User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Please comment on Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Archer episodes page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Carebears socks

I've gone ahead and hardblocked the obvious sockpuppet - This should stop the IP from vandalizing as well. I also protected the article, so if they get a new IP, they won't be able to vandalize further. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you need anything. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thank you very much! If you have a moment I got something else for someone to look at... some new accounts with Spanish-language names that refer to being blocked in the past. Appears related to someone named "Genserico".

• Me dan pena todos los que me bloquean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sus bloqueos son risas para mi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Genserico no puede ser bloqueado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Genserico es invencible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yezza igual que el pueril? eso da asco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly related)

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. Someone else got one or two of them, the usernames clearly suggest that they aren't here to positively contribute to the encyclopedia. You're always welcome to submit cases like these to WP:UAA as well. SQL^{Query me!} 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thank you! I've actually gone down the rabbit hole further and I think I found the sock master... it's gonna be a long SPI. I'll ping you if you're interested. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Thanks. You're giving us much work, and I appreciate it. Sorry we're having a bit of a backlog there. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: My pleasure. Sorry to add to the pile though. I know it's not a fun task to deal with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RfA

I have long respected your opinion, and I am curious about your views on the current RfA process. IvetteHer (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edmonson County High School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edmonson County High School. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Rule 34

Well Would it be exceptital to just list the website under rule 34. What should I have changed it to beside offical site, I would like to keep the link on there unless it violates a rule.

Jbegle (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be discouraged per Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ok sounds good then, thank you for the response . Jbegle (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fleshlight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fleshlight. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hmmm. Am I required to be notified when I am mentioned in a positive way? Oh well. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if it's required, but I tend to notify ppl as a courtesy unless there are too many in which case I just ping. But figure I'd notify to be safe. Hope it's not a bother. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Pride

Ylevental is at it again, trying to wreck the article with removals and totally ignore what was said in the AfD. I've put in an edit request on the talk page for the information to be put back. More time is needed for sources to be provided. Ylevental is seeking any excuse to remove stuff that he doesn't like. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Annabelle (doll)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annabelle (doll). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

China and Taiwan

I have replied on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rape statistics

Never followed up on talk with the BRD request. Did leave a pleasant message: user talk:Jim1138#Rape statistics. John Bolton, expert in rape statistics. Would never guessed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

Hello, I noticed you recently removed a category from this article, and even though you explained it as WP:SUBCAT, I'd still appreciate for an elaborate explanation for the removal, because the cat seems to fit exactly with the article. Cheers, κατάσταση 00:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katastasi! The rationale behind the removal is that because the Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends is itself under Category:Cartoon Network original programs, all articles with the category Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends is assumed to also be a Cartoon Network original program. Including the latter category is redundant. Like if we have granny smith apples, we wouldn't put both "apples" and "fruit" as categories because all apples are already fruit. That make sense? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok! I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing out! Cheers, κατάσταση 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Free Ride

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Free Ride. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I need help

Hi. I have created a number of vector graphics and uploaded them in Wikipedia. I have also uploaded some photographs that I took and therefore hold copyright on. How do I resend license on them and have them removed from Wikipedia permanently? Yes, this is a serious question. Thanks Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@EricCable:, do you mean rescind? Tiderolls 22:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's what they mean. And the honest answer is that I do not know how you would go about doing that. I suspect there is a way, but it's probably through the Commons. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. rescind. Friggin auto correct. I will figure it out. Thanks. Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

When you upload anything to Wikipedai, whether it be text or images, you cannot take it back. This text is visible above the three buttons in every edit window.

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.

You have irrevocably agreed to release your contribution. Although you still hold the copyright, you have agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia. You cannot retract this. Blackmane (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing Indian films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the reference desk

Hi, don't want to get off on the wrong foot. I see from your user page that you are a grad student from OH. I grew up in OH and did my undergrad there, and sometimes I wish I could move back! Anyway, it's always good to see people on the ref desks that have some actual scholarly training and expertise, and who know how to find and share good references, so I hope you'll stick around :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

That case at WP:ANI definitely falls with the discretionary sanctions, and Arbitration Enforcement is almost always a better forum than ANI. Thank you for the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My stellar performance of stupidity at ANI

