User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Eric Corbett

It appears that you posted about Eric Corbett a little after 0400 GMT and it was closed a little before 0800 GMT. (Incidentally, that is the middle of the night in Washington and New York, but if a thread is closed in less than four hours, it is always the middle of the night somewhere.) It appears that some admins at WP:ANI no longer even want to discuss him. It does appear now that you have a reasonable list of issues, the right length and conciseness, for an ArbCom filing. Unfortunately, I think it is ArbCom time, since ANI has decided (with some but not much accuracy) that all discussions of him are broken. Some editors have a concept that he is an "excellent content creator" and so gets a pass on civility because he is a net positive to the encyclopedia. I would like to propose that the ArbCom be asked to say that he is a positive in article space and so should be encouraged to work in article space and article talk space, but that he is a negative in WP and WT space, and should be space-banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space. If you have the energy left to go to the ArbCom, I will support you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say give it a few weeks til GGTF matter closes since there are problems with making it that general and not focusing on Eric who has been so problematic in his own right. Also, focus on non-personal talk page diffs (unless he goes somewhere to harass someone) and anything he does from 9/24 on. Who knows, he may reform and it may not be necessary! A girl can dream.

I'm saving that ANI as an example of "you can do what you want on your talk page" in case certain accusations about things I wrote on mine come up :-) The glass is always half full - if it wasn't I'd have left here years ago!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption: yes, editors are given more leeway on their own talk page. Admins and editors can't, and shouldn't want to, police all the glasses in all the bars on Wikipedia. And now I'm on my way. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Leeway has been given time and time again. This if so far beyond what is acceptable, it's really hard to believe anyone turns a blind eye to it. Any new user would have been blocked indef for 1/10 the level of personal attacks or incivility. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just popping by. I know you mean well, EvergreenFir, but I've been around here for eight years; Corbett is not your problem. Trolls from 4chan and Reddit are your problem. Bullying Corbett will just throw fat on a smoldering fire that attracts nothing but drama. If you want to do something useful, try going after the people who are trolling Zoe Quinn's article, or the folks who have inappropriate double entende user names and signatures who are clearly trying to egg on Corbett to further their own "mens rights" agenda. You are getting sidetracked by a non-problem. Corbett is just a curmudgeon who insults everyone equally, men and women both. You and Carol are both looking like idiots to keep after Corbett. Go find some real trolls and do the courageous thing to take them on. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks (?) but I already do those things. I think Gogo Dodo and Daniel Case can attest to the patrolling of user names and vandals. Also I've made ANIs about attacks on Wikipedia by 4chan, a school department, that US House of Reps IP address, and a radical feminist/terf page. If adding Corbett to my list makes me an idiot, so be it. I'd rather be right and an idiot than enable an abusive editor. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that I got accused of being a man by CMDC over on the GG task force page, so clearly I'm on the outs with the queen bee of the GGTF, I don't expect that you would be prone to trust or listen to me. But I wish you would listen and believe me when I say that Corbett is not a person who needs a mob with pitchforks going after him. He's sometimes a jackass and uncivil, but he's not the problem on wikipedia just because he uses some bad words that people like me in the USA find far more offensive than do (male) people of his generation in the UK. He reminds me of a grumpy uncle of mine who used to preface everything he disagreed with by the word "damn" (I joke that as a kid I thought "damndoctors" "damnlawyers" and "damnpoliticians" were one word until I was disabused of the notion in first grade). In other words, Corbett is a grumpy curmudgeon, but essentially harmless and a good content contributor who doesn't need the scapegoating he seems to draw upon himself (you will go away, some other person - and probably a guy - will get called a bad name next week and go crying to ANI about Corbett again. It's just the usual). You will not win a battle or a war for the things in which we both believe (which I think include basic feminist principles of respect for women and their contributions both on-wiki and to society in general) by going after Corbett, so I really do strongly recommend you drop it before his talk page becomes a magnet for the men's rights trolls who will just feed him straight lines so he shoots off his mouth while they sit safely on the sidelines being a Greek chorus. If he's banned, their crap will continue. He's not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a part of any of the Reddit/4chan stuff. Not worth your energy and time, seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I appreciate you offering what seems to be earnest advice. But don't jump the gun thinking I'm on Team Carol. Honestly I have more weariness of Carol than you due to the whole "TERF" thing. I do see her attacked frequently and find that unacceptable, so I've defended her in the past, but something tells me we have very different views re: feminism and transgender rights. I've seen you around, but haven't interacted much with you so I have no reason not to trust you, though defending Corbett isn't helping terribly. I'm leaving this issue be for a bit as I'm thoroughly annoyed at the lack of integrity on ANI but also I have real-life issues that are more important (like submitting a dissertation proposal by Monday). What infuriates me is the hypocrisy of allowing certain editors to run roughshod and decimate a pillar of the community, while punishing less experienced, more ignorant editors for actions 1/10 the severity. I would support any ARBCOM action, but I am unlikely to initiate any unless things get worse (again). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One nice thing about being genderqueer and accepting all pronouns is that I'm never misgendered. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I always thought gender = stereotype = YUK! and thus call self "pangender" in sense of "above gender roles". Plus "Sex" (male, female, intersex/changed sex) is easier to figure out.) But I put up with gender in "gender gap" because it's better than "sex gap"! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. What pillar of the community was decimated? I missed that drama, apparently. Yeah, I mostly edit horse articles, but Corbett was very helpful to me in my first near-solo attempt to take an article to FAC (I had always been part of a large team for prior efforts). I would agree that punishing newbies for newbie mistakes is not good. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Referring to "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've occasionally collaborated with Eric, and while not trying to sound sycophantic, he knows his stuff when it comes to writing and researching an encyclopedia. Most of the time, when Eric gives it with both barrels, it is somebody who has turned up unannounced on his talk page and started belittling or patronising him. It isn't always this - I can recall the odd time where Eric slammed a newbie editor because they made poor quality edits to an article he took through FAC and tried to call him out on it - but those are rare events that on their own probably wouldn't warrant a sanction as they're not frequent, and he is still doing what he genuinely believes is best for the project. I do not believe you will find a single instance where Eric has made an unprovoked attack on an editor anywhere (and negative views on a noticeboard stating his opinion is not an attack).

