User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

My fat fingers

My fat fingers did a rollback on your page but I reverted mineself. Sorry for any confusions.--MONGO 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: No worries. Thanks for messaging. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I just did this to a couple of your edits on BLPN -- no idea how. I've reverted it back in. Apologies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol y'all need to stop going through my contribs list so much! J/k. No worries Nomoskedasticity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Blum (writer)

Hi EvergreenFir, Thank you for the post , I would love to know how can I improve the page and what was wrong in what I added... Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haniyosef (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Trouting

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this edit. Self-trouting per request here. If only this were a Friday, it would have been perfect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

formatting changes vs. content changes

If you can separate changes, like your recent one at Lynn Conway, into separate edits for formatting changes versus content changes, your formatting changes will be more acceptable. I had to undo your formatting changes on the ref format in order to be able to use the history diff mechanism to see what you did to the contents. It needn't be that hard. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Yeah, forgot Wikipedia's diff view thing is annoying like that. I try to separate stuff but sometimes forget. That said, there's really no reason to undo the ref spacing edit. Anyway, I'll try to remember to make separate edits in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I undid the ref formattings were 2: (1) I like the way I did it before better; (2) after undoing it I can use the diff mehanism to see what you changed (which was very little and hard to spot otherwise). Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion

Hello EvergreenFir. About two weeks ago you undid my edits to Haunted Mansion even though all of the information was clearly stated in the source I provided. Zackdaman (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at English Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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.
Please respect WP:ROWN, particularly - but not only - WP:REVEXP. --Chealer (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't abuse templates. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's useless arguing with this editor. Let him/her file an edit-warring report and then watch the WP:BOOMERANG land. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Chealer topic ban request

Just wanted to let you know that I've moved your request to WP:AN — the incidents page doesn't generally discuss requests for topicbans and sitebans, unless they grow out of other discussions regarding an editor's conduct. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thank you! I didn't know that ANI wasn't the proper place. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It would have been disruptive if several people had already participated, but since nobody had responded yet, it didn't really matter. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Conduct and mistaken reversion

Hi EvergreenFir, You reverted the addition of a Failed verification tag claiming the reference "leads directly to said chart". That is obviously not the case.
As for conduct, please respect WP:ROWN. Additionally, you alleged the reverted edit was "continuation of disruptive editing from before" in your edit summary without explaining which disruptive editing you referred to, which constitutes a personal attack. I hereby warn you that I will report you should I see you resort to personal attacks again. --Chealer (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chealer: You know damn well I'm referring to your block by Swarm on March 12, 2015, for the same behavior. You incorrectly use the failed verification tag. The source does verify what the ref supports. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please watch your language.

You certainly did not refer to any block.

If you think I incorrectly used the Failed verification tag, explain how. --Chealer (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, you should watch your reverts because a report will be filed as soon they continue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

EvergreenFir has removed the Failed verification without removing the unsourced content nor providing a proper reference. I always watch my reverts, and your threats will not change that. --Chealer (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I always watch my reverts, and your threats will not change that. Your recent block history belies that fact. These are not threats, just some commonsense advice. But you obviously do not seem to heed it, something not unexpected of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How would my recent block history bely that fact, as you grant yourself? And how would announcing your intention to report my reverts as soon as they "continue" constitute advice? --Chealer (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How would my recent block history bely that fact, as you grant yourself? It is precisely this type of enquiry that leads me to believe that you are unable to process the connections between your disruption and getting blocked for it. and how would announcing your intention to report my reverts as soon as they "continue" constitute advice? I advised you of my intention should your disruption continue. You can Google the expression. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the disruption you are causing is obvious. I also think that this obvious disruption is visible to everyone but you. The problem is, if you really cannot see the disruption you are causing you will not be able to stop it. What's worse, you will not be able to prevent being blocked because you cannot see the disruption. Not sure how I can help you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, nobody needs your help. You should just explain which disruption are you referring to. --Chealer (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know the reason why you were blocked twice in March, the first time for three days and the second time for a week? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is apparently no reason for that, but if there is, no (see my talk page). --Chealer (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can use whatever language I damn well please on my talk page. I said it was a continuation of an edit war, which it is. That's the reason for your block. See Template:Failed verification for when it should be used. Your addition failed #3. I will not further engage in your WP:IDHT questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not say it was a continuation of an edit war. The addition complies with #3. --Chealer (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chealer: Please drop your threats of reporting EvergreenFir. Your disruptive, long-term edit-warring is the continuation of your past edit-warring and will lead to further reports at an appropriate noticeboard. Also be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG should you choose to act on your threat of reporting EvergreenFir. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick Lane (American football)

