User talk:EvergreenFir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld[edit]

I closed this AfD where you suggested NUKEANDPAVE. I think that has been done satisfactorily in a new draft version, and your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 22. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I'll go check it out now. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Inio Asano 2[edit]

Ohai! Just noticed you had ja2. Would it be fun for you to translate over 1 more section from ja.wikipedia? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning: I can give it a shot! Might take me a bit to get to it thought.  :) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vaccine[edit]

I wonder if this user [1] is just playing with us? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Upworthy[edit]

Thanks champ! I left a message this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.62.2 (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check it out! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kip McKean[edit]

EvergreenFir, the information I added to the Kip McKean article IS sourced -- it is information directly taken from the article ^ Ostling, Richard N. "Keepers of the Flock." Time Magazine, May 18, 1992, that is already noted as a source to the same paragraph on the article on Kip McKean where I added the additional text. 140.198.105.26 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Change regarding Sirotan page[edit]

You undo my change regarding Sirotan page. The information provided in the page isn't correct. The official site for Creative Yoko is http://www.creativeyoko.co.jp/, the one in previous version is completely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencelai (talkcontribs) 04:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Terrencelai: you are correct. I'll fix it. Thanks for messaging me. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The first link should be http://www.creativeyoko.co.jp as it is referring to Creative Yoko
The second link should be http://www.creativeyoko.co.jp/sirotan/contents/character/character.html as it is referring to the friends of Sirotan.
Sirotan Town is the official shop name in Japanese that selling Sirotan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencelai (talkcontribs) 04:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
分かった. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mother garden shops in Japanese also sells Sirotan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencelai (talkcontribs) 05:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on matha amrithanathamayi page[edit]

Why did u revert the last change? Suggest me a better way to put it? {{unsigned}122.172.225.147}}

Generally speaking, we don't include interlanguage links in the body of articles. Also, the sentence itself wasn't encyclopedic; it basically said "this is interesting, check it out." EvergreenFir (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Jim Ballard[edit]

Why did you delete the changes to Jim Ballard's bio? He and I made the changes because the information on the page was inaccurate and was not done by someone who knows him or what his career entailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number13sgirl (talkcontribs) 05:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it was completely unsourced. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld[edit]

Thanks for your comment at Draft talk:Leslie Cornfeld. Would you be kind enough to say the same at the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 22? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Done :) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

time to create a "Captain Obvious" barnstar[edit]

for edits like this? Anyway, thanks for your good sense and equanimity.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Conventional PCI: "rest of article says bits"?[edit]

Because the smallest memory space a PCI device is permitted to implement is 16 bitsbytes, the two least significant bits of the address are not needed; equivalent information will arrive in the form of byte select signals.

I'm trying to figure out why you rejected this proposed edit.

Where does the article say "16 bits" anywhere? The only mention I can find is in I/O addressing, which applies only to I/O space, and is the size of the address, not the data.

The minimum 16-byte size is enforced by several sections of the PCI local bus specification (WMF doesn't want links, but it's easily findable on google):

PCI local bus specification:

Section 3.2.2.2 Memory Space Decoding
"In the memory address space, the AD[31::02] bus provides a DWORD aligned address. AD[1::0] are not part of the decode." This requires a 4-byte minimum.
PCI local bus spec 2.2, p. 28 (p. 48 of PDF)
PCI local bus spec 2.3, p. 28 (p. 42 of PDF)
PCI local bus spec 3.0, p. 45
Section 6.5.2.1 Address Maps
"The number of upper bits that a device actually implements depends on how much of the address space the device will respond to. A 32-bit register can be implemented to support a single memory size that is a power of 2 from 16 bytes to 2 GB."
Figure 6.5, "Base Address Register for Memory" shows bit 0 is 0 to indicate a memory space, bits 2:1 indicate addressing constraints, bit 3 indicates prefetchability, and bits 31:4 are the actual base address. This imposes a 16-byte minimum memory region size.
PCI local bus spec 2.2, p. 202–203 (p. 222–223 of PDF)
PCI local bus spec 2.3, p. 206–207 (p. 220–221 of PDF)
PCI local bus spec 3.0, p. 225–226

Also, for simple internal consistency reasons, the size can't be 16 bits. The entire technique works only because the minimum size is at least 4 bytes (32 bits). That means that a PCI device doesn't need to receive the two address lsbits to decide whether to assert DEVSEL#. If a device could allocate a 16-bit (2 byte) memory region, it would need to see A1 during the address phase to decide whether the address was inside its region or not.