However, I've found that he tend to call it as he sees it, so if you start work on an article, gathering good sources, and genuinely want help in your writing or your choice of material, he (or a qualified talk page stalker) will help out. I don't make an issue of it, but the reason I started the thread about Mersea Island specifically on Eric's page is partly because I knew I would get help, but also because I hoped it would divert attention away from people who like to turn up to his talk page and badger him. The best advice I can give it - take Eric's talk page off your watchlist. I can't think of any reason you need to watch it. I restrict my watchlist to articles I have taken to GA / FA / DYK or am planning to - it works well. (Even then, I can still be prone to jumping in to revert good faith but misguided IP edits all the time). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think by now Eric and his friends have gotten the message that saying things like "the easiest way to avoid being called a c* is not to act like one."[1] will get a lot of women and men mad at you for a long time. Admitting they got the message would help prevent allusions to it from popping up from time to time in those still hurt by it. But whatever... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just drop the damn WP:STICK people; Corbett is not the real problem here, banned editors like Titanium Dragon and the men's rights crowd are the real problem. You are just ganging up on someone you view as easy to scapegoat and it doesn't make you look very good. Corbett is just that grumpy uncle who shows up at Thanksgiving dinner who has a good heart under all the gruffness, but don't get smart-mouthed with him because he can hand your head to you on a plate. 80% of the people he smacks down roundly deserved what they got; some of them got him blocked for time to time, and those of us who have worked with Corbett for years have periodically told him when he's overstepped. Treat him with respect, he treats you with respect. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop opining on how wonderful/horrible Corbett is? I started the ANI for unacceptable behavior (and it is blatantly unacceptable). The community didn't care. Message taken. I just hope it doesn't continue to escalate. For now I'm sick of the wikipolitics. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Corbett hasn't changed for the better or worse in years, it's not apt to escalate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Evergeenfir 01:24, 25 September: Me too! Even after 4-5 years editing in Israel-Palestine area I was only vaguely aware of it. In fact that area looks quite tame now! Even during my first arbitration in Jan-April didn't understand. Really only since July have I been in the middle of it and I had no idea such craziness was going on. But I've been hoping for that last straw that would get me out of here, perhaps it's about to blow upon my back. Yay! We shall see... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed maybe yesterday an Arbitrator used this thread as an example of things "not calming down". At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests see "All those involved will be under scrutiny. My view is that things are not calming down. An example is this thread, where things appear (to some extent) to be escalating. SlimVirgin is right, though, to say that the accept comments are quite a mixed bag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just now I noticed that the admin did close this recommending Arbitration as a resoluton. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Eric_Corbett So just an FYI that you may get dragged into this thing too. ;-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Evergreen.