Hi EvergreenFir. I got your message; thanks for letting me know about the magnificent display of derp that I managed to pull on ANI just a bit ago. I think I accidentally had an older revision open on my browser, and edited ANI to fix my message without realizing the explosion that hitting Save page would cause. I've fixed two of the three messages that I wiped from the face of the planet (I saw that you added your other message back). I apologize for the mistake; I hope that you can someday learn to forgive me, and that you limit your punishment to only 10 or 15 lashings. No, but seriously... I apologize for the issue, and I appreciate you for letting me know about it. Everything should be good to go now! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Haha! No worries at all. I think we've all done something similar. Just wanted to let you know about it was all. But if you want a trouting, I'm happy to give one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pepperdine University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pepperdine University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My response to you reply

I had to re add the date of birth of Miriam McDonald on her Wikipedia page, because it's true, and you don't believe it isn't. Telling me to Citing sources? Come on! The reply you sent was very arrogant and telling me don not add or change content...Wikipedia's slogan says THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA anybody can edit. What ever happened to Wikipedia? Ain't what it used to be when I've first joined in 2004.

Why is your talk page semi-protected?

Last week three other Wikipedians gave me heck and criticize and seriously complained my ways of editing and sort-of unorthodox. I had enough people complaining about my edits.

I'm a good Wikipedian. Thank you for your time and enjoy the 1st of March. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shkarter1985: You must cite sources. Not optional. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Forcing me to cite sources from something...That doesn't make sense! Having moderators on Wikipedia doesn't make sense either! I didn't like it when you reverted back the edits I did on Miriam McDonald's Wikipedia page. I'm very upset you reverted back the edits. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shkarter1985: Go read WP:5PILLARs and WP:CITE. If you continue to add that information without citation, you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User warning

Thanks for User:EvergreenFir/trans. I actually had need of it today for the Jordan Raskopoulos article. — Strongjam (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I am glad it was useful to you! :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, EvergreenFir! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Academy of Holy Angels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Replacements. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI questions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sourced_content_deletion_on_Edward_VIII

EvergreenFir:

First, I appreciate your refactoring to include the collapsible section structure. Thank you.

Second, I do not appreciate your edit summary which suggests that my purpose for the questions was WP:POINTy. Using that guideline to understand my actions is a horrific violation of WP:AGF. To say that my actions are motivated by WP:POINT is to say that you believe I am "try[ing] to discredit" or somehow disrupt the ANI process. How dare you!

I asked those questions because the editors involved were getting rather personal and discussing content vs conduct. Tiptoethrutheminefield raised questions. DrKay raised some of his own. But little or no answers were happening from either side.

I simply isolated everyone's questions into separate topics so that each could be addressed individually. I used the subsection headers format so that each could be edited individually. This is a centuries old time-honored process called seriatim consideration, designed to make the process more manageable by allowing each allegation/question to have its own share of focus as needed.

How is this possibly disruptive or unhelpful when the conversation had already devolved into name-calling on the ANI page itself before I even arrived? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: I dare many things. Honestly your edit looked disruptive, at least visually. It appeared entirely out of context with no explanation of what its purpose was. Just a wall of bold and red font. To me (and yes, this is just my subjective reading) it didn't seem to be helping resolve any dispute or calming things down. Entirely possible I misread something and it seems I did misread your intent so for that I am sorry. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe the "How dare you!" was a bit over the top. My apologies for that. WP:POINTy can be a very anti-AGF "weapon" and it irks me a lot when I see folks using it as such. First time it was ever applied to me and I guess I over-reacted. Thanks for recognizing that I really was not trying to be disruptive. Let's be honest, the discussion had already devolved into name calling right there on the ANI page. Pretty hard to be "disruptive" in the middle of a cat-fight. I just wanted the editors to discuss their behaviors and get some resolution. Unfortunately, even though both editors seem to have possibly been doing some bad behaviors it looks like another Admin hastily closed the ANI as a content dispute so there will be no resolution. That is regretable since both editors appear to be good contributors and the incident is very likely to fester if unresolved. I would hate to lose either Tiptoethrutheminefield or DrKay due to hurt feelings. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: Thank you for deescalating as well. I admit I wasn't fully assuming good faith when mentioning POINT and you're right that POINT is often brandished around to indicate bad faith. I've been working on being friendlier and AGF more, but sometimes I slip. Anyway, again I apologize for the POINT accusation. I am glad you found the refactor helpful though (I have some OCD thing against multiple subsection headings and recently learned that semi-colon trick). Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the answers to the questions were in the diffs I gave, but the quick closure prevented me from making that clearer: for Dr.K, diffs would show "did", "did fail", "did refuse", and "did"; For me, "did not", "did not fail", "did not refuse", "sort of did" (I did in his talk page deliver DrK's "liar" insult back to him - but to try to show how OTT it was for him to have used it in the first place and not because I was genuinely accusing him of lying). The questions were not content issues, they were about behavior, so I think they were valid and were not disruptive (though maybe their tone was a little brisk). I'm unhappy at the hasty way the case was closed, it gives rise to suspicions that it was because an administrator was involved, an administrator who appeared to be well on his way to justifying the case with the wording of his own reply. The case, as the questions show, was not about a content issue (the title I chose was just to make the title as neutral as possible) - it was about the obstructive and aggressive way an editor was behaving, a behavior that was preventing the content issue being progressed and solved. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with my edit?