I see you reverted a few days ago, but it's been re-added. Would this count as vandalism? —George8211 / T 09:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@George8211: Yes, it would. I'll revert it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks —George8211 / T 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Racial Discrimination

You seem like the perfect person. Can you help me improve this article? [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag

Please review the changes I have made to my user page and advise where you think the speedy deletion tag that you placed on it is still relevant. Elsie Morris (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Keep on truckin'! Sending you bugs (bear hugs) and kisses for all of your hard work. Just don't try to snort the coffee: it'll wake you up, but only lead to severe sinus trauma. Love from me... what's 'er name... Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Awe thank you Iryna Harpy! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Thank you. Sad I didn't get a chance to comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What position would you have taken? Tutelary (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mild oppose. I think it was a bit heavy handed and never hurts to give more WP:ROPE, but it seems the intent was to forcible disengagement so they can return clear headed, not to get them blocked permanently/longer which is the purpose of WP:ROPE. I think Beeb could have been more direct in their reasoning with us (even IAR would have been sufficient), but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. The ANI showed wide support for the actions and that's good enough for me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Endurance International Group

Hello EvergreenFir. Please do not do reverts without reading the article's talk page first. It has now been pointed out that the list on this article section falls well within Wikipedia's own reference for what lists are allowed which is referenced by the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy. It covers stand-alone lists in general, and lists of companies and organizations in particular. This makes it pretty clear as to this data-set being on-policy does it not? Repeating another editor's erroneous reasoning for a revert does not change policy which has been previously decided should it? Please undo your revert based on this. Thank you in advance. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've read the talk page. Get consensus before adding it back. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:

Hello EvergreenFir. So, in your judgement the Wikipedia stated policy for lists of companies and organizations is wrong? Is that not something that should be taken up on a policy forum? How about calling in a mediation on this, as that list section will be put back up and probably then taken down ad infinitum. It's a time waste for all involved, no? Also, there seems to be no consensus either way on this. When that occurs, does not policy state that "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." Do you also not agree with this policy? – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page. The stand-alone list policy you cited is for stand-alone list articles, not lists within articles. As for the quote from WP:CONSENSUS you gave in your last message, that refers to deletion of articles. files, etc., not content within articles. You can click the "deletion discussions" in that link to see what I mean. Further discussion should occur on the article talk page, not here please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:

Yes, EIG discussions moved to the talk page. When I read "or other content" in that section, I tend to think it may mean meaningful article sections too. Without that, someone could edit a page down to a bare minimum sentence, thus doing a sort of non-deletion deletion. Perhaps that policy page needs clarification. Thanks for your thoughts & input on this matter, it should be solved soon enough. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello EvergreenFir, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke

That's okay. Just, it seems English is the ethnic group while British is the country. For me it's minor detail which is why I come here with this fwiw instead of at Talk:Emilia Clarke or WikiProject Biography. I kept reverting the IP because England, UK looks a bit - goofy, whereas England as a place name seems more straightforward. SlightSmile 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir & Slightsmile. Apologies for the interruption, I was coming here to ask for an opinion on some clean up edits for a template, and thought I might help out with this question.

My understanding is as follows: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales are countries; "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the nation (and is what appears on passports); English & British are demonyms, of which "British" strictly describes the nationality. See discussion here for more details. I am, however, quite sure that quite a few Scots, Welsh & others would prefer to be thought of as such, rather than as simply British; and "English" does provide more specific detail to the reader.

Looking over a few relatively well known British actors & actresses from the various countries[2][3][4][5][6][[7][8][9], we do not appear to include a "nationality" in the Infobox, and tend to use the ethnicity or country demonym in the article text itself (with some exceptions[10]). I realise that this is WP:OSE, but it may still be the best way to proceed generally. For the "place of birth", I would be inclined to include not only the "country" but also the "county", as we have done on most of the articles I linked. Hope this helps in some small way. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Interesting that the norm seems to be not to include anything. I suppose that works too. Thanks for looking into it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Roosh V Revert