Are you EvergreenFir on Wikia? There's a Wikia user named EvergreenFir. - EvilLair (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@EvilLair: Hi there! Yep, that's me! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I also found Yazzy's profile, User:Yazzydream. - EvilLair (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oct 1st revert

Greetings. My edits were reverted as "all rather local events". Could you elaborate on that please? Aren't all events rather local?

Would any of these pass?

1931 Oct 1, Spain established women's suffrage.

1948 Oct 1, The California Supreme Court voided a state statute banning interracial marriages (Perez v. Sharp)

2003 Oct 1, Rush Limbaugh resigned from ESPN after saying Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is "overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed".

2011 Oct 1, Cigarette vending machines banned in England.

Thank you kindly,

Andy Fugard (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy Fugard! The Spain one seems global enough to me, but the others don't really seem very notable globally. The Limbaugh definitely not notable imho. But that's just my opinion. Might I suggest that you start a discussion on Talk:October 1 per the bold edit, revert, discuss process? Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly - newbie to the bold edit, revert, discuss; ta for the pointer! Andy Fugard (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of my contribution

I'm giving notice that I'll be contesting your deletion of my contribution on the Sarkeesian talk page. Subject to the rules I'll be protesting your general behavior and editorial slant on that article and related content.Bramble window (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bramble window: Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Your talk page "contribution" was nonsensical and not serious. There is an FAQ on that talk page that addresses issues surrounding "criticism". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your recent editing history at September 1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EvergreenFir ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015

Hi Evergreen, thanks for this revert. FYI: this editor is intentionally editing against MOS:TV and has been politely edified, warned, brought to ANI four times, blocked three times, all for the same behavior: adding ponderous, unsourced, indiscriminate, and duplicate cast lists to TV articles. I now assume vandalism instead of good faith. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force 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/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology

The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit

On Manosphere because the subreddit itself is a primary source and cannot be used for interpretation of their own views, but for most basic statements of fact, ie: The subscriber count. We don't need a brand new RS to update the count, and if we did, would be incredibly bureaucratic. I checked the subreddit and the IP's edit was correct. Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Bedbug

You recently reverted my edit of the article Bedbug, where I included under "Society and Culture" a reference to Mayakovsky's satirical play "The Bedbug". Why did you revert it? Nuttyskin (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

Why did you revert my edit at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring? I thought I was talking about that policy first. First, I didn't get involved on Wikipedia. Secondly, I revert vandalism on articles but don't revert more than three times in the same page. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed due to harassment

I removed the section because it is a clear case of harassment. I am being harassed by the folks who want that article deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FOX_animated_universe)simply because I rally'd for it to be included! Mikepellerin (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You canvassed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I rally'd and asked my friends to help. I don't understand why editors who oppose this article are bent on harassment. To single me out is abusive and unbecoming of a Wikipedia Editor. Mikepellerin (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Justin Knapp (WMF)

Hey, thanks, but next time please don't go edit warring with someone like that; just let an admin know. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:I dream of horses/2014/October#National Report is NOT satire.

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:I dream of horses/2014/October#National Report is NOT satire.. Just wanted to keep you up-to-date Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For being an awesome admin on the Gravity Falls Wiki. -- EvilLair (✉ | c) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You should consider not responding

I was going to email you, but you don't have that enabled. You won't change anyones mind about civility. Arguing will only dig yourself a hole. From my view your hole is just ankle deep. Carol and Neotarf are halfway to China in comparison. Losing them will be no loss whatsoever. However I'd hate to lose you, despite our occasional difference of opinion. I'm not good at introspection, so I can't tell if I'm above sea level or making an in ground hot tub.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: Thank you. I actually do appreciate this. I did decide to disengage from talking with TP (assuming that's what you're referring to). And I agree, that was going nowhere good. I just really hate when I'm misrepresented but I made my point and pointed out the misrepresentation so I think that was enough. But again, thank you. And I don't think you're deep at all. You've been keeping your distance and making measured responses. I honestly was hesitant to even get involved... and trying to keep it at arm's length with minimal success. Cheers again! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Active peer reviewers

The projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if you could possibly click on one or more of those articles and add your username under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Please let me know. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

rose's room

I had a reliable source but when I was putting it up there it wasn't up there right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cville1991 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't mind read my reasons for editing

I edit what I find interesting and not according to whatever agenda you think I have. EChastain (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which just happened to be things discussed on the arbcom, editing exactly has they've been discussed (by TParis specifically), you've commented on the arbcom discussion itself, and your account is 14 days old... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

S. Truett Cathy

• Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello E. About this request. Ponyo has a box at the top of his page saying that he might not be available until Nov 4th. If you saw it then my apologies for taking up space on your talk page. OTOH if you missed it you might want to ask another admin about the r/d. I usually want something like that removed ASAP so that is why I wanted to give you the heads up. Thanks for all you do here at WikiP and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: totally missed that. ty. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: Ponyo is a "she". - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your statement

I've removed the second part of your statement. I don't think it brings anything constructive to the arbitration request. Also, it can be construed as if you are advicing users to look for information about Ryulong that is not available on-wiki, something that goes against our policies. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 06:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hahc21: - I'll re add it tomorrow with more clarity. It's clear that my point was muddled. I'm trying to point out the vast off wiki activity going on in gg groups and that users like Ryulong are being targeted. If you Google as I suggested you can quickly see the numerous posts on reddit and the off wiki orchestration occurring. It demonstrates the extent of the problem. I'll reword and repost tomorrow. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved your comment down on the GG talk page to make sure that Halfhat's reply to North was threaded properly. Sorry if I messed anything up. — Strongjam (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Wikipedia

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrienne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you an award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

I will try to remember to sign all my Talk posts, haven't contributed very much, trying to get more into it. Hdost (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Gravity Falls

Hi there! Currently I'm working on the German version of besaid article and I just made a drawing of Bill Cipher. I'd like to ask you if it would be an good idea to upload it and use it in the article? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Greater Cleveland

Hey there. I think we are looking at different pages. On the infobox for Greater Cleveland, the rank on CSA is piped to List of Combined Statistical Areas which has Cleveland-Akron-Canton at 15th. I believe the difference in the two lists is that some metro areas do not form part of a larger CSA (Phoenix and Riverside), so aren't on the CSA list but are counted in the Metro area list you are seeing. And technically, on the list you referenced, Cleveland would be 17th since there is a formatting error for Riverside, CA and it's missing its rank number. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@JonRidinger: Thanks for looking into it! I'll trust your judgment on which one to you. Sorry to edit back and forth like that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF Arbcom case comment

Howdy. Forgive me, but your comment at 20:00 November 15, 2014 on the GGTF Arbcom talkpage with the words "master baiter", caused me to burst into hysterical laughter. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Glad it gave someone a laugh! It was completely my intent. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Yeah, it was on the wrong page, and when I tried to revert, couldn't do it because you had already made an intervening edit. :/ —Neotarf (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: Lol I was wondering. Feel free to delete my comment if you wish to revert. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Naw, it's an arb page, best not to edit someone else's comment, even if it makes sense. But I see you have taken care of it already. —Neotarf (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) It's the autocomplete on my browser address window, always a page or two behind, but still the fastest way to find a case. (BTW, your ping didn't work) —Neotarf (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: odd, do you have ping notifications turned off? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning my edit on the Transgender page

Hello, and thanks for reviewing my edit.

You undid my revision on the Transgender page today saying that I was in good faith but did not source it. This is true, so I'm sorry for that. However, I just wanted to be clear that my revision is based on my own personal history and studies of the topic (I am trans* myself), so I just wanted to mention that to you. I didn't think I would have to source the information I added (as what I wrote was basically general knowledge from anyone who knows the topic) but, of course, I understand your reversion.

I may contribute the same information again in the future, but next time with source(s).

Thanks again, msorge (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Population data

Please see this discussion. It relates to an "pending" edit you just approved. Thanks.

Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Problem_with_the_main_SSM_state_table Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Thank you. I'll check it out. Just to explain, I approved the edit because it was not vandalism didn't appear to violate any of the guidelines on WP:REVIEWER. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thread Closed

Sorry about that, got confused on that one. The sources say "X did something". That isn't interpretation, and it's on the title. The primary source the source uses to assert that claim doesn't claim that it's doxxing or claim affiliation to anyone. It claims it's easy to find information. How is the source that just changed what someone said and attribute an affiliation to it reliable? How is it not about the reliability of said sources? --Zakkarum (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: per your comments, I have asked an admin related to the GamerGate sanctions enforcement to review my closing of that discussion. I asked that if they feel I closed it improperly to undo my close so that discussion may continue. To be clear, I think the discussion is fine per se, just in the wrong location. Also, reliable sources can be wrong. That doesn't make them unreliable, just wrong in this one instance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. A reliable source being deliberately wrong in one occasion might be a show of bias. Or that it isn't reliable, period. When you distort one words to try and blame someone, you are either unreliable or biased, IMO. I tried to have the talk somewhere else, but they pointed me to that page. --Zakkarum (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page reference lists

Friendly request: please try to use {{reflist-talk}} when using references on talk pages. Thank you! Testing EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate 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/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the +C!

In your mathematics user box, you missed out the constant of integration.HalfHat 12:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Keep up the work - let's just say it - fighting the power...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommer's reverts and accusations

Sorry, but my edits weren't even directed at you. Third-parties that are characterizing Sommers as "anti-femminist" are acting like TERFs by excluding her. Don't think that has much to do with you unless you are citing yourself as a reliable source. You also reverted more than 1 edit and created a mess on talk. Please clean it up yourself without reverting my edits. Chheers. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Hi EvergreenFir. On the Crimea talk page, admins who participate in the editing (and reverting) of an article are also required to discuss the changes, just like regular users. Can you join the discussion? Your input would be appreciated too. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I'm not an admin, but will look at the discussion on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek is only asking you to do what any regular editor is supposed to do, even admins although your not one.

  If you are editing (and reverting) an article, you are also required to discuss the changes on talk.

  I had this problem with you on mansplaining. On my talk you repeatedly lectured me[2], [3] reverted my edits within minutes without any discussion on talk, templated my talk page, threating my with being blocked.[4]. Then said "You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting."[5] You had already reverted my without any discussion on talk, as I explained to you.[6] Then you refactored my post at arbcom, justing that with another lecture.[7]Please follow what Volunteer Mark is saying you are required to do.

  I'm crossposting this to my own talkpage. EChastain (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

for your approval of my recent edit at Crisis Pregnancy Center. As Jeeves would say to Bertie Wooster "I try to satisfy, sir." KatieHepPal (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts.

I have been following the Bitcoin saga for a long time. What I stated are facts. I am not as religious as you are. :-) Ãlthough, there is a Catholic Saint with one of my daughter's surnames. :-) August Figure (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What are "OP" and "templates"? August Figure (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@August Figure: I answered your question on the ANI (noticeboard). Cheers. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Offsite doxxing and EvergreenFir evidence

I don't get it I went ahead and googled "Ryulong gamergate" and most of it seems to be only documenting what has Ryulong done to the article, there was no "doxx", at least on the first two pages. A mock up encyclopedia (not naming cause it might incite people looking) has an article on him that lists his alleged real name but as far as I know that was even before GamerGate, like a long time ago when he was dessysoped. And that ANI was mostly wrong, citing admins as SPAs, the list was edited several times by him and the case was dropped by him if I remember right Loganmac (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Burns World Federation

I request that you widen the discussion on this article to other users or a panel before attempting to arbitrarily and conveniently deleting it. Rosser Gruffydd 20:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rosser1954: The article has been deleted in the past as advertisement. Further, it does not seem notable enough to warrant its own article. As such, I do not think it needs discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism added to "Feminism and misandry"

Why did you revert that edit? There needs to be more conclusive evidence than than a study with 488 prticipants — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerryAdam (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@DerryAdam: Because you are giving your personal opinion on the subject. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. To summarize, we report on what others people say. We never insert our own analyses. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok we are both happy now? DerryAdam (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

disruptive user reverts without a real edit summary

Hi i saw you warn the user on his talkpage but he is still disrupting wikipedia

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_ruble&action=history

user user:Leftcry reverted my edits without explanation, i removed belarus because the sources listed olny says that belarus "may" adopt the russian ruble (the fifth source also incloded a broken link) not that it is an unofficial user, and officialy abhazia has its own currency but uses ruble de facto which makes them a unofficial user 81.235.159.105 (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Menu Items on the Chick-fil-A Page