What exactly is wrong with my edit on Christian Church article? Everything I wrote is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszorp (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kszorp: It's unsourced. And before you ask, your edits on islamophobia were original research and insertion of your own opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Resting bitch face

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Resting bitch face. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thinking...

I just want you to know that I've had a few false-starts in responding to your provocative "quandaries" at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities, but I'm having a hard time articulating myself succinctly, because there are so many exceptions to every rule. I'm impressed by how you broke it down. I have a lot of stuff written in google docs, but it sounds like stream of consciousness. Just wanted you to know I haven't forgotten and plan to respond to at least some of the sections as soon as I can organize my thoughts coherently. Permstrump (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Thanks for letting me know! I appreciate your input, whenever it may solidify. There's no major rush so don't worry about the timing. Again thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I received an inaccurate critic from you of my edit that my edit was an opinion and not representing the source

My references are well documented and come from a highly reputable sources unlike the other contraceptive sources that some user has over generalized the North Carolina study and ignored the fact that contraceptive journals could potentially profit from publishing articles critical of CPC regardless of the article's validity. The data presented below is quantitative and directly taken from the source and not out of context nor my opinion nor original research. Please kindly remove your erroneous warnings from my account/edits because they are well documented and referenced.

These centers may disseminate information pertaining to the increased mental health problems after abortion in post-abortive women compared to non-post abortive mothers as scientifically documented in a study on the emotional wellbeing of 877,181 women, 163,831 of those who had abortions . Some articles have alleged that some CPCs have also been known to disseminate false medical information, usually about the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tifischer (talk • contribs)

References

The problem here is that your source says nothing about what CPCs are doing—nothing at all. You have to provide a source connecting the practices of CPCs to this study, or to a similar study. Anything else is a violation of the WP:SYNTH guideline. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

The source refers to the information that CPC's are giving "supposed mental health risk of abortion" as is already referenced by others in the CPC wiki...the door to disseminating this information has already been opened. Thus, clearly any information regarding mental health risk of abortion has been validated in the article from the British Journal of Psychology. If you would like me to have a letter from a CPC confirming again that information related to mental health problems of post-abortive women are in fact distributed (as though that is not already discussed in the wiki article by other articles) I would be glad to obligee. You see one article says that CPC hands out information related to mental health problems of post abortive women and another article provides statistics on mental health problems of post abortive women. So there is no argument that the CPC concerns of mental health problems in post-abortive women in the wiki article are invalid but the contraceptive article says that some information may not be valid...thus clearly overgeneralizing. I have been published in the scientific community in several Journals and a book...without questions to my competency in citing references. Clearly there are problems of mental health problems in post-abortive women as the other articles suggest that CPC is distributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tifischer (talk • contribs)

My talk page is not the place to discuss this. But... WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS are pertinent here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Where should we discus this because the article that I posted state quantitative facts and their conclusions not my own. This wiki article has overgeneralize misinformation and ignored the fact that there is published literature that there are mental health problems in post-abortive women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tifischer (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tifischer: The article's talk page is the best location. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Evergreen, please forgive me.Tifischer (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Women-born women listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women-born women. Since you had some involvement with the Women-born women redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

jump the shark

I think you're doing a great job raising good questions and leading refinement of ideas in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities and in related discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and User talk:Doug Weller#BLPs, Mental_Illness, and_WP:BLPCAT. (And Permstrump too.) There is an art to getting useful discussion to happen, complicated by the different locations within Wikipedia where discussions can happen. It is a mark that you are doing well, that there are few/none comments by others that "this discussion shouldn't be here"; you have done a good job anticipating the need for discussion elsewhere and linking to those other discussions, before others complained in ways that undermined any one of the discussions.

