stop now. Those aside... the redirect was made last May by one editor. Yet the word appears nowhere on the target article. Not very convincing. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but I do not "love the personal attacks", and certainly agree that they "need to stop now". Please refrain from making them as I have never made personal attacks towards you whatsoever. What is it that you could possibly (erroneously) consider to be a personal attack? "you should NOT have removed them"? You're jumping to many conclusions and making inaccurate assertions, while I have been quite straightforward in everything I say here. Disagreeing with me doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks and accusations. Seriously, let's try to be professional and respectful. I always strive to be (and have been) to you. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your comment above that you don't know if you should laugh or be seriously concerned for EvergreenFir's mental health is a personal attack. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but I do not "love the personal attacks", and certainly agree that they "need to stop now". Please refrain from making them as I have never made personal attacks towards you whatsoever. What is it that you could possibly (erroneously) consider to be a personal attack? "you should NOT have removed them"? You're jumping to many conclusions and making inaccurate assertions, while I have been quite straightforward in everything I say here. Disagreeing with me doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks and accusations. Seriously, let's try to be professional and respectful. I always strive to be (and have been) to you. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Walterblue222: Love the personal attacks but those need to stop now. Those aside... the redirect was made last May by one editor. Yet the word appears nowhere on the target article. Not very convincing. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some of you might want to see this YouTube video. The Myth Of 'Blackwashing' Fictional Characters In Movies Like 'Deadpool'. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- My comment above: "Do you have memory problems or do you always contradict yourself like this??? I don't know if I should laugh, or be seriously concerned for your mental health" was a question followed by a statement of concern. This does not constitute a personal attack, AzureCitizen. Doug Weller, do you believe everything claimed on YouTube? Do you consider this a reliable source? The video is quite opinionated and includes many factually incorrect statements. Look at the like/dislike ratio and consider that the person claiming "blackwashing" doesn't exist is a "black" individual giving her biased opinion, which also happens to be racist and prejudicial. Walterblue222 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lol. Most of us know that very few YouTube videos can be used as sources. I simply thought some, not you, would find it interesting. It seems very likely that it's been targeted by racists. You seem to be quoting a comment there by the way. Interesting that you think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased, I guess that means whites can't comment on whitewashing? And yes, that was a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Targeted by racists? The video itself is MADE by racists. What are you saying I "seem to be quoting"? I didn't say that "blacks can't comment on blackwashing", but thanks for verifying the existence of "blackwashing". Stating that I "think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased" is not true, but if someone is a part of a group accused of an action, and completely denies the action - while simultaneously repeating said action - it certainly seems like their bias is impacting their position. For instance, if a "white" person in the KKK claims that the KKK is a humanitarian, peaceful organization, would you believe them? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- One step from fulfilling Godwin's Law. Just stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stop WHAT? What is it with people being indirect on here (and no, that's not a personal attack)? Godwin's law is regarding Adolf Hitler, not the KKK...Walterblue222 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which is why I said "one step from"... EvergreenFir (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stop WHAT? What is it with people being indirect on here (and no, that's not a personal attack)? Godwin's law is regarding Adolf Hitler, not the KKK...Walterblue222 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- One step from fulfilling Godwin's Law. Just stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Targeted by racists? The video itself is MADE by racists. What are you saying I "seem to be quoting"? I didn't say that "blacks can't comment on blackwashing", but thanks for verifying the existence of "blackwashing". Stating that I "think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased" is not true, but if someone is a part of a group accused of an action, and completely denies the action - while simultaneously repeating said action - it certainly seems like their bias is impacting their position. For instance, if a "white" person in the KKK claims that the KKK is a humanitarian, peaceful organization, would you believe them? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lol. Most of us know that very few YouTube videos can be used as sources. I simply thought some, not you, would find it interesting. It seems very likely that it's been targeted by racists. You seem to be quoting a comment there by the way. Interesting that you think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased, I guess that means whites can't comment on whitewashing? And yes, that was a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- My comment above: "Do you have memory problems or do you always contradict yourself like this??? I don't know if I should laugh, or be seriously concerned for your mental health" was a question followed by a statement of concern. This does not constitute a personal attack, AzureCitizen. Doug Weller, do you believe everything claimed on YouTube? Do you consider this a reliable source? The video is quite opinionated and includes many factually incorrect statements. Look at the like/dislike ratio and consider that the person claiming "blackwashing" doesn't exist is a "black" individual giving her biased opinion, which also happens to be racist and prejudicial. Walterblue222 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some of you might want to see this YouTube video. The Myth Of 'Blackwashing' Fictional Characters In Movies Like 'Deadpool'. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Walterblue222: Let me be direct. Azure is correct regarding the personal attacks. Your replies are disingenuous at minimum. Please consider this as a final warning for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL more generally. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing I've said is disingenuous. Stop projecting. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Whitesplaining" [1]. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Blacksplaining" [2]. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleting Comments? TPO?
If you remove my comment from a conversation, you should remove all of my comments from the conversation, although as I was told by @Mathglot:: "as a general rule, one [may] not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.", and it seems that (as far as I am aware) in doing so, you have repeatedly violated WP:TPO. How do you consider this behavior and violation acceptable? Walterblue222 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)