User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! EvergreenFir, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Green High School

August 26, 2013 Hello, EvergreenFir. I added a reference to the link on the US News page. On the page, it shows the school ranking and the AP program information for Green High School. Wikipedia:Citing sources says that my reference is called an inline citation and is a proper form of citation since the rest of the article is cited that way. Why does this not count as a citation? How do I properly provide a citation for the page? Thanks

Gravity Falls Episode List

The Gravity Falls episode synopsises that you used for the page tended to have a few spelling errors and overly long sentences. I felt it was necessary to fix them with a little better structure and add additional details about the episodes to them (example, the one on "Bottomless Pit" doesn't mention the three stories it contains). You can say that what I am putting together is "unsourced", but on Wikipedia people can edit the badly edited synopsises on TV show episodes from Disney themselves. The "Duplicate Detector" report that I kept on there isn't going to help your defense. I changed them back to what I had edited on that page. Hope you understand this message. 50.68.27.121 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A welcome and an advice

Hello, EvergreenFir

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'd like to offer you an advice, even though you didn't ask for it: Consider asking your questions about whys and hows of Wikipedia in a venue where multiple editors can read and reply. Editors are human and may make mistake; especially in answering you. But when multiple editors answer, or the answer is posted where multiple editors see it, the risk reduces. Wikipedia:Teahouse is a great place for newcomers because they take care to be more polite. Later, you can ask questions in the various Wikipedia:Noticeboards and Wikipedia:Village pump boards.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talk back

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

One more answer...

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Dogmaticeclectic's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Evergreen, you may be a student of your PhD, but I am alraedy a University professor, and the article about hearing voices is nothing to do with advertisement (what product in the world would a scientific article of psychology would advertise anyway..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Constantine Kyritsis (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello EvergreenFir, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Ancient Aliens has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gravity Falls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * '''Stanford "Grunkle Stan" Pines''' ([[Alex Hirsch]],<ref name=medianetinfo/> the great uncle of Dipper and Mabel Pines. He runs and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Not sure why you reverted my edit, which was both on point and constructive. Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not something that should be reverted, and I'm pleased that your reversion has been undone. Can you offer a cogent explanation for having reverted my edit? Dyrnych (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

I'm confident they didn't intentionally alter my comment — there's just so much discussion being posted so quickly at the moment that it was just an accidental edit conflict. And I was in the process of adding additional content to my comment anyway. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, even with that comment I'm still fairly sure Dyrnych was still describing the comment that they were trying to post further down the page; I'm still not sure they even realize that they altered my post in the process. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I had no intention whatsoever of altering your comment, and frankly I'm not even sure how it happened. Apologies for the edit conflict, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies as well (as mentioned on your talk page Dyrnych) for "biting". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, Manning isn't discharged yet. The sentence directing dishonorable discharge will not be executed until the ACCA (and potentially the CAAF) reviews the case, then the GCMCA will order the discharge per R.C.M. 1113(C). It'll probably take a couple years. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:List of Gravity Falls episodes

I'm confused as to how any of my edits were viewed as non-constructive by you. I transcluded the list of episodes from the respective season article, which was created recently and has garnered other editors expanding the article. If you disagree with this creation, please discuss it on the respective talk page. And please, for future reference, read this helpful essay as to why you shouldn't template the regulars, as you may have non-malliciously did in my talk page. Thank you. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's alright, no harm done. I got started on working on the page a few days ago, and have expanded it a great deal, which will help establish the series' notability, and act as a template for further season articles created for the show. :) — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's standard practice to paraphrase or otherwise write 'from scratch' episode/plot summaries, as to prevent accusations of plagiarism. I encountered a similar problem when I was working on a Regular Show season article, where I got confused when some of my edits were perceived as plagiarism, as I had copy-pasted the short summaries from TV Guide. I ended up tinkering with the structures of the summaries, so they weren't direct copies.
And as far as those summaries appearing on the main list, it's just the way the template is designed, to exclude the summaries if the list has an article of its own (see Template:Episode list for a better explanation for this). That's standard as well, just look at any big TV's episode list article, and they're nearly identical. Hope that helps. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with direct quotations is that, in this case, if the copied text makes up the bulk of the text in the article (which large amounts of episode summaries tend to do), then it no longer constitutes as Fair Use, even if a reference is provided. And you're welcome, sorry if I may have startled you there, I just want this article to be in good standing, because it's relatively empty, although I think I'm doing a good job with it now. Maybe even you can help! — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, it's probably fine as is, I copied the lettered prefix from one of the episode articles for consistency sake. Though if you can dig up some official codes that would be great. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:edit

