User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

List of Grojband episodes

My edits are not vandalism. MOS:TV says only original dates should be included. Its a Canadian series. If we include the us, then we must include every country. We are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 66.87.81.15 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information, changing episode numbering, and edit warring. You are vandalizing. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also MOS:TV#Episode_listing does not mention what you claim. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Further, the US airdates were first and deserve mention per MOS:TV. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thicke

I can't tag the main section if the article is locked down, right? Cheers, 142.204.42.24 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Bob's Burgers. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Talk page contribs

I don't think so, if you read WP:REDACT, it says:-

"Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment." That whole comment wasn't a mistake, but it remained there for over 3 years and it was clearly related with the subject. User can only archive if they don't want their comment to be appeared, they cannot remove.

And "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages", but not any other page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone Hm... but no one replied to the comment, did they? You're welcome to revert me because I was incorrect on thinking you could delete any of your own comments, but since no one replied, WP:REDACT seems to say they can remove it. Perhaps we should restore and strikeout? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely and I will archive too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone - Cool beans! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for helping me clean up! That was my first ever attempt at a revdel. Appreciate your patience. Zad68 05:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Thanks for the cookie! Glad I could help! I have no idea how the reldevs work on the admin side (on the non-admin side, we just beg for them and they magically happen), but it appears to have been successful! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Result of your 3RR complaint

Please see the result of the case at WP:AN3#User:Ericablang reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Both warned) which concerns editing at Kevin de León. Both you and the other party have been warned. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

silly templates

don't post your silly templates on my page again. ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser There is nothing stopping me from posting templates on your page. If you continue to assume bad faith in me, I will continue to template you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Stay off my page - do not post there ever again - if you have a story to worry about - go to the ANI and write it there Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser You cannot ban someone from your talk page. They are public. I repeat, if you continue to hound me, assume bad faith, or otherwise bother me, I will template you. If it gets bad enough, I will file an ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN - Stay off my page - do not post there ever again - if you have a story to worry about - go to the ANI and write it there Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser - WP:OWNTALK. I can still template you if you are breaking rules. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not "breaking rules" it is your personal opinion that I am not applying good faith to you and your personal silly twinkle template - do not post your personal opinions on my talk page ever again. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

When you assume I'm trying to game AN3, call me a liar, and hound me, you are assuming bad faith and breaking rules. There is no "opinion" there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not hounding you , again that is your personal opinion - not a fact in any way. I have never called you a liar either. I have posted links to support all my comments.I have not "broken" a single "rule" - stay off my chat page, end of Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bye bye. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Daffodil International University

I doubt that you noticed, but this editor] has a COI for the articles he's editing. I suspect it is his job to edit those pages. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: - What am I to do when I run across editors who appear to have COIs or are making POV edits, yet they are not "clear vandalism". I tried AN3 the other day but EdJohnston said I was edit warring myself and did not reply to my question about how to deal with these editors. As you probably guessed, I primarily look for vandalism and poor edits. I am at a loss as to how to deal with people who do not follow BRD since the 3RR is in their favor (since I'm the first to revert, I'm also the first to hit 3 reverts). This has been an issue twice now (both of which EdJohnston gave me warnings for). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Tricky and I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. I've got over 125,000 edits and my only block was another Admin who clicked on the wrong link. So, try very very hard not to exceed 2RR (don't go to 3), and remember even 2RR daily can be edit warring if several editors are reverting you. I'll try to remember to look at you again tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Okay! I'll ping you in a few days if I don't hear from you! Thanks! (PS I've not been blocked, just warned). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello EvergreenFir. If you see poor edits which are not vandalism you should take the matter to the article talk page. If the other party won't participate there but continues to revert you may eventually have a valid edit warring complaint. In a two-party dispute the steps of WP:Dispute resolution provide a way to get others involved. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thank you for the reply. I will need to learn the line between DRN-worthy edits and AN3/COI-type edits. In the most recent case, it seems to me the editor was COI or single-purpose. I know your examination of the edits found they had not crossed the 3RR threshold, but they were still quite suspect imho. Thank you for your reply here though! Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing a list

Thank you for your good work at the SPLC list. Although I differ with you on the best way to source this stuff, we agree that it needs to be sourced.

