User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 15

Dealing with Personal Attacks Positivally
You're really great at dealing with Personal Attacks on a positive attitude. That's never easy for me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monero (cryptocurrency)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monero (cryptocurrency). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A thank you for your thank you
I used to do it all the time in 2009, just cleaning off some of the rust. Pewwer42 Talk  19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Please comment on Talk:Poutine
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poutine. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * 7&6=thirteen Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits for Hamsa
They are sourced. I am disputing their legitimacy, because what they suggest is chronologically illogical, similar to saying a person's son naming their father. Hamsa came first from Mesopotamia, then to Egypt/Jewish/etc cultures, then to Islam. Or Hamsa came from Mesopotamia, then to Jews/Egypt/etc, then Islam sprang out of the regions that were formerly Mesopotamia without interaction with Jews. It is plausible that the word became "hamsa" from contact with Muslims (it appears to be "hamesh" before this based on the talk pages), but it is definitely not plausible that a symbol came from another place possibly thousands of years later. Islam first existed about 1400 years ago, yet it claims to have invented things that predated it apparently. Since the rest of the paragraph disputes the logic of this statement, please wipe it anyway, at least until we establish that these sources have any historicity. 69.161.99.11 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-structuralism
Hi, Evergreen: Can you have a look at Talk:Post-structuralism, and comment if you feel like it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kagan
What's broke? Seems to work for me. I was filling in the ref. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for lack of clarity. The user placed the ref inside another citation template . TBH, based on the title, I assumed it wasn't an appropriate ref and reverted. But the citation itself (not its url) was the issue.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it wasn't inside another. Think it's worth restoring? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right... sigh. I need to not edit WP while trying to fall asleep. Self-reverted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Answer needed for article
So what gender is a man who takes hormones as the article doesnt this question about trannys.

Also why doesnt the article say trannys suffer a serious mental illness? Thats a fact!--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have left some advice, or perhaps it is a request, for Arnold on his talkpage. MPS1992 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C.. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division
I have already explained the reason for undoing the edits: InformNapalm is a Pro-Ukrainian website, where there are no confirm words from the article. For evidence, three people (this is in no way confirmed that it was soldiers of this division, and not the usual mercenaries or volunteers). Do you think this a reliable source? 178.169.87.29 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A response to a question
From the talk : "Are you here to improve the article using reliable sources, or spew garage in support of a neo nazi (links above) group?" Think of this as a metaphor: It's okay to properly study a fish without being a fish. The problem is you display that anybody that studies subjects you don't like and doesn't say your opinion of the subject being discussed is the subject being discussed. The fact you bring your own emotional view of people into your academia and assessment of people is purely unacademic because it is anti-research and divisive. I study things from a third person point of view and try not to get in the middle of it (whether or not you think I am the thing is not based on any fact-based hypothesis). Sometimes truth isn't favorable to one argument, sometimes its not favorable both sides of an argument, but by stating those facts it does not in any way make me a "sympathizer" (which is what I presume you're imply by that message).

