User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Asking for a reasoned discussion

Is it too much to ask for a discussion before making significant changes to an article? You placed a warning on my page (without ANY explanation as to why), when I specifically asked a more experienced editor (such as yourself) to at least discuss the best way to make changes. Cavalierman (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I saw your discussion on the talk page, thank you. Cavalierman (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: I explained the warning. You cannot call living people "mentally ill" or "liars". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if their story is proven to be a lie by a reliable source?? Cavalierman (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially if there are court cases. The mental illness part too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Message from Rubi2014

Please understand that I mean no harm in the LGBT cartoon characters

I apologize if the editing I done was disruptive for you or to anyone else but as I try to explain in my summaries, the wikia clearly states for Marceline's and Bubblegum's relationships were friendship only and Olivia did state in a deleted tweet with the screenshot showed on that page that she was lying at the time when she said those two were in a romantic relationship and I was only just giving the people on the wikipedia the correct information. Also please don't threaten me if only we could talk first because I will have to report to the administators about this and I would prefer not to go to that point please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubi2014 (talk • contribs)

@Rubi2014: Wikia is not a reliable source. I was not threatening you, I was warning you about your disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Support

Hi, I have posted a comment of support on your claim of a users edit warring. You may find it at the linked text. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Transfer of report from AN/I to AN/Ew

At the time I thought it wasn't really a content dispute so I put it in the Incidents Broad. Thanks very much for your help. STSC (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Acid throwing

Hello, you seem to have reverted the edits I made to the acid throwing wiki page. Please take a look at the post I left for Rsrikanth05 on his page. I don't have an account and I fear that my edits will be undone again if I try to undo this again, could you please reverse your edit for me so your name shows on the edit page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.58.69 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Fox animated shared universe

Correct. If the SPI investigation shows that the material was created by a blocked or banned user it comes under the umbrella of the CSD criteria, in which case an admin can summarily delete it. First, though, you've got to prove the SPI is in fact a confirmed sock. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In the event that they are a sock, tell me and I'll G7 the template.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: thank you and will do. If they're not a sock, feel free to {{minnow}} or {{trout}} me for being overzealous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol. No it's fine. Either way you haven't done anything wrong here. It's all understandable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh

You just do not learn, do you? Admins are watching that talk page anyway, so no real need to go running to mummy. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice Sitush, but all I did was file an AE. I'll let someone else get it next time though. Getting tired of it myself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Would probably be a good idea. You could end up with an unwanted reputation and a lot of unnecessary flak if you persist. While EC has nothing at all in common with the Gamergaters etc, I'd be surprised if those idiots don't keep an eye on what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure they do tbh, but I don't think I'm too high on their list (and hope not to become so). Like I said, probably won't be the filer next time. They're a pain to create. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong - I'd like to hope that I am - but every time someone with your sort of generic profile raises their head above the parapet, I think you make yourself more likely to rise up their list. By "generic profile" I mean someone who keenly expresses their feminist position. This isn't about whether you should but rather about the horrific real world consequences while the Gamergate thing has a high profile and people who claim to be TKoP do things like they have done. I think LB rather shot herself in the foot in that regard but nonetheless no-one should be subjected to that sort of harassment. Equally, sometimes it is best to let things pass rather than to make a fuss about them. Easier said than done, I know, and perhaps very much a case of "do as I say, not as I do" but pinning a target on your back for a situation that really is rather trivial and that pretty much amounts to wikilawyering just seems crazy to me. I've not really delved into this but I rather think that the person who took Enid Blyton to FA status, and numerous other articles about women, is now effectively prevented from even protecting those articles against vandals because of a ludicrously wide topic ban that was in large part a reaction to a squealing mob of self-righteousness. I don't expect you to agree with my surmise, nor do I always agree with EC, but I do detest cornering people on technicalities when the issue at hand in fact does little harm to anything. Live and let live. You and I both have bigger battles to face, against people who really are intent on doing damage to this project.