Given that WP can be edited by (almost) anyone at any time, there are various problems, I think, with:

{{Asof|2014|July}}, the following are listed as active anti-immigrant groups:<ref name="immigrant">{{cite web | url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/active_hate_groups | title=Active Anti-Immigrant Groups | work=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] | accessdate=9 July 2014}}

Let's put aside trolls, fools, axe-grinders, and so on for now. Suppose somebody hears in September that the newly emerged "Sovereign Citizens of Wingnuttistan" is on SPLC's list. She looks it up on their website, and yes sure enough it's there. So she wants to add it to the WP article. The only "simple" (ha ha) solution I see is for her to take on the job of checking every other item in the sublist as well, to add this new item, and to update the above to:

{{Asof|2014|September}}, the following are listed as active anti-immigrant groups:<ref name="immigrant">{{cite web | url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/active_hate_groups | title=Active Anti-Immigrant Groups | work=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] | accessdate=16 September 2014}}

Trouble is, a great percentage of well-meaning editors (let alone the others) aren't going to do this. They're more likely (A) to fictionally backdate the addition to July, (B) to lazily/myopically assume that everything that was listed in July is still listed in September, etc.

For this reason I think it's better to avoid the attempt at a source for the lot, and instead to repeat the reference. If necessary, again and again and again:

• Group 1<ref name="immigrant">{{cite web | url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/active_hate_groups | title=Active Anti-Immigrant Groups | work=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] | accessdate=9 July 2014}}
• Group 2<ref name="immigrant" />
• Group 3<ref name="immigrant" />
• Group 4<ref name="immigrant" />

Etc. Ugly, but more bulletproof. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a thread a short distance above: "Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages / If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)" (here). If another editor is seriously misbehaving, it doesn't have to be you that informs the editor. Instead, bring up the matter at WP:AN/I. If what you write there is convincing, then an administrator will deal with the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Hoary! I admit I did the former citation method out of a bit of laziness. It won't be too much trouble to convert to the latter with some copy-paste though. However, I did like the idea of using "as of" because the lists clearly change, but you're correct that most people wouldn't update. Hm... think there's a way to include a date? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a simple way. I think you're stuck with

• Group 1<ref name="immigrant201407">{{cite web | url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/active_hate_groups | title=Active Anti-Immigrant Groups | work=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] | accessdate=9 July 2014}}
• Group 2<ref name="immigrant201407" />

or similar. (Even if there were some wonderful template that would solve your problems, chances are that other, well-meaning contributors wouldn't bother to read the instructions for using it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind about the ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Stay cool, sound cool. If you attract some fruity insults about your editing or person, perhaps regard them as unintended trophies. (They should say more about the writers than about you.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ The King Church. 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) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the hard work you put in verifying the story List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups . ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mosfetfaser! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

I noticed you violated our policy on biographies of living people by adding Anthony Rapp to a category he does not publicly self-identify as. Please consider reverting your change. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@JackSchmidt: I reviewed the edit by a user who replaced a sourced statement with an unsourced one. I'll review the edit and see if the cat needs changed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You were correct. Thanks for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! JackSchmidt (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

NBA players

Yes, absolutely. Only once the team itself has officially announced it on their website can we update it i.e. an NBA.com source. For example, Paul Pierce just agreed to signed with the Wizards. That is not official as the Wizards themselves have not announced it. When it is listed here, it is official. Only a few people of Wikipedia keep patrol on NBA articles and revert when unofficial signings are added. It be great for more people to help us out. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: - I'll keep an eye out! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick Demetrios Panagiotacopulos

I was gong for AfD, but now you've added PROD tag so let's watch. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone - Lol I debated that too... seems like a resume-type page so thought I'd try CSD first. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Antifeminism