You are stereotyping me...which is an extremely non-fact based opinion - because you didn't truly try to understand who I am based on any actual data. I hold my views based on what I've seen in real life and gathering data on who the people are (in this case a group you don't like ideologically and emotionally). That doesn't make me the thing you despise because I merely gathered data on it. All I simply did was identify the culture based on fact-based evidence, and what I believe personally has nothing to do with it or that I respect it / like it at all (thats a 3rd-person NPOV). I study African American and Muslim liberation movements the same way, esoteric mystic traditions like Freemasonry and Tantra, organized crime, and world governments... I study just about every single aspect of life the same way and I learn from what the people have to say because learning from my own personal opinion of the thing being discussed is nothing more than a reflection of myself. Who am I to insert myself/my worldview into the world of people that live lifestyles I don't live? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 06:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC) —QubixQdotta (talk • contribs) 06:53, January 10, 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * you'd be better served addressing the thread on 's talk page than trying to equate my occupation with my Wikipedia editing. Your own comments make it abundantly clear to me that you're not editing from a neutral pov or with good faith. I won't comment on your supposed methodology for data collection.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your link to my comment: "You're right except for the white nationalist part. What their actions really represent is working class white people. Then started to work in labor unions with the familia and shit. That's why the vote for the Democratic Party, because they love the unions." You mean the information I got from communicating with people that actively participated in the lifestyle I was studying? There's nothing non-neutral about that. As for the second one, I was talking about the media's dishonesty not your profession. For you to say it was "abunduntantly clear" I was not in good faith makes no sense... what about the completely non-fact based allegation that I am "supporting neo-nazi groups". That clearly violates WP:GOODFAITH. You're clearly trying to tell me I am a nazi because you don't like the fact I don't share your talk-points on the subject. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider reviewing WP:OR and WP:TRUTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I've read it, that doesn't change the fact you didn't respond to this half of my statement: For you to say it was "abunduntantly clear" I was not in good faith makes no sense... what about the completely non-fact based allegation that I am "supporting neo-nazi groups". That clearly violates WP:GOODFAITH. You're clearly trying to tell me I am a nazi because you don't like the fact I don't share your talk-points on the subject. I'd like an apology for being called a nazi, especially when my ancestors where slaughtered en masse by Adolf Hitler. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 09:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never called you a Nazi. And AGF is not a suicide pact. You were clearly acting in bad faith.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're trying to avoid apologizing to a person who had his ancestors killed in the Holocaust, when you openly said they support Nazism? Are you in denial of how offensive that is? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To someone like that, that would indeed be quite offensive as would your comments on the issue of the AB.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My ancestors were killed in the Holocaust. You said that your comments would be offensive to someone with that background, and it is extremely offensive to me. I'm not even a white Jew. My ancestors were killed in numbers. I would like an apology. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * QubixQdotta, this is not a forum, and this kind of questioning, this demand for an apology for a presumed insult is going nowhere. EvergreenFir, as much as I value your wisdom, I wish you wouldn't suggest that my talk page is a better place for this kind of discussion; I don't have your kind of patience. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Light rail in Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Light rail in Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Transgendered articles
Hi EvergreenFir. I was going to reply at the disruption thread at the Transphobia article, but thought it might be better to explain here. The issue is in the news where myself and foggymaize are from, which lead me to Transgender people in sports. Foggy saw the article and later decided to make some changes. Save was accidentally clicked on in visual editor before a description of the changes was written. I told her to write the description on the talk page instead. This lead to the other articles. Anyway it is not an area I have shown much interest in before (I remember responding to an RFC on whether "his/her" should be used in an article years ago), but the state of that article and others changed my mind. I am not terrible sure on what the policy between husband and wife editors is. I have made it clear at my user page and hers and will do so again at any formalish !votes where we both comment that require closing (RFCs, AFDs, RMs etc). You and know, and I have no problem if either of you inform other people you think should also. I know this is a controversial area, so I want to be as open as possible (I edit other controversial areas here so would like to keep some privacy though). AIR corn (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You've been completely aboveboard about this from the beginning, and done more than due diligence. You could read about conflict of interest at WP:COI if you want to dot all the i's and cross the t's, but I don't think it applies here. Then again, I'm no expert in this area, but hats off for going out of your way to be transparent, which is always a good idea.  Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with . My gripe at the disruption thread was not aimed at you or Foggy, though perhaps Foggy's edits added to my perception of "a lot of new users". Rather, there are other new accounts like Lucy.Parsons and SheWhoSees who are being referred to (and to be clear, disruption is coming from both "pro-trans" and "pro-radfem" (if you'll forgive the clunky categorization). Your link to the sports think might be part of what's increasing the traffic and editing. I apologise if I come off as curt; there's been a lot of disputes and not-quite-good faith editing on transgender related pages over the years. I know my worldview and biases on this area and do my best to consider views that conflict with my own (deferring to sources, even if I don't personally like what they have to say on the topic)... But I know they're there and likely influence how I see other editors' actions (which is why I'm slow to report things unless it's clear, unambiguous bad faith vandalism or trolling). Tl;Dr - I appreciate you and your efforts here, please don't see me as an obstructionist or "sjw" or what have you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I am only just getting back to editing after the holidays. I do not think you were curt at