You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir, I read WP:LEAD, and Mansplaining doesn't follow it. It doesn't have a lead that can stand alone and sums up the article:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.^[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

EChastain (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mansplaining shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. WP:IDHT. I'll let others weigh in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! EChastain (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Help:Watching pages. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. DSCrowned^(Talk) 14:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DSCrowned: How was my edit to Help:Watching pages that you reverted a "joke edit"? I corrected labelled Wikipedia:Talk page stalker listed under the "See also" section a "humorous essay". Wikipedia:Talk page stalker says

So I don't see how my edit could be called a "joke edit" and reverted on those grounds. EChastain (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: Just remember that every Wikipedia article, policy page and help page shouldn't be humorous or contain jokes, unless tagged with the {{humour}} tag. Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia though. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I might be wrong, I think your telling me that this article is a humorous article. Oh that's why I am sorry. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy Treadwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page. I did not edit your comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EvergreenFir, you're not the hall monitor. Stop acting like one. Go read WP:REFACTOR. Your refactoring was not for any of the right reasons. Stop following me around on arbcom. I don't think very many other editors find your comments useful. EChastain (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. User:EvergreenFir, you don't know what you're talking about on Mansplaining, but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what reliable sourcing is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a social phenomenon is versus a slur is pompous silliness. EChastain (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recommend reading WP:REFACTOR since you clearly have not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also learn how to WP:INDENT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You two are getting heated over some indents, come on it isn't worth it. EChastain you shouldn't have made such a big deal about indents, Evergreen you should have just left it alone. There are plenty of other problems to worry about here on Wikipedia for now I recommend to read up on WP:CIVIL. To EChastain's credit though editors can get heated when their comments are refactored so I understand why the upset feelings but as I said making a mountain over a molehill here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Knowledgekid87. I thought about the formatting carefully when posting as the thread had become lost in a maze of indents. Removing the outdent decreased my comment's readability, perhaps her intention as she has dismissed my previous comments or unhelpfully lectured me, so I had no reason at all to assume good faith. I'm tired of being meddled with and lectured by EvergreenFir. EChastain (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I don't know if you found this yet but we have Userboxes here on Wikipedia. =) I cant make you place userboxes on your main page but its always nice to find out more about a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is copy/paste the template {{User:Feureau/UserBox/ProudWikipedian}} for example onto your Userpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll check them out and see if any are relevant to me. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and welcome! One of the ones I saw you mention was you being a female, they have an infobox for that for example:

Have fun with your infoboxes =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, thanks, but I've removed the infobox. After reading through the GGTF arbcom, the comments by Carolmooredc and especially Neotarf, and the ridiculous POV agenda of the GGTF members, I've no wish to be identified as a women here on wikipedia.

This GGTF arbcom is out of control, and I think the final decision is likely to do harm to en:wiki and decrease the retention of editors that I admire. The lecturing know-it-all comments by EvergreenFir, and her agenda-driven take on mansplaining, for example, gives me the idea that en:wiki is being taken over by a new type of editor, far different from the many learned, well-educated and creative editors whose writing I've admired and respected from the early days. The way I feel now, I think I'll probably edit very little here in the future. EChastain (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of areas on Wikipedia, I find my main home editing manga and anime related articles. Yeah editors might leave but hey there is just as much of a chance that new ones will come to replace them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edid conflict) Yeah, en:wiki has been diminishing since 2006 or so in my eyes. In fact, I've not edited for a very long time but I find the atmosphere is so changed now that I've little appetite. Maybe a few edits here and there, but certainly I'll never put the energy into writing, editing, adding reliable sources that I did in the past. No point when these new editors don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing. EChastain (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add too that I am sure this has happened in the past as well, the supporters are there because over time friendships have formed so when someone points out a flaw in someone of course the yare going to rush to their defense. The sides were already present long before the arbcom case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not any particular article, as I've wide ranging interests. it's the new mentality exemplified by EvergreenFir's revert of a comment by Giano on Jimbo's talk page, calling him a troll. EvergeenFir is a symptom of the future here. EChastain (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]