User talk:EvergreenFir

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Transgendered articles

Hi EvergreenFir. I was going to reply at the disruption thread at the Transphobia article, but thought it might be better to explain here. The issue is in the news where myself and foggymaize are from,[1] which lead me to Transgender people in sports. Foggy saw the article and later decided to make some changes. Save was accidentally clicked on in visual editor before a description of the changes was written. I told her to write the description on the talk page instead. This lead to the other articles. Anyway it is not an area I have shown much interest in before (I remember responding to an RFC on whether "his/her" should be used in an article years ago), but the state of that article and others changed my mind. I am not terrible sure on what the policy between husband and wife editors is. I have made it clear at my user page and hers and will do so again at any formalish !votes where we both comment that require closing (RFCs, AFDs, RMs etc). You and Mathglot know, and I have no problem if either of you inform other people you think should also. I know this is a controversial area, so I want to be as open as possible (I edit other controversial areas here so would like to keep some privacy though). AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You've been completely aboveboard about this from the beginning, and done more than due diligence. You could read about conflict of interest at WP:COI if you want to dot all the i's and cross the t's, but I don't think it applies here. Then again, I'm no expert in this area, but hats off for going out of your way to be transparent, which is always a good idea. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I agree entirely with Mathglot. My gripe at the disruption thread was not aimed at you or Foggy, though perhaps Foggy's edits added to my perception of "a lot of new users". Rather, there are other new accounts like Lucy.Parsons and SheWhoSees who are being referred to (and to be clear, disruption is coming from both "pro-trans" and "pro-radfem" (if you'll forgive the clunky categorization). Your link to the sports think might be part of what's increasing the traffic and editing. I apologise if I come off as curt; there's been a lot of disputes and not-quite-good faith editing on transgender related pages over the years. I know my worldview and biases on this area and do my best to consider views that conflict with my own (deferring to sources, even if I don't personally like what they have to say on the topic)... But I know they're there and likely influence how I see other editors' actions (which is why I'm slow to report things unless it's clear, unambiguous bad faith vandalism or trolling). Tl;Dr - I appreciate you and your efforts here, please don't see me as an obstructionist or "sjw" or what have you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I am only just getting back to editing after the holidays. I do not think you were curt at all, in fact I understand that it looks bad with all these new accounts. I just wanted to offer a possible explanation, at least form my end, but it may very well be some off site canvassing (the editing style is a bit too different to be socks). It should not really have much effect as in my experience new editors that only come here to push their point of view on one topic area don't last long. My views will of course be somewhat influenced by Foggy's, which are pretty apparent, but I am experienced here in general and also with controversial topics so like to think I have a handle on editing in these areas. I have tried explaining the "truth vs verifiability" mantra that is key to editing here to Foggy and I asked her to consider striking her last comment to you, but in the end she will make her own decisions. I kind of wish she had stuck to bluegrass or other simpler areas longer, though conflict appears in the strangest venues. You both seem more than reasonable and I should have enough contribution history to show I am here for the right reasons. Ideally we can get some decent content up. I am finding the whole "pro-trans" and "pro-radfem" (to use your terms) conflict quite interesting and it is nice to edit out of your comfort zone sometimes. TL:DR No problem. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

One little thing that has confused me though. Why is Gamergate used for discretionary sanctions? I don't recall any transgendered issues there. Wouldn't Chelsea Manning be more appropriate? AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: the "truth vs verifiability" mantra was a hard thing for me to learn too (resulting in a much appreciated humorous note from Iryna Harpy back in 2014). And I understand that learning curve. I'm happy to help how I can in that regard. And I know how controversial areas can be difficult (and I know my own biases there, and try to recognize them as much as possible and assume good faith unless users are clear vandals and posting slurs). Feel free to WP:TROUT me if I even start acting a fool. You certainly have enough contribution history to show you are here for the right reasons (I hope I do as well) and I appreciate your work here!

As for the {{alert}} for what was the "paraphilia/transgender" template, it apparently changed because of a motion seen here (announced here). Basically, in my understanding, Gamergate is more broad and thus covers the transgender issues and thus the old DS are superseded by the Gamergate ones. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kagan

• Glenn Greenwald (March 11, 2007). "Why would any rational person listen to Robert Kagan?". Retrieved 30 December 2017.

