User talk:Equivamp

Androginos
Hi, please consult an etymological dictionary, so you know what the facts are, before you incorrectly "correct" someone elses edit. 71.47.254.61 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You gave two disparate meanings, so perhaps I'm not the one uncertain on the facts. --Equivamp - talk 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sapphic section
Hello! I followed the BRD cycle and created a talk page on LGBT Symbols so we can discuss the Sapphic section. I hope we can reach a consensus!

Niconushinii (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see where you said you made some changes to the sources used, I got a bit busy but I'll look into the changes shortly when I get a minute to look through them all and talk about them. In the meantime, you can read previous discussions about reliable sources (and the related bar for notability on Wikipedia) for the topic in the Talk page archives (which should be linked somewhere in the boxes at the top of the talk page). That way you can get a comparison of what kinds of sources have been used and which have been rejected, etc. --Equivamp - talk 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of article topics."
I assume you are the editor who removed my discussion of the validity of an assertion discussed in the article on TERFS. Perhaps I am missing your point. You don't want to be presented evidence on the talk page that an assertion of the article is likely false? Did you read the reference in the comment? Ariel31459 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers
Your edit on List of fatal dog attacks in the United States has been reverted. Next time you revert someone's edit and say they need a citation, please first READ the citation. The news article had been updated (since it was first posted) with the victim's name and age in the HEADLINE. I will remind you to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. You had reverted an edit from a new IP editor (their first edit) who geolocates to the town where the incident occurred. Normal Op (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My revert was in line with WP:BLP (in its application to the recently-deceased) which states that poorly-sourced contentious material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (See also its discussion of listing names of non-public figures notable only for single events and where their identity is not important context.) I stand by the revert as the sourcing did need correcting, which I see in the page's edit history that you did. I wonder if you would have done so if the revert had not brought it to your attention?
 * I am not in the habit of researching the location of IP editors. I'm unlikely to start. And I don't see any hostility ("biting") toward a newcomer in the text of my edit summary, Must provide a reliable source for this information, nor in merely reverting a BLP issue with a link to a relevant policy. --Equivamp - talk 01:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the sourcing did NOT need correcting. The content in the source had been changed; the URL to the source NEVER changed. The IP editor simply over-wrote the "fancy" citation (losing author, publisher, date, etc.) and used the raw URL, but the URL was the same as before. All I did was to put the fancy stuff back in, and update the archiveurl to the newer, changed version. If you HAD clicked the link (which clearly you didn't, though any other editor would have), you would have seen that the victim's name was right there in the heading of the news article. What in the world do you mean by "poorly-sourced contentious material"? The news article headline states that it was the Sheriff's Office who released the victim's name. And yes, reverting anyone's edit telling them they needed a source when one is already there, IS biting an editor. IP editors should not be treated with any less manners than those with accounts. Wikipedia is facing a crisis for lack of editors, high editor attrition, and steep barriers to starting editing at WP. See WikiProject Editor Retention. Normal Op (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The archive-url is what I was referring to with both correcting and with "poorly-sourced".


 * I don't know what assumptions you're making about my intentions to keep making some accusations that I'm treating an IP editor differently than anyone else, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI, I see no reason to continue this discussion, so I ask that you don't. Equivamp - talk 09:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So where are your references?
So there’s a bunch of wikiknowitalls who live about 15,000 mikes away from where I live (Wangolina, population 10, I’m related to all of them) who delete my changes because they’re unverified, yet put up no reliable citations of their own. Double standard wankers Mcbloke (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If your edit was just to remove unsourced statements, I would have left it alone. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia, reliability and verifiability are not measured by physical proximity to a subject, nor by how many people someone is related to, nor to whom they are related. The burden of citing a source is on you, the person who added information, not on someone who removes it. Please take a moment to read some of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, like those on civility. --Equivamp - talk 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a review of a draft article
Hello User:Equivamp. My name is Dan Cook. I do paid editing on behalf of clients, mostly article cleanup. I recently got a request for help with a new article from a British entertainer, Sheridan “Shed” Simove. He had a Wikipedia entry that was posted in 2011 but was deleted this past June. I am reaching out to you because of your interest in editing comedy pages.

