User talk:EvergreenFir

Message from Khmlight3

Hi i will stop editing the page dont be mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmlight3 (talk • contribs)

C**t

In my opinion, the editor who frequently used that word knew very well that is was deeply offensive in some contexts, and was deliberately using a phony argument, but he has an entourage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I literally couldn't agree more. But I thought using the OED (a British dictionary) would help shut down that fallacious argument. Naive perhaps, but I tried. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What people have said about that word not being so offensive in the UK is wrong. The BBC has a policy about using certain words. It says: "The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as cunt, motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and nigger are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences." [1] So they regard c**t as worse than the n-word.

You also get an idea of the way the word is viewed in the UK by watching the interview by Martin Bashir, for ITN's Tonight programme, of the men convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The interview was in 1999, but given that BBC list, the status of that word appears not to have changed since then.

Stephen Lawrence was a young black man murdered by a white gang in London. One of the men's homes had been bugged by police searching for evidence, and the documentary aired the tape. Bashir repeated the curse words the men had used on the tape, including fuck and the n-word, but not c**t. That word was bleeped, spelled out by Bashir, or written with asterisks in the subtitles. It was the only word they did that with. See here from c. 10:30 – 13:15 mins. If you only want to watch a short bit, see Bashir using the other words but spelling out c-u-n-t at 10:59 – 11:12 mins.

This is prime-time television broadcast nationally across the UK, so it gives a better indication than editors' personal experiences within particular communities. Sarah ^(talk) 22:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Not going to revert you because my edit was merely a dummy edit for me to expand on my previous edit summary, but just thought you should know that if the "name" parameter on the person infobox is empty, it defaults to the article title. So the edit made no visible difference to the page, hence why I marked the edit as 'minor'. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

Xenophrenic keeps on removing sections that are well-cited. The citations are from a published book! It is not a blog! The blogger website carried excerpts from the book "The Panic Virus". Sorry, if I attacked him with harsh words. I don't condone his removal of well-cited material and classifying it as vandalism. Powerslide (talk)

I started a discussion at Talk:Jenny_McCarthy#University_of_Google. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm perfectly fine with the edit, but I was just wondering if you could clarify what the gray-scale test is? I looked in WP:COLOR and couldn't quickly see anything. Amaury (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh I guess it's just on the contrastchecker.com website. My bad. Honestly though that neon chartreuse was kinda gross and to me too similar to the other green. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorical Question

You asked a rhetorical question at WT:Harassment. You know the answer. The editors who oppose stronger language about harassment don't want stricter enforcement of existing policy. On the contrary, unless they answer your question, they want continued ignoring of identity-based harassment, or at least gender-based harassment. I oppose a specific policy on sexual harassment because I think that all identity-based harassment is hateful. I also think that the usual workplace policy on sexual harassment has to do in part with something that doesn't happen in Wikipedia, which is demands for quid pro quo, as well as something that does happen in Wikipedia, which is hostile environment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe those who oppose stronger language will explain that they think that the policy is fine as is but needs more enforcement. More likely they want to continue the hostile work environment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The real problem, in my opinion, is that for something as big and fractious as the English Wikipedia, we don't have any sort of intermediate enforcement mechanism between the quasi-anarchies of one administrator and WP:ANI and the Supreme Court of ArbCom. There should be something in between. However, WMF has the idea that the English Wikipedia community is self-governing, and that they will leave it alone. Because of its size and fractiousness, it isn't about to change itself voluntarily. Hmmm. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm doing my best to assume good faith and hope that the question wasn't rhetorical. Hoping, but not terribly hopeful... But someone has indeed agreed that more enforcement is the solution. I tend to agree that WMF or anti-discrimination policy is the way to go, but I can think of how that can be twisted to be used against things like the GGTF or other pro-feminist groups on the site. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WCE

The World Christian Encyclopaedia is perhaps only one of few (if there are any other) sources that provide statistical data on Muslim population growth rates by denomination. There is perhaps no other equivalent. It may not be the most up-to-date, but it appears to be the best of what we have.--Peaceworld 21:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are the other sources in that sentence not good enough? It would really seem that 14 years is far too out-of-date for talking about growth trends. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

These sources have not taken up any study, nor do they give any statistical data. Besides, according to WCE, Salafism has been the slowest growing community.--Peaceworld 22:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

For example, the .edu source, perhaps the most reliable of these sources cites an "internet search".--Peaceworld 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Video of Cecil

Why the revert? The article asks for a photo, but I couldn't find one. Linking to a video is legit, right? Pkeets (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Definitely think it was a good faith addition, but there's WP:YOUTUBE and I'm honestly not sure it really adds that much to the article (see WP:EL). It's not terrible, it was just questionable imho. I'd prefer to wait for an image to become available (or maybe just wait for the AfD to complete). But you're more than welcome to start a discussion of it on the talk page for the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So your reversion was based on an opinion? The edit is within the requirements of WP:YOUTUBE, with the video properly licensed and not a copyright infringement. It is being used by news outlets. Pkeets (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like most edits in wikipedia, it was based on my opinion of how to make the article better. But please feel free to seek other opinions on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gweilo

EF, I don't know whether you know or have studied Chinese languages, but I am highly proficient in both Cantonese and English, and as you see I have explained in some fine detail how this Cantonese word in constructed, all of which is correct. This article is obviously written by people who are only semi-literate in Cantonese or English, and who are not simultaneously fully literate in both of these languages. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)