I bet the article's been linked on some extremist site. Keep an eye on it - it keeps getting hit by new IPs. Personally, I think it should be permanently semiprotected, as a huge amount of the article's edit history is reverting changes to the cited definition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: It's on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on it and if it intensifies, I'll submit a PPR. Right now I expect they'd say the vandalism is too slow/infrequent to warrant page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Futurama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lrrr. 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) 08:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Um

About this: reversion: Self-presentation is a behavior. I don't really care what it says, so long as we can get rid of the awkward "what one does oneself" circumlocution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers

FYI [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

UAA Request

I blocked the account, and revision deleted the log entries at Laverne Cox per your request, but will be leaving the log history at UAA alone for transparency. Just wanted to give you the followup regarding the revdel request. Monty₈₄₅ 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Monty845 - Thank you! I appreciate it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hema Malini

Sir, I have posted my comments and justified the reason as to why the religious identity should be changed. Please, see it on the talk page of the article. Thank you.Iamgame (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Iceland

Why that edit is unnecessary? 173.206.37.64 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It was overly specific for the lead sentence in my opinion. Country means roughly the same thing but is understandable to more readers. For reference, talking about this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Understandable, but don't you feel that people need to be educated and to do their research for its proper terminology? I've seen way more complicated articles and if people want further clarification, they can look at simple english. Sovereign state is only mentioned once in the article and shouldn't Iceland have it's full terminology for a soveriegn state as it is a huge article needing its' best terminology and it would explain the term of country to its' fullest extent because terms (Sovereign state) is a little missed out. 173.206.188.180 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European-American Unity and Rights Organization 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:

• List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups|hate group]]" by the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]].<ref name="whitenation">{{cite web | url=http://www.
• In an October 2007 article the author wrote (commenting on what he called Hitler's "workers paradise" "The beautiful Germany of the 1930s with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bisexual pride flag may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• {{cquote|In designing the Bi Pride Flag, I selected the colors and overlap pattern of the 'bi angles'

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your short version appears to work

Hi User:Evergreen. Substituting short version of Red Cross MH-17 edit by User:Evergreen. Agree with User:Evergreen that short version is sufficient summary for multi-sentence version. This appears to be a length-of-edit issue. The discussion of Wikipedia applied to recent events in covered in the opening sections of the Wikipedia article. It is the Wikipedia administrator Andrew Lih who is referenced as supporting the use of Wikipedia to keep up with recent events within responsible guidelines of verifiability like the aircraft incident. FelixRosch (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Actually, your continued excessive quoting of news sources [2] makes it a WP:NOTNEWS issue. Wikipedia articles are not here to repeat what the news of the day says. When you look at a source, pick out the historically important facts, keeping in mind what historically important means changes from article to article, and distill the content so it doesn't read like a bunch of quotes mashed together. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right, to the help edit comment. Wikipedia administrator Andrew Lih is attributed as stating the correct position: "Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news." FelixRosch (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Andrew Lih has an opinion, not the "correct position". For content issues it matters not a whit that he is an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier article

Hello.

I am "talking" to you in regards of Nash Grier's correct date on his Wikipedia page.

His birthdate is indeed the 28th of December of 1997. He used to state it on his website and he also said he was born in 1997, I THINK, in one of his videos.

We know he his currently 16 and born in 1997. So, I am going to revert the changes you made back to how I had them expect the month and date, just the year because it's not questionable when he was born --we know when he was born.

Thank you,

Your Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman101 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frenchman101: Hi there! We need a reliable source for his birthdate. Please do not revert the changes. There's also a section on Talk:Nash Grier already discussing his birthdate. Please go there to discuss it further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier Page

Hello, Sir.

I just wanted to delete Nash's brithdate because we should have a definite date not a confusing one. Don't you agree? And please do NOT block me again.....

If I find a reliable source, may I change his birthdate?