I think what happened was Shed attempted to add in new information without disclosing his COI. (I’m pretty sure he did not understand the rules around such editing.) Another editor saw his work, decided he was not notable, and quickly deleted it.

I reviewed his coverage and I do believe his is sufficiently notable to merit a rather short article. Would you be willing to review my draft, since I am in a COI and should not be posting it? If so, please let me know whether you want me to put it in draft space, post  it on your talk page, my talk page, my sandbox, etc. It currently resides in my sandbox. Thanking you in advance for any feedback you have to offer. DanDavidCook (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ted Kaczynski, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AviationFreak💬 20:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, if the issue with the primary source was not that it was primary, but that it was undue, your edit summary could have reflected that. Or, failing that, you could have simply said as much to me and linked this RFC you're referring to instead of giving me a template warning for "disruptive" editing which did not exist. Thanks. --Equivamp - talk 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I was unaware that you were a regular editor and placed the template out of habit when reverting with TW. Feel free to remove this template if you'd rather not have it hanging around on your talk page. AviationFreak💬 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Get back on the forums Equivamp
Oddguy missed you. Malhub.com

You should come back. The older forums are gone but a new one popped up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

AE post
You may want to include in the post the multiple IPs from that range which have been active on the same talk page; the page stats show a. , and ; heck, you might want to include the page stats as well. jp×g 05:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —Elix240 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference, on Wikipedia talk pages, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page. I'm going to move the discussion at Talk:Transmedicalism to the bottom too, when I post my reply, which I'll begin writing now. --Equivamp - talk 01:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK, this user practices edit warring as a means of intimidation... It is how he bullies his opinion to make it the accepted standard, regardless of article citations that actually challenge that standard. Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * They have never edit warred not even on controversial stuff. Sure I had a few situations with them before, but I was the one who was in the wrong doing in those situations.
 * Also intimidation? What are you even talking about? I have interacted with them ever since the summer of this year and they have never intimidated anyone. I have even interacted with other editors and they have told me that Equivamp is very civil user.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not know you, and I do not recall having ever interacted with you. I have never been sanctioned or warned for edit warring on Wikipedia and I think editors who actually interact with me can speak to how false your assertion is. If you continue to make personal attacks in this manner against me on this or any other page, I will do you the liberty of bringing this subject to ANI. Equivamp - talk 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

According to this editor interaction analyzer, the only time this user and I have ever interacted was when I twice reverted his unsourced attempt to label modern humans as H. s. sapiens rather than H. sapiens...back in September. Amusingly, the section on my talk page that he decided to resurrect was another case where I twice reverted someone's original research and they deemed it "edit warring" - which was fond to be baseless. But at least that user ended up following BRD and starting a discussion about it on the talk page. Stevenmitchell didn't give so much as an explanation for his edits - all I got was bizarre personal attacks on my talk page two months later. Btw, out of the 12,735 total edits made to the Human article, I have made a total of 13. That's a tenth of a percent. One can hardly try to argue that my so-called "bullying" has had any impact on the contents of the article at all. I cannot imagine even remembering this incident for over two months, let alone festering over it that long until it boils over and I lash out with such immature, uncivil behavior. --Equivamp - talk 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial killer
Why you undid my edit on this article? 31.173.80.78 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You literally are wrong
Kaczynski wrote an entire piece criticizing anarcho-primitivism, you don't know anything. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism. And this "long term consensus" you speak of was one jackass changing the page a month ago, and then a bunch of people like you just went with it. You are an enemy of truth and knowledge, and therefore an enemy of humanity. For such an "anarchist", I'd expect you to have some semblance of an understanding of Kaczynski's philosophy, but I guess not. I guess you enjoy misinformation, however. Thanks for lying to the masses and staining Wikipedia's reliability! Comradeka (talk)Comradeka


 * You perhaps might benefit from reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * You should also be aware that any further insults, attacks, or personalizing of disputes on this matter, directed at any person or group, will be promptly listed at ANI. Decide for yourself if you care. Equivamp - talk 23:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might benefit from reading WP:Ignore_all_rules.