all, in fact I understand that it looks bad with all these new accounts. I just wanted to offer a possible explanation, at least form my end, but it may very well be some off site canvassing (the editing style is a bit too different to be socks). It should not really have much effect as in my experience new editors that only come here to push their point of view on one topic area don't last long. My views will of course be somewhat influenced by Foggy's, which are pretty apparent, but I am experienced here in general and also with controversial topics so like to think I have a handle on editing in these areas. I have tried explaining the "truth vs verifiability" mantra that is key to editing here to Foggy and I asked her to consider striking her last comment to you, but in the end she will make her own decisions. I kind of wish she had stuck to bluegrass or other simpler areas longer, though conflict appears in the strangest venues. You both seem more than reasonable and I should have enough contribution history to show I am here for the right reasons. Ideally we can get some decent content up. I am finding the whole "pro-trans" and "pro-radfem" (to use your terms) conflict quite interesting and it is nice to edit out of your comfort zone sometimes. TL:DR No problem. AIR corn (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One little thing that has confused me though. Why is Gamergate used for discretionary sanctions? I don't recall any transgendered issues there. Wouldn't Chelsea Manning be more appropriate? AIR corn (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the "truth vs verifiability" mantra was a hard thing for me to learn too (resulting in a much appreciated humorous note from back in 2014). And I understand that learning curve. I'm happy to help how I can in that regard. And I know how controversial areas can be difficult (and I know my own biases there, and try to recognize them as much as possible and assume good faith unless users are clear vandals and posting slurs). Feel free to WP:TROUT me if I even start acting a fool. You certainly have enough contribution history to show you are here for the right reasons (I hope I do as well) and I appreciate your work here!
 * As for the alert for what was the "paraphilia/transgender" template, it apparently changed because of a motion seen here (announced here). Basically, in my understanding, Gamergate is more broad and thus covers the transgender issues and thus the old DS are superseded by the Gamergate ones.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstand what sanctions are about; there is no exclusive link to trans issues, and the sanctions could be voted off some day. Sanctions are linked to issues that are so controversial and have sufficient interest among editors here that standard rules like 3RR wouldn't suffice and admins would be running in circles all day just trying to keep a lid on disputes.  Sanctions lowers the speed limit on getting a ticket, so to speak, and also lets the cop that pulls you over throw you in the slammer by themself, instead of having to wait for a judge or jury to do it.  On the flip side, there are a handful of topic areas subject to sanctions, not just trans or gender issues, and Gamergate is one of them.  (It's much becalmed from what it once was, when you could barely utter a peep about it without having ten people jump down your throat about it.) Gamergate has nothing to do with trans issues, although it has everything to do with gender.  There's a table with the complete list of Arbcom-sanctioned topics, and I probably have a link to it somewhere, or just look around.  Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Link to list. Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I have become all too familiar over the last two years with how sanctions and Arbcom enforcement work. It is a massive time sink and generally editors line up on sides and bring up the same arguments over and over again. Even though they eventually worked in that topic area I agree with much of what SMcCandalish says here. I have yet to come across an editor that gets wikipedia so well and provides as thoughtful insight as he does. The community missed a trick not electing him to ArbCom. My confusion was more why it linked to gamergate and not some other more specific target. I get it now. BTW I am happy for this discussion to be used as notice to me that I am editing in an area covered by DS if anyone wants to go to enforcement. As a side note, so far anyway, it is a lot more civilised than editing at GMOs. That may be a low bar though as there was serious thought there about just banning everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for reporting Fehgut and getting him indeffed. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Masculinity
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I would remind you that Wikipedia is dedicated to a neutral point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). To preserve this, articles should reflect views from both sides of an argument, not just one. Until you can explain to me why Steven Pinker is not a reputable scientist I will continue to make edits in support of viewpoint neutrality. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please review WP:EW and WP:BATTLEGROUND. We don't give WP:FALSEBALANCE per NPOV. Bring up your concerns on the article's talk page. Continuing you edit war will likely result in admin action.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's false balance is precisely the question. Why did you delete my reference to a Harvard scientist? Continuing that sort of behaviour could result in admin action. Anyway, I've asked Sandeboeuf to look at the dispute and arbitrate. In the meantime, ask yourself why you think my reverts deserve admin action and yours don't. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * my issue isn't with your addition of Pinker, it's the weasel words. My edit summaries and comment on your talk page should have made that clear.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with EvergreenFir on the weasel words, insertion of "claim", "alleged", etc. Also, my reference to a Harvard scientist looks like a simple appeal to authority, and a false one at that. Pinker isn't cited in any of the academic surveys of masculinity that I have read. Inserting a contrary opinion just to have "both sides" represented would just be false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox venue
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox venue. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for ‘saving’ me when I undid an IP’s edit earlier on. I did not accept the revision and undone it, but a few seconds later a notification stated that an edit I undone was undone. User:Anchorvale User talk:Anchorvale  09:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Batman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Gotham_by_Gaslight How is it unsourced??? Bad enough that I had to deal with kellymoat and now this???
 * I gather you're referring to this edit. You did not provide a source to support your edit. Please see WP:SOURCES and WP:V.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You just purposely deleted my source. Now I am going to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.9.75 (talk • contribs)
 * You can report questionable behavior by editors to WP:ANI, but be careful of WP:BOOMERANGs.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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!