Thank you, Frenchman101—Frenchman101 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frenchman101: If you find a reliable source, please put it on the article's talk page. You are currently continuing an edit war over the birthday and that is not acceptable. For full disclosure, I have no power to block you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Question

Re your message: I have never used Huggle or AWB, so I really don't know how either works or what the requirements are. Huggle being limited without rollback makes some logical sense to me in that it can probably do things faster with rollback than without. I know AWB requires explicit permission since I read the "so-and-so should have their AWB privilege removed" discussions on WP:AN/WP:ANI from time to time. After that, I have no idea...

I arrived on Wikipedia well before all of these automated tools started to appear, so I do everything old school. The only tool I use to popups (and now I can't do without it). I tried Twinkle once, I think, but I abandoned for some reason.

I can grant you rollback privilege if you want (you'd be the first person I ever granted anything to besides myself!). Even if you don't use Huggle or AWB, you still might find it useful. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Melatonin edit regarding asthmatics

Hi, you reverted the changes I made to melatonin page regarding a small-scale study for asthmatics. I know it's only a small-scale primary source but is there subsequent research proving that it's safe for asthmatics? Maybe we can find a way to add at least a caution under the adverse effects section, so asthmatics talk to their doctor before attempting to use melatonin (since it's sold OTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.144.74 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine HDI

Alright, fair enough. The data is for 2013. You're right about that. However, while Ukraine may be in 83rd place this year, last year it was in 78th place, hence my decrease edit in the HDI section, since it dropped a few places on the chart. Look at page 17 for the 2013 report, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2013_en_summary.pdf, and page 17 of the 2014 report, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf, and you will see that the Ukrainian HDI did indeed drop. Thank you. TheBoulderite (talk • contribs) 03:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that the Wikipedia list of countries by HDI is completely finished yet, so I've just been comparing both reports for the data of each country, seeing if they improved from last year on the list or if they didn't. To keep the data accurate, I would strongly suggest that you do the same. TheBoulderite (talk • contribs) 03:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radical feminism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slur. 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) 09:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Huffington post link

I think that it would be covered under WP:NEWSBLOG, in that instance. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). So we would just need to attribute the statement if that was so. I'm not sure if this is possible under the current wording. Tutelary (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: That it couldn't be added to the current wording is why I removed it, but because it was just an opinion piece. I'll make a dummy edit explaining that. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I was under the wrong impression, then and will search for more sources. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be more media coverage of the topic in general the past month so hopefully you finds some. When we tried to address this months back in the sandbox, there were so few. The New Yorker piece is what motivated me to add the info recently. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender equality

Can you please explain why you removed my edits from that article? In particular why did you remove the edits from the "Modern equality movements" section? I cannot see what can be constructed as WP:COATRACK in listing the international conventions regarding equality between women and men. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B68A (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the "Harmful traditional practices" section ("harmful traditional practices" is a technical term used by many human rights organizations; and by the UN too) I can see that at first sight it might appear as WP:COATRACK. But these practices are officially recognized by the UN as an obstacle for gender equality, and causing major harm to women, and preventing them from enjoying their rights. Also, Harmful Traditional Practices are a constant theme within the movement for women's rights in Africa, as evidenced by numerous organizations dedicated to fighting against them, the most notable being Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.

2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B68A (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eugenics

The new reference may say "race" (I looked at the new reference and it says that genos (γένος) means race, stock or kin) but the existing reference does not, so we need to resolve these conflicting references. Can you provide a reference that clearly says the "genics' in eugenics means "race" instead of "birth". Thanks. Editor2020 18:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Here: Genus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That reference says ""race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," Editor2020 18:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Editor2020: read it carefully... genos "race, kind". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Requests

I understand if you're too busy to improve these maps but... could you please color Florida gold on this map [3], color Florida gold and add a marriage ring for Boulder County on this map [4], add Colorado (lightest red) to this map [5], remove Florida from this map [6], and add Florida to this map [7]? Also, this gif needs updating [8] as well. I'm sorry, I know it is a lot to ask for..! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Sorry not to reply immediately. With school starting up I've been busy. I'll give it a shot tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, looks like Twinkle is fixed... or more accurately, the necessary code for Twinkle to work properly on UAA was fixed. --Drm310 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks

Do not post on my talk page again. Eric Corbett 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: If you continue your incivility, I will start an ANI. It's clear that you've been sanctioned (by ARBCOM no less) for this very thing. Shameful behavior from such an experienced editor. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you start one now, but watch out for boomerangs. Eric Corbett 10:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Boomerang is a tu quoque, right? Where have I been incivil or made personal attacks? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You made what many would consider to be be a personal attack right at the head of this topic. Where have I been uncivil and made personal attacks? You must learn to understand that disagreement or questioning is neither uncivil or any kind of an attack. Now I suggest you initiate your ANI report forthwith. Get it out of your system. Eric Corbett 16:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: You were uncivil and made a personal attack on WP:XX to Carolmooredc. I will only start an ANI if you continue the behavior after the warning. Had you been a new person I would have templated you, but WP:DTTR. As with templates, you give users warnings before initiating action against them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not, I merely drew her attention to the fact that she had either misunderstood the question or was deliberately avoiding giving an answer, as she does so often. So as I have absolutely no intention of not continuing to do that in future I suggest that you either shit or get off the pot as far as your AN/I report is concerned. Eric Corbett 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course you'll need to get your facts straight before you go to AN/I; I don't recall ever posting anything on WP:XX. Eric Corbett 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, it was not WP:XX but WP:GGTF. You just made another personal attack on Carol. Stop. Do not use my talk page as a forum for your personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to refresh your understanding of "personal attack". But now that I've continued my obnoxious behaviour – at least in your opinion – it's surely now time for your threatened AN/I is it not? I could do with a laugh. Eric Corbett 17:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea to ban Eric from your page too. The less interaction, the less aggravation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your input is required on the topic of Syrian Civil War maps

Dear user, you input is required on the question whether adding Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps is legitimate, due to you previous participation on talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Military map issues. Please discuss it at talk:Syrian Civil War#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps.GreyShark (dibra) 08:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a dishonest and non neutral comment and inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is not to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"forum"?

> Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Stefan Molyneux for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room.

I did not do this. Please do not leave weird messages on my talk page, and do not vandalise my edits. Cheers. 94.194.106.107 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

IP won't leave my talk page alone

I see you've warned this IP [9] before. S/he keeps putting up a warning template on my talk page. I've asked them to stay away but it has fallen on deaf ears. Can you semi-protect my talk page or something?  Volunteer Marek  20:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolve by helpful user NeilN --71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your note?

At this diff. Took me a couple tries to find it. Be more careful since your interrupting mine without a signature looked like I was saying something that I was not. Also, it is WP:Soapbox and starts personal discussions we don't really need to inflame things. You might even remove it. Thanks.

Also, it seems to be it is the transactivists who are calling any feminist (or opinionated woman), radical or not, who seems to disagrees with -- or even misunderstand them -- TERFs. I haven't seen any sources on what most radical feminists think; and perhaps being radical feminist means being "gender critical". Frankly, I think this whole issue is so much in flux that trying to pin down a definitive "truth" is pretty difficult, whether or not you have RS. Tens of thousands of feminists and women who weren't thinking about the issue are now, and in all sorts of ways. It's interesting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Thanks for catching the missing sig. I'll fix it. I admit it's a bit soapy and will be more careful in the future. I find it difficult to be neutral when talking about something that's related to trans civil rights as I see oppression and discrimination against trans people as bigotry. I definitely agree that it's in flux and a rather new issue. We do need to be careful on how we describe this, even from the voices of people called "TERF". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

PS - You're always welcome to use {{unsigned}} for me if I miss a sig in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be part of the comments you make after mine, so why not move them together. And indent a bit and put [Insert: before them so it is clear they are yours so as not to confuse those who don't see signatures even when they are staring them in the face :-) Thanks for reminder of what relevant template is. Must put on one of my cheat sheets! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting it there, I finally found the other one that went astray. It's for when you know for sure who it is: {{subst:Unsigned|Caromooredc}} Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way