Is your loyalty to the truth, or is it to Wikipedia's rules? It is absurd to claim that Kaczynski doesn't have a monopoly on what his own ideology is. Why do secondary sources have domain over what TK himself believes? Also, you haven't even demonstrated how these sources label TK an anprim. You probably haven't read them.


 * Once again, please refrain from commenting on other editors. This extends to making negative assumptions about their motivations, or their "loyalty"; see WP:AGF. I see there's a discussion on the topic on the article talk page. That's a more fitting for a discussion than my talk page. I can contribute to it sometime later, perhaps tomorrow. For now I have some advice for you: There is absolutely no way that edit warring, insulting other editors, proclaiming that you intend to go against Wikipedia policy, will end in the article being changed the way you want it to be. It's likely to end up with you being banned or otherwise restricted. It will certainly result in wasted time and frustration for you. Equivamp - talk 00:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you not respond?
I saw your little message, how about an actual response to what I wrote? You are spreading misinformation, somebody must do something about it.

Just a question
Hey I noticed in a diff right [here] you said something about a sexist edit.CycoMa (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not a question. Equivamp - talk 02:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry about editing Wikipedia on your phone is hell. But anyway what made you think that was sexist?CycoMa (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Who I checked the link you presented. I didn’t realize that came off as sexist.CycoMa (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That was not my intention at all.CycoMa (talk)


 * No worries. It was an easy fix, and now you know. Here is a link going into more detail in research on referring to women professionals by first name, if you're interested in learning more. Equivamp - talk 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Your recent editing history at Gender Dysphoria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  lomrjyo ( talk • contrib ) 14:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This message is goofy as hell - you noticed that any reverts had already stopped and talk page discussion had been started, right? I also noticed your RPP request - as far as I can tell all editors involved have EC privileges. Go do something productive. Equivamp - talk 18:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Terror Units
Hey, Equivamp. I just wanted to say sorry if I overreacted a bit in regards to your Anti-Terror Units edits. I generally just hate tag-bombing, as it is often done by people how simple dislike the contents of articles without proper reasoning. Accordingly, I get a bit touchy if I noticed these big tags being put somewhere. In contrast, you clearly had a good, thought-out reason for doing so at the Anti-Terror Units article. So I hope that my behavior has not left any bad feelings. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I probably would have used an inline tag myself, but I restored the banner because another editor was the one who had inserted it. I did not notice they gave no edit summary nor talk page discussion. Drive-by tagging is a real problem so I understand the frustration. --Equivamp - talk 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi! Thanks a ton for your work on trans articles and for being so clear and constructive on the talk pages! Joti (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, thanks. --Equivamp - talk 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey can you check out the talk page on this article?
I'm not sure if you're aware, but I pinged you on Talk:List of formerly unidentified decedents and you haven't responded yet. Koridas (Heyyyyyyy) 22:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason I received no notification of a ping. Nor did I receive notification about this message, and only noticed it because I was emailed about it. Maybe something's gone funky with my preferences. Anyway, I'll check out the discussion. --Equivamp - talk 23:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Quiet Place Part II
I'm sure I will get this wrong since it's my first time. I understand your reversion of my edit of the plot details. Instead, I will go back in and correct one punctuation error and an inaccurate cast detail about a character, being more succinct this time. I hope that is ok. Thanks. --Lightstorm22 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine, thank you. I'm not sure if that was in your original edit - I looked for additions outside of the plot summary section and would have kept it in the first place if I had seen it, but if it was there I must have missed it. If so, sorry about that! --Equivamp - talk 08:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was there, but no worries. It gave me a chance to trim it a bit when I put it back. It was also a total coincidence that I had added to the plot details mere minutes after you had fixed them again. That was the first time I had ever even visited the page lol, and I don't do this often enough to think to check the history first, but I will try to remember from now on! Thanks for directing me to the plot summary edit guides. --Lightstorm22 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pomacea columellaris has been accepted
 Pomacea columellaris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Pomacea_columellaris help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! -Liancetalk/contribs 19:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Slime coat
Hey I don’t mean to bother you but, I notice you made a draft for slime coat. Not trying to mess up your work nor am I trying to force you to do anything but, I feel your draft is only focused on fishes.