You deleted three external links on the Roosh V page, noting "Those are more related to PUA, not roosh v." But they were all Roosh V's websites! WTF? 129.2.114.211 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi EvergreenFir, I have just added a new section to Talk:Trans woman regarding gender dysphoria and the current sourcing. I'd appreciate you having a look over it & providing your thoughts and advice, if you have the time. Thanks in advance for any help you are able to offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Not a problem! Comments on that page. Cheers EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir, Many thanks for your thoughts. I am leaving it a day or so in case any other editors would like to add anything; but I think it likely that we will end up with "distress" per the referenced source. Thanks also for the additional information from the GID article. Much appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested

Hi, this is to let you know the speedy deletion you created for the page Doug Armstrong (presenter) is being contested. He appears to to meet the criteria of significance. 06:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 06:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous032 (talk • contribs)

Contributor of Wikipedia's Message

I have accidentally requested that my user page, User: Contributor of Wikipedia, be patrolled. Please stop patrolling my user page. I am very sorry for the inconvenience I have caused you. Sorry.

Date: May 5, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Contributor of Wikipedia: Hello! I marked your user page as patrolled because all new pages are automatically "not patrolled". Marking it as such simply means that someone reviewed it and there is either (1) nothing wrong with it or (2) it has been nominated for speedy deletion. You can read more about page patrolling here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 May

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

• On the Rape in India page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

re; Regarding you undoing my edit in the topic "Rape in India"

{{Hello. I am not sure whether I am replying in the correct form.....Anyway please don't eit something if u don't understand things very well. The source I gace was a legal document ie ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/Amendments%20to%20laws%20relating%20to%20women.pdf . I noticed the the error in the link I posted....but the matter is crystal clear. Please speak out what u find improper. I want to settle this. Plz understand in India there is no gender neutrality in rape crimes. Only men can rape and only a woman can be raped. The only exception is where children are involved. Both man and woman can rape a child; and this child can be a boy or a girl|Casey577|Rape in India|ts = 07-05-205;10.05AM}}

@Casey577: The version you give is the 2006 version of the law. The version in the source in the article {linked here) is the 2013 version. See also Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Evergreen Fir

--Casey577 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)the link u gave is this :http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91979. This is an ordinance that came out in Feb 2013 which never became a bill. if I remeber correctly there were protests by women against making rape gender neutral. so when the bill finally came out in April 2013, The Criminal Law Ammendment Act 2013 (its link is actually there in a related wiki page), it reverted rape to be just a crime that man can commit and that too only against a woman..

http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1831

I may have made a mistake earlier...I don't know whether its a 2006 document or not....I don't think it was a 2006 document because it is quoted as the latest in a central govt affiliated agencies website....Anyhow the link i posted above (Indianlawcases) is the recent one.....if you don't believe it I can give you the actual 2013 bill ...Here is it:

http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/132013.pdf

Indian laws are not gender neutral....plz don't get that very vital information wrong.....and plz talk with the other person before u undo an edit....thats basic etiquette....I would have loved to discuss if there was one (to discuss) at the time of my initial post

@Casey577: First, no it's standard to revert the edit and then discuss it. Especially if it appears to be incorrect. See WP:BRD. But after looking at the links you provided and other sources, you appear to be correct that it is not gender neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Evergreen fir

--Casey577 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Saw your edits....lack of gender neutrality is what attracted me to edit the page.....However the criminal Law Ammendment Act 2013 do not refer to children......the wiki page says that children are covered under the 2013 Act (which is incorrect).....the Indian Penal Code addresses child rape as well and here, the offender could be of either gender.....But as of now, I heven't located the bill yet....if i get it, I will post.....But,for the time being , I advice you to mention child rape separately (ie separate from the 2013 Act) rather than putting it within the purview of the 2013 Act (child rape is another section altogether; its not covered under IPC section 375)

Well here u go

https://sites.google.com/site/keralamedicolegalsociety/home-1/important-laws-and-rules/pcasa-act-2012-1/html

Plz note that this bill called as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 tried to be gender neutral, but partially failed because of the pronoun "he" used in describing various crimes......but its still very much gender neutral....in those FOUR points where 'he" is used; there will be a confusion. this is because eventhough the offender is referred to as a 'person" and sometime s as a "he', there is reference to the offenders breast and vagina !!!!!! so now that u have the reference plz edit accordingly....