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * EvergreenFir. You are edit-warring in:
 * Yeni Safak, a highly unreliable and partial news outlet that publishes fringe theories and fabrications every single day.
 * 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:, , .  Eve rgr een Fir  (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)
 * 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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 ).
 * Anyway, thanks for engaging and, in part, my bad.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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)

Sockpuppet investigations/Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
Hi, we found an earlier account, hence a new master. Please refile at Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And fast too. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 4 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  Eve rgr een Fir  (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. 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)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * 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!
 * 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: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

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
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)

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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)
 * 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the Ben and Jerry boycott makes it rather clear there's opposition to BLM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

White Savior Article
Some of the examples of films in the white savior article are not well researched and definitely reaching. For example, some of the films you listed are actually subversive rather than giving into the trope expressed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Energy (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * while you might disagree with some entries, we must make decisions based on reliable sources. I recommend reading the essay WP:TRUTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

White Savior Article
Not all of the examples are properly sourced. Some of the movies listed don't correspond with any sources listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Energy (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend using the article's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn
On Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hansen vs Predator
Hi, I don't know why you've removed the Hansen vs. Predator episode list if there are episode lists of other series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.173.196.23 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Morlachs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Morlachs. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chloe Kim
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chloe Kim. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

clementine ford and her "kill all men" remark
I have left a message on the clementine ford talk page. --1.152.108.49 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What happened with my entry on Administrators' noticeboard?
I'm just wondering (not understanding) what happened with my 'complaint' about Naj'entus, on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, on 8 March. I notice a reaction of Naj saying he "explained his actions (...)" (which was more or less what I claimed he did not; well, you might have read my full posting on the noticeboard), and then some conclusion(?) by several people(?) (Niqabu, you?) in terms I'm not acquainted with: blocked as a sock, non-admin closure, and (in your edit sum. 19:55): "nac". Did any action towards Naj'entus take place? If so: which? If not so: why not, and who decided no action was needed? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay. Nac stands for "non-administrator closure".  The user was blocked indefinitely as a  sock puppet.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rod Laver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rod Laver. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Intermediate sources.
You say you are a professor in Sociology.

Imagine if a student came in submitted the following:

"Bonhoeffer's Ethics defined the Pharisee as "the man to whom only the knowledge of good and evil has come to be of importance in his entire life."1 1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 30.

The student also submitted a list of things they read before submitting the paper, which included "Douglas Huff, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer" (Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy), http://www.iep.utm.edu/bonhoeff/," but notably did not include Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics. Pressed, they said "I got the Bonhoeffer quote from the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. I did not read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Plagiarism, or not? That is literally identical to the situation where you said I did not understand what "secondary" sources mean. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Specifically SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Academic standards for citation are not the same as the standards on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, here on Wikipedia if a source makes a statement about a topic without directly attributing it to the speaker (and thus making it clear they don't endorse the view), we can source that without going to the primary source. If a book review describes the meanings and themes of a book, we cite that review, not the book itself. In academic, we value primary resources over secondary ones. We teach first year students who to cite the textbooks (secondary sources) and later teach them to cite primary research.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're understanding me. In either location is it appropriate to use a citation to a source you have not looked at? Carte Rouge (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Put a comment in the talk page
Hello Ever, you undid this revision earlier today without bothering to comment on the article's talk page. That is rude. Don't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.59.170 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Good work...
...on Music man214. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

On your last revert regarding Identitarian Movement.
According to WP:RS Twitter posts can be used a reliable sources if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," among other guidelines. This would also be the case with Breitbart as it stands as one of the few jouralistic outlets to cite the petition.

If you have any issues could you please try to find a different source instead of reverting, Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Breitbart, also generally not a reliable source, and it doesn't become reliable because it's the only thing available. It just stays unreliable and we don't use it. If you have to scrape the bottom of a barrel to find sources for a thing, then it's usually a good indication the thing you're trying to include is WP:UNDUE.  G M G  talk  17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * GMG is correct.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dropped an EW warning on the editor before I saw this thread. Meters (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox (film)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox (film). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IP vandalism
WHOIS for both IPs: Obviously the same person. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're an LTA case. Been tracking them here: User:EvergreenFir/socks  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice job!
With regard to the "new user" Nielen. You had a perfectly composed report up on the AE board while the rest of us were still collecting diffs. Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hoax report in which it involves a false reference, which says that Mexico has 47% white people, Mexico only has 9 - 15% of white population in OFFICIAL CENSUS.
Greetings, i need help with this edit warring, thanks.