Hi EvergreenFir, I'm not sure why you reverted an IP here. In the previous edit summaries, you ask the IP to include a citation, which it then does in the subsequent edits, which you also reverted. I'm not sure what more referencing you want the IP to add, but it seems to me like the reference they added is fine. Spencer^T♦C 06:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert

OK. I have seen that. There was a spelling mistake but never mind. I understand this discussion is now closed and sealed. Michael Haephrati (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at JDDJS's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JDDJS (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Eurocreme

I recently came across the original post by VictorJames123. This section really needs to be included on Eurocreme's page. How can it remain. It's all alleged information, but many people are aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksonmk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As you know there are many post which have alleged information. If solid evidence was available, then there would be a court case against eurocreme, due to the child pornography which they produce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksonmk (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Lakdfhia

if bias is supposed to neutral, why is skew in favor of people who think he funny? he not but those people get no represent on page! say he comedian without qualification is NOT neutral! is not vandal to question subjective qualifier for what man does! (have not been told if making comment right, sorry if this wrong) Lakdfhia (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

comedian is implications in use, mostly that is funny. few words are no popular connotation implied on use (politician corrupt, for instance. not true always, is implied in use) so natural subjectivity is not possible. is always necessary to provide counter point of view for neutrality to be understood on part of reader. in terms like wittgenstein, you take person drawer, then funny drawer, then comedian drawer. is how comment is perceived. achieve neutrality by drawing attention to presumption on part of reader, causing question of what they insert into words themselves. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

please to address comments on nature of language. why is nature of discourse ignored in neutrality? is not achievable if speaker ignores mandate to give neutrality to audience. neutrality destroyed moment speaker not recognize their responsibility in elevating. opinion implied in word comedian. can only override implication by drawing attention. true neutrality unachievable if opinion dressed up in fact clothing. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

very dismissive. very rude. shameful behavior. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fake warning

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Mohonk Mountain House, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Casason (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For note, this user was banned for the edits I was undoing. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For note, since when did a warning became fake? I changed it to Warning!. If I am wrong in doing so, let me know.--Mishae (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, no wonder that when I tried to change fake warning to Warning! he reverted it and called my edit vandalism even though no such thing existed, I was just not aware of the situation at that time. I think user Gjtitjg should stop calling people trolls and vandals. Can someone kindly tell him that? Thank you!--Mishae (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I gave him the last warning, and he got blocked, do see his discussion for more info.--Mishae (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FAKE WARNING— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord flacco (talk • contribs)

The Amazing Race Canada

Hello, EvergreenFir. Thank you for sending me your message.

The reason as to why I made the minor edit on The Amazing Race Canada page was that Jamie & Pierre's description was incorrect. Today, it reads that they belong to the "Alberta Rockies Games Rodeo Association." However, the team's description on the official website of the Amazing Race Canada states that they belong to the "Gay Rodeo Association." Not wanting the page to have wrong information, I made the change.

As to the change being "not constructive," I am not sure what you mean. Why should there be information that is clearly incorrect? I have even taken the liberty to search on Google to see if the Games Rodeo Association existed, and the only thing that came on was the Gay Rodeo Association.

I'm giving you the link to Jamie & Pierre's team description on the official website so you can see for yourself. http://www.ctv.ca/TheAmazingRaceCanada/Teams/Jamie-Cumberland-and-Pierre-Cadieux.aspx

Thank you for your time,

Valdean12 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How I interpret the username policy

WP:ISU is but a tiny sliver of policy, and a poorly written one at that. As you've noticed there is contradictory advice to admins on it. As a result, I have decided to IAR it in part based on ... oh, about six years of experience enforcing the username policy.

For one thing, it is trumped, as most policy is, by WP:AGF. This means, in no uncertain terms, that except for certain specifically defined exceptions we cannot block an account based on what we think they will do, even an account that has the same name as a concern. Within the context of this aspect of the username policy, I block on sight only those accounts whose names clearly indicate an intent to use for promotional purposes—such as BCNmarketing, to name the most recent example. If an editor with a clearly corporate username that doesn't imply such shared or promotional use decides s/he'd really rather use the account to edit articles about gardening or Doctor Who or whatever, why should we stop them before they have the chance to choose to do so? That's what we want people to do, isn't it?

We should also allow people maximum freedom to choose otherwise appropriate usernames as a manner of self-expression, including names that sound like, or actually are, those of real businesses. A couple of months ago someone registered as User:Bronx Discount Liquor. He went to the extent of confirming that there were no actual businesses by that name, inasmuch as the Bronx is swimming in discount liquor stores. He's become a regular editor and earned a barnstar, something that might well never have happened if the username policy had been enforced as too many people interpret WP:ISU to require and he'd been blocked on sight.