Shall I try again with a pinpoint citation to the specification? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm sorry if I was incorrect. Thanks for messaging me to explain it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

Hi EvergreenFir. Just leaving you a note to let you know that you accepted a pending change at Lost (TV series) from an editor who was adding false info to multiple articles. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Thank you for letting me know. The edit did not appear to be vandalism, so I accepted it. Thanks for catching it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Elephant. Broom.[edit]

Yes, you pretty much got it. Sometimes I feel like the guy who walks behind the circus elephant with a broom, sweeping up the you-know-what. And I have to say that most of our sweeping follows a particular editor, cleaning up his "doo". Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Asa Akira's Birth Year Reversion[edit]

Very curious to know the rationale behind your reversion. I'd really like to understand why it's preferable by you and the last person (or persons) who keep reverting her birth year to 1986 without any explanation, when the edit has been explained very clearly and there is even video included of Asa Akira herself verbally correcting the wrong birth year on Wikipedia.

Is it really preferable that Wikipedia intentionally contains what is blatantly invalid/incorrect information and with no apparent rationale at all?

This really puzzles me. It's no wonder people so often cite Wikipedia as being so unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky760 (talkcontribs) 06:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lucky760: I am a reviewer for articles that are frequently vandalized and require oversight. Your edit was reverted because no source or reason for the change was given. If you have a reliable source that specifies her birth year, by all means include it in your edit. You can learn more about references at WP:REF. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I can appreciate the oversight, however in my two edits I did explain the reason (when editing the year) and I did cite the source (in adding the footnote to her birth date), and the source is very reliable because it's the individual herself stating first-hand in a video recording that WikiPedia has her birth year incorrect, and she states her correct birth year. Lucky760 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

138dude[edit]

Why do you have to delete all my pages from 138dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138dude (talkcontribs) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any pages. I only reverted your vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Information[edit]

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

Help with Personal Attack[edit]

I edited an article and now a person posting under an IP, not a userID, claims to be the subject of the article. They are threatening me with lawsuits and claim they are "outing" me by calling me by a person's name other than my userID. The Talk page of the article lists the subject of the article as a banned. I understand this is considered an urgent situation but I do not know how to report it. Can you help? This is on the talk page for Rachel Marsden. I am not sure what I am supposed to do to report it. CammieD (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll check it out and file a ANI report. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) CammieD (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So now some guy named Guy posted on my Talk page telling me I have to quit editing the Rachel Marsden page or be blocked. Only when I clicked on his page to see who he is there is a big red flag on his page that says "Rogue Administrator". Is this just some weirdo or is he someone in charge of something? CammieD (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Make that "Rouge Administrator". CammieD (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

JzG is an administrator. -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Should I continue trying to correct citations over there or just move on and let other people deal with it? CammieD (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Titles of Refs[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Sunnydoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Sunnydoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dianne Feinstein article[edit]

I made one minor change, to repair what appears to be a defective section entry. You reverted it and removed pre-existing text. That said, it was uncited and should have either been challenged or removed. Just clearing the air a bit. A politicians net worth isn't extremely relevant unless a cited claim is also offered from respected sources in regards to some conflict of interest. So, thanks for the catch in the strange entry. Question: Do you think that the entry for "President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors" section should remain? I had pondered removing the section heading and leaving the text, but elected to fix the defective section header instead. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit to Jesus article[edit]

My edit fixed a strange and confusing parenthetical aside and also followed the very first edit notice that appears at the top of the page when editing is opened:

"Please do not change the way dates are expressed in this article, unless you have attained consensus with other editors on the talk page of this article. Based on the consensus in this request for comment dates should remain as they are (i.e., with BC/AD only). The only exceptions apply to quotations used within the text, which should not be altered."

Aside from being confusing, the parenthetical part ran afoul of that stipulation. Thanks for your understanding on this matter. JayHubie (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@JayHubie: I reverted it because the lead has been agreed to by consensus, including that parenthetical statement. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You realize that it doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense. 2014 is not abbreviated "AD." Also, mentioning "CE" runs afoul of the dates stipulation. Consensus does not automatically mean something is perfect. JayHubie (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The current era is referred to as either AD or CE. Read the stipulations again; they mention consensus. Please direct further article discussion to the talk page for that article.EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit to H&O[edit]

