User talk:EvergreenFir

Korrectorr block

Can you please revoke TPA? He has continued to make PAs. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 13:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Killing of George Floyd

In the Talk: page you asked me what I was trying to do. I tried to change the word 'killing' to 'death'. The change was reverted and I was told to discuss on the Talk: page. My contentions are:

1) The autopsy does not mention the word homicide 2) The word homicide appears in the Press Release report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BRnlE0VA9bl3WNYZiFa6fi2EEEOK0DMd/view?usp=drivesdk 3) The word is in the Manner of Death section 4) There is a Comment section describing the use of the Manner of Death section 5) The section is described in a Wikipedia page of the same name where only 6 words can be used

My contentions is that the autopsy does not support the widely-reported assumption that the death was consequent to the actions of law enforcement.

As a separate matter, I noticed but didn't comment on, the fact that the link to the autopsy report was broken. Are.u.sure (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: coroners make the final ruling. Nearly all WP:RS say homicide. You need extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims (e.g., contradicting the overwhelming majority of reliable sources). You've not provide any such evidence. And please see WP:SECONDARY EvergreenFir (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Coroners emphatically don't. Read what I've written. I've taken pains to make it clear. Are.u.sure (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They do, but generally not in the autopsy report itself. Press releases and death certificates, sometimes in court. Fir, may I discuss non-political aspects of specific semi-political cases under an AP2 ban? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, not worth it, just wanted to tell Levivich his latest idea isn't the greatest, probably would've went south quick, cheers instead! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Hey, sorry I'm just getting to you. CenturyLink was down nearly 24 hours. My honest advice would be to stay away from AP2 altogether. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

All good, I realized on my own that even death, crime and police can be corrosive and explosive areas, thanks for confirming, sorry about your outage. What about opposing an ITN blurb for a US fighter pilot, but on the basis of his peacetime test flight alone? Strictly physics, or still too close to his wars? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: if the blurb (assuming Chuck Yeager?) is only about the flights and not politics, go for it.

Cool, already did, will treat others the same going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Discretionary sanctions", eh?

Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

It's funny how these "discretionary sanctions" are only ever imposed one side. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@DetroitWheels74: I wonder if Mark Berenstein agrees. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Uyghurs

Why are you removing other's contributions to improve knowledge of the Uyghur peoples in the article under the guise of disruption, when clearly you are the one who is being disruptive for the simple reason that the reality is different to your biased and unscientific views, and indeed your conclusions from reasoning based on false assumptions? 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.173.239 (talk)

@109.151.173.239: Make proposed changes and stop treating the talk page like a forum to discuss Uyghur people, DNA, ethnicity claims, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello EvergreenFir,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Racist term

Why? Donarius (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donarius: "Black" is not a racist term.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Then if I will call someone „you, Black guy”, he wont be offended? Donarius (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If black was a racist term, unlikely that BLM would have called itself Black Lives Matter. But, using it in the context of your example would most likely be offensive. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donarius: It's context that matters. "Hey you, black guy!" is off-putting, and saying "a black walked into the store" is passe bordering on offensive. But saying that someone is Black (especially when capitalized) is considered correct now. I think a good parallel would be the term "queer" which used to be pejorative but now is commonplace. While it's okay to say "Elliot Page is queer" (queer as a descriptor/adjective), saying "that guy is a queer" (with the added indefinite article making "queer" a noun) would be offensive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanation. Donarius (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ruled a homicide by the medical examiner

How does that != Ruled a homicide by the medical examiner? Are.u.sure (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: the sources i linked explain it. A criminal charge is separate from a death ruling. Homicide is a cause of death. some homicide is criminal, some isn't (e.g. self defense). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Look again. my whole argument is that the word is being used in two ways. In the legal sense and as a simple label in the autopsy. 'George Floyd' is a label in the autopsy. But the autopsy makes no statements about which of the 6 labels apply for manner of death. A homicide case exists so that label is used. Are.u.sure (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ME ruling of homicide is necessary but not sufficient for a  criminal charge of homicide. The ME says the cause of death was law  enforcement action. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

They didn't need the autopsy. The lawyers had the power. They chose to suppress the autopsy and so did the press, to the extent that they didn't read the Press Release in the Comments section. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)