Tangent-wise, I've enjoyed knowing the jump the shark expression, since i read about it the first time in Wikipedia. I don't think that is the term you meant in your Village Pump usage. Or at least I don't see how it applies. All I know about the term is what its Wikipedia article gives. You mean something more like jump to conclusions or extending immediately to a logical conclusion or "expanding the scope too soon" or "expanding the scope prematurely"? Maybe related: "Is your scope too narrow or too broad?" by Kay Plantes. You could strike your usage and replace it by something else, or not, it doesn't matter, you don't really miscommunicate at all by it. I am just commenting about the term because i like the term. Thanks for using it! :)

Anyhow, keep up the good work. --doncram 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah Richardson Jr. AfD

I am writing to all those who participated in this discussion at the BLP Noticeboard that I have now nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Richardson Jr. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Thanks for letting me know! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

BLPs etc

Sorry, it isn't that I'm not interested, just keep forgetting and this stupid Alt-right article is driving me a bit nuts (the RSN discussion is a bit weird). Doug Weller talk 18:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No worries at all. I figured it would take a week or so to get a range of opinions. I'd love to hear yours, but understand if you can't get to it. I'm getting pulled into an article dispute of my own (again) so I get it. Thought about commenting on alt-right but have enough headache pages on my watchlist already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating racism

I have reported your reinstatement of racist text into Wikipedia to WP:ANI.

jps (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Thank you for notifying me. In the future, consider using {{subst:ANI-notice}} for a more neutral notification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer not to template the regulars, but for you, if you'd like, I'll make an exception. jps (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plushophilia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plushophilia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thailand 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:

• EC has effectively banned debates on the draft anywhere else apart from the forums it will host."}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Welcome to Wikipedia and log up. Jadenvideotube (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of you at Brian Martin (social scientist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Martin_%28social_scientist%29&action=edit&section=9 Bet you're just thrilled (scarcasm, humour attempted, unlikely you would be thrilled to be drawn back to an article where serial, ably defended disruptive editing has been happening.) But there is is. SmithBlue (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@SmithBlue: Joy of joys. Thanks for letting me know though! I do appreciate that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir - what is happening on Brian Martin (social scientist) looks exactly to me like Disruptive Editing. Verify, RS and OR were ignored for months by an admin Guy, editor Woolgong and editor Jewjoo. Reversion of BLP violations that I had already started Talk page section on: [1] Discussion of personal negative views and opinions of BLP subject on Talkpage by DE editors: [2] Statement of purpose of presence by Jewjoo: [3] There is plenty more DR on related BLPs and ANI. There is also multiple insistences that I must be CoI - specifically either pro-Martin or anti-vaccine. My attempts to get only Verify and RS are interpretted repeatedly as proof of me wanting to "whitewash" the article. I see remarkable similarities between the on-line personas of Gongwool and Jewjoo. With Guy seeming somewhat more cerebral. (Oh yeah - if you want to block me or anything please go ahead - I'll even show you where to look to have a reason (rudeness). I have found interacting with WP quite disagreeable and would just like to be somewhat confident that WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) will not be reverted to being a nonVerify, nonRS, POV attack piece.) Anyway if you can enjoy yourself here then good luck to you. And if you can keep others editing somewhat confined to RS and Verify then more power to you. SmithBlue (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Jenkins, Stephen H. (2015). Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 217–219. ISBN 978-0-19-998104-5.

FYI re Brian Martin page.

"Although Hooper and Martin are still promoting the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis, recent genetic work has convincingly disproven it... Worobey's team published their genetic comparison of HIV samples in 2008, but Brian Martin continued to promote the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of AIDS as late as 2010 in a paper called "How to Attack a Scientific Theory and Get Away with It (Usually)..." p 218, Jenkins, Stephen H. (2015). Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology.

I will not debate with that SmithBlue editor. He's trouble. Thanks, bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yowsa EvergreenFir. I'm guessing that it is good practice to respond to attacks on myself and my editing. So here are my concern around Gongwool's edits of the great source he discovered that criticises Martin.

