User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RE Lorena Rojas

From url cited in edit summary: "Aged 44, her struggle against cancer started when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. In 2013, she disclosed to Mexican state news Agency Notimex that her illness was 'chronic' after her tumour spread to other parts of her body. In 2014, the mutation had reached her liver." Yours, Quis separabit? 02:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that. It must have updated or I didn't notice the ref was changed. The version I originally put didn't have the specific cause. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Chairman. Next is AN/I... RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Talk:Chairman. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Message from Theduinoelegy

Thanks for the influence on the AS article. I appreciate your input!Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you were so eager to delete what I wrote in the circumcision talk page.

Maybe you should remove all the other texts there that don't contribute to anything? And maybe you should move the text I wrote to wherever it belongs, if you feel like it doesn't belong on the circumcision talk page. Because clearly it belongs somewhere on wikipedia. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because you were discussing other users, not the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like lots of other users there are doing. You should be consistent and remove all of it. And I disagree with you that I wasn't discussing the article. I was actually discussing who or what gave 3 users the right to decide what should be on the article.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia polices give the the right. They are clearly linked in their comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Who made the "wikipedia policies" which clearly are biased towards medical sciences, since they have most sources.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are made by consensus. Medical articles need reliable medical sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but circumcision belongs much more in a religious category than in a medical one. And which consensus decided that circumcision should be considered medical rather than religious?84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure on exactly when the article was decided to be mostly about the medical issue, but there are there are other articles dealing with religious, legal, and controversy issues: Circumcision in Judaism, Khitan (circumcision), Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, Circumcision and law, and Circumcision controversies.

Yes, I am fully aware that there are other articles, but the main article should be religious rather than medical. And another article should be called "Circumcision and medical effects". Most of the content of the current article should be moved there.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose that move, but honestly I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell. There's also WP:COMMONNAME to consider. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like your battle for feminism doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in Saudi Arabia and much of the male dominated world? I like to believe we are moving towards more equality and more respect for human rights. Such as the right of a male child not to be circumcised. But I guess women shouldn't be allowed to drive in Muslim countries, since you think male children shouldn't have the right to grow up with foreskin.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That, um, makes no sense. I'm saying a proposed move is likely to fail. You're welcome to try, but just letting you know it likely too not succeed per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just as encouraging as most people were to the first feminists. If you believe in equal rights and respect for human rights, you will fight for it regardless of if you believe you will succeed or not. And look at western Europe today. I live in the country with most respect for human rights and least discrimination against women. Thanks to feminists that fought against the male consensus even if people told them that they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to confuse me with someone who is pro-circumcision. Just because I am against circumcision doesn't mean I think the page should be about the religious aspect of the phenomenon. I think it's fine the way it is being about medical info. And I don't think many people will support your suggestion to move it. But that's completely unrelated to my position on circumcision. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

More than 90% of the people that circumcise their children do it because of religious reason (not medical reasons), and still you think it should be mainly medical rather than religious? Circumcision is a non-removable religious symbol put on babies. It has nothing to do with disease prevention. Religious people want their children to be circumcised so that their children fit into their stupid religious communities. If we circumcised babies because of medical reasons, the medical doctors would be the main advocates for it. But it is religious leaders (especially Jewish and Muslim religious leaders) that are the main advocates for it. If you are so ignorant about circumcision, maybe you should stop to edit on the talk-page, because clearly you understand nothing about what you deleted. You should also read the comment upon your deletion in the circumcision talk page. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

to the best of my knowledge, most people in english-speaking countries do with out of routine not religion. I will check out the talk page though EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world, and about 320 million americans. So even if all the americans did it because of routine it wouldn't be a large part of the circumcised world population. And of course lots of americans do it because of religion. In western europe we usually don't circumcise our children, and we are also much less religious than americans. If Americans do it because of routine/tradition rather than religion, it still has religious roots. In western Europe most people celebrate Christmas because of routine/tradition rather than religion, but it has religious roots. So Christmas should be regarded as a religious celebration, even if most of us celebrate it because of routine/tradition rather than religion.85.19.205.236 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thigh gap

Thank you for removing the space in thigh gap. That girl needs a cheeseburger. Jonathunder (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

I want you to know that you aren't wrong, a lot of it is WP:COATRACK but because the issue had gone to WP:ANI I felt that the prior consensus needed to be in place. I hope a discussion can take place, I have no idea what issue Cptnono has with the article but maybe they will say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thank you. And I agree, since there's ANI on it, things need to be put on hold or at least slowed down. I understand that seeing massive changes triggers the vandaldar, but we're rather experienced editors and the assumption of bad faith is rather irritating. But it's not a life-or-death situation so I'll be patient. Thanks for chiming in and mediating. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Chairperson

Thanks, actually user Dohn joe has also pointed out before but it was ignored, so I just posted the whole quote from the Article Title policy. STSC (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi EvergreenFir, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir, again I thank you for raising this issue at WP:ARCA; and also for your summary at WT:BLP[1].