I have no idea if someone can withdraw a complaint at AE. It probably makes no difference now that it is in the spotlight. But, yeah, I am concerned about the side-effects as they might impact on you and on others. We might disagree about some things butr I'm no misogynist etc and nor is EC: this is a downward spiral for you, for me, for him and for the project, and it serves no useful purpose. Off to bed, and am taking the advice of a woman who contributes here by trying lavender oil rubbed into my feet as a means to cure my horrendous and persistent insomnia. It wouldn't matter if she was a he or a they: just sayin' because we're all supposed to pull together here, not drive wedges. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just clarified here. I got a notification afterwards, so sorry for any confusion. These computers aren't so good at pre-emption as their artificially intelligent selves seem to think ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I appreciate you commenting and taking the time. I do disagree a bit, but agree with the take away. As for the AE, I'm just gonna refrain from commenting (despite the ad hominems and PAs). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol what a farce. Closed after 5 hours by an involved admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And then blocked by one of the most involved admins we have, who is also clueless when it comes to differentiating between disruption and plain policing and, of course, like Keyes, Gorman and co, has worked for the WMF - there is something about working for the WMF that seems perhaps to corrupt people's ability to think straight but, as always, first-mover advantage applies to blocks and GW knows it. Notice how she has also removed what she claims to be trolling from the LB case PD page, despite all those other admins having no problem with it for several days beforehand? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Celebrate

Let's celebrate yesterday's historic ruling, but realize it was a step, not the goal. We have much further to go before equality and justice are achieved. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for continuing to deflect those vandals from Bad Girls Club related articles. I know its a persistent and demanding job but here's a cookie for your hard work. Best, jona(talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

category:pedophile activism and To Catch a Predator

Hi EvergreenFir. I'm not sure why that description (pro and anti) is there on the page, when it also has a link to the category:anti-pedophile activism. I wonder if there was originally only one category and at some point they were split up and a few tags here and there have not been split either way. Please come to the talk page, where I originally questioned the link, at the category:pedophile activism talk page where I had the support of another editor before I made the change you reverted. I'd like to get to the bottom of these oddly overlapping categories. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

How odd. Thanks for alerting me. I've commented on the category talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

GB citing

Hey, since you were nice enough to thank me for reformatting a citation, I'll tell you the tool I used to do it, in case you don't know it yet. It's http://reftag.appspot.com, and it's a godsend.

While I'm here, maybe you'd like to look at the not-very-professional rewrite I just did of an extremely unprofessional section about the criminology of motherhood: Mother#Mother-offspring violence. No fun for me to do, so I'm sure it could be improved. FourViolas (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: - Thank you! I'll check out that page too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Message from seattleditor

We appeal to the highest authority

Say what you will, your user profile provides the casual observer with more than enough information to surmise that your criticism of this pioneering Sexologist's biography shows deliberate malice that requires admin review. Your further advocacy and creation of a biography page for a former colleague of the profiled biography in question suggests to me that you inject personal polemics into your role at Wikipedia and therfore represents a clear conflict of interest. Secondary sources are not required for academic or CV citations and both faculty and professional affiliations have been duly linked . One has only to glance at the number of complaints lodged against your behavior that are well chronicled on your user profile Talk and Archival pages to determine you are unfit for the editorial position you occupy. I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata. Your sarcastic reply was unfit for a sociologist. I have and will continue to appeal to all those in a position of authority to have you removed or disbarred from causing further harm and abuse to others. Seattleditor (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI in regards to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I should have pinged you in my recent comment. Once, or thrice. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose indef per WP:NOTHERE. I mentioned you four times. Is that "fice", or what?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• For archival purposes, the discussion (win) is now preserved forever at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Problematic_behavior_by_Seattleditor_-_Probably_COI.2C_personal_attacks.2C_disruptive_editing. For those who wish the brief overview: The editor who attacked above was blocked indefinitely, the article they wrote was deleted, and the image was deleted from Commons, primarily by me and @Beyond My Ken:, both of us could tell that the permissions were not accurate.

(As David Bowie would say, "Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.")

The editor, EGF, was not disbarred. That is not a logical conclusion. That's a very bad hallucinogenic fantasy. (Gimme' some of that, you're not doin' it right.)