I wonder if same sex relations even with consent is crime in India then how same sex "rape" can be out of this article. Rape in India article deserves mention of same sex issue. --Human3015 talk • 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See that article's talk page. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi EvergreenFir, I have just added a couple of new sections to Template_talk:Gender_and_sexual_identities regarding some potential changes to the template. I'd appreciate you having a look over it & providing your thoughts and advice, if you have the time. Thanks in advance for any help you are able to offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligent work patrolling and reporting usernames that violate our policy. Mifter (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mifter: Thank you!!! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir, I need some help, probably I created an article instead of Biography because I got this error: notability guideline for biographies. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2015) This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (March 2015) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (March 2015)

this is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blum_%28writer%29

Please advice, thank you!!! Haniyo

Haniyosef (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Misty Island Rescue" and "Day of the Diesels" are REAL MOVIES. They were released in 2010 and 2011, respectively. They are both part of Thomas & Friends series. Why did you take both of them down? I am sure I put a source. The next time I put it on, please don't take them down. Thank you. I will put a source on next time. I worked hard on BOTH of those articles. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Endurance International Group

I notice you once again took out the valid data on EIG brands that another editor restored, with no reason given other than pointing to the debate on the talk page. Just debate, no decisions. Time permitting, I plan to add the same section back in, so, I'd suggest doing what I requested last month and asking for a mediation on this matter. You and others feel it does not belong here, I and others feel it does - that's a stalemate. I'm not pleased that valid data is being removed from our project, so, let's have an impartial mediator take a look at this and make suggestions. You have no issue with this do you? 72.234.220.38 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

An IP hopping editor threatening to continue edit warring... joy. Go read WP:CONSENSUS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I point you to the Wikipedia entry on IP addresses and the difference between static and dynamic? Oh, I do get your attempt at a put-down by claiming I'm "IP hopping", but you have nothing to back it up, and my months of edit history from this IP address prove this out. Your type of attitude towards other Wikipedia editors and the work they put in is truly horrible. Your lack of transparency and explanations in documenting your reverts is shockingly poor and your waving of WP:CONSENSUS when it is obvious this is an ongoing dispute between those of us who feel this data is fully permissible under Wikipedia standards and those, such as yourself, who feel not. There are opinions on both sides of this and if you had any level of non-bullying integrity, you would do the proper thing and call for a mediation on the subject. Let others prove you to be correct, incorrect or to help set out a path to get the reverted information back in. No need to apologize for your attempt at an insult, nor for your heavy-handed methods on this article - but maybe just do the right thing and find a solution to this, try the WP:Mediation process, you may learn something and improve your own work. You should also contemplate about how your attitude and actions have a good chance of disenfranchising other editors and lead to a worse, not better, online encyclopedia. Wikipedia does need "policing", but not the type you seem to feel is needed. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mariolyrics4evr

Due to repeated inane comments and what amounts to harassment, Mariolyrics4evr is not welcome on my talk page for one week. Do not edit here again. Doing so amounts to vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've reported this user at WP:ANI for repeatedly vandalising this talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Was already reported here and is blocked now. - DVdm (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@DVdm and Joseph2302: Thank you both for those reverts. Much appreciated. The AN3 report I filed was taking way too long and glad they got blocked by Writ Keeper. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

IMDB is listed on those pages. And they do exist. Just let me keep them and I find a source. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added sources to both articles. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Independent Information

This page is unambiguously promotional.However, every time I try and make a page that isn't promotional you delete me while I'm making the page. I'm trying to create a page about my company as a lot of my interns coming from england find it hard to understand the russian website. The page is factual not promotional. Promotional implies bias which it isn't. If you feel I written biased info tell where it is and I'll delete it. I keep having my page deleted by different "monitors" and so I'm to explain myself ever time. Could please help/ Advise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yours Independent informtion

Titles of Refs

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Sunnydoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Sunnydoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Talk page FAQs

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What the Heck

My information was true considering the fact that a news report confirmed it, so they had no business deleting it, because either way it was true,they probably didn't even try searching it up! Here's the report: http://www.newsnet5.com/entertainment/celebrity/nicki-minaj-gets-animated-for-steven-universe_09416171

If they were following the rules then they could have easily done some research to see if it was true or not. I did.So I hope they got a notification too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

The talk page didn't have any one talking about confirmation on dates that's why I didn't bother! and I did give a source that apparently wasn't "reliable" but yet a News website confirmed it, making what I wrote true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Thank you! that's all I wanted! fans have been waiting for this information for 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, EvergreenFir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs)