Every time I add menu items that Chick-fil-A offers -- what the entire company is based open (and even the history behind them) -- the edits are reversed. What is the rationalization behind this? A restaurant -- a national chain -- is built upon its menu -- and Chick-fil-A is especially known for its chicken menu. Additionally, each menu item is cited -- and not just cited to the Chick-fil-A site. Maybe not all of the menu items should be added but do you think all of the menu items should be removed. Is this a zero-sum-game? Please let me know if there are any compromises or best-practices, please. Thanks in advance. Chrisabraham (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In-N-Out Burger has an item called Menu just like I tried to copy here on the Chick-fil-A page. On the KFC page, it's called Products. Same thing with Burger King except they have an entirely different page called Burger King products. McDonald's has it as Products as well. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has products. Is there a compromise that I can make here? Chrisabraham (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Deluxe Marketing

Sorry, but my changes agrees with the sources. The problem is that our main article at Las Vegas does not agree with the actual use of that term. Your assumption that they choose their address is incorrect, the USPS does for their convenience not caring about where someplace is. Less then 50% of the residents of Las Vegas in any city! So, when you link any of these to the city link you are in error. That is part of the reason why you find so many links to Las Vegas Valley which really should be at the base name since it is always correct when linking to Las Vegas. From experience, the current link is wrong 90% of the time. It is that simple. If you have questions use the Clark County web site to check. And remember that an address is not the location! So getting and address is not a source for a businesses location. Please leave what is correct alone.

There is not WP:OR. You are assuming that out article at Las Vegas is correct for all sources. That is not the case. I gave you a correct source for locations. As I said, there is a big difference between a location and an address. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondary source linked by the official website says Las Vegas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at White Supremacy. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Amlaera (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amlaera: This from a zombie account who is ignoring WP:STATUSQUO and continuing the vandalism of IP editors? Hm... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Zombie-account? I don't know what that is, I created my account over a year ago and I've made many edits since then. It does not seem like you assume good faith; you sound very hostile.

At the talk page there is consensus for the occlusion of the word "racist" in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlaera (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year EvergreenFir!

Happy New Year!

EvergreenFir,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

RE: your reversal of my example of a polite lie on the page "lie"

Excuse me, but I would really like to know why you deleted my edit, which was obviously made as a legitimate contribution. First of all, you said it was not referenced; it's an example of a subtopic that had already been referenced. How can every single example of commonly known examples be referenced every time, especially since there is no need for a source in this case. In addition, you called my example "sexist". Please allow me to quote from the same topic, merely a few paragraphs below:

"Emergency lie

An emergency lie is a strategic lie told when the truth may not be told because, for example, harm to a third party would result. For example, a friend may lie to an angry husband about the whereabouts of his wife, who he believes has been unfaithful, because said husband might reasonably be expected to inflict physical injury should he encounter his wife in person."

If THIS is not considered to be sexist, then my example certainly wasn't. I would appreciate it if you would either undo your deletion or else explain to me how your decision to delete my edit was best, despite apparent hypocrisy. Thank you!

Bomb319 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page lurker comment) I wouldn't call the edit sexist - will leave that to EvergreenFir to discuss. But the example you added was certainly unsourced as are many other points on the page. Of itself that's enough reason to revert - without reliable secondary sourcing, all of these definitions are just personal opinions, and shouldn't be included in the article.

This is more a topic for the article talk page than here, so am happy to continue discussing over there if required. And in passing, thanks for adding a source to your subsequent "Honest lie" addition. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

See Also link to Feminism

Is there a reason to why Feminism shouldn't be linked under the See also of the Misandry article? Rightly or Wrongly Feminists are branded as Misandrists, as well as the article references Feminism under multiple sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerryAdama (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Eon

Hi, I wanted to change the "they" for something more clear without adding another "d'Éon" but of course in English "Frenchman" is gendered... So I'm sorry for this. Anyway, "they" is really not clear for the majority of readers, especially foreign ones, so I put "d'Éon" instead. Encolpe (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Encolpe: That works. My main issue was with the gendering in "Frenchman". Thanks for fixing it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

you need to explain how my edit violates the polices because it doesn't.