"Oh Henry, get off the phone"   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarke's birthday

Hi. I saw that you reverted my edit on Emilia Clarke's article. Actually you're right, her date of birth should have a source. I found a website that may contain her birthday, TV Guide. It is used as a source in many actors' or actresses' articles for their date of birth. Here's the link. Unfortunately I don't have access to this website now since I have some connection problems. I came here to ask you to check this web. If it has her date of birth please add it in her article. Keivan.f^Talk 08:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally I opened the page. TV Guide says that she was born on May 1, 1987 (or maybe 86, I can't remember exactly. You can check it yourself anyway). But Business Insider says that she was born in the fall of 1986: Here's the link. Marie Claire's issue on April 9, 2014 says that she was 27 years old in that time which means she should have been born in 1986 (either in May or October). Keivan.f^Talk 08:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times also says that the actress' real birthday is on May 1, but she enjoyed a "name day" celebration on the set in October 2014. Other websites say that her birthday is in October and Wikipedia, IMDb and Google had provided wrong information. That's why her date of birth is changed in IMDb and Google. I'm really confused. Maybe we should have both of those suggested dates like Mariah Carey's article. Keivan.f^Talk 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to start a discussion on the articles's talk page. I copied the links and other information to the talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 09:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Gumball stuff

This is what's going down. The Egg (a season 3 episode) was pulled and replaced with the first episode of season 4. This does mean The Return is a season 3 episode, it's the first episode of season 4. Ben Boquelet stated this on his Twitter. The Egg will air at some point and end season 3. Whether you guys want to keep it as episode 114 or change it to 116 is fine, but The Return has to remain a season 4 episode, or else things will get quite confusing. -signed, Fluffydipper, cartoon enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffydipper (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Potluck

You reverted my addition to a list of potluck synonyms with a note "Need source". Only 1 out of the 14 synonyms has a source. My source for Jim-dangle is from an actual pot luck on the 4th of July. I couldn't believe it so I looked it up here and it wasn't listed so I added it. I live in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle). Please reconsider your reversion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

I can se you gave me a warning, but read the source that person was using. It might be from two sociologists from a small University, but they certanly did not write a good and factual book. Acording to the guidelines we need to have peer reviews and secondary sources when we are uncertain. And people from that field ..., well, I know we need a couple, and probably from different fields. Read it, and they don't even have any sources. It's just their thoughts, not facts. Olehal09 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article's talk page. We don't need "peer review", just reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and if the source can be deemed reliable in the field of sociology we need secondary sources and/or peer reviews. It's a biased field. Olehal09 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not how it works. Go read WP:RS. We don't get to claim a field is "biased". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But it states that we should use secondary sources, especially when we use such obviously biased books. Read it yourself, you can find a link on the talk page on the wiki article. Olehal09 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a secondary source... it's an edited compilation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources is not defined as a compilation, but such articles needs reviews of different academics too. Olehal09 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please return to the discussion on the article "white genocide conspiracy theory"

I'm still discussing and have read through the books and article used as sources.Olehal09 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I remind you of the discussion on white genocide conspiracy theory. When you ask for a discussion, you should hold your word. Olehal09 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

HELP!!

Excuse but I need help how do we add new topics and change line colors and stuff please I really want to contribute in this. and thanks. ThEdestrOYER101 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

VPP

In answer to this, WP:VPP. It will fail, though, in part for the same reasons that attempts to micro-manage/codify civility enforcement have failed. All you will do is gain yourself a lot more unwanted attention. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I broke the ice at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Adoption_of_a_non-discrimination_policy shortly after posting the above. It took a while to get any response other than Roger's direct answer to my query. If things pick up then at least you could comment there without having the troll-attracting burden of being the initiator.

If I were you I would hang fire at least until (if ever) some other comments appear from people who might be perceived to have less investment in the issue. Discretion, valour, etc. I hope this doesn't sound preach-y, as I know that LB tends to see that as an annoying and persistent trait in me. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Gabucho181

FYI - see WP:OP Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Had no idea that existed. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

C**t

In my opinion, the editor who frequently used that word knew very well that is was deeply offensive in some contexts, and was deliberately using a phony argument, but he has an entourage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I literally couldn't agree more. But I thought using the OED (a British dictionary) would help shut down that fallacious argument. Naive perhaps, but I tried. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What people have said about that word not being so offensive in the UK is wrong. The BBC has a policy about using certain words. It says: "The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as cunt, motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and nigger are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences." [1] So they regard c**t as worse than the n-word.

