Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Because you do such good work tracking all these vandal people. And because I didn't have to bake it, because that would, you know, require effort. :-) Katietalk 21:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you! :D EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem quick to redact a copyvio, but slow to admit your POV isn't an academic consensus. Could we get your view on that? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiny Dancer 48: Mostly because I'm a bit busy IRL and getting mired into this would take time. Removing a link took 10 seconds. But I think I've said my piece. I'll make an explicit statement if it helps. Kinda want to drag out some text books and see what they say though. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you don't know what you are talking about and constantly asking me to "seek consensus" is a dishonest time wasting stratagem? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiny Dancer 48: Are you putting words into my mouth to misconstrue my comments to advance your own POV? Just stop that please. It was annoying the first dozen times. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It reasonable to question why you would ask me to seek consensus when you haven't looked at the issue. It seems completely pointless and patronizing. Of course I was seeking consensus. That's why I posted sources supporting me. So I suggest you make some useful statement rather than patronizing me with polucy. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how content is "defamatory" when it is truthful and does a valuable service of warning the public about the sketchy business dealings of a sharp firm.

All you moderators know how to do is complain about anything and everything that didn't come out of your own little heads. Heck, I understand: I was a sys admin when I was sixteen, too!

By the way, it's considered mature to use your own name as your login, not some nonsense like EvergreenFir. Be proud of your work and advertise your identity--unless you have a clear reason to hide.

2601:581:300:FB5:D5FB:9DFF:2EE5:6063 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:581:300:FB5:D5FB:9DFF:2EE5:6063: Honey... go read WP:LIBEL and just stop. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to vent on. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I have undone your obvious error and poor judgement on the Hillary Clinton article. [1] No biggie. I'm not offended and I don't take it personally. But please, do be more careful in the future EvergreenFir, with your hasty reverts and then slapping it on my talk page. I don't see how you could have possibly interpreted it that way, but you obviously thought you knew best, and we all make mistakes don't we. Best wishes.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent example of the passive-aggressive response that featured so highly in Charlotte135's recent AN/I case- with shades, of course, of the famous so-called 'olive branch.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, just had enough bullying Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. And as for passive aggressive comment, you're not so bad your self.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered Charlotte135 in the past and I know this is typical. I tend to avoid her tbh, but saw the tban stuff and thought her edit on Hillary Clinton was a violation. I was mistakenly confusing the scope of her tban with WP:ARBGG, however. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you added your provocative addition to my talk page, and got it wrong, how did you think Hillary Clinton related to gender anyway? Even though now you admit it doesn't apply to me, and I accept your apology, your editing seems to show you hold very strong personal opinions, and expertise, on gender, sexual identity and women's rights. You're probably the leading gender expert on WP, so I'm interested in how Hillary Clinton is a gender or sexual identity related article?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton would fall under the WP:ARBGG's discretionary sanction on "any gender-related dispute or controversy" broadly construed. She's been the target of gender-based harassment and her current campaign has as well. At least that's my opinion on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:NeilN. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Underride, uh, did you click the link in the message? We were having a bit of fun. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: Lol! Well, I can see why they might template me for that. But as NeilN said, it was meant to be humorous. Poor NeilN had to watch a Bad Girls Club trailer... and bleach is the only good solution. Get the chemistry joke too?! :D EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did after, but drinking bleach isn't something I think should be joked about, seeing as how many young people kill themselves that way, or at least attempt to. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: I gave NeilN bleach for his brain (or his eyes if he preferred), not to drink. I was not recommending suicide. Not something I'd joke about during National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month (or really any other time). I know humor is hard to convey via text and I'm not an artist at it, but I didn't think the post was that literal seeming... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: See r/Eyebleach. TimothyJosephWood 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey there, I was wondering if you could add the Start date and age template from the current "|firstdate = August 1, 1968" to {start date and age|1968|8|1} to correspond to Weekly Shōnen Jump's first publication date? I'd normally ask for an edit request myself, however, the talk page is also protected unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.29.72 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@108.45.29.72: Done here! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, EvergreenFir. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.29.72 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with another user on Talk:The Bachelor (season 21) and I was hoping you could help me with it. The users name is Starbucks6789. After both of us reverting each others edits back and forth, I went to the talk page and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you please help resolve the discussion? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a relatively new user. If you could, please explain and let me know why you flagged that edit as vandalism.

Edit: Forget it. If moderators are going to use bias as a reason to flag someone with vandalism in those types of articles, I'll just stay out of articles all together. Firehawk31329 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2016 (EST)

@Firehawk31329: I put a welcome template on your talk page. Some things you might want to be sure to read are WP:5P, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Your edits are disruptive because you're removing sourced material based on your own personal opinions. Reliable sources call it a false allegation. We don't use false balance or false neutrality for the sake of sounding neutral if sources we're using don't treat the subject neutrally. We are a tertiary source which reflect secondary and primary sources. If those sources by and large have a certain position, we reflect that. For example, we aren't neutral on something like NAMBLA because sources aren't. WP:TRUTH might be a useful essay here. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, EvergreenFir. If you'd rather that I not ping you to disputes I'm involved, such as this one and this one, especially those concerning gender matters, just let me know and I will stop doing that. I want to go ahead and be clear that I'm open to your opinions differing from mine. I don't expect you to always agree with me. If some of these cases are simply cases you'd rather not weigh in on, for whatever reason, I understand that too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Hey! I'm sorry! I don't mind you pinging me at all. I did get one of those, opened the tab at home, and forgot to reply since I've been using my work computer mostly. I didn't get the other ping though. Again, sorry for my airheadedness. I totally do not mind you pinging me. If I ever neglect to reply, a message like this will help. I'll try to reply tonight or tomorrow (just finished a 13 hour day). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just keep in mind what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the talk-page run-off voting for the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing 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 are 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.
You've deleted that Africa info at least twice times now XavierItzm (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: Honey, if I give you a template, you can be assured I know where I stand with the revert count. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Just wanted to note that the issue was being discussed on TP and there was no consensus to delete even as you deleted twice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus puts the burden on inclusion. See WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shooting of Terence Crutcher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. no indication of WP:notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 disability-related terms with negative connotations 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, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Galway United F.C.. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero understanding of biology and have to push your lies by whining and crying that somebody hurt your precious feelings with nasty facts and a mean tone. You are an embarrassment to academia and you belong in a freak show. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]