I don’t research too much on slime coats. But when I did some research on the topic it appeared that slime coats aren’t exclusive to fish species.CycoMa (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right that my draft is focused on fish. I noticed Wikipedia already has articles for other things sometimes called a slime coat, eg glycocolyx, snail mucus, mucous membrane, but not one on this basic part of fish integument. Fish slime is mentioned on some of these and other articles, showing a gap that could be filled. My experience is that the other things are referred to as "slime coats" less often than the coating on fish, but a disambiguation notice at the top of the page will likely be added before I try for publication (and if it's decided the article should be at a different name, eg Slime coat (fish), fish slime, etc, that would probably also be acceptable. Equivamp - talk 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could change its name to “Slime coat (fish)”.CycoMa (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Sorry about my contributions to your Userspace drafts. I didn’t mean to come off as disruptive. I was just trying my best to help.CycoMa (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I welcome the help, I just think that some of the edits were not helpful while you could tell I was actively working on the draft. Eg, had I lost work due to an edit conflict with an edit that simply added two page breaks it would have been highly annoying. I'll make sure to use the in-use template when I plan on making several edits to it in the future to avoid it though. --Equivamp - talk 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beale Air Force Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 911. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lillian Smith Book Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lillian Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
+1 I've always appreciated your civil, thoughtful, and balanced approach to even the thorniest topics. Crossroads -talk- 04:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much to you both. :) --Equivamp - talk 05:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hyphen
This isn't worth a revert or taking up space at the article talk, but wouldn't "politically motivated push" fall under "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb" as per MOS:HYPHEN? The examples there are "newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary". Firefangledfeathers 04:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're correct. I forgot that "politically" is an adverb. (Although I still think it's way better with a hyphen!) My apologies. --Equivamp - talk

Cottonmouth disease
Hi Equivamp, you recently created the above as a redirect but didn't point where it should redirect to, perhaps you could fix before it gets tagged RfD. Thanks and happy editing JW 1961 Talk 22:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed now. Thank you! --Equivamp - talk 22:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Question re: maintenance template you added to Homosexuality in the DSM
Hi Equivamp, thanks for looking over the page I edited and helping locate some tone and citation issues! I'm a new editor and appreciate the help, and I'm working to fix the things you flagged.

Could you tell me more about your decision to add primary source and medical source maintenance flags? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of my extensive citations are both secondary sources AND medical sources -- most of them come from peer-reviewed medical journals. Am I missing something or not understanding something?