What's broke? Seems to work for me. I was filling in the ref. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Sorry for lack of clarity. The user placed the ref inside another citation template ([2]). TBH, based on the title, I assumed it wasn't an appropriate ref and reverted. But the citation itself (not its url) was the issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually it wasn't inside another. Think it's worth restoring? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Oh, you're right... sigh. I need to not edit WP while trying to fall asleep. Self-reverted. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello EvergreenFir, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Answer needed for article

So what gender is a man who takes hormones as the article doesnt this question about trannys.

Also why doesnt the article say trannys suffer a serious mental illness? Thats a fact!--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have left some advice, or perhaps it is a request, for Arnold on his talkpage. MPS1992 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C.. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division

I have already explained the reason for undoing the edits: InformNapalm is a Pro-Ukrainian website, where there are no confirm words from the article. For evidence, three people (this is in no way confirmed that it was soldiers of this division, and not the usual mercenaries or volunteers). Do you think this a reliable source? 178.169.87.29 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A response to a question

From the talk (diff): "Are you here to improve the article using reliable sources, or spew garage in support of a neo nazi (links above) group?" Think of this as a metaphor: It's okay to properly study a fish without being a fish. The problem is you display that anybody that studies subjects you don't like and doesn't say your opinion of the subject being discussed is the subject being discussed. The fact you bring your own emotional view of people into your academia and assessment of people is purely unacademic because it is anti-research and divisive. I study things from a third person point of view and try not to get in the middle of it (whether or not you think I am the thing is not based on any fact-based hypothesis). Sometimes truth isn't favorable to one argument, sometimes its not favorable both sides of an argument, but by stating those facts it does not in any way make me a "sympathizer" (which is what I presume you're imply by that message).

You are stereotyping me...which is an extremely non-fact based opinion - because you didn't truly try to understand who I am based on any actual data. I hold my views based on what I've seen in real life and gathering data on who the people are (in this case a group you don't like ideologically and emotionally). That doesn't make me the thing you despise because I merely gathered data on it. All I simply did was identify the culture based on fact-based evidence, and what I believe personally has nothing to do with it or that I respect it / like it at all (thats a 3rd-person NPOV). I study African American and Muslim liberation movements the same way, esoteric mystic traditions like Freemasonry and Tantra, organized crime, and world governments... I study just about every single aspect of life the same way and I learn from what the people have to say because learning from my own personal opinion of the thing being discussed is nothing more than a reflection of myself. Who am I to insert myself/my worldview into the world of people that live lifestyles I don't live? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 06:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC) —QubixQdotta (talk • contribs) 06:53, January 10, 2018 (UTC)‎

@QubixQdotta: you'd be better served addressing the thread on Drmies's talk page than trying to equate my occupation with my Wikipedia editing. Your own comments ([3], [4]) make it abundantly clear to me that you're not editing from a neutral pov or with good faith. I won't comment on your supposed methodology for data collection. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Your link to my comment: "You're right except for the white nationalist part. What their actions really represent is working class white people. Then started to work in labor unions with the familia and shit. That's why the vote for the Democratic Party, because they love the unions." You mean the information I got from communicating with people that actively participated in the lifestyle I was studying? There's nothing non-neutral about that. As for the second one, I was talking about the media's dishonesty not your profession. For you to say it was "abunduntantly clear" I was not in good faith makes no sense... what about the completely non-fact based allegation that I am "supporting neo-nazi groups". That clearly violates WP:GOODFAITH. You're clearly trying to tell me I am a nazi because you don't like the fact I don't share your talk-points on the subject. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Consider reviewing WP:OR and WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh I've read it, that doesn't change the fact you didn't respond to this half of my statement: For you to say it was "abunduntantly clear" I was not in good faith makes no sense... what about the completely non-fact based allegation that I am "supporting neo-nazi groups". That clearly violates WP:GOODFAITH. You're clearly trying to tell me I am a nazi because you don't like the fact I don't share your talk-points on the subject. I'd like an apology for being called a nazi, especially when my ancestors where slaughtered en masse by Adolf Hitler. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 09:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I never called you a Nazi. And AGF is not a suicide pact. You were clearly acting in bad faith. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to avoid apologizing to a person who had his ancestors killed in the Holocaust, when you openly said they support Nazism? Are you in denial of how offensive that is? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)