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!

Request for removal spam blacklist this website charlies-magazines.com

Hello Sir,

Greetings for the day!!!

This is to bring to your kind notice that my website charlies-magazine.com is blocked on Wikipedia.i am real Owner of website . Some Pakistani peoples hacked my websites including this website and one more my ecommerce site ayaanproducts.us

We, request you to kindly unblock our site: Charlies-magazines.com . Due to unknown reasons this link is blocked and shows in the Spam Blacklist.

We assure that we will abide by the content policies of your sites in the future to avoid any such issues.

I am real owner of this . I have been assigned with the responsibility to take care of the Wikipedia page of our site. Therefore kindly request you to take this mail into your consideration and solve this problem at your earliest.

Kind Regards,

Dr Mian Nadeem CEO /Managing director Ayaan products company Hellosialkot77 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My Edit of Tranny

I appreciate your recognition of "good faith" in my edit. Obviously I'm new around here, but the truth is I found the page thru NPOVN in the first place, so I still should have known better. As for discussing it on the article's own talk page, Should I just copy what I said on NPOVN to that page as well? Seems redundant, but if it helps, that's what I guess I'll do. OwlParty (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Winter Olympics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Winter Olympics. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

Hi, EvergreenFir,

Just a heads-up about another user's edits in a topic area we both frequent: I would've welcomed them had you not done so already just before me, and then right after that, I had to add this to their Talk page, concerning some possible malware. I asked about it at Teahouse, and may be going straight to ANI with this. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

okay let me know if you need any help EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, at this point, I'm just sitting back, and watching the responses, which are kind of interesting. If you're curious, see WP:ANI#Introduction of a malware link into a citation. Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And after some twists and turns, it seems to be arriving at an unexpected and somewhat surprising conclusion. I was very uncertain about raising the whole thing in the first place, and am now glad that I did. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeni Safak and etc.

Please read this article: Yeni Safak and realize that the source you keep inserting into this highly sensitive article is highly partisan and partial that has a long record of fabrications, falsehoods, anti-Semitic rhetoric, threats towards journalists, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment and has been towing the Erdogan's AKP party line for decades now. Highly partisan, highly partial Turkish sources should not be taken into consideration without questioning them, let alone be edit-warred in without at least looking into them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASED. And Yeni Safak is not the only source. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The question here is why are you edit-warring it in when I specifically said that it's partial and unreliable? Do you admit then that you are inserting unreliable sources into the article? And as far as I could see, the Hurriyet article doesn't even say anything about this incident either. Also, keep in mind that Hurriyet is not a shiny 3rd party reliable source either. Turkish sources that don't tow the government line are almost non-existent in Turkey. Turkish sources would call anyone and anything a terrorist, even journalists. So just because Turkish sources call something a terrorist attack, doesn't mean it actually is. That's why we need reliable 3rd party neutral impartial WP:RSs to describe any such matter relating to terrorism in Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

the requirement is that we use reliable sources. You may argue the reliability of a particular source, but hurriyet is to the best of my knowledge considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, all sources to be scrutinized in the way you are suggesting when it comes to issues of terrorism. U.s. news sources would have an interest in labeling attacks against us interests of terrorism for example. If you feel an entry does not belong on the list, bring it up on the article's talk page. These lists of terrorist attacks are plagued by issues of original research and poor sourcing. I'm sure someone would be interested in giving a third opinion. However, the reasons you are giving do not appear sufficient for at removal in my opinion (WP:BIASED again). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir. You are edit-warring in:

1. Yeni Safak, a highly unreliable and partial news outlet that publishes fringe theories and fabrications every single day.
2. You are adding Hurriyet which doesn't even talk about the incident in question.

So this isn't a concern about the sources, it's about you verifying them. Hence why I showed up to your TP instead of the article's TP. To put it simply: you are not meeting the WP:BURDEN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are other sources I've found about the incident. Feel free to use them instead of ones you consider less reliable: [1], [2], [3]. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps there are sources out there. But that wasn’t the point I was making. The sources that were already being edit-warred in the article were not being verified by you. That is all I wanted to say. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I am quite confused. Initially, you claimed the attack wasn't notable as grounds for its removal. Then you questioned the reliability of one of the two sources used. When the other source from Hurriyat was pointed out, you claimed it didn't even address the issue despite its very title being Two civilians killed in PKK attack in Turkey’s southeast. Last, you claim you just wanted to chastise me about not verifying a source, which actually mentions the PKK in its title.

