User talk:EvergreenFir

Please comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit misidentified as good faith

This edit is NOT good faith. 1) it removed content without giving a valid reason for doing so, and 2) It introduced deliberate factual errors. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: The deliberate factual errors part was hard to determine. I'd rather assume good faith than hit the vandalism button. If I mistakenly make that assumption, please do feel free to warn the user in question. In this case, I see this is the user who spams categories... I'll deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not who I thought it was at first glance... unless they're using a proxy. I don't see any other vandalism from that IP range related to cartoon pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Farnham

Good day, my friend. There seems to be some confusion regarding an edit of mine you mistakenly identified as vandalism despite the fact that I thought my edit summary explained the edit rather clearly [1]. The guidelines state that any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm not eager in the least to get into any kind of conflict over this, especially since I think I'm being pretty faithful to the guidelines. Best regards. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: Hello there! Sorry about that! I see what you did now: moved the sourced info I thought was missing to a new section at the bottom of the page. That does seem okay to me. Athomeinkobe mentioned breaking it up into smaller edits. If you can, that's sometimes preferred as it lets people revert small edits and add sources where needed (if they're inclined to). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

After taking a second look, it appears I initially misread also. Having said that, I think the initial chronological format should be kept, rather than putting details of his high school and college at the end of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow if it's not dealt with. よろしくお願い. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: OK, well you have already gone ahead and reverted my work again. You guys do seem a bit trigger happy, and as I said I don't want to get into a edit war needlessly. Does anyone object to me reverting Athomeinkobe's last revert, and then we can start from that point? I don't agree that "the initial chronological format" should be kept as there is very little sourced info. I think putting it a "Personal info" section at the end is a more than workable solution, as that way the little bits of info can be consolidated in one place. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

47.55.192.66 I'll just note that I did that revert before seeing the discussion here, and it was the second time total that it had been reverted (after EvergreenFir had also reverted once. But you are correct that we should avoid any warring over this. I'm going to paste the removed text to the article's talk page, which is also the place where this discussion should continue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed that Hirolovesswords has also reverted IP47's removal of the text. For the sake of simplicity, I have reverted that change so that the article is currently in the shortened form. I am going to paste the entire long version to the talk page, so that we can pick it apart and identify what is (or can be) sourced for inclusion). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You guys are collectively the Wikipedia equivalent of a Rube Goldberg Machine. Sorry guys but you just convinced me to quit Wikipedia. Pat yourselves on the back. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: I know how frustrating Wikipedia is and I'm sorry. I think we've got most stuff in the article sourced now. If there's a particular item that's unsourced, point it out and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@47.55.192.66: I am disappointed to hear you feel that way. I see 4 different editors have each reverted you once, so that must be frustrating. On the other hand, both I and one other subsequently undid those reversions. I am also trying to make something happen at the talk page. You raised an important point, and personally I feel like I have tried to help address it in the best manner that I could think of. I echo EvergreenFir's invitation to point out any specific items that you disagree with. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

larestani peopel

hi,i'm from larestan region in Iran and I born in bastak city,I can speak English a little,you edited page larestani people but it was false for exmple:larestani people population:more than 2 million no 2 hundred,I will happy to help you in future about larestani people or achomi language or iranian Salimbastak (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Salimbastak: Hello! Welcome to the English Wikipedia! Currently the source/URL used for the Larestani population says 100,000. The article Laristan says there are only 55,265. Do you have any reliable sources (a government website would be good) that gives the Laristani population? Even if it is in Farsi or Achomi, we can use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lârestâni people in Iran in the county of LARESTAN , Bastak , gerash , khonj , Lamerd , Bandar Lengeh , parsian and part of the county of Bandar kahmir and bandar abbas and a large number of them are living in the UAE , Oman ,kwait,Bahrain,Qatar Population source: https://www.amar.org.ir/english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimbastak (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA

no dear, you are wrong. yugoslavia existed until 2002, and serbia-montenegro 2002-2006. please apply my changes there. e.g. in france 98 world cup was yugoslavian team, not serbia-montenegro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.106.48 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@46.161.106.48: if I have made a mistake you are free to revert me, hun. Looking at the article for the Football Association I only saw presidents going until 1992 so I assumed that's when it ended. My knowledge of the area isn't the best so my apologies if I'm in error. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is good that you admitted that you have limited knowledge. At least you are being honest. 175.156.14.63 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adventist Health System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanitarium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