As per our discussion on my Talk page[2], I believe that we (and the vast majority of Wikipedians) agree that we should have a policy (and an interpretation of that policy) that facilitates improvement of the Encyclopedia; and I thank you for working towards this.

In this case, while I broadly agree with your summary, I am concerned that some of the emphasis is not necessarily as I understand the intent of the ArbCom responses. Please note that I do not suggest that there is anything inherently wrong or improper with your summary, simply that our understanding differs.

Would you have an objection to my putting together an alternative summary to sit below yours; such that we might present both our interpretations? Given the variety of ArbCom responses, this seems like a much more collegial way forward that either of us objecting to the finer points of the other's interpretation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @EvergreenFir:. Just a quick note to let you know that I've added an alternate summary to WT:BLP; as intimated in my previous comment above. Thanks again for your efforts on this question, greatly appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Sorry for not replying. I'll check it out. Thanks for messaging. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Great edits and ideas on the scrotum article

That was an excellent idea about the photos, making the infobox demonstrate the distended and non-distended states (are those better words? I've never heard the word 'tense' used, but then again I don't own a scrotum.)

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Grunkle Stan Incident

Hi, I think there's been a mistake. On the Gravity Falls (Season 2) page, I wrote "Absent: Alex Hirsch as Grunkle Stan". Don't you know that when a main cast member of a tv show is not in an episode, they're "absent"? Stan wasn't in "Northwest Mansion Mystery". Isn't that correct? Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.155.87 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? All tv show articles do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.155.87 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the ones I follow. The season pages are supposed to provide tables of episode info. Plot, title, directors, etc. Something about which characters didn't appear is too minor. Go ask WP:TV if you want a second opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Many shows that I watch, particularly disney shows, have the absent tag. You do know that it's actually a thing, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.155.87 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Wikia. Go ask WP:TV EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what on earth you mean. WP:TV is an article, not a person. Also, "Absent" has been used on many WIKIPEDIA articles, such as List of Liv and Maddie Episodes, List of Jessie Episodes, and K.C. Undercover.71.162.155.87 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

FFS... Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#.22Absent.22_info_on_episode_list_pages.3F EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if I sound rude.71.162.155.87 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you aren't, just being persistent. And I'm quite in a bad mood. I'm going to go watch some TV. Feel free to comment on the WP:TV thread I started. Sorry for being an ass to you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you feel better.71.162.155.87 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably sounding dumb, but how do I comment on WP:TV? Also, what's the future of "Absent"? The article on WP:TV seems to be at a dead end. It's not slow, but it is going back and forth. Thanks 4 the kitten, BTW.71.162.155.87 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.155.87 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@71.162.155.87: you can find the discussion here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but how do I leave a comment?71.162.155.87 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. If you go to that link, you'll see the word "edit" next to the title ""Absent" info on episode list pages?" If you click the edit, you can leave a message like you do here. Here's a direct link for you though in case it's not working: click here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait. It's members only, and I doubt I'll be able to get an account soon.71.162.155.87 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of most common surnames in Asia

Hello,

may I ask you why you deleted my correction about the surname Devi (which is not a surname)? I am positive, and I quoted sources. Please explain me why every contribution by an unregistered user is systematically deleted without discussion in wikipedia. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.138 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

AE request against me

Hi EvergreenFir,

You wrote the request against me "The 3RR is independent of edit warring. I myself found this out the hard way". I wondered what hard way as your block log seems to be clean.

Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

An ANI and an AN3. Pages were locked and both parties warned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

An apology

Hello, it's me.

I just wanted to apologize for being so bellicose earlier--I understand that it must have been a considerable annoyance. I'm sorry, truly. Vehemence frequently gets the best of me with subjects like these. It's very near and dear to me, I suppose. In any case, my actions were completely unwarranted--and quite idiotically pugnacious. I truly regret the whole affair. You needn't forgive me, but know that I am deeply remorseful about it. Ghost Lourde (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

your impressionator is back and is trying to make it look like they are an alternate account of you just fyi Saturn star (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Saturn star: Thank you! You can always report those accounts to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC). 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.

