User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Claims of vandalism are inaccurate

I am upset that you refer to my attempt to improve Wikipedia as "vandalism", which is in direct contradiction to the assume good faith policy and the definition of vandalism, per Wikipedia, which defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." Since my edits were not a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, but a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia", they cannot be vandalism.

I must ask, why did you feel the need to call my good-faith efforts "vandalism"? JessicaSideways (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@JessicaSideways: Adding a person's name to lists about pedophilia is unacceptable without the strongest of sources. It's defamatory as well. I don't know if you meant your edits in good faith or not, but impact matters more here than intent. Adding anyone's name, let alone a controversial celebrity's name, to North American Man/Boy Love Association or any other pedophilia related list is utterly unacceptable. If you don't realize that, that you lack the competence to edit here in a constructive manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am unaware of what country you live in at this time but in most countries with laws based on the Common Law, in order for something to be defamatory, it would first have to be untrue. Just because it is something that is unflattering does not automatically make it defamatory. By your logic, it would also be unacceptable to add Jerry Sandusky to Category:pedophilia (tried to link to that but I messed up. My bad), but someone has already done that. And yet, that edit has yet to be reverted. JessicaSideways (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What sources do you have that Michael Jackson was a member of NAMBLA? Or any pedophilia/pederast advocacy organizations? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, the section I added his name to was titled "Associated individuals". Michael Jackson had advocated for unrelated men sleeping with boys on national television, including the Martin Bashir production "Living With Michael Jackson". If you need, I can get you timecodes for when he says that. JessicaSideways (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for it. But it must specifically say pedophilia, pederasty, or other sexual activity. Literal sleeping would not count as pedophilia. And if you plan on putting him in the NAMBLA page, you have to have a source that specifies NAMBLA, not advocacy in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, any future edits should be accompanied with sufficient citation of sources to demonstrate good faith? JessicaSideways (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, especially on topics as loaded and charged as pedophilia and sex crimes. If the person is living or recently dead, the bar is set a bit higher (see WP:BLPCRIME for more). If I was mistaken and was too WP:BITEy, I apologize. This topic requires an extra level of scrutiny and caution when editing and seeing multiple edits without sources is a red flag to me and others who watch articles like this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. JessicaSideways (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Racism TD list

The Talk page for article Talk:Racism contains a TD list that is out of data and I cannot find the original TD list transclusion page to edit it. [[User:Inayity] seems to be the last to edit it (wherever it is) but Inayity seems to be taking a long wikibreak. As another long-time editor of the article, I thought you might have a clue where the list is located. Thanks for your edits and, in advance, for your reply on my talk page or the article talk page. Regards, Meclee (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, i found it and edited. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meclee: Whoops sorry about that. Opened the tab and forgot to reply earlier. Glad you found it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

About Women

Hi EvergreenFir. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of The Amazing World of Gumball characters has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Glacialfox (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Glacialfox: wrong talk page I think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol sorry, it's been a whileGlacialfox (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Glacialfox: No worries! Just wanted to make sure. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Level-3 warning