You also get an idea of the way the word is viewed in the UK by watching the interview by Martin Bashir, for ITN's Tonight programme, of the men convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The interview was in 1999, but given that BBC list, the status of that word appears not to have changed since then.

Stephen Lawrence was a young black man murdered by a white gang in London. One of the men's homes had been bugged by police searching for evidence, and the documentary aired the tape. Bashir repeated the curse words the men had used on the tape, including fuck and the n-word, but not c**t. That word was bleeped, spelled out by Bashir, or written with asterisks in the subtitles. It was the only word they did that with. See here from c. 10:30 – 13:15 mins. If you only want to watch a short bit, see Bashir using the other words but spelling out c-u-n-t at 10:59 – 11:12 mins.

This is prime-time television broadcast nationally across the UK, so it gives a better indication than editors' personal experiences within particular communities. Sarah ^(talk) 22:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Not going to revert you because my edit was merely a dummy edit for me to expand on my previous edit summary, but just thought you should know that if the "name" parameter on the person infobox is empty, it defaults to the article title. So the edit made no visible difference to the page, hence why I marked the edit as 'minor'. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

Xenophrenic keeps on removing sections that are well-cited. The citations are from a published book! It is not a blog! The blogger website carried excerpts from the book "The Panic Virus". Sorry, if I attacked him with harsh words. I don't condone his removal of well-cited material and classifying it as vandalism. Powerslide (talk)

I started a discussion at Talk:Jenny_McCarthy#University_of_Google. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm perfectly fine with the edit, but I was just wondering if you could clarify what the gray-scale test is? I looked in WP:COLOR and couldn't quickly see anything. Amaury (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh I guess it's just on the contrastchecker.com website. My bad. Honestly though that neon chartreuse was kinda gross and to me too similar to the other green. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorical Question

You asked a rhetorical question at WT:Harassment. You know the answer. The editors who oppose stronger language about harassment don't want stricter enforcement of existing policy. On the contrary, unless they answer your question, they want continued ignoring of identity-based harassment, or at least gender-based harassment. I oppose a specific policy on sexual harassment because I think that all identity-based harassment is hateful. I also think that the usual workplace policy on sexual harassment has to do in part with something that doesn't happen in Wikipedia, which is demands for quid pro quo, as well as something that does happen in Wikipedia, which is hostile environment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe those who oppose stronger language will explain that they think that the policy is fine as is but needs more enforcement. More likely they want to continue the hostile work environment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The real problem, in my opinion, is that for something as big and fractious as the English Wikipedia, we don't have any sort of intermediate enforcement mechanism between the quasi-anarchies of one administrator and WP:ANI and the Supreme Court of ArbCom. There should be something in between. However, WMF has the idea that the English Wikipedia community is self-governing, and that they will leave it alone. Because of its size and fractiousness, it isn't about to change itself voluntarily. Hmmm. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm doing my best to assume good faith and hope that the question wasn't rhetorical. Hoping, but not terribly hopeful... But someone has indeed agreed that more enforcement is the solution. I tend to agree that WMF or anti-discrimination policy is the way to go, but I can think of how that can be twisted to be used against things like the GGTF or other pro-feminist groups on the site. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WCE

The World Christian Encyclopaedia is perhaps only one of few (if there are any other) sources that provide statistical data on Muslim population growth rates by denomination. There is perhaps no other equivalent. It may not be the most up-to-date, but it appears to be the best of what we have.--Peaceworld 21:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are the other sources in that sentence not good enough? It would really seem that 14 years is far too out-of-date for talking about growth trends. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

These sources have not taken up any study, nor do they give any statistical data. Besides, according to WCE, Salafism has been the slowest growing community.--Peaceworld 22:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

For example, the .edu source, perhaps the most reliable of these sources cites an "internet search".--Peaceworld 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Video of Cecil

Why the revert? The article asks for a photo, but I couldn't find one. Linking to a video is legit, right? Pkeets (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Definitely think it was a good faith addition, but there's WP:YOUTUBE and I'm honestly not sure it really adds that much to the article (see WP:EL). It's not terrible, it was just questionable imho. I'd prefer to wait for an image to become available (or maybe just wait for the AfD to complete). But you're more than welcome to start a discussion of it on the talk page for the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So your reversion was based on an opinion? The edit is within the requirements of WP:YOUTUBE, with the video properly licensed and not a copyright infringement. It is being used by news outlets. Pkeets (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like most edits in wikipedia, it was based on my opinion of how to make the article better. But please feel free to seek other opinions on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gweilo

