![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
My fat fingers did a rollback on your page but I reverted mineself. Sorry for any confusions.-- MONGO 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
You seem like the perfect person. Can you help me improve this article? [1] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
@ EvergreenFir:
@ EvergreenFir:
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)
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. Slight Smile 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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)
{{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}}
@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
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....
See that article's talk page. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For your diligent work patrolling and reporting usernames that violate our policy. Mifter ( talk) 19:24, 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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I've temporarily semi-protected this User Talk page.
Zad
68
19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—M@sssly ✉ 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Since you asked. -- Jayron 32 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The sources provided by Evschweik for new episodes of Steven Universe were not from Tumblr, they were confirmed by an official source [1], 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)
Ok then how about this source [2] instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 ( talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
References
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.
-- Entiex ( talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
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 upculturally appropriative costumes are. The fourth source (also from nativeappropriateion.com) also uses language like
not okwhich would be similar to "poor taste', but it also uses the phrase
dress up as racist characterssupporting 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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
My fat fingers did a rollback on your page but I reverted mineself. Sorry for any confusions.-- MONGO 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. λόγος πράξις 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
You seem like the perfect person. Can you help me improve this article? [1] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
@ EvergreenFir:
@ EvergreenFir:
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)
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. Slight Smile 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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)
{{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}}
@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
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....
See that article's talk page. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For your diligent work patrolling and reporting usernames that violate our policy. Mifter ( talk) 19:24, 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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I've temporarily semi-protected this User Talk page.
Zad
68
19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—M@sssly ✉ 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Since you asked. -- Jayron 32 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The sources provided by Evschweik for new episodes of Steven Universe were not from Tumblr, they were confirmed by an official source [1], 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)
Ok then how about this source [2] instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 ( talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
References
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.
-- Entiex ( talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
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 upculturally appropriative costumes are. The fourth source (also from nativeappropriateion.com) also uses language like
not okwhich would be similar to "poor taste', but it also uses the phrase
dress up as racist characterssupporting 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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)