You recently managed to post three warnings on my talk page within five minutes in an increasingly threatening tone. As you probably know, the level-3 warning assumes bad faith. You will forgive me, but I find this offensive and rude. Wikipedia is not an online game for kids, and I would advise you to show a little more respect for other editors. Your main accusation is that I am making "potentially libelous statements" about living persons. You may not be aware of it, since your main interest seems to lie in subjects like "Batman" or "Biker Mice from Mars" rather than history, but Soros' speculation against the bank of England in 1992 is an undisputed fact.So is the fact that his philanthropic engagement is used to further a political agenda I hope that you will be more courteous the next time you interact with me (if any). I suggest that you read the article Ardhanarishvara, it will expand your culture and show you that we may in fact share some interests. Have a good day. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ardhanarishvara: There is an assumption of bad faith indeed and the increasing level of tone reflected my realization of your past edits. You violated WP:BLP twice and do not appear to understand how/why. You cannot make unsourced negative claims about living people. Investopedia is not a reliable source and not good enough to warrant such a claim. Aim.org isn't great, but at least you can say they said it. Given your past interactions on Wikipedia, I'd think you would understand the seriousness of WP:BLP and that you cannot make unequivocal claims of wrongdoing about living people. You have been warned by me and others. If you continue to do so, you may be sanctioned by administrators. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that that you are intent on keeping an adversarial tone. When have I been warned by others not to make claims of wrongdoing about living people? If you have browsed my editing history, you should have read more carefully. Who makes you the judge of which source is reliable and which is not? Is there an official list? Who gives the imprimatur? Your overbearing tone is reminiscent of Stalinist intimidation. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Go read WP:RS. You've been warned. Lol at Stalinist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely don't like your tone. Go back to your comic strips and do not ever again interact with me. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot tell other editors not to interact with you. Doesn't work that way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. If there is a contributor who can not interact with others, this is it. Here are their first comments on talk pages of all users they tried to communicate with so far: IH, LjL, MVBW, VM, and now on this talk page. And they made less than 100 edits so far! Their comments on article talk page are extremely confrontational too [1]. Someone who is obviously not a new user could do much better. BTW, in their 2nd comment to LjL this user refer to BLP policy he apparently knows very well, contrary to his statement just above on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:, your phrase "contrary to his statement just above on this talk page" is misleading as seems to be usual with you. Where do I assert that I don't know WP:RS? Of course I know it. I was simply asking Evergreen what made him the judge of what is or is not a reliable source. Why is Investopedia not reliable? Besides, are you going to follow me on every page I visit? This is harrassement. You say that I am extremely confrontational, but can you expect me not to react when you follow me everywhere to delete my edits and raise extravagant accusations against me? Now you come here trying to rally another editor to your feud against me. All this because I do not share your putiniphobia. The mere fact that you are here is proof enough of your personality problems. You are wasting your life in futile fights with virtual enemies of your own making. It is futile to give vent to your rancor and bitterness on the internet. Instead, get outside, go into the woods, and listen to the birds singing. Try mountain climbing or sailing, read good literature. Have a good day. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well well well... I am mistaken. It has editorial oversight and is a tertiary source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Investopedia. And putiniphobia sounds like a horrid condition. Just wish I could figure out who you are ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"your feud against me"? Well, the only thing this user really does in the project is feud (diffs above), and that does remind me someone. Not sure though if I have time to submit an SPI request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Feel free to mail me any spi-related info and I can look into it if you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not use email for WP purposes. OK.

1. Since the BLP issue above was about George Soros, let me just show you, for example, this diff by presumably another user about the same George Soros. There are many other similarities in their behavior.
2. Both of them had a superiority complex: one of them called himself User:Againstdisinformation, another called himself User:Ardhanarishvara (Mr. God), both redlinked.
3. Both conducted notorious soapboxing: this versus this.
4. In addition, this knee-jerk reaction on user talk pages ([2], [3], [4]) indicate that he interacted in the past with the same users who he blamed from another account of the same "putinophobia".
5. Editing same or similar pages. Old account finished his "career" by editing page about Human rights on Ukraine [5] - see second collapsed box where he marked a part of his statement as "bold", just as in page Human rights in Russia from new account [6].
6. Both users frequently removed all undesirable content from their talk pages.

That looks like a WP:DUCK to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Reverse Racism: Dear White People