You reverted my adding Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth to the Holidays & Observances section for March 10. I think they both belong there, as they are listed on the Lutheran calendar for that day (now yesterday). However, I wasn't through with my edit, for I noticed that although I had added the Episcopalian commemoration of each to July 20 last summer, I hadn't noticed the Lutheran commemoration (during Women's History month!) until an hour or so ago, hence the edit order. I respectfully request that you reverse your reversal of my edit.Jweaver28 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver28. I see you just edited March 10 again and remembered I forgot to reply to your message. Could you link something that says March 10 is a Lutheran observance day for those two women? I was unable to find anything on their wikipedia pages when I looked a few days ago. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was editing those pages at the time you reverted my edit the first time, so I sent this reply above on your talk page. Then, when I noticed a couple of days later that the edit hadn't been reverted, I did so, after doublechecking that the reflink remained on both the H.Tubman and S. Truth pages. For whatever reason, I've noticed that some of the African Americans on the Episcopal calendar lack mentions of their strong spiritual values or religious views on their webpages -- but I only have a limited amount of time and attention, so get to them when I can. Now apparently, the better practice might be to check the page first then the H&O link, but putting up the link first allows other people to look at the page while it's being edited, and me to find the page easier if for some computer related or personal reason I haven't finished even a partial edit.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It maybe un-constructive to you but not to everybody! Also its my message to Neil.[edit]

You don't have to delete! I haven't fictionalize anything. Carl Sagan interviewed the Dalai Lama. And nobody knows what Neil thinks about Buddhism. Both are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala Forces (talkcontribs) 04:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Shambala Forces: Please read WP:OR and general Wikipedia guidelines on what goes into articles. Moreover, stuff about the Dalai Lama and Sagan have nothing to do with deGrasse Tyson. It does not belong in his article. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Carl Sagan has nothing to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson?! It would do you good to check these videos.1. Neil deGrasse Tyson on Carl Sagan, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0K_vODnDA 2. Carl Sagan interviews the Dalai Lama, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc8EasjRpIo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala Forces (talkcontribs)

Don't delete my insert for bleep sake. I am contacting Neil to look at my insert for a refreshment. I believe he won't object to my insert. So, back off for a couple of days. Please.

Reason for your revert?[edit]

Hello, User:EvergreenFir can you provide me with a reason for your revert on LGBT rights in Pakistan. His revert was done based on his opinion without providing any source rather than his ahmedinijad "this does not concern Pakistan". I am assuming good faith with your confer, but it would have been great to get your constructive feedback about the subject matter rather than just a revert of the article without possibly understanding or reading the talk page. Also, his user page suggests that he has contributed to this article when he has only deleted the same content without providing any reliable sourced reasons for his concern. Thanks. lilpiglet 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lilpiglet: I reverted it to the pre-edit war state per WP:BRD. Honestly I feel I don't know enough about the specific topic to intervene one way or the other and am not taking sides. Perhaps if you cannot work it out on the talk page you can start a 3 opinion request. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: my bad I see what you did ... thanks for providing that link. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talkcontribs)
@Lilpiglet: No problem :) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you checked [2]? OccultZone (Talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: nope, but not surprised. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing this page for a while. I think we can accept the version of @Lilpiglet:. I agree that he did edit warring, he was partially reported for that,[3] and you acted in good faith. But Lilpiglet's argument remains unchallenged. OccultZone (Talk) 05:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll undo my undo. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maternal death may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Causes of Maternal Mortality Questioned. American Journal Of Epidemiology, 151(3), 300-306.]]''</ref> that is a pregnancy-related death in a patient with a preexisting or newly developed
  • <!-- http://www.wikigender.org/wiki/index.php?title=WomanStats_Database WomanStats Database] - Provides maternal mortality data disaggregated by country. -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the Revert?[edit]

Could you explain your revert to Bill de Blasio of March 14? If there was a POV issue you could have edited it. Instead you deleted the entire referenced material.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not neutral in its wording, cherry picked quotes, and quite frankly did not seem important. The paragraph read like an opinion piece on de Blasio's estate policies. I did not think it added anything of value to the article. Because the page is protected and edits must be reviewed, there's a heightened level of scrutiny. If you feel it belongs on the page, I recommend starting a new section on Talk:Bill de Blasio. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It's totally important (maybe you don't understand as you live elsewhere or work in some ivory tower) and it didn't cherry pick quotes (Did you even look at the source material?) Yes I think I will start a section on the Talk page. Sometimes editors even good ones overeditorialize on Wikipedia. It looks like that's what happened here.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't hear you from down there. This ivory has terrible acoustics too. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I...[edit]

Can i delete naughty bear from the List of video games notable for negative reception? Because if you play that game it is so fun, just because people rated it bad doesn't mean it is bad. It is a very underrated game. I didn't know where to put my question so I just put it here. From U8iuui11