—DoRD (talk)​ 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@DoRD: It's not, but thank you for asking! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Taking a more constructive position on articles concerning men

I just want to give an impression of how I perceive your actions on articles concerning men, without offending you or critiquing you as a person. I am not writing about anything you did to me, just what I see you do.

How would you feel if and experienced wiki editor, who openly declares himself as an andronist (or whatever the opposite of feminist is), would block every change you make on a women related article and then just put a WP:Something after it, saying you violate some policy which is actually not that easy to understand and does have some gray zones?

I am asking you to take the part of “seeking a compromise” in the consensus building process more serious. I am asking you to sometimes not delete or revert, but to say “Hey, you did the following wrong; let me show you how it’s done.”

I do that for two reasons:

1) Wikipedia is a source of information for pupils. In the sexism article there was a note saying that it is used in schools in South Africa for an education project. I would want young boys to know what could affect them, so that they can defend themselves, but more importantly that they don’t believe that they are invincible. Seeing their own vulnerability should help them relate to the fears and threats girls are facing. If you understand that suddenly you could be on the weaker end, the incentive to create a violence and discrimination free environment is much greater.

2) You will never manage to drive people with crazy opinions away by deleting articles or stopping every change. Prohibition did not end drinking, that’s not how it works. If someone would come up with some weird “rape-myth” theory, me and plenty other men would immediately stand up against it. But if you deny that men also face violence and discrimination, you suddenly put me and other balanced men into a corner where we don’t even want to stand and the problem is bigger than before.

I kindly ask you to think about these things and maybe sometimes take a more constructive stance also on issues which you don’t see as a big concern.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Good catch but not a "good faith edit". Quis separabit? 04:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I was being generous. :) I'll keep an eye on that user's edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping in UAA

We appreciate all the good work! :) -- The editor who likes cosplay Pikachu (pika!) #2568 @ 06:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Please {{re}}.

Reply

EvergreenFir I had no intentions of vandalism. I was merely editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0E2:D210:E8ED:1A6A:F639:197E (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

why'd you remove my Quran quotes?

why'd you remove my Quran quotes about http://quran.com/8/39 ? Divinity76 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

because your reference was a facebook picture. It makes no sense regarding Islamophobia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravity Falls

I don't see the purpose in changing my edit to the 'genre' section of the Gravity Falls page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.216.250 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's unsourced and the NYTimes source that you or someone else is providing does not mention genre. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I got it. But why do I have to give a source to the information if it is definitely true. If you have ever watched the show, you would know it does have all of the genres I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdaman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I was admin on the Wikia for 2 years. I know the show. And it's not "dark humor". But the reason why you need sources is that Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not personal opinion or even what is "true". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. But seriously, Gravity Falls is totally a dark comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdaman (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm here because I noticed the back-and-forth in Zack's edit history. @Zackdaman: One person's dark comedy is another person's satire. What you consider punk rock, I might consider soft pop rot. Genre is often subjective, especially when you get into subgenre. This is why we don't want people coming through and adding their "feelings" to articles. Main genre only, and source it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This time I actually gave a source to my information and you deleted it. What the heck dude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdaman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zackdaman: I saw you tried to give a source and am assuming good faith. IMDB is not a reliable source. It can be edited by any user. You can find discussions about its use as a source here. I appreciate that you tried to find a source, honestly. I'd recommend checking places like Amazon, iTunes, maybe TV Guide (would have to check WP:RSN on that one), Disney, etc. I've looked once before and the stuff currently in the article is what I found. You might try news sites and such too, but I think producers and sellers would be preferable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thestarborn1028

Hi, I'm Salem, and I was wondering if you could help me with something. A user by the name "Thestarborn1028" is vandalizing the Bad Girls Club pages constantly adding fictional and fake info on some of these pages. He is causing great stress to me, constantly fixing the pages he has been damaging. Could you talk to him or....block him maybe ?