Edit warring and hoax report, to the user User:Pob3qu3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:I%C3%B1aki_Salazar#Edit_warring_and_hoax_report,_to_the_user_User:Pob3qu3

Hoax report in which it involves a false reference, which says that Mexico has 47% white people, Mexico only has 9 - 15% of white population in OFFICIAL CENSUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Latin_Americans#Hoax_report_in_which_it_involves_a_false_reference,_which_says_that_Mexico_has_47%_white_people,_Mexico_only_has_9_-_15%_of_white_population_in_OFFICIAL_CENSUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorantes22 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction
Hi there thanks for your message. Not sure if this is the right place, but I deleted an unsourced, unreferenced addition to a footnote to the page about women (in detail: someone keeps adding the fact that males who identify as woman do not have periods to the bit about infertility in women. That disorders of the male reproductive system do not include a lack of periods is I hope still understood by Wikipedians. The addition also makes no sense in relation to females who identify as trans as the lack of periods in any such otherwise healthy individual is voluntary and a result of medical treatment, not a disorder of their reproductive system).

I would therefore appreciate a heads up on a) how to get someone to protect the page so that neither myself nor whoever this is can change this page without someone else checking it over and b) advice on how deleting such an unsourced, unreferenced and plainly factually incorrect statement is contentious. If you have the time that is. Thanks Small candles (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on the article's talk page since it's about the content of that article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fauxcest
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fauxcest. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

'A Rape On Campus' Name Controversy
Hi EvergreenFir; I apologize for bringing up long-closed discussions that have a consensus already, but this recent edit includes the last name of Jackie, citing a brief mention in a Huffpost article. As I understand it, per this discussion, the last name is not to be added until it is verified by multiple RS. Would you say this edit conforms to that decision? Thanks, Nanophosis (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aromanticism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aromanticism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail notification
Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

70.31.243.86
In regards to this edit, I thought you deserved an explanation. It was a lazy action on my behalf to inform you that the IP user had back-to-back edits, and the level 2 warning was issued after the first one. I understand it's well within reason to raise it to a level 3 without any additional edits since the level 2 warning was issued, but my intention was only to inform you. If you felt it was necessary to keep it raised to lvl 3 – as it appears you have chosen to do – that's fine too. Apologies if it felt like I was stepping on your toes. I'll drop a note next time instead of a revert. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Paulson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Paulson. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Trans_man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwoman (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

DS violation
Your revert of a challenged edit just violated the "consensus needed" DS at Presidency of Donald Trump. You've been around long enough to know better. The only way that edit can be restored is via consensus, so self-revert and join the discussion under the section Declines in foreign enrollments on the article TP. Atsme 📞📧 06:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trans man
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trans man. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The Loud House
Hello. What I said in the video is true (I live in Greece)... you can check this promo I recorded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBd3fdI71A8

I find most of the time, good references to what I put. But it seems that the blog reference and the site one, didn't help. I'll be fine with any response of you, negative or positive. ;) NickBlamp (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: BTW, rexsat is known for releasing press releases of Nickelodeon Greece, and there hasn't been a single wrong airdate mentioned there (again, I'll be fine if you don't believe that). NickBlamp (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of London
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:University of London. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Feminist Current
Hello, I noticed that you were active on Wikipedia articles relating to gender, and thought that this may interest you, since I usually don't edit gender related articles, I don't know who to notify about this. I am nominating the article Feminist Current for deletion, and the original creator of the page even admitted that it wasn't notable. Please see Articles for deletion/Feminist Current ShimonChai (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Please comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Western dress codes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Western dress codes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meaningful vote
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veganism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Source
I will reread how to source properly again. Jumped in too quick. The article isn't extremely bias so I will leave it be. I just hope the article doesn't become more bias than it is/appears to be. Thank you for being such a great awesome and nice editor. Have a great day. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vegetarianism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vegetarianism. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
Concerning this edit , that is not something I have ever said. Could you maybe look at my comments again and strikethrough? Or perhaps you were thinking of someone else? Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * whoops, yeah sorry about that. I misread your comment and was getting users mixed up.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blond
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blond. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Please comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball players from South Korea
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball players from South Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why can't Sonic SatAM be protected?
I've noticed The Adventures Of Sonic The Hedgehog was protected, why isn't Sonic SatAM protected by vandalism? I've viewed Sonic SatAM wasn't fit for children under the age of 10 years. There was suggestive content in the "Hooked on Sonics" episode involving Sonic and Sally making out in front of a crowd and I wished the scene was cut. Even Princess Sally Acorn wasn't a very good role model for children as I viewed her of having some sexual orientation in her persona. I will never recommend Sonic SatAM to any small child under the age of 10 years. Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trypophobia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lionel Messi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lionel Messi. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