@U8iuui11: Wikipedia reports on what other people say. I understand that you like the game, but if lots of other people, especially magazines and websites that review games, disliked it, then that's what Wikipedia should report on. Also check out this page on "original research". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Map Graphic Help[edit]

Hey Evergreen! May I ask you clarify on Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Change_border_on_Kosovo. I want to help you on this. ///EuroCarGT 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi EuroCarGT! Yeah, I was a bit confused myself, but apparently in the proposed Russia image with Crimea in light green, the border of Kosovo was added as a solid line (I had to look at the wiki page to even know where to look on the map). In the old Russia map it was not there and in other maps it's shown as a dashed line. My understanding is this is because of the disputed nature of the country. A user raised the issue and the map creator, FutureTrillionaire is away for the weekend and suggested I ask the Graphics Lab for help. They might be back soon and seem to understand what the issue is, but you are more than welcome to take a stab at it. Does that help? And thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The understanding is getting there. smile So you want to put Kosovo into the proposed map? ///EuroCarGT 01:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so I've plotted Kosovo into the proposed map but still have no clue what colour is should be? ///EuroCarGT 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@EuroCarGT: I think the issue is that the border needs to be dashed, not solid. Like in File:Europe-Ukraine.svg. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Not sure if it's me, but I don't see a solid line in the proposed map. ///EuroCarGT 03:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@EuroCarGT: You're right... someone must have changed it (and file edit history confirms it). I'll remove it from the Graphics Lab. Sorry for the trouble and thank you so much for the help! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: For some reason, I guess I see it.... However the new revision is from User:Aleksa Lukic, so thanks to him or her! ///EuroCarGT 03:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all; agreed that the boundary between Kosovo and central Serbia should be a dotted line as the territory is disputed. I defer to you guys on the formatting as I would not have a clue how to format a map. Thanks again. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine RfC problems[edit]

Yep, I think admin does need to be called in, but where from? I don't want to stick you into the thick of it and, at the moment, if I take it before anyone that's what's going to happen.

I suspect that it'd probably be best if you were to bring the issue up, note that it's raised other questions, and ask for some help on pulling the two together (and the question of how it impacts on the content of both articles in total). The advice may be to add {{cent}} to both RfC's, but it may to be start from scratch. Are you comfortable with doing this? If not, I can ask at the Village Pump (miscellaneous) for some advice, but I have an appointment and will be logging off for the day within the next 20 minutes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We're being ignored at the Village Pump because no one wants to touch this. I'm going to leave messages on a couple of admin's pages (those in the know) in order to speed things up. There's so much in the way of nationalistic bollocks being expanded on in these articles because they can't get it past the dedicated pages that I just don't know where to start. I'd like to see the RfC sorted ASAP and get into an actual community-based decisions about what belongs in these articles as summaries and what gets kicked out to be battled out on the topical pages. Wish me luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
PS I know the usual admins who aren't afraid to take these issues on are bogged down in trying to keep a lid on the dramas on the Crimea and related pages at the moment. Let's see if I can't coax out someone who's reticent, but willing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Lol, thanks! I do not envy those admins. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely on a level of masochism even I can't begin to comprehend... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As EvergreenFir can see, Iryna Harpy did not answer the question.[4][5] EvergreenFir has the requested consensus.[6] As soon as the user has proof that National Geographic fulfilled their statement, formal closure may be requested to end the RfCs.

I have provided enough advice. Does the user feel more comfortable with help from an administrator? Then ask for help from an administrator, use the {{admin help}} template. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, 84.127.80.114. I've already sought advice on our own behalves and am about to inform EvergreenFir as to the nature of the advice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. Admin advice would be lovely. Honestly at this point I see no rush and if Iryna asked an admin, that's cool. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Does Iryna Harpy mean this advice request? (Hi, Guy Macon.) This is EvergreenFir's RfC. If the user does not mind the delay, neither do I. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It is ironic that Iryna Harpy cross-posted advice requests about cross-posted RfCs. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
84.127.80.114, I actually fail to see the irony in posting to two personal pages (so don't try to imply multiple postings) and informing each that it was also posted to the other's. Considering that the request for advice on the Village Pump miscellaneous board a couple of days ago was met with absolutely no responses, I had to work on the assumption that no admins wanted to touch it. We have now established that my assumption was correct. The admins have been scratching their heads about what the correct action should be (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 159#Need help with the C Word (Crimea)).
What is ironic is that all of your well intentioned (? [read as gaming the system]) advice to EvergreenFir would have been deemed to be surreptitious as both this RfC and the Russian talk page RfC have been expressly noted as needing to be closed by a neutral administrator. You have been pressuring EvergreenFir here and on her/his talk page with 'how to' per your personal interpretations of protocols. I would thank you to desist from such blatant personal provocations and aspersions cast on my integrity. While it certainly seems that you have latched onto me as needing to account for myself at every comment, I'm reading carefully constructed annoyance over not being able to coerce me into playing by your rules. Being uncivil, as I'm sure you would know, is not always obvious rudeness.
If you feel that my interpretation of your demeanour is unjustified and unwarranted, I am more than prepared to discuss the matter before an WP:AN/I. Would you care to start proceedings, or should I? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Apologies for using your talk page as a sparring venue!... and apologies for the delay in getting back to you on how to approach the situation (I got caught up in discussing a DRN I've been asked to initiate as a neutral party). Per Liz:

