User talk:EvergreenFir
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Please comment on Talk:Leggings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leggings. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
RE: "IP hopping vandal"
This is a mobile (AT&T) address, in use intermittently by numerous individuals. Tossing ad hominem onto its talk page will not accomplish anything. A shared IP block with a tag for suggesting account creation should suffice without having to accuse every new user who hops on the range of vandalism. 2600:387:2:813:0:0:0:AE (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3)
I took the liberty to restore your edits on Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3). We better keep our eyes peeled in case that NC IP Hopper comes back again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @FilmandTVFan28: I saw (opened the tab but haven't gotten to it yet). Thank you for dealing with it. I'll keep an eye out more in the coming days. Been so busy, barely time to even look. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Those episodes are not two parters, they aired as one whole episode, they only had one title card, those edits were and never will be vandalism, and that's the end of it! 2605:A601:7013:400:EC3E:C18F:1AB2:37D5 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Someday, we're gonna need to request a block range on that user. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw your report at AIV, but I'm not really sure what we can do. The IP has a final warning, so it doesn't seem likely that further warnings will be productive. It's not exactly high-rate vandalism, averaging about an edit per day, and not all obvious vandalism. So a block would have to be on the long side to prevent much. I'm pretty reluctant to indef an IP, or to hand out a month-long block as their first. Any ideas? GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Honestly not really... one of those consistent but slow moving vandals. With the ridiculous amount of vandalism the WP:TV project pages attract, I'm admittedly less nuanced in my approach to vandals there simply due to sheer volume. If you think that a block won't do much here, I won't disagree. I will keep an eye on their edits though and see if it continues. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
List of Fish Hooks episodes
I also restored your edits on List of Fish Hooks episodes. I personally would rather listen to REAL Wikipedia professionals like you and most of everyone else than unprofessional ones like that user who removed your edit on that page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Violence against women
Why?--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because GBV is about either (1) violence rooted in misogyny or (2) violence that disproportionately or exclusively affects women and girls. It's not just any violence that occurs against women. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the type of violence that occurs to women for being women.--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- By removing the "predominantly or exclusively" part, the sentence rads as if any violence that affects women is GBV though. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're wrong. The text doesn't make that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs)
- Let's move this to the article talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're wrong. The text doesn't make that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs)
- By removing the "predominantly or exclusively" part, the sentence rads as if any violence that affects women is GBV though. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the type of violence that occurs to women for being women.--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Blanca Lap: Sorry I've been busy at work. I'll take a look in a moment. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
MoS talk: ie, eg and etc
You have closed an RfC saying there are two on one page about the same topic and both started by the same user. Can you please check your reasoning, as I think you will find this is not true. --Sb2001 (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You removed referenced information and new citations
Two days ago, I spent an hour adding citations that were missing from Wikipedia's "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" page and adding additional information.
After finishing, I received this message from you: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted."
I lost my hour and all of my helpful edits because you decided that you did not want them. I presume that you did not actually look at them because, if you had, you would have seen that all of them were sourced with references.
I am an Oklahoma attorney who is intimately familiar with the facts and sources of information pertaining to the content that I was editing. I presume that you are not.
You have done a disservice to Wikipedia and to everyone who uses the "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" page for information.
On a side note: I'm glad that I'm not you. You must live a sad life if you spend it "policing" Wikipedia.
209.213.139.15 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @209.213.139.15: As an attorney I'm sure you understand the importance of rules, procedures, and proper presentation of evidence. To speak you're jargon, you added prejudicial information, i.e., information that presents an undue negative narrative and was, at the very least, unnecessary for a reader's understanding of the event. Just as with rape shield laws, you cannot bring in (mis)leading tangential information into the article to paint a skewed picture. For Wikipedia's rules on this, see WP:WEIGHT.
- I'm concerned that as an attorney "
intimately familiar with the facts
" surrounding this case, you may have a conflict of interest. If so, please read that linked page. - Last, my sad life on Wikipedia is a hobby. While I take it seriously and enjoy it, I don't take it personally. I suggest you do the same. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding reboots
Why are you removing the vast majority of reboots from the Reboot page? Jamster93 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Catalan Countries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Paraphilia and Transgender Issues
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.