Further, some people just report to UAA if they find that there's a username that matches some existing business out there, edits or lack thereof notwithstanding. In my early days as an admin, I blocked one of these, Bravogolfhotel (talk · contribs), because someone Googled and found that there's an actual Bravo Golf Hotel in the Phillippines. So, therefore, the user must have been related or connected to it, the alternative possibility that he was, as it turned out, merely spelling out his initials in the NATO phonetic alphabet not having occurred to anyone. I unblocked, but as you may notice he did not really become an active member of the community afterwards.

So, I consider that narrow, legalistic interpretation of the policy as embodied in the current text of ISU to be detrimental to Wikipedia's long-term interests. We must remember that we get the authority to block with the goal of preventing damage to the encyclopedia, not to punish people, and that is especially important where the username policy is concerned. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I found a pretty reliable modus operandi to rooting out the legitimately bad users. I look at the user creation log and look for ones that have made edits ("contribs" beside the account name is blue). If they look a bit suspicious, like resembling a corporate or role account, I'll look at their edit history. If the articles they're editing match the username or if there's some other connection (account is a software company name editing an article about its products), it's almost guaranteed to be a promotional account. Those I report to WP:UAA and specify the exact infraction (e.g. WP:CORPNAME, promotional user page). The beauty of this method is that you can also root out vandalism-only accounts by reporting them to WP:AIV, and welcome new users who have made legitimate, good faith contributions. Anyway, just thought I'd share that... take it for what it's worth! --Drm310 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A belated you're welcome

It's "elude", you meant, actually. I suppose perhaps I should propose some changes to policy, if I can ever lift up my head long enough from doing the work that a) I want to do and b) we are supposed to do with the tools. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ///EuroCarGT 00:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse answers

It's great to see you giving back to the community by answering the questions of other editors but if you could, try to remember to post a "talkback" notice on their talkpage so they know their question has a response. This makes it easier for new editors to keep track of their questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I thought it was automatic. Thanks for letting me know! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What you do is copy the title of the section, click the little TB link beside the editor's name, and paste in the title in the popup box. You can test this if you want on the answer I gave you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate the thank you. Here's something for you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More ceiling fans

Just stumbled upon an article: Modern Apizza and a user added more of those YouTube Ceiling Fan videos! ///EuroCarGT 23:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More ceiling fans! Need some help! ///EuroCarGT 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at EuroCarGT's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at EuroCarGT's talk page.
Message added 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at EuroCarGT's talk page.
Message added 02:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 02:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Ijcer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Ijcer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

If there are English words that are strung together coherently, it's not patent nonsense. (However, Who invented the cartwhell was an obvious hoax, which comes under the G3 criterion.) LadyofShalott 20:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) LadyofShalott 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: rules question

Re your message: It can be depending upon the situation. Some vandals create sleeper accounts and some long-term abuse situations have multiple accounts. Can you point me to some of the accounts? With context, I can tell you if there is going to be a problem with them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re your message: Those do not appear to be any long-term abuse connected accounts that I'm aware of. I think these may be innocuous. Sometimes people will create multiple accounts trying to get their name right or as a mistake. As long as they are not breaking any of the sockpuppetry rules, then they are fine.

About the other account, thanks for noticing that. I did not hard block the big brane account so they had the option of creating another account. I deleted the new article and issued a warning to the new account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re your message: No problem. And the big brane account just earned himself a hard block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Glaser Brothers

I have just contributed to the article on The Glaser Brothers. I happen to know that all of the information that my husband and I Included on the page is accurate as I am the daughter-in-law of Chuck Glaser and my husband, Louis Glaser is the legal representative of Chuck Glaser and Tompall Glaser's image. O will go back in and add additional references later but I have provided online sources that are easy to access. Since Tom's death my husband and I have been busy correcting many of the incorrect facts that have been printed about the trio. Given that Wikipedia is a source that many use I wanted to make sure that the basic information on the page was correct. Upon checking I found that the original info was incorrect; therefore, I have made the necessary changes to the original document.

You will note that my husband is listed as the family contact for several of the articles as he is well known in the music business. We did not provide personal opinions but simply provided a general overview of the facts related to the brother's careers. There has been a great deal written about the brothers over the years so we did not feel a need to go through an extensive history. We simply added information to help people make the appropriate connections with previously produced documents, books, and articles.