Thanks in advance! RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is true that most of the sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant. But the article as it is currently still uses primary sources. Example 1, 2. Also, the DSM is primary about itself. Many of these can probably be removed outright as they are covered by the secondary sources already present in the article, but I haven't gone through them yet to determine such. --Equivamp - talk 01:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this helpful reply, Equivamp! As a new editor I really appreciate it. It seemed counterintuitive to me to not cite the DSM itself for factual information about what the DSM says, but having reviewed the guidance about primary sources over at WP:RS I can see how it makes sense to do that in order to avoid the implication of original research. I can go back and substitute secondary sources for some of the primary sources I used. Would you recommend that I take out all of the DSM citations as well, or should I just add a secondary source in each of those spots in addition to the DSM citations? Also, when I quote directly from Kinsey's book, shouldn't I cite the book? That's what the page Kinsey Reports does. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ampullaria
It's interesting if the genus is no longer accepted, and this should probably be written about on another page. What about Ampullariidae? If so, can Ampullaria be redirected there? It is a highly likely search term. Geschichte (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, with the sole exception of fossil species Crommium angustatum, all currently-valid species previously in the Ampullariua genus have been moved to other Ampullariidae genera, so it would probably serve as a suitable redirect target. --Equivamp - talk 01:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit you reverted
You reverted my edit on Karan Singh. Because I removed the lone that claimed him to be a potential candidate for 2022 India Presidential Election. I want to ask you whether "Is Cross Town News even termed as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Because what I know is Wikipedia doesn't consider any local or regional agencies as reliable sources." Only well established or proven news agencies are termed as reliable. And that claim is made by some "Ankit Love" who is an editor at Cross Town News. How can a view of a common journalist with no reliability be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Please answer me and clear my doubts. JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed information with the claim that Wikipedia doesn't consider any local or regional agencies as reliable sources, but this is not correct: please see WP:NEWSORG. As far as I can tell, the information you removed is properly attributed to Love, and I see no immediate red flags that would state Cross Town News is an unreliable source for this information. If you think that there are issues with the source, please elaborate on what those are. If you think that Cross Town News is wholly unsuitable as a source on Wikipedia, or if you just want to find out why it is or is not a reliable source, you might want to bring it up on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Equivamp - talk 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the first para's second line that clearly states ''News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Additionally one of bullet points also states Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.'' And this is the same damn things with Cross Town News. As well as this is the same thing here. Article clearly states the Love thinks so. I don't think that Wikipedia allows someone's personal PoV. (Reply) JaggaDaaku (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your reply to my concern.... JaggaDaaku (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please be patient. I am not constantly online nor available to talk.


 * Please understand that less reliable does not mean unreliable, nor does not listing editorial policies mean a source is unreliable. The suitability of a source is dependent on various factors which must be weighed on the balance against the claim being made. An extraordinary claim would require one or more high-quality sources, but there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that a politician is calling for a relative to fill a particular office.


 * And, yes, Wikipedia allows for certain personal opinions to be presented when they are properly attributed to the people that hold them.


 * It appears to me that your objection to the information is not that it is unlikely or untrue, and therefore the reliability of Cross Town News is of little importance. What it looks like to me is that you merely object to the inclusion of Love's viewpoint. If that is the case, you need to approach this from an angle which addresses WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DUE. --Equivamp - talk 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So A/c to you, what is more Ok? Reliable or less - reliable? And unlike you said, I don't solely object to Love's PoV. What I do object is that there is no credibility proven of that news agency as well as that is a personal thinking of an editor. Bcoz the article says Love wants so and so. So two major points are going against it. So I think its not necessary to mention these things in an article. And that too on article like this which is going to be most visited in a couple of months. Bcoz it may mislead the people. (Your thoughts?) Or shall we raise a consensus on this thing? JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to bring up the source on WP:RSN to see what the community thinks. --Equivamp - talk 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Equivamp, User:Kleuske a discussion on a similar vein has also been started on the Bhim Singh article, please feel free to join if you have any constructive thoughts to add. --Death Star Central (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which parts were synth?
Hi, I'm just wondering which parts you thought were synth. If you could copy paste the bits or bold them or something it would be very helpful. I would like to improve this article quite quickly as it is subject to a deletion vote. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For a start, the passage Male Disposability is well known in both farming & the animal kingdom. Typically speaking; male animals act as protectors of the family unit, heard, hive, or pack - often at the cost of their own lives. appears to represent two novel theses formed from combining the info in the sources. Your subsequent edits to the article are much improved. Also, when I reverted your edit, I meant to actually leave the definition you had added to the lead section and remove the rest, so if you want to restore it I have no objections. --Equivamp - talk 20:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thank you! If the current one is okay, I will leave it as is and rebuild the rest with your criticism in mind. I'm assuming the rest was okay? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the page, and added back the parts you didn't seem to object to. Could you take a look and tell me if that's alright? Tiggy The Terrible (talk)
 * It will take more time than I am likely to have over the next few days to fully go through the article and suggest improvements, but a few things jump out at me. First and foremost, it needs copyediting. There are garbled sentences which are missing unknown words or which would only make sense as a dependent clause of a full sentence, in addition to other grammar improvements. Concision could be improved, and it needs to be brought in line with the Manual of Style. Most importantly, I think the lead section leaves a lot to be desired. The subject of the article is poorly defined, and not, as far as I can tell, actually supported by the cited sources. --Equivamp - talk 03:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback - I will read it today to check for typos. Though I'm not sure which parts are unsupported, as I've been quoting directly from the sources and then rephrasing. It would be helpful if I knew which sections were meant spesificlly, but I will take a look at the intro. it seems fairly solid to me, but I suppose more could be done to expand on it in the overview. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the quote which supports the second sentence? Equivamp - talk 10:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the second in the heading? If so, it's page 57 (as marked on the page, not the PDF page numbers) you just need to ctrl + f the word 'expendable' in it to find it. I have added exact page-numbers to the citation to be sure that people find it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's the third sentence. What about the second? Or the first, for that matter? Equivamp - talk 10:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. I assumed you meant the third citation. It's all supported by Farrell, but the second is from this book here. Specifically, it's a condensing of the portions related to defence fighters and the lives of males being spent by the colony. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. I don't think that's a good core definition, when taking into account all of the sources on the subject, which have in common the evolutionary aspect more than anything else. A better definition, I believe, would be the idea that male lives are less valuable to a species than female lives and so males are generally the ones who engage in riskier or self-sacrificial behaviors. The exact wording would need workshopping, but something along these lines better encapsulates the general premise, and is not human-centric (most of the sources do not limit the concept to men or human society). The lead and article could then go on to describe the ways it's been written about evolutionarily (a driving factor of male combativeness, etc) and culturally (a modern form of male discrimination, a culturally universal masculine ideal, etc). Equivamp - talk 11:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't object to that definition, though I think we should try to keep the lead short. It may be worth mentioning evolution throughout the page generally. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about now? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