• Diff of Woolgong's original and accurate (pg 218) edit:[4]
• Diff of Woolgong changing pages to inaccurate range (pg 214-222):[5]
• Diff of Gongwool changing back to original and correct page after my questioning[6] of inaccuracy on talk page: [7]

The change to inaccurate page numbers has not been explained by Gongwool. (Though I do appreciate Gongwool's efforts to continue to discuss edits without interacting with me.) This is a minor, strange, disruptive edit. But it is yet another disruptive edit on WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) in a months long series. Oh this is so boring. I've probably ruined your day. Is there an admin that enjoys dealing with disruptive editing? Point me at them and I'll give them something to smile about. SmithBlue (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Season's greets!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regarding speedy deletion of Photoshare page by User talk:Forbattleon

Hi, I am in the process of editing the Photoshare page as I go. I will be adding the reasons for why the site is credible and its sigificance in the next few hours. Please remove the tag for speedy deletion on my page. Thanks!

Evergreenfir, if I were you I'd delete all below as it's BS.

It seems the dispute here (not to mention his many other complaints elsewhere) is that I made an error and cited page 214-222 when expanding cites instead of page 217–219. I ADMIT IT I AM GUILTY OF AN NUMERICAL ERROR - EXECUTE ME! And the other editor couldn't see page 218 on google books and lost his sh*t due to (so I guess I need to buy the book and send it to him!) Your error is that you offered for us to contact you on your talk page, yes big mistake. So it's all just b*llshit and you best just delete this and all the sh*t below. You don't need it. Gongwool (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all of your outstanding work here, you deserve another one of these. Many thanks! Drm310 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thank you! Very kind of you and much appreciated! :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Accolades Table on The Force Awakens discussion

I have seen your previous involvement in article Star Wars: The Force Awakens. There is a discussion being held regarding to link Accolades section to List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens and re-write the section in prose at main article. But one user has a objection and he is reverting constantly with his own reasons, which you can see on article's talk page here. So far only three editors are in discussion please join and write your consensus on this. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your email. I have done what you suggested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you very much! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your countless NACs at AN/I. They are very much appreciated - thanks for helping out! Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: Thank you! I've been trying to turn my dissertaiton procrastination into something mildly constructive like cleaning ANI every so often. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I am the same with homework. Currently don't have any though. :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs)

Please comment on Talk:Corporal punishment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corporal punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to save bonadea from spi investigaton

spi investigations not eligible for speedy deletin,do you againest for chek user openion? Check user informed that Sock puppet investigation pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight&diff=710792465&oldid=710732627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.93.103 (talk • contribs)

It's eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G8. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

I honestly can't believe that page is still up. It is one of the most worthless articles i have read on Wikipedia, if not top5. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueSalix

@BlueSalix: Since you requested I not edit on your talk page (unless of course I'm required to notify you of something). But I wished to defend myself against your personal attack. Your three unambiguous reverts were 1, 2, and 3. Please refrain from accusing editors of slander as well. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what "personal attack" you're referring to. Since this was clearly a nuisance ping designed to harass without violating your Talk page ban, you are now banned from pinging me indefinitely. BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't think you can do that, but whatever. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I might need to take a wiki break

I'm getting way too stressed at small problems and some not caring that i've been here since the early days and was even an admin for a period. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Email

Hi Ev, got your email. I can't say that the user you're referring to sticks out in any meaningful way. I've seen so many vandals and (automated??) IPs and accounts make changes and use the article's name in their edit summary--too broad a behavior for me to identify just yet. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dr. Luke

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dr. Luke. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Evergreen Fir

Hi,

Need to complete the color psychology page. I am in process of doing it. Not yet fully done.

Lets talk here.

Regards, y j shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y J Shah (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of ping

Mention me on Talk:Defecation, would you? Just like that? And here I thought we were on reasonable terms. Wait, was it because of this educational article? Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Took me a second... lol. Still wish we had sartalics though. That "education article" looks great. I look forward to reading it. Just ray Flyer22 doesn't ping you on one of the pages on her watchlist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cowcleaner

Sorry to bother you here rather than post on the SPi but it's a pain to do this on mobile another duck on a Jump related afd