fake news
I delete the fake news. But you are aggressively behaving. Without any reasonable reason. --Терпр (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the sources appear prima facia to be legit. The burden is on you to show they are false. Please use the talk pages of the articles or a wiki project line WP:LGBT.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not speak enough English. Your edits are wrong. Your actions are unfriendly. I do not have time to argue with you. Turn Wikipedia into a cemetery of information. Be free — Preceding unsigned comment added by Терпр (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
The following is just for your information and does not imply any wrongdoing by you.

Would be happy to discuss things with you. TonyMorris68 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Truth
Truth is never racist. Truth von helswinkle (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like this editor is misnamed. Doug Weller  talk 15:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

tu quoque
It is wrong to use the logical fallacy of the "tu quoque fallacy" that you said on the case in the arbitration commitie

The reason its a logical fallacy is due to the fact that if "a person says A is bad crime and says that another person is said to have done said A crimes, yet has done similar things themself, then that person is wrong, since that person has made an illogical error when it did a similar crime and if they cant understand the logic of what they themselves did wrong back then, they cant understand the logic if another person does a similar crime"

Another reason is due to the fact if you convict someone of POV while doing it yourself, then of course its illogical, since if you do it yourself while not being punished for it under the same evidence presented. the reason for this is due if person has done crime A then if another person does a similar crime that person have to be face the same punishment, if not it would be illogical, since if that person is not guilty, so are others not guilty, but if it is, then another person doing the same has to be guilty too. In this case WIKIPEDIA neutral point of view, where as you havec being anti white nationalist would mean you by same standard would be guilty of POV according to said logic. Hence why its a appeal to personal attacks, since tu quoque appeals to moral "we have different standards, its moraly bad" which does not have anything to do with the illogical of same standard being applied.

Thus both reasons, one that has nothing to do with your case but merely an example of the source on the tu quoque article being wrong due to that person cant make a logical thought back then what was wrong when said person did a bad crime, means that person cant make a logical thought about others doing similar crime.

Oh and the fact that just like the example gives in the article which it proves that it itself is wrong, that if the general was not convicted under the same circumstances, than Barbie couldn't be convicted either, since its illogical hypocrisy and doublestandard which is illogical and appeal to emotion/moral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnoro33333 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sealioning
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sealioning. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poodle
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poodle. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sport in Australia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sport in Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daniel Mallory Ortberg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daniel Mallory Ortberg. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Devil's Triangle (disambiguation)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Devil's Triangle (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop vandalism this page, it took an hour to update the info so you could erase it in one second. Just read the link with the bibliography.--2A02:C7F:5030:EB00:CC06:5583:EBDB:496E (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/868021908
Hi. I don't think the user is intending to request any user rights. A simple "not done" may be more appropriate. Best, ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  14:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Edit was made with reasons explained and therefore constitutes as constructive. Sex is a biological construct. Gender is not. Therefore sex and gender cannot be used interchangeable, using them that way is what would constitute as non constructive, with risks of also confusing the reader.

Vallonen (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this edit you altered the title of a book in a reference and a wikilink. Moreover, what the part of the article you edited was referring to was social conventions, thus gender is the appropriate word.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The social conventions you refer to not only is that incorrect, but also a red herring to the issue at hand, which is that sex and gender isn't the same thing and therefore cannot be used interchangeably and that doing so add confusion.
 * I would also like to bring to your attention that the social convention you used as an argument may fly in certain social circles, but it has no biological or scientific basis or weight, which is why new ones are being invented all the time. Wiki should not be a battle ground for identity politics either, as such it should read sex and not gender. Vallonen (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page if you want to discuss it further. I am not sure what's going on, but you are incorrect. I know about, teach, and specialize in studies on the social construction of gender. I can only think there must be some miscommunication here...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am sure that you teach the social construct of gender, which proves the point I made (that gender is a social convention in certain circles, and why new ones are being made up, current count I believe is around 30) and which further demonstrates why you cannot use sex and gender interchangeable since one is a biological construct, whereas the other is a social construct! Males and females are biological constructs. Not social constructs. So what ever it is that you teach, it has nothing to do with biology or science, but with identity politics. If you had made an argument that said the two sexes organize society on the basis of their biological differences, then, and only then, would the context of social construct make any sense.