Flyer22222

I would just like to let you know that even though i had vandalized a different page, the adjustment to the Anthony jeselnik page was completely valid because he very often in his comedies talks about how awesome he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22222 (talk • contribs)

Reverting changes to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour

Hi EvergreenFir, I just wanted to drop you a note to explain why I'm reverting your recent change to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour. If you view the page then do a find in your browser for "</ref>", you will see that this text appears at the end of the "Biological" section when it should never be visible to users. My previous edit removed it and your reversion reinstated it. If you take a look at the code for the 2nd & final paragraph of "Biological", you'll see there's one empty reference (after "among criminals") and one with contents (starting "J. Tiihonen" and ending "doi:10.1038/mp.2014.130."). The "</ref>" tag at the end of the paragraph which I removed previously has no matching opening "<ref>" tag and so is invalid, which is why I removed it and am now removing it again.

Episode descriptions

Regarding my edits to List of Steven Universe episodes, previous episodes had descriptions but weren't removed without violation of copyright. So what's the difference between then and now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you identify an episode description that is a copyright violation, please remove it or reword it. They absolutely must not be allowed to remain. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User Talk page protected

I've temporarily semi-protected this User Talk page. Zad68 19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Thank you. I was going to request the protection if the disruption continued, but I appreciate you doing it anyway. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image

There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those editors who have ever edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the thread here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Just my advice, stick to editing. Whenever someone makes a bold move there are sometimes going to be forces that go against you. Remember that if you really didn't know what you were talking about chances are the admin would pay no mind to it and it would be dismissed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've been trying to focus on editing more, but I'm not afraid of Corbett or his fan club. It was a clear violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is definitely more to it going on, the last time he was blocked my talk-page was also slammed with similar IP posts in support of EC. Anyways I am going back to editing, hopefully everyone else can too rather than ranting and raving. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, if this is the kind of thing you think improves our project, please don't bother me again with requests. You got one of our best editors blocked for a week on some bullshit: congratulations. Please don't ping me again, unless it is to show me you asked for an unblock. And no, you are not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: what an entirely inappropriate post for an admin. Corbett for himself blocked. I just asked for enforcement. How sad that you feel it necessary to comment here and bait me with something like this. If you are unable to fulfill your duties as am admin, which includes enforcing topic bans from arb com regardless of how much you like or dislike the individual editor, step down. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• It improves the project as it is disruptive, turns out the GGTF was both on his watchlist and includes his edit summary (which nobody wants to address on why he made it). I want to say had it not been Evergreen and another editor editors over at EC's page would be trying to dig up reasons why the editor is only here to bring down Wikipedia, it happened last time with Coffee. There are many good editors here Drmies so rather than bite Evergreen's head off here why don't you look at why the topic ban was put into effect in the first place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am among those who have asked you to step away before, KK, but still you persist. Where is the evidence that it was on his watchlist? Have you seen what I said there? (Sorry to butt in, EvergreenFir, but feel free to tell on KK's absurdities across numerous dramas as well as Corbett's. If you do not, I probably will because enough is enough.) - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I linked to the discussion with more than one admin involved mentioning it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not what I asked. I asked where is the evidence? There is none in that thread and I have supplied a perfectly valid alternate rationale. I'm going to start compiling something for ANI because it really is ridiculous that you conduct these running commentaries all over the place, often with only a scant amount of the knowledge that your username proclaims. No more from me here: thanks for bearing with me, EF. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't ask for your comment, anyways EF as I said just ignore it and continue editing, you might even want to just delete all of this nonsense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Inappropriate my ass. Crying to mommy is inappropriate. Getting editors blocked for a single comment is inappropriate. I've helped you in the past: next time find a better admin to help you out, an admin who does meet your high standards--one who doesn't care if editors stab each other in the back. Or maybe you should run for admin yourself, and put down in your request that you want to make goddamn sure that folks abide by The Law. And mention that you believe that every admin should always enforce every single fucking rule, no matter how boneheaded; that we shouldn't talk, that we shouldn't allow for things, that we should just bring the hammer down every single time we can--and if an admin doesn't want to, they should step down. Tell you what, why don't you propose that we make every single block indefinite, with appeal to be made only to ArbCom--perhaps that's a nice Brave New World you can live in.