It sounds like it is necessary to close one of the RfC with a notice about the other (this happened recently with a RM discussion I participated in that ran over four different talk pages). Admin attention is necessary, particularly, by someone experienced in closing discussions.

Per my response (as I think it best that you should ask to close one off):

I think the Russia talk page discussion is the one to close off as it was WP:SNOW to have opened a discussion there (the disputed region map had already been posted a couple of days prior the RfC, so it wasn't likely to be met with any dissent). I'll advise EvergreenFir to take it to the Request for closure noticeboard.

Ultimately, it's your choice which to close, but the Russia RfC seems logical. If you'd rather I ask that it be closed, I'm equally happy to do so. Hope I've been of help to you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you! I'll ask for the Russia one to be closed. I think the Ukraine one is nearing time to close as well... but a few people are insisting on geographical RS instead of news RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw it on the noticeboard and see that the RfC has been closed. Unfortunately, the administrator who closed it off didn't direct page watchers there to the Ukrainian talk page RfC. I might add a new section and give them a heads up on the fact that it's still being discussed there, and also that there is a discussion on splitting infobox and body information which constitutes original research. Might also make a note of this having been brought up on Jimbo's talk page as a result of admin confusion. Aside from my blurb there, no one other than Sameboat has added his 2c worth on that discussion. I'd like to keep the discussion alive as, while I have no objections to the disputed territory map, something needs to be sorted. Both articles are still completely out of step with each other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Jimbo, and all admins, see to be hesitant to weigh in on this issue. Frankly I'm not convinced we need a geographic RS to change the map; the news should be enough. As for splitting infobox, do you mean where both countries claim the territory (I think Crimea has a split infobox). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I had a feeling from the outset that admin wouldn't want to touch it. They're quick to weigh in where they're convinced they're on terra firma. It's become a pass-the-buck situation, meaning that the buck stops at local consensus. I just want to ensure that no one turns around and tells us that we had no right to overrule some overriding policy or another. Being scapegoats isn't much fun. At least there's a 'but we asked and were answered by a deafening silence' cyber-trail to point to.
Agreed that the Crimea has a split infobox, but there's no OR in terms of the population, the area or any stats of that nature. Hopefully, now that the National Geographic map is available, the RfC on the Ukraine map will be ripe for closing off ASAP. The splitting of stats would require secondary sources unless there are no objections from admin. Even if it's only for the sake of being seen to be weighing up policy and guidelines, I'd rather that there be consensus to be referenced by anyone reverting POV nonsense on either article. Yes, it means a little time and sparring in order to get it, but when offset against indefinite edit warring... I'd rather get it sorted now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Robinson R22[edit]

Thank you to break my modifications, like we tell in French : "ça donne vraiment envie de se casser le cul pour que des trous de balles viennent tout gâcher". I think you will be like if you are good in French, or if you've got a good translater.Arnaud Lambert

(Talk page stalker) As we say in English, "Cats have nine lives." Please be aware of the fact that you appear to have used up eight of them. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL. Also, I would advise you to read WP:UNDUE and WP:DISRUPT. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Question - ANI or Sock?[edit]

Re your message: I see the accounts. I wouldn't worry about them for now until they start making edits. It could be a class, bunch of friends, who knows. Unless they start doing something or they are an obvious set of obvious socks of some long-term sockpuppeteer, which I don't recognize them to be, I'd let them go. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC[edit]