 * There is no miscommunication on my part, I talk about males and females (biological constructs i.e. sex) you talk about genders (i.e. social constructs), you then proceed to argue you can use them interchangeably, which for reasons clearly explained and demonstrated to you you cannot.
 * That’s were we are at this point. Vallonen (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that remotely related to Blond though? Specifically, the linguistic gender of the term?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point I’m not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not. I could ask you, how is the social construct of gender remotely related to the colour Blond? Specifically, the linguistic term of gender?
 * This deals with biological constructs, not with made up genders. As such the definition used should be sex. Not gender. Hence my edit. Vallonen (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think blonde/blond is somehow related to sex... go take it to the article's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hair colour happens to be another biological construct, and trails nicely with the male and female sex, since males and females display this hair colour (the colour blond/blonde has absolutely nothing to do with the social construct of gender) If you believe otherwise then I suggest you be the one to take it to the article's talk page and present an argument for your belief. I have made it very clear for why it should read sex, and not gender. Vallonen (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hair color has nothing to do with biological sex directly. Moreover, you broke a wikilink and altered a reference. That is disruptive.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does, and what you will find is that there are more blonde women than there are blond men, a direct correlation with sex. Moreover, you are now trying to yet again sidestep the issue after having lost the argument, moving it onto the wikilink and a reference instead. Well that's an easy enough fix.

Vallonen (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this edit is related to sex. And there is no "winning" or "losing" arguments here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You have the wrong mindset if you look at this from the point of view of competition. Like I said in my previous post, this is an easy enough fix.
 * Example
 * “The hair colour “Blond”, male form, and “blonde”, female form, is one of the few adjectives in written English to retain this separate masculine and feminine form. Each of the two forms, however, is pronounced identically” Vallonen (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Response
Hi EvergreenFir. Referring to this edit. I removed those words because the Seleucid Empire didn't just encompass "Afghanistan and Persia". Whoever wrote that material, decided to single out those two entities, while omitting the actual context vis-a-vis the Seleucids and Afghanistans history. I propose changing those words into "... which also included present-day Afghanistan", which sounds more encyclopedic and on point. Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I honestly don't know much about the topic, but the edit summary didn't seem to match the nature of the edit so I reverted. Your rationale here sounds good though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Request for assistance
Hi EvergreenFir,

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing proper, and made a few edits to two articles Reverse Sexism and Internalised Sexism which I hope are ok; mostly the first one which was really messy and wasn't properly cited at all. I saw you're the resident expert on these things and I was wondering if I've gone to far in trying to reach out to the "opposite perspective". Would you be ok to look over my edits and give me some pointers if you think they're needed? Or maybe just some general encouragement I'm doing a good job, lol. Also I made a statement on my talk page because I noticed there were no philosophers at all other than white males listed for the philosophy userboxes on Wikipedia! Is this normal here and is such a complaint considered rude? Would really value your advice. Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Update to scripts by AlexTheWhovian/Alex 21
Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- / Alex /21  11:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

CSI Miami season 9 Episode 3 See no evil?
I believe that Joe is Hilarious Dumb for Returning To Prison After (He abducted the Girl).

In the Episode, nobody specifically says if Joe is Dumb.