If this is a problem we would prefer for the entire page to be removed rather than allow incorrect information to remain. We will eventually get around to previewing individual pages on each member of the trio and make any necessary adjustments.

If you have any questions you can contact me at: candyce.williams.glaser@integrity.com. If you choose to do so and the message bounces back it is due to the fact that I am receiving hundreds of messages concerning Tom's death and my inbox is constantly going over quota.

Thank you for your time, Candyce H. Williams Glaser, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyce Williams Glaser (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for letting me know about this. I was wrong to revert one of your edits and the only reason I gave you the warning for the first edit was that the formatting was wrong and you can't use yourself as a reference. I feel it necessary to warn you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy though (I will put the info on your Talk Page). So long as you provide outside references to support your claims and don't try to whitewash anything, there shouldn't be a problem. For note, I am just a regular user so if you need anything from a Wikipedia administrator, I will gladly direct you to the right person. Keep up the good editing! PS - Sorry to hear about his passing. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. If you read the information you can clearly see that the information that I provided was simply factual. No personal opinions were included. I understand the reason that individuals cannot be used as primary sources; however, in the academic community individuals can be considered a primary source if documented correctly. The way to do so is clearly documented via APA or other sources. I find it incomprehensible that this practice can be done in scholarly research and yet Wikipedia does not allow it. I believe that policy should be reviewed. I know that you, like me, are simply a regular user.

Thank you for your comment on Tom's passing. It has been difficult but we know he is at peace.

Finally, good luck on your dissertation research. I earned my Ph.D. from Vanderbilt but I attended UTC as an undergraduate. Have a good day, Candyce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyce Williams Glaser (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

SuperKorea

Nice of you to warn him, but it is a hit & run sockpuppet belonging to this sockfarm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrideOfKorea. The Banner talk 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this gem of a person. Lol thanks for letting me know. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have sent out the Dutch whiz kids after this guy. It was rather surprising what the tech guy dug up: all those Koreans are not Korean, but Japanese. The dynamic IPs, no proxies, belong to Nippon Telegraph and Telephone... The Banner talk 09:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

SPI

Hi! If a report hasn't been actioned yet and you need to add a new account, could you please add to the old one rather than starting a new one? It makes a lot of extra work for us to have to handle them separately. Thanks! --Rschen7754 03:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay! I'll try to figure out how to do that. Still learning. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Username reporting

Thanks for all your hard work in reporting problematic usernames. However, if you have a moment, please see the points I raised in the reporting of "NationalScholarFoundationCEO". Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Okinawa notables' reversion

Hello EvergreenFir! Thank you for your input about the revision I made to the 'notables' section of the Okinawa article. I joined Wikipedia today and have much to learn about protocol, editing, et cetera; so I'm hoping you can clarify a few questions I have about the 'notables' section of this article. I have to agree with you that the current list is organized in such a way that anyone with a relation to Okinawa, even a tangential one such as Prime Minister Sato Eisaku is and can be listed here. I was under the assumption that the notable section was exclusively for people either born or who have lived for a significant amount of time in a particular area.

After researching articles related to lists of notable people from geographical locations I discovered several salient links:

The first is from the wiki japan task force related to the creation and maintenance of Japanese prefectures, districts and municipalities articles. "Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Prefectures task force" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Prefectures_task_force> This article states to use 'the Tokyo article' as a template for other prefectures. After scanning the Tokyo page I found that there is indeed no 'notables' list. I then consulted the related article: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Districts_and_municipalities_task_force/guideline#Notable_people> Which provides specifications for listing notable people of districts and municipalities. Given that Okinawa is a prefecture, should I follow the lead of senior editors and delete the section titled 'Notables'? The current classification used for the Okinawa article (and it appears only the Okinawa article) is broad and frankly too general (Side note: this list isn't even titled 'notable people.' For all purposes we could be talking about notable inventions/cultivars/fictional characters from Okinawa!). I also consulted other articles regarding notable people listings in relation to geography: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_34#Notable_people> It seems that there is ongoing discussion about the inclusion of such a list on other geographical pages as well.

As an experienced wikipedian, what do you think should be done here? I'm not really sure what other steps to take. Any advice would be great.

Thanks for the help. I'm looking forward to contributing/editing more content on this amazing site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniper3 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Juniper3! First, I must admit I am rather new to Wikipedia (but have been editing on Wikia for a while). I too was not sure about the notable list, but my personal philosophy is to maintain articles' current state unless there is adequate reason to change them. Your original edit made a good case for the removal of those names, I admit (and was a perfect example of WP:BOLD). You have pointed out more than enough reason to change it; I'd say to remove the list if you want. The more prudent route would be to discuss it on the article's Talk page and see what other editors think. By adding a section to the talk page, any editor that "follows" the Okinawa Prefecture page will see it in their WP:Watchlist. If no one has objections after a few days (or, on low-traffic articles, a week or so), then by all means make the edit.