Message removed. TFD (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

not terribly helpful. And isn't there something about not templating regulars? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: WP:DTTR. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I once advised a long-time editor when they reached 3rr, and when they exceeded 3rr they successfully complained they were unaware of the policy. So if I do not see that an editor has received a template message before or been blocked for edit-warring, then I do not assume they are aware of 3rr. However, since you are clearly aware, I am removing the templated message. TFD (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I appreciate the thought. I mentioned on 3rr on the SPLC talk page as DD2K threatened to report me (though I hadn't gone past my 3rd revert). I'm just frustrated with the bureaucracy/slowness of Wikipedia sometimes. I can accept the "undue" argument. What frustrated me was the mass revert despite the many decent edits in there. Thanks for removing the template though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know, since this is the 2nd time you have claimed you did not violate 3RR after I warned you, 3RR states:
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."
Which you definitely did do(1,2,3,4). I just chose not to pursue the issue, but you violated 3RR and should re-read the policy if there is any question. Just to be sure. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
@DD2K: Thanks for your "concern" but again, fixing AnomieBot was not a revert of a particular user. It was fixing an error. I had 3 reverts of user edits. That's not violating 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess you can believe what you want to believe, but should you run into this situation again, believe me, removing the link was a revert. You took out material that was in the article for a long period of time. I was going to undue the Toa edit before the bot re-added the link, so removing the link was definitely a revert. You don't have to believe me, but keep this conversation in mind the next time you violate WP:3RR. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully admins tend to have better heads on their shoulders than you appear to. AnomieBot rescued a reference that another user removed (1) because it was no longer true. AnomieBot's insertion of that ref was also factually incorrect. It was an error that a human would have avoided if they read the sentence and ref. I removed it. You don't even seem to realize that Tao's edit was not undone by AnomieBot. AnomieBot rescued the ref when it was used again later in the article. Please read the actual edits made before attempting to accuse people of stuff. It's quite frustrating to have to explain it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, I guess you can believe what you want. I am well aware that the bot rescued the ref, which is why I decided to wait before I undid Tao's edit. Show me where reverting a bot is listed under 3RR exemptions? It doesn't matter if you think you're right. Even if you were removing a period that you thought was a mistake, and the other editor kept adding the period, it's edit warring. Even if you were right. If you don't understand that, that's your problem. I'm done now. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The "undue" argument is that articles should be similar to what one would find in mainstream sources. It may be that the mainstream has it wrong, but this is not the forum to correct them. If you disagree with that you can try getting the policy changed or go to a different forum. If you persuade the mainstream to change their views, then that should and will be reflected in the article. Otherwise you will encounter conflict. TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC impoverishment[edit]

Thank you for saving some of my edits at the SPLC article. I wasn't at all surprised by the mass revert of my edits—I'm familiar with how the "progressive" mind and group-think work. You surprised me, though; I thought you were one of them smile. I'll even apologize for calling you a sociologist, lol ! I don't believe I added anything new, though, did I? Mainly I just worked on what was already in the article text. Oh well, thanks anyway. I appreciate what you did.

PS: When I updated the total number of hate groups for 2013, I did not revise any of the numbers in the detailed list that follows that sentence. Those details aren't on the Hate Map page and I decided to leave it to one of the true believers to dig the detail numbers out and update them for 2013. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks[edit]

Hi, if you use the Reflinks tool you still need to do some cleanup. Reflinks adds additional material like this:

| Fort Worth | News from F<!-- Bot generated title -->

which needs to be stripped out by hand. It's not perfect but it is still better than the invented titles we had before. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@WWGB: Yeah, I saw your edit just a minute ago. I'll be sure to look for the cruft. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"as a president" or "as president"[edit]

Please could you explain the reason for your revert? I found in Google:
"as a president" - 120.000.000
"as president" - 70.600.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.215.121 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"As president" is standard American English. Not sure if other Englishs do it differently. We typically would say "As mayor" and "As commander" as well. Can even say "As the mayor". I only base this on my own understanding of English as a native speaker. If you think it's grammatically incorrect (as much of native speech is), then I recommend starting a section on the talk page. Hope that helps! Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) 85.193.215.121, as a copyeditor, I can assure you that 'as president' is correct in all varieties of English. When you googled the phrases, did you actually check on the context in which the phrase was used? In the context you have cited, 'as' serves as the the equivalent of an abbreviation of, "In his/her role of being THE (one and only such position at that given time) president." (or a definite article), as opposed to 'a president' (the indefinite article, being one of several presidents serving simultaneously). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I am not a native speaker, I understand linguistic nuances like "music", "a music", or "the music", but "president" seems to be always the countable noun. That's why the absence of a determiner before a countable noun is strange to me.
By the way, EvergreenFir wrote: as much of native speech is, which is also strange to me. I would write: as much as native speech is. I found as much of on the internet except dictionaries online. Don't you think that "as much as" is more understandable and more logical? Regards.85.193.215.121 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll move our discussion to your talk page so as we don't clutter up EvergreenFir's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Hi Ev - visited the Rachel Marsden Talk page and apparently the subject (who I believe is banned) had a friend/other Wiki editor repost her grievances there on her behalf (says so in his post). I have no issue if she wants to dispute a page about herself in the Talk section, but her lengthy proxy post includes accusing me (by my handle) of being a bad faith editor, etc. I've moved onto editing other articles, but would appreciate some admin assist on the the personal attacks if that is possible? thanks CammieD (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@CammieD: I messaged the admin who posted that message on behalf of Rachel Marsden. I myself am not an admin, but have asked that the message be removed. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And why are there no such reliable sources?[edit]