hey equivamp
<===== Come here Wyyzrd the Wiki Cyberdemon (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oi mate, could you stop reverting my changes?
The page about the anti-gender movement states that the term "gender ideology" is an empty signifier, which it is not. I was attempting to provide a definition for this term, but for whatever reason, some folks kept on trying to revert my changes. Could you stop, please? Sclaraidus (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We go by what the reliable sources say, not what someone who decided to come along and try to be helpful say. --Equivamp - talk 02:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit biased if you're using sources that are openly against the topic you're trying to write about. Perhaps that's why there hasn't been any definition since the creation of the page. Sclaraidus (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources need not be unbiased; they must only be reliable. --Equivamp - talk 03:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bias seems pretty unreliable to me Sclaraidus (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Tomboy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tomboy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tomboy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Springnuts (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Temu flag fixes
Hi, I have posted Talk:Temu (company) to ask for fixes to the page about Temu (company), the most downloaded app in the United States the last few months. These tiny fixes address the last issues needed to remove the flag. . I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Temu and I would very much appreciate it if you might have time to take a look. Since you are a member of the WikiProject for Internet Culture, I thought you might possibly be interested in this internet cultural moment. , |CNBC. This page is in need of careful expansion in compliance with Wikipedia policy (and there is plenty of press coverage) but getting rid of the last tiny policy violations is a good place to start.

Thanks in advance for your consideration! Snowy2000 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Slime coat has been accepted
 Slime coat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Slime_coat help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Original research
Please don't extrapolate from one source that multiple people feel the same way. This is original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Elliot Page
I saw you undid my change to Elliot Page, where I changed "formerly Ellen Page" to "born Ellen Page". You stated my change is not correct, but you didn't provide details or link to a specific policy about why my change was incorrect. Can you explain why you undid my revision? —Entropy (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Ellen Page" is not the actor's birth name, but a former stage name. The actor's birth name is not included in the article because it is non-notable per MOS:GID. Equivamp - talk 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thank you for explaining! —Entropy (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)