On a side note, you're off to a great start! Welcome to Wikipedia! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Curious account creations

Re your message: They've been blocked by Elockid as spambot accounts and also globally locked. I don't recognize the spambot without any edits, but Elockid did, so all is well. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re your message: I think these are okay for now. The first one was created last year and was spamming, but that was last year. The other two haven't made any edits, so nothing is actionable on them at the moment. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ann Curry

You need to read the article you gave as a reason. The Fox news piece is a fluff piece on his interview in Esquire in which he never says Ann was fired. You may wish to retract your revision/rollback.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a bit more digging and only one other reputable article refers to her as being fired. I've undone my edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain to me the difference between being Let Go, Ousted, Forced out, etc and being fired. Those are just different words for 'fired' or a s= different way to say it to make it sound 'better' Jacklondon13 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You can be forced out be being forced to resign. But that's not the same as being fired. If we do not know the circumstances under which she left, we cannot speculate on them and simply say she left. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer

I think in that case something like {{uw-coi-username}} would be better as it has language reflecting that the user may not have edited yet. Of course, what we really should do would be to develop a warning template more specifically geared to that situation.

BTW, there's a simpler way to include template syntax in a post without using the template itself, if you don't mind the template being linked to: {{tl}}. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

CN tags

These are statements that make claims. However, these claims are not yet verified by a reliable source. So I added some tags. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Take these, for instance:

• "Offensive because the term is too general and is used to describe an illness that is beyond the individual's control."
• "Originated on The Rob Kaufman Show on UNregular Radio, Weekdays 4-7 PM ET."
• "The term has since been adopted into urban slang to generally refer to something or someone as "meaningless" or "without worth.""

These are statements without citations. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Hi EvergreenFir! Thanks for all your hard work in bringing problematic usernames to administrative attention. However, I just wanted to remind you of the fourth instruction at WP:UAA. Basically, unlike other noticeboards, it is generally not a good idea to template the user with {{uw-username}} (or something similar) and then immediately report it to WP:UAA The template invites the user to discuss it, implying that if the issue is not resolved, they will be blocked. However, if the username is a blatant violation (whicih is all UAA is for), then the account is going to be blocked and then there might be a discussion. So to avoid sending mixed messages, we ask that editors either template or report to UAA, but not both at the same time. Thanks again! Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EvergreenFir/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Charles (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Speedy deletion

Hi EvergreenFir. I noticed you've been efficiently nominating pages for speedy deletion. One thing I do for a page that is blatantly promotional (G11 criteria) is also highlight a few sentences on the page and search for it in a search engine. If you find an exact match (like I did for the two pages created by Bharatpro1), they would also fall under the G12 criteria of blatant copyright violation. Then you can tag it for speedy with multiple criteria, which makes it that much stronger a case. Just a warning, make sure the source page has a copyright notice, or at least an implied copyright. If in the unlikely event that it has a Creative Commons license, then the G12 criteria won't apply.

There's also a template specifically for promotional user sandboxes called {{db-spamuser-sandbox}}. Unfortunately it doesn't look like it's integrated into Twinkle, so I've been using it manually. Anyway, just thought you'd like to know about it. Keep up the good work! --Drm310 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the advice. I just used the {{tl:db-spamuser-sandbox}} on a page. Hope they put it in Twinkle soon. I'll also keep an eye out for copyright violations too. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong and why you keep deleting my edits

I'm trying to update the University of Calgary's "Today" section with approved text from the university's About page (which I administer). You keep deleting it and I don't know why. Also, how can this be copyrighted material when it's approved by the university posted on a page by me? I'm trying to update the page so it's accurate plus we need to change the logo on that page and I have to have 10 edits to do that. How can that happen if you keep deleting my edits? Sorry but I'm new to Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debherold (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User 50.124.81.196

Consider I warned him.--Mishae (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add anything from personal history.

Everything I added to the page came from the USD biography website which was already added in the reference list from someone else. I had permission from the actual author of the article to use his direct words and information onto the Wiki page. I do not know why you reverted my comments and hardwork when there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyjanklow (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr Constantine Kyritsis

Hello Evergreen, you may be a student of your PhD, but I am alraedy a University professor, and the article about hearing voices is nothing to do with advertisement (what product in the world would a scientific article of psychology would advertise anyway..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Constantine Kyritsis (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)