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalemCrow101 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an admin, but I'll go look at that page and that user and see if I can help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Re

I actually do not know and I apologize Saturn star (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Saturn star: Okay! Thanks for the reply! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Watch for copy vio

Random kitty to brighten your day

Hey there EvergreenFir. Thanks for all your awesome work. I just popped in to point out that both User:Bvwjewelers and user:RCI Ruth had copy vio stuff on their userpages, copied from their company websites. If you could watch out for that while patrolling, it would be a big help. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Ah, okay. I'll start googling stuff. Often I put a CSD on those pages but saw there was an active admin on UAA so decided to be a tad lazy. But didn't think to google anything. Will do in the future! Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Are there any tools that allow for copy vio detection other than copy-pasting into Google that are available to non-admins? Just curious if you know of any. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're gonna love this: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios -- Diannaa (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Sweet! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki

Hello, EvergreenFir, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you undoing citation required notices

in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape article you say citations aren't required for sources mentioned in the body of the article. 1) It's better if they are. 2) In this case they are not. There is no Justice Department citation. The only figure from the justice department in the body stated 8% not 2% and the line of most sources cite between 1.5 and 8 % had no bearing in reality as more than half of the sources in the body had percentages in double figures. These articles have to be based in reality not what you want to be reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thestarborn1028

This user is still vandalizing the pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Girls_Club_(season_4)&action=edit&undoafter=650836835&undo=650973208 <- I undid his edit.

-SalemCrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalemCrow101 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@SalemCrow101: I honestly don't know enough about the show to determine if they are vandalizing or not. I suggest you go to WP:ANI and explain, in detail, how they are vandalizing the pages. Be sure to alert them if you do go to ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making fun of me ...

... you are an enrichment for this community.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking

at a redent edit at Male privilege, "particularly in jobs which are considered to be of high value to society, such as doctors or architects." ( i just added architects) and am wondering how we can reconcile this statement with this one

" So why is it, she asked, that doctors in Russia are so lowly paid? Making less than £7,500 a year, it is one of the lowest paid professions in Russia, and poorly respected at that. Why is this? The answer is crushingly, breathtakingly simple. In Russia, the majority of doctors are women. "

the answer (i.e., my [opinion]]) idsthat the issue is not that doctors are seen as being valuable to society but rather that they are very well paid in the US & UK. So . . . . .....? Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Hm... I think we'd have to see if there are any prestige measures for occupations over in Russia like we have in the USA with occupational prestige. You may be correct and the pay is a function of prestige instead of gender, but we'd need an RS to say either way. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can dig up anything. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the issue is women have a difficult time breaking onto occupationsof high pay - which in much of Western society (probably Eastern as well) is what the high status jobs are. Status is defined as "What pays the most" rather than, say, what benefits the populace the most. In any case I might remove that statement until we can come to some agreeable place. Carptrash (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are at UA, right? Do you know a Dr. Kvaran there? She is a cat person too. Carptrash (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing that you have now heard of Dr. Kvaran, who just posted this at her Facebook page

"Someone posted a flyer around campus with my name, address, description of my house and car, and a picture of me saying that I want to be raped."

For the record, she is my daughter, and feel free to remove this if it seems appropriate to you. Carptrash (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash! Sorry I didn't get back to you the first time. I've never met Dr. Kvaran, but I know she's a women's studies prof. I heard about the flier... I have no words for it. It's a hate crime. Utterly revolting. I'm so sorry that your daughter is dealing with that. We were talking about it in the office (a fellow grad student is teaching intro to women's studies now and I'm slated to teach it next year). I ... am truly at a loss for words. Please let her know we are all thinking of her. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I will, and do know that I am retiring from editing gender articles for a bit because I am likely to say-write something to some poor downtrodden, oppressed white guy that will not go down well. Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Always a "risk" here on Wikipedia, that's for sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Baffled.

Why restore incivil comments by PtF and then ask not to do it? I'd prefer help in keeping them down i don't believe I made any comments about him or removed any comments he made about content, only his comments about me. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Because WP:REFACTOR requires good faith. PtF wasn't being the nicest but those weren't personal attacks. If they were, Corbett and others would have been banned years ago. I really don't think they warrant anything but you ignoring them. If you truly feel there's a problem, AE is available... but as you know there's been recent cases of perceived slight that didn't go over well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit sensistive as I believe PtF may be baiting a bit given recent AE actions. I have a tough skin. I was hoping the refactor would end it, not escalate it. I do considr an accustation of a "grudge" to be a personal attack while his comment about "reminding senior editor" was more of a CIVIL issue. No worries. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Noank Media

Can you please check WP:SPEEDY and then self-revert? Abecedare (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. I fully assume you are acting in good faith and it absolutely nothing against you. (And I as mistaken about who can remove speedy templates, I admit that.) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Micro-aggressions - are you familiar with them? If so I will ask your opinion