I don't know how to have discussions on talk pages, I hope I am doing it the right way. While I understand that one needs to be objective on wikipedia, I don't understand how citing the dialogue from and around a movie that touches on reverse racism is non objective. The opening paragraph on reverse racism seems to give one side priority, which I don't see as objective. For example, racism is institutionalized and there needs to be a distinction between racism and prejiduce. This is not prioritized on the page. Help me understand. Also this is literally the name of the article "Dear White People director: 'There's no such thing as reverse racism' so how does what I posted skew this? MahnoorLodhi (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@MahnoorLodhi: Thanks for contacting me! First, welcome to Wikipedia. I know this must be frustrating... what Rms (the user who reverted you) objected to is what we call WP:SYNTH. Basically, you're taking multiple sources and combining them into your own ideas and words (like teachers always tell you to do). What's annoying about Wikipedia at times is that it is discouraged. Instead, we basically repeat what others are saying. Sometime times we summarize things in the lead of the article, but in the body of the article things ideally should be parroting what others (specifically either notable opinions of reliable sources) say about a topic. To be honest, not every article or topic on wikipedia adheres strictly to this. It's more strongly enforced on controversial topics, topics about living people, and medical topics. So a page like reverse racism honestly gets a bit more scrutiny than, say, anomie or some other less controversial topic. I think Dear White People is a good thing to add to the article, but stick to the facts. Say what the sources say (paraphrased) and if they give examples of reverse racism or responses to it, use those same examples.

If it's any consolation, a got a barnstar for banging my head against a wall until I figured out how to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's frustrating when a source says "X is Y" and another says "Y is Z", but you cannot then say "X is Z" without a source explicitly stating that even if it seems obvious. You seem to be really trying to understand what's going on and I appreciate that. I did start a discussion on Talk:Reverse racism so we can work on things together there. Hope this was helpful (even if just a little). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maria Sharapova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maria Sharapova. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Prince

It's OK, just feel free to chime in whenever I seem to have bungled up on things. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: Not your fault, just a bug/oversight with Twinkle I think. I posted on WP:VPT about the issue. Just to be clear, my exasperation was at Twinkle, not you. Any chance your username is a reference to the cartoon As Told By Ginger? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand. It shouldn't be that hard to have Twinkle discriminate between standalone pages and redirects by not parsing the #REDIRECT tag, right? And finally, there's someone who recognises my screen name xD Blake Gripling (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: I loved As Told By Ginger! I'm a bit too much of a cartoon nerd and I recognizing your username's reference proves that to me... as I sit here in a Gravity Falls t-shirt. Daria and a couple others are higher up on my list of favorites, but ATBG is on there for sure. And yeah, hopefully we can get Twinkle straightened out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to know that. I am something of a cartoon fan as well, though I haven't watched them much lately ever since my folks pulled the plug off our cable subscription. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Denmark

Hi I am a bit frustrated by your challenge to my edit of the territory of Denmark. Its something thats really quite simple as the Danish 1953 constitution is still in force and applies for "all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark", but can be complicated to no end due to the desire of Greenlandic and Faroese politicians of presenting their countries as "states" and the Danish government trying to appease such sensibilities. The basics are that the Kingdom of Denmark is a (transcontinental) unitary state encompassing three countries in Europe and North America, two of which have far reaching autonomy devolved from the common parliament (the Folketing) and the third "Denmark proper" being ruled by the common parliament. This is complicated by the decision of letting Greenland and the Faroes stay out of the EU, which in some ways necessitates treating them as separate countries. Its one of those things you can spend an endless amount of time arguing over if you want to, as there are some inherent contradictions in the present status of Greenland and the Faroes, but I hope you will accept going back to basics and simply apply the constitutional definition as this is a) far the easiest and most logical b) the formally correct as the 1953 constitution is still in force. --Batmacumba (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In more practical terms said state has a common military, police force and judiciary ie. all the factors in the monopoly of force. So there is no issue regarding de facto control of the territory. It also has a common national bank and currency.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the death of Prince

Just so you know, I bundled that AfD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince (both articles were created by the same editor). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Manual archiving at ANI