Hmmm? It's a little too convenient, don't you think?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Not really. The closest it comes is Zionism. But it's not quite the same as White supremacy. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I was joking. Perhaps 'twas not funny?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Poe's Law strikes again! Blarg! Totally missed the sarcasm/snark. We need sartalics!!! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I just need to remember to hit the winky-face button harder is all... ;-) 03:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian general election, 2014: welcome the newbie[edit]

Indian general election, 2014 was edited by new editor Vinsanna on his/her first edit. The addition of the Comparing Manifesto heading was not immediately helpful, but if Vinsanna comes back with the highlights of the various party platforms, that could be a good thing. Why not leave a note on Vinsanna's talk page welcoming him/her to Wikipedia, explaining why you reverted, and suggesting how this enhancement could be accomplished. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Will do! I'm multitasking (grading papers), so I didn't notice that Vinsanna was a new editor. I'll welcome them. Thanks for the message! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Darwin on intelligent Design[edit]

Why this revert? The cited source is the 1861 letter in which Charles Darwin uses "intelligent Design" referring to John Herschel's 1861 note in his book, which itself is described in the footnotes to Darwin, Charles (23 May 1861). "Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W.". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 3154. . See also the original. . dave souza, talk 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dave souza: I misread it. Sorry about that. Question on it though: is "intelligent" supposed to be lower case and "Design" uppercase like that? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes: the transcription of Darwin's letter uses lower case "intelligent" as an adjective for the term he capitalises as "Design". The two word phrase is quite common in older descriptions of the design argument, modern ID made it into a term for pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Good one[edit]

That was a good one! [7]. ShriramTalk 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder[edit]

Hello. As a friendly reminder, as per WP:BLANKING, editors -including unregistered ones- may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. Likewise, as per WP:TPO, editors should not remove others` comments from someone else's talk page. As such, I undid your revert to User talk:116.15.45.112, where you removed the message left by User:Shriram and also restored messages that 116.15.45.112 had deleted from his or her own talk page. Regardless, I also blocked the IP temporarily for disruptive editing. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kralizec!: Thank you. My intent was to avoid a restart of the warning levels. I know users are able to remove items from their talk page, but are we not allowed to re-add them if they are removed (especially thinking of disruptive editors)? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

But if its true, can't a version of what I said be atleast kept under 'Controversy' if I provide references/police reports to back it up? Advice please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucybeetruth (talkcontribs)

@Lucybeetruth: If there are reliable sources that discuss bullying at the school or police activity, it may be allowed. But it may be removed as overly negative. You must be extra careful when talking about living people. Wikipedia has special rules about referring to living people in order to protect them from libel. The Teahouse might be a better place to ask as the hosts usually know more than I do. I'll invite you in a moment. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

David Lamb[edit]

Yeah, I'm sorry to revert you, but he just died today, he's not famous enough for it to be breaking news, so it's sourced to the facebook page. It'll certainly make a newspaper soon, but for now there'll probably be a lot of page views from fans of the band, so I think it's better to just leave it alone so we don't have to get into a big talk page thing on the same day Lamb died. That's my thinking...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Not a problem. I trust your judgment on this. Just saw a new user adding death info was all.  :) EvergreenFir (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Understood. They'd kill off every last one of them if they could by just editing Wikipedia...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Heh, yeah. Sounds like the premise of a bad anime. Wait... it was. But that anime was decent. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Talk page FAQs[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Where are romani come from?[edit]

Excuse me...Where are romani come from? Is'n it from India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.27.50 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@46.177.27.50: In my recent edits, the articles referenced mention the Jatt people, which are from northern India and Pakistan. Other findings suggest an Indian origin as well. So yes, from that region in general. Did I make a mistake in my edit? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I've seen your edits on a few gender and sexuality related pages and always been impressed at how well you keep debates and articles WP:NPOV despite users making edits based on biased viewpoints. So yes, many thanks. Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drowninginlimbo: Thank you! That's very sweet of you!  :D EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Message from JohnnyBlaze007[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

hello, may i know the reason, why did u removed my contribution to the page warangal on April 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyBlaze007 (talkcontribs)