SIOA

I understand that, as a conservative Leftist, you are personally invested in this issue, but please put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Update me on your dispute with Evergreen when you are unbanned. This bugger shamelessly and cockily removed my edits, made and issued threats against me while half asleep saying that is was my "only warning", I want to know what kind of shameless drivel this bugger is up to this time. Completely shameless to the core.175.156.170.141 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D: You do not understand WP:NPOV apparently. We neutrally reflect sources and give due weight to their coverage of a topic. NPOV doesn't mean we frame a topic neutrally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is it? Am I a Muslim ([2]) or conservative Leftist ([3])? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Leftist of course, as it is the latest version. I understand that according to American scholarly standards, POV is acceptable, but in the rest of the world, we adhere to scientific principles. I implore you once again, to adhere to encyclopaedic standards and stop promoting your biased, POV view. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. Don't vandalise other people's work by reverting instead of incorporating valuable content. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What's going on here? Explain to me what is going on. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. I don't think Evergreen is Muslim, all evidence points to evergreen being Jewish.175.156.170.141 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time trying to guess the religion of other editors? -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to CORRECT MISLEADING views on Evergreen being muslim. I have examined the evidence on Evergreen and every single evidence points to Evergreen being a Jew. I want to ENRICH the person here making the post with correct information that evergreen is not muslim but most likely Jewish. This will add to the fruitfulness of advancing the argument if one knows that evergreen is not muslim but Jewish. After the person here is unbanned I am going to continue to debate with him or her on the dispute at hand. The person seems to be confused on the identity of evergreen. I want to correct that. Evergreen is a Jew.175.156.170.141 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what, if any, religion EvergreenFir has. Please drop this. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for disruptive editing: reasons are at the IP talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus and Doug Weller: Thank you both for dealing with that. Thank gods I silence my phone while sleeping... so many emails notifications. That user was the same one from Robert Kagan. At least they didn't put their messages in section headers this time. You'd think people would check the userboxes before proclaiming my religious orientation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Noticeboard#Cleveland_issues_with_nicknames_in_the_introduction.The discussion is about the topic Cleveland. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your question

If you look at the article on the book from which the large table was taken, you will see from the history that the same table was edit warred in and out of that article over a period of several years (it's been out for a while). There have been sockpuppets reinserting it there, together with fly-by-night proxy accounts. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

IQ

Why was the table removed?Userius (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgust quite a bit on the talk page

Re: [4]

In that case, shouldn't it be in the consensuses list? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's defense of the LGBT community

As a fellow LGBT Wikipedian, I am baffled by your redaction of Trump's defense of our community from the Orlando article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s and Mandruss: (replying to both at once) I replied at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Trump.27s_reaction_YET_AGAIN. In short, it's been contested repeatedly and discussed extensively. My read of the talk page for the past couple days is that people lean toward excluding all political candidates comments or to simply summarize that political figures commented without detail. Zigzig20s, I am not sure why it baffles you. I am not personally interested in Trump's (or Clinton's or Sanders') comments on the matter. I'm a bit surprised, but Trump is inconsistent enough that I'm not meta-surprised (not surprised that I'm surprised). Wikinews is a better location for the information in question. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page

I linked to the Talk page discussion that I started in my edit summary, the one titled "Men and women" vs "males and females". I have no problem with the current version, but I am just curious why you think men and women is better than males and females? I do not care either way, I am only asking out of curiosity. DimensionQualm (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@DimensionQualm: My mistake. The link was dark blue (visited) because I'd been to the talk page on Femininity some time ago and it appeared black to me. I'll self-revert. I'm kinda torn about it now that I see the talk page discussion you linked to. Males and females is more inclusive I guess (though still excludes intersex folks), but I think it's more important to say that women as well as men can be masculine. Really all people can be (non-binary folks too). Hm... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@DimensionQualm and EvergreenFir: As I just mentioned at the Talk page discussion, I prefer "men and women" as it clarifies that the scope of the article is male and female humans, not any males or females. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Okay! I'm kinda ambivalent. Honestly wouldn't mind seeing it just say "all people" (though I can see an argument that those under 3 or so don't have or do gender). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I please get your opinion?

Hi EvergreenFir. The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting has been added to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries. The inclusion scope of both articles is "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause". Do you think that the sources (which I know you're very familiar with) support inclusion of the Orlando shooting in these list articles? - MrX 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I'll check them out! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I got mail

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated, just saving you some TOC space. Do community colleges offer courses in Wikipedia Editing? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I know some individual courses have assignments where students edit wikipedia in order to aide if the students' research and also to help wikipedia. Don't know about whole courses though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

LGBTs

This comment is related to a recent edit of yours of the Orlando shooting article. Having studied LGBT studies of various sorts for more than a quarter century, I can personally assure you that LGBTs is an accepted term. See, e.g., [5] and [6]. Just so you know. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: I've never seen such use that I can recall (and this is something that I am well-read on like you). I've looked at other dictionary and style guide type sources and do not see this use anywhere ([7], [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBT], [8]). It's an acronym of adjectives and nominalizing it making it plural doesn't make sense. Note the grammar usage on LGBT for example. When read verbally, it sounds like "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders", the first and last of which are rather offensive to most. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Though, admittedly, when I google "LGBTs" I do find some use of that term, most often in titles it seems. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've been seeing LGBTs, nominal plural, for as long as I've been seeing LGBT. In addition to my second source above, I'll point you to Google Scholar, where you'll find many scholarly sources of various sorts using the term, both in titles and text. Certainly we can both appreciate the absurdity of continuing this discussion in light of these many sources actually using the term. You'll have to understand that grammatical logic has little to do with these identity-politics/studies nomenclature issues, and that mainstream and/or online sources, including Wikipedia articles, are frequently incomplete and/or unreliable on them. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits in "white pride".

Clearly it is a viewpoint of "positive" regarding people who consider themselves white. How can you dispute that? Are you misreading my edit as if it were suggesting racism is positive in general? That's the only rational alternative I can think of. I see the racist former edits of the page, but man - actually read the edit. White pride is taking pride in being white, mostly used by racists. This goes WITHOUT QUESTION.

Return my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike13815 (talk • contribs)

@Mike13815: No. See Talk:White pride. This has been discussed to death already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So it all boils down to "I spend a ton of time on wikipedia, so I'll just keep editing it, pushing my pro-white racist agenda". Pick up a god damn book you KKK garbage.