after attempting to reason with the people on the talk page for sexism they failed to understand that their citation is not valid for the claim they are making and that content needs to be removed asap. you cant make claims without evidence, this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page of the article, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

they ignored me. and obviously reported my edit to you. aren't you responsible for making sure something is actually vandilization before reverting it? why do a small number of people have the monopoly of power on a page? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to represent facts. not unfounded speculation. what rule am I violating by removing claims that are not cited with evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just follow the page and saw your edits and you continued the edit warring of an IP editor. As mentioned on the talk page, the statement is sourced with a reliable source. If you want what rules you're breaking, you're edit warring, not following bold, revert, discuss, tendentious editing, and not obtaining consensus. Now please, continue the discussion on the article's talk page. I provide the reference for you (which you could have easily found yourself by actually reading the article). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Reliable sources discussing objectication in the context of sexism agree that it usually applies to women. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Keep up the outstanding work! Jim1138 (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Very kind of you. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard time?

Just leave the trolling comments up. I'll remove them for you, and it won't give them the satisfaction of them seeing you remove them.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

From Frysay talk page, to EvergreenFir and Greyfell, another editor

"First off, BOTH of you need to be MORE SPECIFIC about what you are complaining about. Put the specific alleged offending material IN QUOTES, so that I may know what you're talking about, and moreover, what you're NOT talking about. I have entered a lot of material in the last day or so (none on the article itself, however), and I think I have a right to have critics and complainers not make vague, unspecific complaints without giving me a reasonable notice of what they are complaining of. To threaten me with any sort of punishment (or "prevention") for a vague, unidentified 'offense' surely amounts to a "legal threat" on the part of the author. Further, I should point out that the underlying article, WP:EURO, ITSELF has been libelous in the past, but not because I made it so. Calling EURO "white supremacist" itself would be libelous; I have tried to make the article NON-libelous by removing that libel. I will be more specific: I DENY entering any libelous material into "an article or any other Wikipedia page", so the use of the word "again", ITSELF amounts to libel against ME!! I hereby complain! Indeed, to state this would virtually automatically amount to a "legal threat" against me. For instance, above Grayfell said, "policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again..." I don't recall adding material into the ARTICLE recently. It sounds as if somebody is warming-over some previously-addressed issue, with the intent to claim that it is a new offense. I notice that some of the material above appears to be a _boilerplate_ piece of text, and perhaps this explains why it was placed here anomalously. (meaning, erroneously and incorrectly.) I note that weeks ago, EvergreenFir wrote to me documentation that might have been a boilerplate document, falsely claiming that I hadn't used the Talk Page. Evidently, it is so easy to re-use text, that people are tempted to include sentences or paragraphs which they should know contain false, inappropriate claims. As for EvergreenFir, claimg "I'm more concerned about the WP:LIBEL in that edit. Going to ask for revdel." First, what is a "revdel"? One of the policies of WP is something like, "Don't bite the newbies!". I suggest that using a term like "revdel" (which an experienced editor KNOWS that a newbie DOESN'T KNOW) amounts to "biting the newbies." (Also, it's a matter of acting 'sophisticated' in front of a newbie.) I am not sure about EvergreenFir's meaning, but one possible interpretation is that she is making a legal threat, against me. I _did_ use the term "libel" in one of my comments, but as a CAREFUL reader can easily see, I was referring to the phenomenon of dozens or hundreds of (unnamed) media organizations calling the EURO organization "white supremacist", and the fact that they should not have done so at the risk of legal action by EURO or others. That's NOT prohibited under WP rules!!! (In other words, the mere employment of the word "libel" is not prohibited by WP. If it were, EvergreenFir would be in violation of that rule, too.) Frysay (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frysay (talk • contribs)

Your warning to delete

I believe I fixed everything. Please re-review. The links back up the sentences. Newsgirlsdontcry (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Newsgirlsdontcry: Thank you for editing, but only an administrator can remove that template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

HI, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ADMIN DELETED IT, I'M WORKING WITH SOMEONE VIA OTRS TO RESOLVE AND FIX. I NEED IT UN-DELETED. :O) THANKS 104.12.80.208 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gilliam: Thank you very much! I'll check out the links about how and when to use it. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

About the edit I made...

Sorry about that...I am a fan of anime and all, and really thought that that could go in the "masculinity" page, sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge Earl (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator's notice board

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BrentNewland (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should we remove that information? ICD has transsexualism classified under F60.0 or so, so I think that information is important. Note also that that's official classification by the current WHO document.

Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. VS6507 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)