1. Y can’t I edit the Wikipedia that Joe is Dumb?

2. Don’t You agree Joe is Dumb?(124.123.50.3 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)).

LGBT
LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Color-blind casting"
You reverted my edit to the page Color-blind casting with the explanation of "As I made clear in my edit summary, this does not belong." However, your last summary was "Try that again", quite the opposite of saying that "this does not belong". Before that, you removed my entry with the explanation "The Wiz is a reimagining, not a simple race swap", which is why I reworded the entry to: "The Wiz "re-imagined" L. Frank Baum's classic 1900 children's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which had previously gained popularity from the film adaptation 'Wizard of Oz' in 1939. Michael Jackson played the Scarecrow, previously adapted to 'Scarecrow', portrayed by Ray Bolger; Diana Ross played Dorothy, previously adapted to 'Dorothy' played by Judy Garland; Nipsey Russell played the Tinman, previously adapted to 'Tin Man' played by Jack Haley; Ted Ross played the Lion, previously adapted to the 'Cowardly Lion' played by Bert Lahr." What makes you believe (incorrectly, IMO) that this "does not belong"? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Race swap isn't the same as color blind casting. The casting was intentional.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - then where is the page regarding "blackwashing in film"? Walterblue222 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. It's not a thing RS talk about.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? I'd appreciate if you would be specific. Why is there not a "blackwashing in film" page? "Blackwashing in film" obviously takes place, because that is your argument for denying my contributions to the color-blind casting page. If there is not a "blackwashing in film" page, you seem to have no valid reason to deny the entry I added on the color-blind casting article. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * because it's not something discussed by reliable sources and not a topic deserving of a page. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. No matter how obvious something bought be to us, it "doesn't exist" to wikipedia unless reliable sources say it does. Afaik, RS don't say "black washing" exists except as something people claim when doing backlash against whitewashing.
 * As for The Wiz, I don't think it counts as color blind casting as it was intentional, not blind. If you find reliable sources that support its inclusion, use them and present them on the article's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, are you serious, EvergreenFir? You lecture me about WP:NPOV directly after making a statement that is extremely opinionated ("not a topic deserving of a page"), claim that "it "doesn't exist" to wikipedia unless reliable sources say it does", without considering the possibility that there could be reliable sources that acknowledge it. You claim that "black-washing" doesn't exist - and in the very next sentence you provide an example of intentional black-washed casting. ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Do you have memory problems or do you always contradict yourself like this??? I don't know if I should laugh, or be seriously concerned for your mental health... Walterblue222 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After doing a few minutes of research, I found out that yes, the 'color-blind casting' page IS completely appropriate as a place to provide examples of "black-washing". The page "blackwashing" here on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackwashing redirects to "color-blind casting". So, Wikipedia DOES recognize the existence of "blackwashing", and has the term conflated with "color-blind casting", therfor my additions WERE applicable and you should NOT have removed them. I'll wait for you to reply before adding more examples of "blackwashing" to the "color-blind casting"/"blackwashing" page, but your error is quite obvious in this situation. Walterblue222 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Love the personal attacks but those need to stop now. Those aside... the redirect was made last May by one editor. Yet the word appears nowhere on the target article. Not very convincing.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I do not "love the personal attacks", and certainly agree that they "need to stop now". Please refrain from making them as I have never made personal attacks towards you whatsoever. What is it that you could possibly (erroneously) consider to be a personal attack? "you should NOT have removed them"? You're jumping to many conclusions and making inaccurate assertions, while I have been quite straightforward in everything I say here. Disagreeing with me doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks and accusations. Seriously, let's try to be professional and respectful. I always strive to be (and have been) to you. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment above that you don't know if you should laugh or be seriously concerned for EvergreenFir's mental health is a personal attack. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Some of you might want to see this YouTube video. The Myth Of 'Blackwashing' Fictional Characters In Movies Like 'Deadpool'. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment above: "Do you have memory problems or do you always contradict yourself like this??? I don't know if I should laugh, or be seriously concerned for your mental health" was a question followed by a statement of concern. This does not constitute a personal attack, AzureCitizen. Doug Weller, do you believe everything claimed on YouTube? Do you consider this a reliable source? The video is quite opinionated and includes many factually incorrect statements. Look at the like/dislike ratio and consider that the person claiming "blackwashing" doesn't exist is a "black" individual giving her biased opinion, which also happens to be racist and prejudicial. Walterblue222 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Most of us know that very few YouTube videos can be used as sources. I simply thought some, not you, would find it interesting. It seems very likely that it's been targeted by racists. You seem to be quoting a comment there by the way. Interesting that you think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased, I guess that means whites can't comment on whitewashing? And yes, that was a personal attack. Doug Weller  talk 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Targeted by racists? The video itself is MADE by racists. What are you saying I "seem to be quoting"? I didn't say that "blacks can't comment on blackwashing", but thanks for verifying the existence of "blackwashing". Stating that I "think blacks can't comment on blackwashing without being biased" is not true, but if someone is a part of a group accused of an action, and completely denies the action - while simultaneously repeating said action - it certainly seems like their bias is impacting their position. For instance, if a "white" person in the KKK claims that the KKK is a humanitarian, peaceful organization, would you believe them? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One step from fulfilling Godwin's Law. Just stop.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop WHAT? What is it with people being indirect on here (and no, that's not a personal attack)? Godwin's law is regarding Adolf Hitler, not the KKK...Walterblue222 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said "one step from"...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me be direct. Azure is correct regarding the personal attacks. Your replies are disingenuous at minimum. Please consider this as a final warning for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL more generally.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said is disingenuous. Stop projecting. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Whitesplaining" . Doug Weller  talk 20:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Blacksplaining" . Walterblue222 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)