Recently I came across what I considered a micro-aggression (not against me, but in article). Do you consider yourself knowledgeable about gender related micro-aggressions? --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat, or at least I think I may know where to look. (Gotta go to bed atm, but will check back tomorrow). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue in question was about a woman that was questioned about whether they were cis or trans. They purposely don't identify as either cis or trans since they believe that answer isn't relevant to who they are and is divisive and she simply identifies as female. On the wiki-bio talk page, an anon editor politely requested they be added to a transgender category. I politely declined explaining that the subject has not stated they are anything but female and there is no reliable source for the category. Another editor redacted the question and my answer as a BLP violation (just the word "transgender" was removed). An admin rev-deleted the request. My thought was that this reaction was a cis privileged response (with good intentions, but lacking understanding since the subject knows the answer and neither cis or trans would be offensive, just private). I felt it was a micro-aggression through shaming meaning that if it had been a transgender admirer or even just an observer watching the page, they would have seen that WP viewed the request as a negative, unsourced BLP violating request that is so shameful it needs to be hidden. I had no problem declining the edit request without a source but to associate with being shameful seemed to be a micro-aggression with a stereotype that it's demeaning to be part of that category. If the request had been to add them to a NativeAmerican category without a source, my answer would have been the same but I doubt there would need to a rev del and redaction of the request. It almost felt like the reaction was caste based with the privileged attitude of "if they want to identify as 'untouchables' it's fine and there is nothing wrong with being in the 'untouchble' caste. But suggesting someone is in that caste is reprehensible and shameful." Which message is being sent? Am I off base for feeling that reaction was a micro-aggression subtly telling transgender people that simply being transgender is a slur to cis priviliged people? --DHeyward (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The admin who rev-deleted the edit might be a better source of information on this BLP policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I'm generally a protectionist in BLPs be they of any political view or faction, so it brings me great alarm when I see anyone who does nothing else but add negativity to a BLP. I get alarmed and rightfully should when this occurs, so my questioning of motives was more a strong suggestion that other things besides just the negative could surely be improved. Its staggering to see so much effort spend on adding negativity and so little on neutral mundane issues that are needed.--MONGO 06:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi MONGO! I can understand your concern about Ubikwit's motives, especially given the predominance of his comments on that talk page. I have similar reactions and protectionist tendencies when it comes to LGBTQ BLPs, so I think I can relate somewhat. I also know that tensions are running high, especially given that case regarding Collect. I just really don't think that article talk page is the best place to address those issues, especially someone who is also party to that proposed case. I've honestly not taken the time to inspect anyone's contribs and don't think I can make any informed comments on anyone's patterns of behavior or possible intent other than Dear0Dear with whom I had past encounters with and is the reason I follow Robert Kagan, but if you feel there's a pattern of abuse, or at least bad faith editing, perhaps it can be presented in the evidence phase of the case? It does seem like the arbs will take the case. Anyway, you are a far more experienced editor than I and while I don't think those comments are the wisest given the circumstances, I won't push it further (and it's past my bedtime). I just wanted to attempt to defuse the situation if possible. Cheers and thanks for initiating conversation here! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizer

Please turn off your Twinkle bot as it's inadvertently vandalizing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.92.94 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a bot. I reverted your edits because they are unsourced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(blanked harassment by 5.12.179.96 (talk) added at 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC))

@anon - Please do not make comments like that, it's really disruptive. DivineAlpha (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Source was true!

My edit to List of Steven Universe episodes was not unsourced! It's short summary can be easily viewed here! (http://the-world-of-steven-universe.tumblr.com/post/114169735046/steven-and-the-cool-kids-make-an-interesting) my edit was not false! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.53.75 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

you put no source in the actual edit. Also that's not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Turn In 4 What?!

I don't think it's worth hanging around and reverting that comment, but that's just me. ekips39 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ekips39: Yeah. It's not. Was just playing wiki's version of wack-a-mole I guess. I filed ANI asking for talk page access to be removed. Gabucho181 is quite a persistent sock. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