Hi. Can you tone down your aggressive manual archiving of threads at ANI? I bring this up for three reasons: 1) it's annoying to post to a thread, go back in a few hours to see if someone has replied, and see that it's no longer on the page; 2) it's annoying to edit a section and find that you're now editing a different section than you intended (section 10 is now section 5); 3) we already have a bot that does this, and I don't understand why you don't just propose a different archiving schedule for the bot. There's obviously some kind of consensus for the archive bot's settings. If you're going to manually archive threads at ANI (please don't), at least wait 24 hours after the close. It's getting ridiculous there. This thread was archived six hours after it was closed and about 12 hours after it was first opened. You have also manually archived discussions that were ongoing. Isn't this a sign that maybe you should stop or at least slow down? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: fine. ANI gets backs up a lot though and quickly resolved things don't need to stick around for a while. Frankly the bot needs to be increased. But I'll lay off if you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, but it can't hurt to keep discussions around for 24 hours after the close so all parties have a chance to see the conversation without searching for it. I like to think that we get along alright, and maybe listening to industrial metal makes me sound a little more irritable than I am... but this has been bothering me for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I understand your reasoning and I'm not mad at you or anything. I think my frustration is more in how cluttered ANI gets and there seems to be no easy solution to it. I know how frustrating the changing section numbers are when trying to reply. Sorry if that messed anything up for you. Honestly the reason I started archiving was (1) ANI took ages to load on my phone so I thought keeping its size down would help others who used mobiles and (2) getting rid of collapsed templates in finished discussions meant no more obnoxious jumping while the page loads. But you're right I was being overzealous. Sorry for sounding so pissy in my initial reply. I appreciate that you asked in a sincere way and took the time to explain the problems. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Highland High School (Palmdale, California)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Highland High School (Palmdale, California). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of world snooker champions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of world snooker champions. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox television

When removing the parameter "Winner" in Arab Idol you are removing half of the template "flagicon". Please check your edits before saving! --GünniX (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@GünniX: Thank you for alerting me to that. Sorry for that. I'm trying to get through 1000s of pages and have likely missed a few along the way. If you see others, please feel free to revert me and I'll go back and fix it. Again, apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Good faith with "warning template", really?

I have posted on Talk page but you and Donottroll troll obviously never bothered to participate. Why didn't you warned Donottroll first, he broke many rules, I didn't. I will revert my edit since I consider it very relevant - not "minor". Do you mind to explain why is minor if it is appeared at European parliament ? You can use article talk page if you want to continue discussion.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you replied to Talk page. Please, be constructive, propose alternative or shorter version, don't simply remove it. I will fight this. so please be constructive.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Santasa99: the template warning was warranted as you were at our passed 3RR. I'm assuming good faith though and indicated such in my revert. Please note that Wikipedia is not a battleground and there's no reason to " fight " this. The onus isn't on me to fix it, but I'll reply in the talk page. Given the reverts, this needs discussion before it's implemented again (WP:BRD). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am hardly a newbie on Wikipedia, I know my limits, and I assume you know what's "fight" means. However, this entire issue hardly warrants discussion since I am talking to my self there, on article Talk page. You are the only person who decided to reply.

One thing, though, you obviously haven't take into account that this is an issue of Islamophobia, which draws passers-by and trolls, who simply decided they don't want my edit there.

Not one deign to leave a single word of explanation, not even Edit summery. So, what's to discuss and with whom ?

I believe all this shows that my edits shouldn't be reverted unless someone gives constructive suggestion or alternative.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Yes it attracts trolls. I've replied on the article talk page though. As for knowing the limits, you've done 5 reverts in 24 hours. I don't think you're being malicious, so I didn't go to AN3... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

White pride

How is a "Salon" editorial piece a reliable source? Generally wondering, in case I misread it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing on the article indicates it's classified as an editorial or opinion piece by Salon. Also your edit was antagonistic at best given the discussion occurring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: sorry if you felt it was antagonistic, I was simply trying to make the articles similar to follow neutrality. And if you read the article, it's actually taken from the DailyDot, and it is indeed marked as 'Opinion'. It's not clear at first, since it's been a little buried, but it is editorial.