EF, I don't know whether you know or have studied Chinese languages, but I am highly proficient in both Cantonese and English, and as you see I have explained in some fine detail how this Cantonese word is constructed, all of which is correct. This article is obviously written by people who are only semi-literate in Cantonese or English, and who are not simultaneously fully literate in both of these languages. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Users cannot add their own research to articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Have blocked A pena polizzi21 (talk · contribs) you reported at AIV. Do you think semi-protection or pending changes would be useful at Bad Girls Club (season 13) and articles for previous seasons? Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: yes please. I've tried to get them protected in the past but to no avail. Thank you for the block!EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I added semi/PC protection for 3 months for the recent seasons that weren't already protected. Let me know if there are issues with the 14th season now or in the future. Since it is upcoming, there may be legitimate edits to be made that IP editors can help us with. But if the bad/good edits ratio starts getting too large we can add PC (or, even semi-protection) to that page too. Note that I don't have knowledge of the subject, so I am relying on you and reverts by other experienced editors to tell me if edits are useful or not. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Can you review if the recent 2 edits to the 13th season by an IP are ok or not? Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank you! I'll review those edits and I've been keeping an eye on season 14, but since it's mostly upcoming I know there's a lot of change still to come. Thanks again! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil

Hello Evergreen Fir,

If the lion was a "major attraction" and "famous" while alive, isn't it logical to assume that reliable sources published before his death would have said so? Or even unreliable sources like tourist brochures or safari guide websites? I have not been able to find anything at all. Nothing. I consider all such claims to be post lion death media hype, and that is what people in Zimbabwe are saying too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the article should have been about the death and not the animal... but if RS say he was famous, we can't deny their claims. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No source is reliable 100% of the time and it is up to us to exercise editorial judgment. Fresh news stories published in the midst of a media frenzy deserve scrutiny and skepticism by cautious encyclopedia editors. None of those stories that call him famous or a major attraction offer any corroborating evidence. No quotes from travelers to Africa who added Zimbabwe to their itinerary in order to see Cecil. No travel magazine articles extolling his fame. Not even a mention on the national park's own website. We do not need to "deny" these claims. We should just leave them out of the article until they are substantiated by more thorough coverage later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm torn to be honest the more I think about it. Probably best to see what folks think on Talk:Cecil (lion). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an active conversation going on at the talk page. I encourage you to contribute. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pings FYI

You forgot to sign your ping here, so it won't work. — Strongjam (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Had no idea I had to sign it! Thanks for the info! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: That actually explains a lot... jeez.. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it can cause a lot of confusion! Someone should write an edit-filter rule that warns you if you try to use a ping-template and don't sign! Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Cool GIftson.J (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Plazat and Roosh V

The user Plazat seems to be here only to add negative content to the article Roosh V. What action would be best (if any)? —George8211 / T 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing World of Gumball episode Season 3 'The Money'?

Why did you delete a writer from the Gumball episode "The Money" at 01.21 28th July 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashdotdash (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dashdotdash: I can find nothing that confirms this information. I am going to download the episode tonight and look at the credits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Qadiani

Hi Evergreen, I don't think that a religious slur Qadiani should be used in the lede, much like the N word shouldn't be used in related articles.--Peaceworld 18:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Thank you for catching that. I was entirely unaware that it was a slur. Thank you for removing it. You might want to discuss it with the user who added it too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gumball - the Money - you are mistaken.

You are wrong. A name was omitted on their European first broadcast and the episode writing credits were corrected for the US broadcast. An apology is due from you and you must not do it again. It is you who is unknowingly vandalising the information. My information comes from the Gumball production company and The Cartoon Network. I understood all the wrong versions had been pulled so I'm intrigued to know where you are 'downloading' this version from. Please name your source. Dashdotdash (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dashdotdash: My source was a rip of the episode found online. But WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source to support your claim. The person is not mentioned anywhere on the internet or on any freely available versions of the episode i could find. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir That's worrying. The Cartoon Network said it had been corrected worldwide now. I think the burden, by Wiki's own rules, was actually on you to prove your list was correct as you were the one proposing an incorrect writing credit list in the first place, surely? Dashdotdash (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the bootleg version was from the initial airing. The weird thing with lists of episodes is we don't give explicit sources. The source is assumed to be the episode itself. And given that the majority of bootleg versions didn't include that name, it wasn't in the wikipedia list. I think we might end up making a note that there discrepancies in the airings. I've got to go to sleep soon so might be resolved by tomorrow. For now it's in the list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