@JohnnyBlaze007: Hi there! The reason I gave in my revert was "WP:NOTDIR" which basically says that Wikipedia is not a directory of stores. Your edit was well-intentioned, but was mostly a list of stores you can shop at. It looked a tiny bit like an advertisement for those stores, which is against Wikipedia's policy. Additionally, the wording of your edit was not neutral and personal opinion (e.g., "Warangal is a shoppers paradise"). To be honest, the page currently needs some work and I can see how, as a reader, why you might have made your edit. There are other sections of the page that look like a directory, listing "attractions". Those really should be removed. I hope that answers your question some. Let me know if you have any more questions. I will see if I can edit the page a bit to improve it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at DD2K's talk page.
Message added 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delete at will Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder[edit]

Hello, just letting you know that User:Miesianiacal has replied to your post on the SlutWalk talk page.

I personally prefer your phrasing, it manages to say quite a lot in one sentence whereas his distracts from the point of the sentence, that many didn't feel comfortable talking about their experiences before the event, but still identified as rape survivors, if just to themselves (plus I don't entirely believe the other editor is NPOV concerning the topic of sexual assault, not to accuse or anything, he just seems to be editing from a certain standing rather than to what the sources are saying) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EvergreenFir. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead RfC[edit]

Sorry about appearing to have undermined the RfC. I was about to write you a quick missive regarding the matter due to its looking as if it's going to be knocked on the head... and that'd just leave us where we started. It occurred to me that bypassing any references in the lead for both articles in the one RfC could give us a starting point for getting rid of the surfeit of POV warring.

The next step would be to get the current affairs sections down to as brief a summary as possible and let those working on the corresponding current affairs articles deal with the interlopers, then we can try to get something happening with the infobox CALC. I'm running out of steam trying to control the POV bloat, and I'd imagine you're feeling the same way. There are already enough 'contributors' I'd love to take an ANI, but I just don't have the energy: any more WP:CHEESE and I'll either explode or implode.

Here's to preserving our sanity! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I thought your proposal was a good one. I said I was neutral as I feel at mentioning the federal subjects is fine too, but either is ok. I am indeed CHEESEd out. I thought one person had a good point: just wait. There's no rush. Once more sources include them, we can be more certain in our edits. But the POV pushing is getting quite obnoxious, to the point of WP:IDHT. Frankly, I think I should purchase some land near the Ukraine and Russia talk pages and open a glue factory. Or a Taco Bell. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I hear you on every level... which is why I tempered the alternative proposal as 'temporary'. I'll be the first one lining up the occupants of the Trojan horses for your glue factory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm... now I want to write a humorous essay about pages that a threat to survival of Equus ferus caballus. Have a threat meter that ranges from "Riding crop" to "Taco Bell meat processing plant". Discuss the horrible, widespread abuse of these majestic animals and how their corpses litter the streets of Wikipedia. I actually think I might do this... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL! One suggestion: Equus ferus caballus (AKA cabalsRus). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism[edit]

Regarding the edit of Neo-Nazism by IP user 96.241.218.72 with summary "Serbia: Please, do not reference a blog which author is unknown", I studied this for awhile. I wanted to know if this IP user has been a good editor in the past, and I see that he has edited [Nacionalni stroj] several times, removing most of its contents, and removing that it is a neo-Nazi organization. I have difficulty evaluating if it is or is not a neo-Nazi organization. A Google search shows some suggestions that it is but I don't know if the sources are reliable. So I don't know if the IP user is doing the work of a good wikipedian, or someone who wants to cover up actual Neo-Nazi organizations and individuals. Coming back to the edit of Neo-Nazism I am not convinced by IP user's claim that this is just a blog. It looks to me like http://sandzakpress.net/ is more than a blog and really a full-blown news organization, but I cannot speak to its reliability or lack of bias. The fact that the article lacks an author name is inconsequential; many reliable media often omit a byline. I was leaning toward reverting IP user's edit, but I hadn't made a final decision when you approved it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I approved the edit because it appeared to not be vandalism and the source was suspect. The only contact on the page is "sandzakpress@gmail.com". I see nothing about editors or anything that makes me think it's a news outlet. Does not seem to be WP:RS. But honestly, my "accept" was based on "not vandalism". You are welcome to revert it if you wish. My "accept" was not a verification or endorsement. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)