User talk:Equivamp

If you try to contact me I will get back with you as soon as possible.

Androginos

Hi, please consult an etymological dictionary, so you know what the facts are, before you incorrectly "correct" someone elses edit. 71.47.254.61 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You gave two disparate meanings, so perhaps I'm not the one uncertain on the facts. --Equivamp - talk 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sapphic section

Hello! I followed the BRD cycle and created a talk page on LGBT Symbols so we can discuss the Sapphic section. I hope we can reach a consensus!

Niconushinii (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Niconushinii: I see where you said you made some changes to the sources used, I got a bit busy but I'll look into the changes shortly when I get a minute to look through them all and talk about them. In the meantime, you can read previous discussions about reliable sources (and the related bar for notability on Wikipedia) for the topic in the Talk page archives (which should be linked somewhere in the boxes at the top of the talk page). That way you can get a comparison of what kinds of sources have been used and which have been rejected, etc. --Equivamp - talk 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of article topics."

I assume you are the editor who removed my discussion of the validity of an assertion discussed in the article on TERFS. Perhaps I am missing your point. You don't want to be presented evidence on the talk page that an assertion of the article is likely false? Did you read the reference in the comment? Ariel31459 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers

Your edit on List of fatal dog attacks in the United States has been reverted. Next time you revert someone's edit and say they need a citation, please first READ the citation. The news article had been updated (since it was first posted) with the victim's name and age in the HEADLINE. I will remind you to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. You had reverted an edit from a new IP editor (their first edit) who geolocates to the town where the incident occurred. Normal Op (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My revert was in line with WP:BLP (in its application to the recently-deceased) which states that poorly-sourced contentious material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (See also its discussion of listing names of non-public figures notable only for single events and where their identity is not important context.) I stand by the revert as the sourcing did need correcting, which I see in the page's edit history that you did. I wonder if you would have done so if the revert had not brought it to your attention?

I am not in the habit of researching the location of IP editors. I'm unlikely to start. And I don't see any hostility ("biting") toward a newcomer in the text of my edit summary, Must provide a reliable source for this information, nor in merely reverting a BLP issue with a link to a relevant policy. --Equivamp - talk 01:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the sourcing did NOT need correcting. The content in the source had been changed; the URL to the source NEVER changed. The IP editor simply over-wrote the "fancy" citation (losing author, publisher, date, etc.) and used the raw URL, but the URL was the same as before. All I did was to put the fancy stuff back in, and update the archiveurl to the newer, changed version. If you HAD clicked the link (which clearly you didn't, though any other editor would have), you would have seen that the victim's name was right there in the heading of the news article. What in the world do you mean by "poorly-sourced contentious material"? The news article headline states that it was the Sheriff's Office who released the victim's name. And yes, reverting anyone's edit telling them they needed a source when one is already there, IS biting an editor. IP editors should not be treated with any less manners than those with accounts. Wikipedia is facing a crisis for lack of editors, high editor attrition, and steep barriers to starting editing at WP. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Normal Op (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The archive-url is what I was referring to with both correcting and with "poorly-sourced".

I don't know what assumptions you're making about my intentions to keep making some accusations that I'm treating an IP editor differently than anyone else, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI, I see no reason to continue this discussion, so I ask that you don't. Equivamp - talk 09:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
141		Social stigma of obesity (talk)	Add sources
65		Childhood gender nonconformity (talk)	Add sources
268		King Kong (franchise) (talk)	Add sources
792		IPod Classic (talk)	Add sources
6,956		Transgender (talk)	Add sources
51		South Tibet (talk)	Add sources
84		Child and adolescent psychiatry (talk)	Cleanup
160		Transgender rights in Canada (talk)	Cleanup
4,760		CVS Pharmacy (talk)	Cleanup
1,391		Gender identity (talk)	Expand
48		Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka (talk)	Expand
321		LGBT culture (talk)	Expand
80		Healthcare and the LGBT community (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29		Anti-Khmer sentiment (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,279		Bisexuality (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
89		Vivian (Paper Mario) (talk)	Merge
400		Chalcogen (talk)	Merge
56		Gender identity under Title IX (talk)	Merge
4,602		Tom Cotton (talk)	Wikify
60		Womyn's land (talk)	Wikify
28		Gay media (talk)	Wikify
3		Bo's Place (talk)	Orphan
6		Manmasi National Christian Army (talk)	Orphan
7		Murder of Donna Eastwood (talk)	Orphan
1,307		Emasculation (talk)	Stub
30		Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 (talk)	Stub
12		A Patriot for Me (talk)	Stub
10		Joanna Haartti (talk)	Stub
16		Chaucer's Retraction (talk)	Stub
7		Isanzu people (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So where are your references?

So there’s a bunch of wikiknowitalls who live about 15,000 mikes away from where I live (Wangolina, population 10, I’m related to all of them) who delete my changes because they’re unverified, yet put up no reliable citations of their own. Double standard wankers Mcbloke (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mcbloke: If your edit was just to remove unsourced statements, I would have left it alone. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia, reliability and verifiability are not measured by physical proximity to a subject, nor by how many people someone is related to, nor to whom they are related. The burden of citing a source is on you, the person who added information, not on someone who removes it. Please take a moment to read some of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, like those on civility. --Equivamp - talk 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a review of a draft article

Hello User:Equivamp. My name is Dan Cook. I do paid editing on behalf of clients, mostly article cleanup. I recently got a request for help with a new article from a British entertainer, Sheridan “Shed” Simove. He had a Wikipedia entry that was posted in 2011 but was deleted this past June. I am reaching out to you because of your interest in editing comedy pages.

I think what happened was Shed attempted to add in new information without disclosing his COI. (I’m pretty sure he did not understand the rules around such editing.) Another editor saw his work, decided he was not notable, and quickly deleted it.

I reviewed his coverage and I do believe his is sufficiently notable to merit a rather short article. Would you be willing to review my draft, since I am in a COI and should not be posting it? If so, please let me know whether you want me to put it in draft space, post it on your talk page, my talk page, my sandbox, etc. It currently resides in my sandbox. Thanking you in advance for any feedback you have to offer. DanDavidCook (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ted Kaczynski, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AviationFreak💬 20:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@AviationFreak: You know, if the issue with the primary source was not that it was primary, but that it was undue, your edit summary could have reflected that. Or, failing that, you could have simply said as much to me and linked this RFC you're referring to instead of giving me a template warning for "disruptive" editing which did not exist. Thanks. --Equivamp - talk 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies - I was unaware that you were a regular editor and placed the template out of habit when reverting with TW. Feel free to remove this template if you'd rather not have it hanging around on your talk page. AviationFreak💬 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Get back on the forums Equivamp

Oddguy missed you. Malhub.com

You should come back. The older forums are gone but a new one popped up.