I think your comment that "So just because Turkish sources call something a terrorist attack, doesn't mean it actually is" gets to part of the issue here. Please see WP:TRUTH. But there honestly seems to be a large issue with Turkish topics with your editing here. I know you're aware of the AA2 discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, one highly unreliable source doesn't make that particular incident WP:DUE, which is why I initially removed it then corrected myself (not that it's not notable, but undue) in the edit-summary of my subsequent edit. Secondly, please just read the Hurriyet article. That article talks about two civilians being killed in the Çınar district of Diyarbakir on the 29th. Yeni Safak talks about an incident that occurred in Şırnak on the 28th. Two different places, two different times. This means that you didn't verify the very sources you were edit-warring into the article. That's gist of all that I'm saying. And yes, there are partisan sources that should be questioned when it concerns "terrorist attacks". Would we use RT to describe a "terrorist attack" by American forces in Syria? It's a dubious claim, yes. But it's been made, which makes it on par with Yeni Safak and the many many other state-runned and pro-AKP news outlets in Erdogan's Turkey. So, at least I am doing my best in verifying them. And I'm not ashamed to say that I have the cleanest record while editing the most contentious topic areas in Wikipedia (i.e. AA2, ARBMAC, ARBAP2, and ARBEE). No sanctions, no blocks. And I've been editing in these topic areas since 2006. So you don't need to remind me of AA2 sanctions, but thanks anyway. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not above admitting when I'm mistaken (usually lol). The Harriyet link had Sirnak in the header and later mentions "Şırnak Govenor’s Office" and a highway explosion. This appeared to me to be supporting the list entry. I'll take your word for it that Çınar is different.

Though I wouldn't use RT based on discussions at RSN, I would use Washington Times or Al Jezzera.

I did notice your clean record (something we share :) ). Just honestly concerned about nationalistic editing in general as it arises frequently I vandalism patrolling. But your record and tenure here speak for themselves.

If there are Turkey/PKK entries you're concerned about on the terrorism lists, I'm happy to review or discuss them. I've been following those pages primarily to watch for OR issues (see various list talk pages or ask NeilN).

Anyway, thanks for engaging and, in part, my bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Amen. And I'll keep an eye out too. Also, my bad also for being overly reactive. It happens to the best of us. Even us good record people ;) Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

And just to clarify, the Hurriyet source doesn't talk about construction workers being killed. It just talks about some operation that occurred where PKK members were killed overnight in Şırnak. It happens to be in the same place, but they can be separate events for all that we know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

Hi, we found an earlier account, hence a new master. Please refile at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23:  Done EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And fast too. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for looking out for my Talk Page. :) Beauty School Dropout (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Culture of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Culture of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Goffman and stigma

(edit conflict)

Here's an article, and a book (Goffman) I think you'll find interesting. It's funny how things go in circles. I read Goffman ages ago (learned of him through R. D. Laing) and still have a couple of his works in paperback somewhere, although haven't picked one up in forever. So now, I find this article by Jessica Xavier called Passing as Stigma Management which is all about Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity where she quotes Goffman talking about one way that a member of some stigmatized group might manage this, and says:

"It may be noted that when realtively complete passing is essayed, the individual sometimes consciously arranges his own rite de passage, going to another city, holing up in a room for a few days with preselected clothing and cosmetics he has brought with him, and then, like a butterfly, emerging to try the brand new wings."

Now, besides the fact that that makes we want to run out and get the book from the library (they have it), there's one very interesting about this: the book was written in 1963, and Xavier claims to be quoting from a 1963 edition, which is almost impossible to believe. The google books version in the reference is a 2009 version, and the copyright page says "First Touchstone edition 1986," but I don't see anything about "revised and updated" or anything. Is it possible Goffman could have said that in 1963? Seems almost impossible. Anyway, the Xavier report is an interesting quick read, and I'm definitely going to get the book from the library; the 1963 edition, if I can find it.

You're probably wired into this stuff: is Goffman still taught today? I remember being so impressed when I first encountered him. Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Why do you think Blue Lives Matter are opposed to anything Black Lives Matter is advocating?

Why do you think Blue Lives Matter are opposed to anything Black Lives Matter is advocating? --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's defined in its lead sentence as a countermovement. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Without a source and grossly biased. It's inaccurate and didn't start to counter Black Lives Matter, it started after the assassination of two police officers. It's moniker is taken from Black Lives Matter but that doesn't place them in opposition. Blue Lives Matter supports non-violent protests and that was very obvious after the Dallas protest left 5 officers dead while the police protected peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters from what the FBI described as violent Black Nationalists. If there was an "Immigrant Lives Matter" it doesn't detract or counter or diminish from either Blue or Black lives matter. Those groups that exist to highlight violence against targeted individuals contrasted with "All Lives Matter" which inherently strives to take away attention to the plight of any specific group. "All Lives Matter" is correctly described sociologically as a countermovement to Black Lives Matter while Blue Lives Matter is not. Unless I missed something, Black Lives Matter is not advocating for an increase in police deaths or violent confrontations with police. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: um... the source is in the first sentence of the article. I've given more sources on articles talk page that could be used. I'm concerned your personal opinion on the topic is preventing you from turning to RS to see how they describe the issue. Multiple RS say it started in response to BLM. I'm not going to entertain your what if though about non- existent movements. Let's see what say and go from there. I'm sure there's some scholarly info too that I could look into tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Also the Ben and Jerry boycott makes it rather clear there's opposition to BLM. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Ben and Jerry's boycott was for accusing police of widespread racism, not supporting Black Lives matter. I don't have a personal belief beyond the reliable sources which is why I am not making the leap that Black Lives Matter is anti-police or vice-versa. Reliable sources don't attribute the violence that Blue Lives Matter opposes to Black Lives Matter. --DHeyward (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

But they do say that it was created in reaction and opposition to BLM. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

yourself

You're allergic to cats and owned 2 or more cats?