Neutrality doesn't mean making the articles similar. Neutrality means reflecting sources in a neutral manner. And yes, I see you're correct about the DailyDot piece. There are other sources in the lead and the rest of the article that still support the lead sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit on my talkpage

Excuse me but that was my talk page, and I have a right to remove comments from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother with 3RRNO

They're at their third revert as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's always the "you don't have to cross 3RR to be edit warring" thing... so I wanted to make it clear. I know I sometimes "push the envelope" when it comes to reverts... like over on Dr. Luke right now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you need help reverting personal attacks, let me know. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Prince vs The Artist

Prince could not legally use any derivative of "Prince" so any reference to him being known as that is patently incorrect. TAFKAP for instance? Completely false. "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince" was hardly his working title. It's a sentence! Prince never, ever went by that in any official capacity. You mention COMMON NAME but Beyonce Knowles (Bey) and Taylor Swift (Tay Tay) are widely known by nicknames; none of them appear on Wikipedia. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmichigan (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flintmichigan: Please take the discussion to the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Mangoeater

I and others are not permitted to use rollback on socking blocked editors What are you talking about? Sanctions against you for your method of reverting a blocked user's socks, regardless of the reversion method, are ridiculous. There's no reason to object to reversions of blocked users' socks, unless you're reverting a helpful change, and the merits of that situation don't depend on the reversion method. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: (phone autocorrect keeps wanted to change your name to Buttons) am i mistaken about the rollback policy? I've always been really careful about using Twinkle when rollback was not allowed, but perhaps I'm being too fastidious? Oddly, many of Mango's edits are constructive (sorta) so I'm concerned that someone looking for a reason to screw with me or other users might try to wikilawyer about the tool use. And recently there was an effort by an admin to broker a truce with a prolific socker (fell through, but unblocks don't seem entirely impossible). I'll not make such a proposal again, but I wanted to explain my reasoning at least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Buttons :-) WP:CHU here we come! I'd say you're being too fastidious, because when you're undoing problematic edits by someone like this, the method of undoing is absolutely irrelevant to the appropriateness of doing the undoing, and if someone complains at you, remind them that this user's block-evading and that there's no chance of the user being unblocked, which is the definition of "banned". Just please be careful not to undo something (by whatever means) if you're concerned that it might be constructive, but at the same time, if it's taking too long to evaluate a lot of changes for productivity, rollback away because all that evaluation may simply be a bad use of time. The whole reason for the G5 speedy criterion, if I remember rightly, was to enable us to get rid of ambiguous cases: obviously bad pages can already be deleted for other reasons, and obviously good pages shouldn't be deleted, but the borderline cases can take too long to evaluate, and there's no reason to spend massive amounts of time on this kind of thing unless you really want to. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Fair enough! I appreciate your reply. And Mango has been making articles recently which I've nominated as G5 (they likely failed WP:ACADEMIC, but an AFD would have taken a lot of time... so like you said, G5 is good for ambiguous cases). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruth Peterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita. 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) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Cryx88

Looks likely. Interestingly, the most recent IP belongs to a hospital. Given the nature of the attacks, well... Favonian (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: A hospital? How unusual... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just wanted to point out the IP was probably Cryx88 in case you were unaware. :D Thanks for dealing with it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ipswich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ipswich. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

edits from subjective user Oatitonimly

the user Oatitonimly is constantly deleting part of the text that has its source. no reason for it other than the fact that he/she is Armenian and doesn't like that the text speaks well about Georgian people. please check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasian_race&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearcanadian (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nuclearcanadian: If you think a user's behavior is problematic, address it through discussion or raise the issue on WP:ANI. At this point you are edit warring though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

...what page where you going to link to in this edit? —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Disregard this. I thought what you were going to link to may have been a guideline or discussion or something directly addressing the edit being reverted by you in that diff so when I revert the same edits, I'll have something to provide in an edit summary rather than just me having to provide an explanation I've provided multiple times. But if it was nothing or you just don't remember or care or whatever, then don't worry about it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: sorry I missed your message and only notice the one after it. I honestly I'm not sure but if I had to guess I was thinking to WP:EVADE... but not sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring revent