  Now, since you are such an enforcer of civility and blah blah blah, try to act better than me and fulfill one simple, friendly request: don't fucking ping me unless...wait, I asked this already. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your anger is misplaced. Corbett's actions led to the topic ban and Corbett's actions led to its enforcement. Be angry at Corbett, not a user asking for enforcement against a persistently disruptive yet productive user. Anyway, I hope you can still fulfill your role as an admin if I or others need help in the future without your personal feelings getting in the way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Masssly's talk page.
Message added 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—M@sssly^✉ 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia GF

	Resiliency award
	For someone who has the tenacity to go on dealing with all the different levels/textures, yet still manages to come up smelling of roses. The hard work you put into keepin' 'em honest does not go unnoticed. You know that you continue to earn my respect and esteem. Bugs (big hugs)! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol at the image. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome (as always)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Racism

Hello, I see you don't agree with my edits. Why? When the article has mentioned conquest as a form of racism, why is it then so important to write about colonization? This is a form of conquest. Every nation in world history has been doing that, so why singeling out european countries? The article isn't balanced, and you seem to be very interested in keeping the quality of the article low. Olehal09 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's in Racism#19th century. The fact that racism was part of colonialism is in a wide variety of reliable sources. Removing it from the lead is counter to WP:LEAD which says we must summarize the article. Removing it from the article is unthinkable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Evergreen. In the 19th century part it states that colonialism were to a part justrifed by cultural racism. A belife that european culture were the best. But it do not state that colonialism In itself were based on a belife that europeans were better geneticaly than anyone else. Neither is this something that makes it neccesary to mention this in the first part of the article, especially since conquest already has been mentioned as racism. Olehal09 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you not read WP:LEAD? Honestly further discussion should occur on Talk:Racism, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question...

Since you asked. --Jayron32 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source

The sources provided by Evschweik for new episodes of Steven Universe were not from Tumblr, they were confirmed by an official source, so I don't see any reason to have deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.76 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not a reliable source. Unless, say, a confirmed Twitter account from someone on the show verified it, we can't use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok then how about this source instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a good source! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Edits to cultural appropriation

Regarding the citations you restored I have two questions. You should also read my comments on the article's talk page where I've explained the issue in more detail.

• If only the second citation supports the claim it's attached to, why did you restore all four instead of just that one?
• I've read the cited Bitch magazine article, and I fail to see where it supports the claim. Can you direct me to the specific section?

-- Entiex (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question is These costumes are generally seen as being in poor taste at best and, at worst, patently racist. The Bitch source supports the racist part. So does The Gloss (3rd source). The nativeappropriations.com source (the first one) could be used to support the "poor taste" part as it talks about how annoying and effed up culturally appropriative costumes are. The fourth source (also from nativeappropriateion.com) also uses language like not ok which would be similar to "poor taste', but it also uses the phrase dress up as racist characters supporting the "racist" part. Though I'd argue that "problematic" would be a better summary of that source instead of "poor taste". Honest answer to why I only mentioned the Bitch magazine is that I was lazy and assumed good faith that the rest of the sources were fine. And they are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 June

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

• On the List of countries by GDP (nominal) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to talk to you

hello, EvergreenFir. I am a student wondering if I could talk to you about feminism. I'm publishing an article analyzing feminism, and I was wondering if I could get some helpful input from you on a few subjects.

Please contact me on my talk page so I can ask you some questions.

Thanks, Dxtron (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post

Hi! You reverted my change to The Washington Post—I'd updated the publisher field of the infobox, and you reverted that change, saying "not until October 1". If you'll look at the source I cited, the article is dated September 2014, meaning that "He starts Oct. 1" refers to that year, not this one. Here's an article from April of this year saying that he's six months into his job. I'm going to go ahead and reinstate my edit. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: Sorry about that. I missed the year... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries! Happens to all of us at some point :) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism is not an ideology.

I don't understand why you reverted that, so can you please at least give a real explanation? The part in the definition wasn't at all similar to what I removed. I really don't understand how you can not see that.Didaev (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you posted on the talk page for that article. I'll reply there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Help in this edit Mahabharata

There is a sudden blanking of "See also" section in Mahabharata page and there is no discussion about it on its talk page or anywhere else. I reverted it because it is a semi-protected page. But User: SpacemanSpiff re-reverted and talked about it here but no decision could be made and he is accusing me of bad behaviour. What should be done in this case? Please guide. Happy editing Prymshbmg (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)