User talk:EvergreenFir

And now?

Hello there. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive403#User:Horse_Eye_Jack_reported_by_User:CaradhrasAiguo_(Result:_no_violation), you advised those, who opposed Horse Eye Jack's actions, that if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues. And so I did. The result was, in my view, not completely satisfying. One uninvolved editor stepped in, all kinds of rules were appealed to and/or dismissed, with or without sound reasoning. Unfortunately, no administrator came around to make any sort of judgement, and all the discussion lead to was the archive. What is the next step to take? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi EvergreenFir, I think 102.254.36.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same editor as 102.130.110.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you recently blocked due to block evasion. Both IPs are from South Africa and both editing similar articles, such as Sandy Cheeks. Can you take a look? S0091 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Roger Joseph Boscovich

Uninvolved editor here. Think you can semi-protect Roger Joseph Boscovich for 48 hours or something to force the users involved in the dispute there to discuss their objections on the talk page? So far they haven't done so. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, EvergreenFir. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 01:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir lack of knowledge

I was wondering why you edit statements about cosmology when you don't have any stated education in it. You seem like the totally wrong person to comment on the subject or delete anyone's thoughts. Can you expand on the subject? Thenewbigbang (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thenewbigbang: Wikipedia just cites, summarizes, and paraphrases professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We do not allow (much less rely on) an editor's personal knowledge beyond their ability to regurgitate some other source.

Article talk pages are for improvements based on the aforementioned types of sources and the site's policies -- not any editor's claims of knowledge nor original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thenewbigbang: Ian Thomson is correct. No editor need be an expert on a topic to edit on it. We just summarize and cite existing reliable sources. And we are not a forum for editors/users to discuss the topics generally. Please use Twitter or Reddit for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing anything. I'm not here to battle conventionalism. I'm here to explain our universe based on the laws of physics. The big bang theory starts out breaking the first law by stating nothing existed before the event anf if someone says "that isn't what it says", they need need to be checked into a hospital. The big bang also breaks the second law of thermodynamics by assuming a cloud of gas and dust creates fusion with the weakest force in the universe. Really? If it was that easy, why couldn't we do it here? Now, I will explain our universe following the laws. Everything was already here when the big bang happened. There. Get it? Why state the universe was born a mere 13.8 billion years ago? That's an eyeblink. It was here. All the matter to make the galaxies was here. All the dark matter was here. It was just two objects colliding in existing, static space. The first law totally followed. Einstein couldn't have said it better himself. Now, the second law of thermodynamics. All the galaxies in my theory began their lives in the plasma state. They have cooled from the very first second because they are shrapnel from a collision between two gargantuan objects at an astronomical speed. So instead of close has and dust magically gaining heat breaking the second law, my theory follows it, again, perfectly. So, I won't bother Wiki any more. I've found a website that believes me. I know the whole world is a victim of conventionalism just as it was when the Earth was the center of the universe. I get it. The only problem is that countless scientists with great careers have to deal with a theory that doesn't work. I know because I read about it. I'm not saying it to irritate people. I'm not saying the world is flat and we didn't go to the moon. I am explaining the universe the way it works, by law. There is no other way to do it, is there? Thenewbigbang (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way. My name is Michael Pollock. Just Google my name followed by "universe" and you will be directed to my nearly 3000 answers with 250,000 views. Everything you don't want to figure out is there. Have at it. Thenewbigbang (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thenewbigband: You said, "I'm not interested in editing anything. ... I'm here to explain our universe based on the laws of physics." That is not Wikipedia is for. It is an encyclopedia and users are its editors. I am glad you found other forums to disucss this, but Wikipedia is not one of them. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

...So...You post alot on Quora? GMG^talk 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sky Broadband IPs

Thank you for blocking 2a02:c7f:1476:6200::/64. They've been persistent. 2A02:C7F:149D:6100:* and 176.249.92.210, also to be found in the Lunar Jim history, seem to be the same bored young person. I thought about reporting them at AIV, but it's not easy to sufficiently warn the shifting IPv6s. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: Unfortunately the /42 range appears too broad. If the 2A02:C7F:149D:6100::/64 or 176.249.92.210 begin to edit again, let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the /42; IPv6 is still fairly opaque to me. Some experiments with the {{IP range calculator}} template may help, and I've bookmarked the Mediawiki page about calculating them. For now I have Lunar Jim on my watchlist. Thanks again. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiris

Hey EvergreenFir, the edit[1] by User:Emraanmugloo was actually right, though they didn't explained the changes. But anyways, कॉशिर लुख is plural while कॉशुर लुख is singular. Here we are talking about whole ethnicity, so without any doubt plural form has to be included.ML ⁹¹¹ 18:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)