2604:2000:a038:8900:48ef:c8bb:d609:8d91

Hi Evergreen, I noticed you just reverted a ton of BS cat edits from IP 2604:2000:a038:8900:48ef:c8bb:d609:8d91. I was just trying to get my mass rollback tool sorted out (I added it a while back, but it didn't work properly and I think I applied it to the wrong page.), and just when I was gonna test it out, I saw that the IP's edits had been reverted. Are you using a tool for this, or did you do it manually? (Feel free to reply here if you'd like) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb! I was gonna message you too about that user... seems like a possible sock. I used the rollback tools as a rollback. My "Multi Links" addon makes the job much faster. Just right-click, drag to highlight links, and they all open in new tabs. So yes, quasi manually. Didn't know a batch rollback toll existed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Got a link to the Multi Links thing? I'm always looking for more functionality. As for that IP, yeah, it's a sock of someone, for sure. Hard to tell. I typically see a mix of IPv4 (often from Virginia Beach, Virginia), and IPv6 users. One thing I've been trying to do to be more helpful, is tag my edits with some crucial info when I start spotting patterns. It's not a science yet, but here are some examples of cat vandals as found in my edit history. [3]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Smart idea with the tags. I need to learn more about what tools are available. Link for add on is [4]. I think there's a chrome version somewhere too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I found that with persistent and IP-hopping vandals that it was increasingly difficult to write a bunch of crap every single time I reported them to AIV. It's far easier to write something brief and then say, "for scope of problem, see this and poof there is a clear indication of all the different "Vietnam Disney Vandals". My other hope was that other editors would see these summaries and notice the trends too. "Ah, strange IP editing Disney articles, geolocates to Vietnam? Probably vandalism!" I dunno that it's been succesful. :) Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radical feminism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milieu. 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) 08:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This DAB tool is pretty great! Anyway I saw this come up on watchlist and have fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Thank you! Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My postings

While I didn't sign....do not alter my postings especially if they are not unwelcomed by the other user. Thank you.--MONGO 18:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments were bad faith trolling of users. I'm sad to see you're continuing this behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If something is as obvious as the nose on one's face then I'll call them on it. You've decided to pick a fight with me for some reason and I would prefer we edit amicably. When an editor has barely 300 edits and haunts areas newbies never venture, then that is a clear signal things are amiss.--MONGO 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Belfast section of Gangs in UK article

Hi Evergreen. Your rejection of my contribution to the Gangs in the United Kingdom article ([here]) wasn't sufficiently explained. Can you elaborate on why you thought it wasn't a constructive addition? I used multiple sources throughout. What was your problem with the content sourced from: http://www.octf.gov.uk/organised-crime-in-northern-ireland/organised-immigration-crime.aspx ? And why did you use this as a reason for rejecting all of the Belfast section? 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You copy pasted text from that website which is a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes them very seriously, so I rejected your addition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now amended that section so it should avoid copyright violation. I can't see any other problems with the edit, but let me know if you take issue with something else 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be following my edits on Wikipedia. Perhaps this is connected to the Sexism article? 77.99.12.140 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 77.99.12.140! I see you resubmitted the edit and it was approved by another reviewer. Thank you for rewording it. As for following you, I've not been looking at your contribs page. Didn't know you edited on sexism until you mentioned it (and those edits seemed fine to me). Have I encountered you elsewhere? I don't see any other pages I follow in your contributions, so I'm a bit confused why you asked this (and the interaction checker shows we haven't crossed paths much). Rest assured I'm not following you around. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again - well thanks for letting me know about the copyright concern, I'm not the most well-versed in Wikipedia policies (although I'm trying to progress). As for the following thing, I'm obviously just imagining things! Hope you have a lovely day 77.99.12.140 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

To answer a question, two cases are being opened. The other case, American Politics 2, is also being opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your reverting of vandalism on "S&M"!  — ₳aron 09:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

MRM revert

Can you explain what I could've done different to not have this edit reverted? The issue is definitely a men's rights issue Shazen27 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shazen27: Hi! The main reason I reverted your edit was because it was WP:SYNTH (a type of "original research"). While changing tables might be an issue the MRM addresses, the sources never mention the MRM. When you tie the two together, that's "synth". It may be obvious to you that something's related, but we need reliable sources to say it is. On a side note, I found it interesting that feminist groups are also sharing that story as an example of feminism. I hope that makes sense. If you have more questions, I'm happy to answer. Might also want to start a discussion on Talk:Men's rights movement to see what others have to say. Thanks for reaching out and asking! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Universe Edits

Dear Evergreen, I'M sry if I caused any trouble. I'm a new wikipedia user and I didn't know these rules or what they mean. I don't know why but Artemis Panthar keeps deleting my summary of the Steven Universe Episode Joy Ride. What should I do? HawsBoss

PS but I don't know how to make a new edit tab sry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawsBoss (talk • contribs) 
	

@HawsBoss: For information about future episode, it must be sourced per this policy. I think Artemis Panthar made that clear in their edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Evergreen. As I said before I am a new user and will look into the guidelines in the future. I just wanted people to know the summaries of steven universe episodes. Please forgive me. Hawsboss — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawsBoss (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)