Open main menu

User talk:EvergreenFir

Murder of Botham JeanEdit

Her being white is in the lead, I actually think it looks awkward the way it's repeated. Does it need repeating? Doug Weller talk 14:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Maybe not, but edit warring over it without any discussion or attempts thereof isn't constructive either imo. Generally, people who want to remove mentions of whiteness (without discussion, comment, or anything) aren't doing it in an NPOV spirit. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Good point, but it still looks awkward. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

2016 United States presidential electionEdit

Thanks for this. I have already filed for an SPI investigation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I saw! Thanks for being on top of that. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello EvergreenFir,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 724 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth RollinsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth Rollins. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

 
Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Also from me. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC).

FWIWEdit

Hey, for what it's worth, re: your RFA, these can be super-stressful, and it can really suck to see people you've never worked with dragging your name through the mud. Anyhow, I hope you're not too stressed out, and regardless of the outcome, you're a very strong editor and have always been easy to work with. Don't feel compelled to write back if you think it could hurt your chances for the tools.   Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: thank you for the kind words. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support from me, too. May I respectfully make one very small suggestion you might like to consider? (Ignore if you wish) I reckon that maybe renaming 'Accolades' to something more akin to 'Accolades/Insults' - or even adding a small preliminary commentary - might show those who are incapable of understanding why you've posted those links that you do so purely to show you've been accused of being almost everything nasty under the sun. That you can rise above this and show it more as a badge of honour is actually a great attribute, and simply serves to demean those who attempt to throw petty insults. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson TonightEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Signature character amount 12-NOV-2019Edit

Hi there! I noticed your signature is 217 characters. Even though this is well below the 255 maximum, there is a slightly better way to render it if you're interested. In the box below are the differences between your current sig and an identical version which uses only 185 characters:

Comparison of sig markups
The following is your current sig's markup, which is 217 characters:
Markup Renders as
[[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]]

The markup shown below renders the sig identically, but uses only 185 characters — a savings of 32 characters:

Markup Renders as
[[User:EvergreenFir|<b><span style="color:#80F;">Eve<span style="color:#62C;">rgr<span style="color:#358;">een<span style="color:#174;">Fir</span></b>]] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]]
Because the link to the username part of your signature is a closed link, it shouldn't be necessary to list multiple closed spans after each color gradient (i.e., </span>). That, coupled with giving the three-code HEX instead of the full six-code HEX, will shave 32 characters off the signature. Of course you should test this and any similar markup which may you choose to use before posting, just to make sure.

If you have any talk page stalkers who know better than I about this, hopefully they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it should work out well enough to help reduce the size. Warm regards,  Spintendo  04:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Technically, Spintendo, your suggestion is invalid HTML. You've left out all the closing </span> tags but one; most browsers are smart enough to know what you mean, but it's not technically correct, and shouldn't really be relied on. Reinstating the closing tags brings the sig length up to 207 characters, for only an 11-character savings. I wouldn't bother, but it's all good, I suppose. Writ Keeper  16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping that strategy could be clarified as a workable / nonworkable one, which your input has done — so I thank you for that. I'm not entirely clear on how the invalid HTML would affect the day to day usage of that signature's rendering, but I'll leave that question to another forum. Thanks again. Warm regards,  Spintendo  13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation (Norse Mythology) - Two Citations FoundEdit

About your adminship...Edit

Congrats! =) I don't mean to put the cart before the horse here but it appears that the nomination will pass. As I said in my support comment though, be sure to try and address those who opposed your nomination. Good luck going forward! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. - Ret.Prof (talk)
At least three of the opposers are people for whom I have zero liking and I didn't even see their comments before I voted to support! So I wouldn't worry too much. Deb (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "EvergreenFir".