This[10] was me not CSDarrow. And as a matter of fact there's a big difference between collapsing and archiving. I'm going to leave your revert though - I was probably premature in doing that. But just FYI--Cailil ^talk 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: You collapsed comments by yourself and CSDarrow. {{Collapse}} specifically says not to use it to end conversations you are a part of. But CSDarrow is blocked now so doesn't matter much. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was the reason I did it. But actually no template:collapse does not say that. It says "they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing". You're thinking of template:discussiontop and Template:Archive top which should be used by uninvolved users. There's a difference between these templates in that collapse is regularly used to "fold-up" disruptive filibustering without closing a discussion off. Collapse ringfences one part of the discussion while leaving the issue open--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: You're right I was thinking of those other two templates and considered them the same. Thanks for clarifying. Also, didn't realize you had done it in response to the block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) --Cailil ^talk 16:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit needed

When you opened the Clarification request, I think you failed to fill in the parameter for the template {{re}}--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: If you mean in the very first line, that's part of my signature intended to ask people to use {{re}} when replying to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that this is your first time at Arbcom. It is usual to include a link to the notification post after the users name. (Scroll down to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough to see how that was done.) I have verified that you did contact everyone, however, based upon the likelihood that someone will point out the missing links, could I ask you to add them? Sorry, but as a newbie clerk for ARBCOM, I am supposed to be a stickler for protocol.:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Certainly! I'll do that now. Thanks for pointing it out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was so late. I have the page on my watchlist, but it slipped by me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Male Privilege

Hello,

You reverted my revert for the sentence in the Male Privilege page. Could you point me in the direction of the talk page discussion you were referring to?

Thanks,

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: was asking you to create it, but I shall create it in a moment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

So which of the below do you think is preferable in re S. Truett Cathy, a or b, particularly since "anti-gay" is often a shorthand for "opposition to initiatives supported by the LGBT community", including, most recently the issue of same-sex marriage?

a) WinShape has donated, since 2003, over $5 million to organizations or groups described in certain media as "anti-gay", including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International, and the Family Research Council which strongly oppose same sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community.

b) WinShape has donated, since 2003, over $5 million to anti-gay groups including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International and the Family Research Council which strongly oppose same sex marriage and other initiatives supported by the LGBT community.

Appreciate any insight you can share. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

MRMPS notifications

Hi EvergreenFir, please do not forget to add User:TheCrimsonSea to the MRMPS notifications (Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Notifications). Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. It's such a drama fest with new editors coming in every day and citing Wikipedia's article about A Voice for Men as a source. Like, seriously? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: Totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: What is the issue with A Voice for Men? TheCrimsonSea 06:32, 2014-09-11 (UTC)

@TheCrimsonSea: Please read WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you! @TheCrimsonSea: The Wikipedia page A Voice for Men is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRC. Moreover, A Voice for Men is not a reliable source (as EvergreenFir has indicated). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re

Hi EvergreenFir. What's wrong with my edits? I'm just trying to remove undue criticism of the SPLC. I haven't added my personal analysis at all. Cute nickname btw. Venusianmyth (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Venusianmyth: Ugh I think I chose the wrong template... was supposed to be about WP:NPOV. Moreover, the section has been the subject of extensive discussion on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. If you think something needs changing, please bring it up on the talk page per the bold, revert, discuss format. Also, please do be careful when discussing other editors, like you did in this edit. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Oh well. Perhaps an RFC/U would work. Frankly I've stayed away from the drama pages because of the endless and feckless controversy lately. I am happier doing my mindless gnomish editing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

69.157.74.52

Thanks for reverting this guy. It's a long term vandal I've been documenting since 2006. He seems to like changing things on Philippine actor pages and he hates Power Rangers for some reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I noticed them while reviewing pending changes. What an odd selection of articles to vandalize.  :-/ I added the IP to AIV. Maybe you can add that this is a long-term problem user? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. The ISP is an obvious match to the MO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)