LGBT symbols

Hi there, you overturned a reversion I made. I reverted for two reasons: the rationale for removing content was not properly thought out, and the removed content was longstanding. I've just checked, and it was added on 2 January 2008. I don't think that removing it can be justified as coat racking, it's been there for most of the time the article has existed. I don't want to be part of an edit war, but I invite you to reconsider your deletion of the content.Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trankuility: Wow, okay, 7 years is quite a while. I'll revert and start discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Message from Plazat

Is it worth losing your wikipedia editor account, because you are copying and pasting false information about RooshV ? There are 16,550 signatures on the change petition against him, still you are editing the truth out, and you are lying straightforward that there are only 12500 signatures.

The others wikipedia editors are already talking about banning you for support [redacted] as Daryush Valizadeh was proven to be by the Anti Defamation League and SPLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazat (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Plazat: Who is talking about banning me? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Razat should be reported.--Peaceworld 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Already filed an ANI. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

About Albino alligator: Claude

Hi EvergreenFir,
I've declined the speedy deletion of that article. Unlike an article about, say, my tortoiseshell kitten Priscilla, Claude does seem to have at least some significance: it appears he is something of a tourist attraction! I'd start adding more to the article right now, but it's bicycle ride o'clock here on this cold winter afternoon. And the article title needs fixing, too.
Please feel free to take it to WP:AfD - I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Thanks for the reply. I've dug a bit more and I think you're right... found another news article about him. I was hasty in doing the CSD. Thanks for reviewing it though! Just cleaning up the article (and moved it per TITLE) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am glad the article could stay on! It seems like there is a sense of ownership for this article now however. Before I upload a picture I took of Claude, may I ask you to add it to article? --Wa17gs (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wa17gs: I have little interest in Claude so there' no WP:OWN going on. I just took the time to clean up the article you created to confirm with the manual of style and to properly cite things. Only intending to help. As for the image, there's honestly not a ton of room in the article currently for more images and the one in the infobox is a really good, clear image of him (and a featured image too boot). This is my opinion of course, so take it for what it's worth (usually about 2 cents). (PS - adding it to this category on Commons might be awesome though). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films

I've put in a request to return the page to semi-protection. Frankly, I wish we could do the same thing to the talk page of the article. I know assume good faith, but the whole thing is gone beyond ludicrous. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 17:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Thank you! I actually just asked about that here. My concern is someone will complain about 3RR since most of this is not obvious vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review refactoring

I'm extremely sorry about that, and I'm not sure how it happened; I already told my text replacer not to operate at wikipedia.org, so I'll investigate. That was unintentional and I apologize. Red Slash 17:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Figured out the error, fixed it, won't happen again. Sorry, again. Red Slash 17:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Red Slash: Ah, a text replacer... was wondering how/why that occurred. Lol. Makes sense. No worries. Thanks for fixing it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LGBT rights opposition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights opposition. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record

You characterized both me and Doc9871 as editwarring, but I undid Doc9871's out-of-process revert, one time only, because it's improper do this during the endorse/overturn discussion about that change by the closer. He did it after being warned by an admin such moves would be seen as disruptive, and he did it again, after being told it was, and then did it yet again after a third party also restored the closer's version. I don't care what specific version of the content is in there right now, despite having written some of one version (my expectation was that there'd be a move discussion after the RM, not that my draft would be used as part of the close).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Required notice; I quoted one or more of your diffs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:DIVA. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your wonderful work in many areas. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Thank you so much! :D This means a lot to me! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning

I appreciate it. And thank you for not suspending me outright, I'm still learning how to play this game. :-) Rafe87 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Lol he ain't an admin he just talks like he one. Couldn't ban u if he wanted to. U doin just fine dont pay him no mind. 177.154.145.106 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct that I'm not an admin, but would do well to heed the warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See there he go frontin. Psssh 177.154.145.106 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)