I'm wondering if we have a bit of socking going on with the WP:EWN page? Look at the edits from the IP that reverted the page, and the user Rystar80. Both tried to close or remove the report, and both removed the notice regarding the post on the Edit Warring Noticeboard from the talk page of StealthForce. Is it worth filing a SPI on this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: ANI might be quicker tbh but SPI wouldn't hurt :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit misidentified as good faith

This edit is NOT good faith. 1) it removed content without giving a valid reason for doing so, and 2) It introduced deliberate factual errors. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: The deliberate factual errors part was hard to determine. I'd rather assume good faith than hit the vandalism button. If I mistakenly make that assumption, please do feel free to warn the user in question. In this case, I see this is the user who spams categories... I'll deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not who I thought it was at first glance... unless they're using a proxy. I don't see any other vandalism from that IP range related to cartoon pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

larestani peopel

hi,i'm from larestan region in Iran and I born in bastak city,I can speak English a little,you edited page larestani people but it was false for exmple:larestani people population:more than 2 million no 2 hundred,I will happy to help you in future about larestani people or achomi language or iranian Salimbastak (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Salimbastak: Hello! Welcome to the English Wikipedia! Currently the source/URL used for the Larestani population says 100,000. The article Laristan says there are only 55,265. Do you have any reliable sources (a government website would be good) that gives the Laristani population? Even if it is in Farsi or Achomi, we can use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lârestâni people in Iran in the county of LARESTAN , Bastak , gerash , khonj , Lamerd , Bandar Lengeh , parsian and part of the county of Bandar kahmir and bandar abbas and a large number of them are living in the UAE , Oman ,kwait,Bahrain,Qatar Population source: https://www.amar.org.ir/english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimbastak (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Farnham

Good day, my friend. There seems to be some confusion regarding an edit of mine you mistakenly identified as vandalism despite the fact that I thought my edit summary explained the edit rather clearly [7]. The guidelines state that any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm not eager in the least to get into any kind of conflict over this, especially since I think I'm being pretty faithful to the guidelines. Best regards. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: Hello there! Sorry about that! I see what you did now: moved the sourced info I thought was missing to a new section at the bottom of the page. That does seem okay to me. Athomeinkobe mentioned breaking it up into smaller edits. If you can, that's sometimes preferred as it lets people revert small edits and add sources where needed (if they're inclined to). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

After taking a second look, it appears I initially misread also. Having said that, I think the initial chronological format should be kept, rather than putting details of his high school and college at the end of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow if it's not dealt with. よろしくお願い. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: OK, well you have already gone ahead and reverted my work again. You guys do seem a bit trigger happy, and as I said I don't want to get into a edit war needlessly. Does anyone object to me reverting Athomeinkobe's last revert, and then we can start from that point? I don't agree that "the initial chronological format" should be kept as there is very little sourced info. I think putting it a "Personal info" section at the end is a more than workable solution, as that way the little bits of info can be consolidated in one place. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

47.55.192.66 I'll just note that I did that revert before seeing the discussion here, and it was the second time total that it had been reverted (after EvergreenFir had also reverted once. But you are correct that we should avoid any warring over this. I'm going to paste the removed text to the article's talk page, which is also the place where this discussion should continue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed that Hirolovesswords has also reverted IP47's removal of the text. For the sake of simplicity, I have reverted that change so that the article is currently in the shortened form. I am going to paste the entire long version to the talk page, so that we can pick it apart and identify what is (or can be) sourced for inclusion). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You guys are collectively the Wikipedia equivalent of a Rube Goldberg Machine. Sorry guys but you just convinced me to quit Wikipedia. Pat yourselves on the back. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: I know how frustrating Wikipedia is and I'm sorry. I think we've got most stuff in the article sourced now. If there's a particular item that's unsourced, point it out and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: I am disappointed to hear you feel that way. I see 4 different editors have each reverted you once, so that must be frustrating. On the other hand, both I and one other subsequently undid those reversions. I am also trying to make something happen at the talk page. You raised an important point, and personally I feel like I have tried to help address it in the best manner that I could think of. I echo EvergreenFir's invitation to point out any specific items that you disagree with. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adventist Health System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanitarium. 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) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA

no dear, you are wrong. yugoslavia existed until 2002, and serbia-montenegro 2002-2006. please apply my changes there. e.g. in france 98 world cup was yugoslavian team, not serbia-montenegro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.106.48 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@46.161.106.48: if I have made a mistake you are free to revert me, hun. Looking at the article for the Football Association I only saw presidents going until 1992 so I assumed that's when it ended. My knowledge of the area isn't the best so my apologies if I'm in error. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is good that you admitted that you have limited knowledge. At least you are being honest. 175.156.14.63 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

SIOA

I understand that, as a conservative Leftist, you are personally invested in this issue, but please put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Update me on your dispute with Evergreen when you are unbanned. This bugger shamelessly and cockily removed my edits, made and issued threats against me while half asleep saying that is was my "only warning", I want to know what kind of shameless drivel this bugger is up to this time. Completely shameless to the core.175.156.170.141 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D: You do not understand WP:NPOV apparently. We neutrally reflect sources and give due weight to their coverage of a topic. NPOV doesn't mean we frame a topic neutrally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is it? Am I a Muslim ([8]) or conservative Leftist ([9])? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Leftist of course, as it is the latest version. I understand that according to American scholarly standards, POV is acceptable, but in the rest of the world, we adhere to scientific principles. I implore you once again, to adhere to encyclopaedic standards and stop promoting your biased, POV view. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. Don't vandalise other people's work by reverting instead of incorporating valuable content. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What's going on here? Explain to me what is going on. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. I don't think Evergreen is Muslim, all evidence points to evergreen being Jewish.175.156.170.141 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time trying to guess the religion of other editors? -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to CORRECT MISLEADING views on Evergreen being muslim. I have examined the evidence on Evergreen and every single evidence points to Evergreen being a Jew. I want to ENRICH the person here making the post with correct information that evergreen is not muslim but most likely Jewish. This will add to the fruitfulness of advancing the argument if one knows that evergreen is not muslim but Jewish. After the person here is unbanned I am going to continue to debate with him or her on the dispute at hand. The person seems to be confused on the identity of evergreen. I want to correct that. Evergreen is a Jew.175.156.170.141 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what, if any, religion EvergreenFir has. Please drop this. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for disruptive editing: reasons are at the IP talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus and Doug Weller: Thank you both for dealing with that. Thank gods I silence my phone while sleeping... so many emails notifications. That user was the same one from Robert Kagan. At least they didn't put their messages in section headers this time. You'd think people would check the userboxes before proclaiming my religious orientation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, EvergreenFir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Noticeboard#Cleveland_issues_with_nicknames_in_the_introduction.The discussion is about the topic Cleveland. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your question

If you look at the article on the book from which the large table was taken, you will see from the history that the same table was edit warred in and out of that article over a period of several years (it's been out for a while). There have been sockpuppets reinserting it there, together with fly-by-night proxy accounts. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

IQ

Why was the table removed?Userius (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgust quite a bit on the talk page

Re: [10]

In that case, shouldn't it be in the consensuses list? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's defense of the LGBT community

As a fellow LGBT Wikipedian, I am baffled by your redaction of Trump's defense of our community from the Orlando article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s and Mandruss: (replying to both at once) I replied at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Trump.27s_reaction_YET_AGAIN. In short, it's been contested repeatedly and discussed extensively. My read of the talk page for the past couple days is that people lean toward excluding all political candidates comments or to simply summarize that political figures commented without detail. Zigzig20s, I am not sure why it baffles you. I am not personally interested in Trump's (or Clinton's or Sanders') comments on the matter. I'm a bit surprised, but Trump is inconsistent enough that I'm not meta-surprised (not surprised that I'm surprised). Wikinews is a better location for the information in question. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)