Dr. Luke Page Bias

Evergreen. How do I report the article for bias? I've been asking this question a long time and you haven't given an answer. It seems to me the article is crowded by editors who are biased in favor of Doctor Luke or who have a men's rights agenda. I think it is very important this be examined by other editors and admins, because the article simply doesn't match the content of mainstream and reliable sources reporting on the matter. You might not see it personally but I am telling you, this article has serious issues and I think your own bias may be getting in the way. If you are truly objective, rather than report me for essentially disagreeing with some of the other editors, bring in the third party elements of wikipedia that are supposed to help quality control.TripleVenom (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripleVenom: That's what the WP:RFC was for. It was to get outside opinions on the topic to help build consensus. At the ANI posting I made, an admins (Drmies) did review the situation. I don't know how many more outside opinions you want, but consensus seems very clear to me. And for what it's worth, I reported you because you reverted the section header again, not because I disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to report the page to a larger group of editors (the ANI page was you reporting me, not you reporting the page). Very well, this isn't going anywhere, how do I report you then? TripleVenom (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripleVenom: Yes, I did report you, not the page. But in the process of reviewing the report, actions on the page are reviewed as well. Drmies specifically commented on the RfC itself. Feel free to report me at the ANI if you feel it necessary. Quite honestly I don't think that will go over well though (see WP:BOOMERANG). :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think I am raising legitimate concerns about the page. Obviously reporting me is not going to cause an objective review of the page itself (it is going to result in admins thinking I am just a trouble maker vandalizing the page or something). I refuse to believe there isn't another method to instigate a genuine review by objective third party editors and admins. That you haven't helped steer me toward any procedure for that, suggests to me that you are not being objective. So if you continue to refuse to do so, I will report you (despite what appears to be a veiled threat). I also feel that consensus, particularly when you have people posting comments in there that suggest they are MRA types, isn't necessarily the only criteria we ought to be looking at. As I said, I am neither Kesha fan nor particularly invested/interested in the issues raised by the topic, but it is clear to me as an outside observer that the article is biased against her. TripleVenom (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripleVenom: I at least commend you on remaining calm. There are various ways of getting outside opinions, WP:RFC being one of them. There's also WP:3O and WP:DR. You might also want to check out the neutral point of view noticeboard... I think that's what you're actually looking for. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

PS - BOOMERANG was not a threat, more of a warning. There's already someone suggesting you be blocked outright over on the ANI. That why I don't think any report will go over well there. NPOVN might be what you're interested in anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is this isn't neutral at all. Nor is it encyclopedic. That is the problem. Like I said, I have no horse in this race (I really couldn't care less about Kesha) but it is obvious to me reading that section that it isn't neutral. It just doesn't match what the preponderance of reliable sources are reporting on the subject. Unless Wikipedia is now taking the position that consensus matters more than what papers of record have to say on a top, I just don't see how you get that narrative of events (which look like they are making every effort to present Kesha as emotionally troubled, unreliable, etc, while at the same time cramming the sexual assault allegation (the big major controversy surrounding the lawsuit) amid a number of other claims). I honestly cannot read that and see it as neutral POV or unbiased. Sorry not seeing it at all. And I am finding the hostility from editors and admins very telling. I think the editors and admins involved may be so accustomed to the culture the that has developed among contributors to wikipedia they just can't see the bias or the problem. I would at least urge you to review some of the comments in the talk page as I do think many of them suggest contributors are bringing their politics and ideology into the shaping of the consensus. TripleVenom (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

does this look normal?

250px

Quite normal, sweetheart. No need to fret. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

I don't know if you're watching all of the Bad Girls season articles, but I was wondering if you could possibly watch Bad Girls Club (season 14)? There's yet another editor removing MOS compliance from the article and I'm at 3RR now. I've warned him, mentioning the multiple warnings in the article to no avail. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Still got them on my watch list but I've practically given up on those articles... can't ever verify anything and so much disruption. Frankly would advocate for removing the episode elimination tables. But I'll keep an eye on it tonight and tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on fixing the tables after I did seasons 13-15. I even explained to this editor that there was an edit notice in the article, a note at the beginning of the table, and a discussion on the talk page, but he still reverted me. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm suspicious the Superwoman23 may be a registered account of the blocked IPs. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened. NatalieFan did the same thing after the page was protected. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Had them on my "to watch" list for months but took them off. Saw they edited that though. Spi didn't find that sunny connected to who I thought it was though (starborn or whoever ... On my phone and forget the sock master name). But still suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up Cow cleaner 5000's vandalism. Again. He seems to show up on my watchlist every 2nd day now and it's getting old and unoriginal fast. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)