![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Bad Girls Club
- 2 Dr. Luke Page Bias
- 3 does this look normal?
- 4 Thanks
- 5 Please comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident
- 6 Claims of vandalism are inaccurate
- 7 Racism TD list
- 8 About Women
- 9 Wikicology arbitration case opened
- 10 Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association
- 11 Level-3 warning
- 12 April 2016
- 13 Reverse Racism: Dear White People
Bad Girls Club
I don't know if you're watching all of the Bad Girls season articles, but I was wondering if you could possibly watch Bad Girls Club (season 14)? There's yet another editor removing MOS compliance from the article and I'm at 3RR now. I've warned him, mentioning the multiple warnings in the article to no avail. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: Still got them on my watch list but I've practically given up on those articles... can't ever verify anything and so much disruption. Frankly would advocate for removing the episode elimination tables. But I'll keep an eye on it tonight and tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I gave up on fixing the tables after I did seasons 13-15. I even explained to this editor that there was an edit notice in the article, a note at the beginning of the table, and a discussion on the talk page, but he still reverted me. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm suspicious the Superwoman23 may be a registered account of the blocked IPs. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened. NatalieFan did the same thing after the page was protected. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. Had them on my "to watch" list for months but took them off. Saw they edited that though. Spi didn't find that sunny connected to who I thought it was though (starborn or whoever ... On my phone and forget the sock master name). But still suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Luke Page Bias
Evergreen. How do I report the article for bias? I've been asking this question a long time and you haven't given an answer. It seems to me the article is crowded by editors who are biased in favor of Doctor Luke or who have a men's rights agenda. I think it is very important this be examined by other editors and admins, because the article simply doesn't match the content of mainstream and reliable sources reporting on the matter. You might not see it personally but I am telling you, this article has serious issues and I think your own bias may be getting in the way. If you are truly objective, rather than report me for essentially disagreeing with some of the other editors, bring in the third party elements of wikipedia that are supposed to help quality control.TripleVenom (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TripleVenom: That's what the WP:RFC was for. It was to get outside opinions on the topic to help build consensus. At the ANI posting I made, an admins (Drmies) did review the situation. I don't know how many more outside opinions you want, but consensus seems very clear to me. And for what it's worth, I reported you because you reverted the section header again, not because I disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to report the page to a larger group of editors (the ANI page was you reporting me, not you reporting the page). Very well, this isn't going anywhere, how do I report you then? TripleVenom (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TripleVenom: Yes, I did report you, not the page. But in the process of reviewing the report, actions on the page are reviewed as well. Drmies specifically commented on the RfC itself. Feel free to report me at the ANI if you feel it necessary. Quite honestly I don't think that will go over well though (see WP:BOOMERANG). :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think I am raising legitimate concerns about the page. Obviously reporting me is not going to cause an objective review of the page itself (it is going to result in admins thinking I am just a trouble maker vandalizing the page or something). I refuse to believe there isn't another method to instigate a genuine review by objective third party editors and admins. That you haven't helped steer me toward any procedure for that, suggests to me that you are not being objective. So if you continue to refuse to do so, I will report you (despite what appears to be a veiled threat). I also feel that consensus, particularly when you have people posting comments in there that suggest they are MRA types, isn't necessarily the only criteria we ought to be looking at. As I said, I am neither Kesha fan nor particularly invested/interested in the issues raised by the topic, but it is clear to me as an outside observer that the article is biased against her. TripleVenom (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TripleVenom: I at least commend you on remaining calm. There are various ways of getting outside opinions, WP:RFC being one of them. There's also WP:3O and WP:DR. You might also want to check out the neutral point of view noticeboard... I think that's what you're actually looking for. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS - BOOMERANG was not a threat, more of a warning. There's already someone suggesting you be blocked outright over on the ANI. That why I don't think any report will go over well there. NPOVN might be what you're interested in anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
My point is this isn't neutral at all. Nor is it encyclopedic. That is the problem. Like I said, I have no horse in this race (I really couldn't care less about Kesha) but it is obvious to me reading that section that it isn't neutral. It just doesn't match what the preponderance of reliable sources are reporting on the subject. Unless Wikipedia is now taking the position that consensus matters more than what papers of record have to say on a top, I just don't see how you get that narrative of events (which look like they are making every effort to present Kesha as emotionally troubled, unreliable, etc, while at the same time cramming the sexual assault allegation (the big major controversy surrounding the lawsuit) amid a number of other claims). I honestly cannot read that and see it as neutral POV or unbiased. Sorry not seeing it at all. And I am finding the hostility from editors and admins very telling. I think the editors and admins involved may be so accustomed to the culture the that has developed among contributors to wikipedia they just can't see the bias or the problem. I would at least urge you to review some of the comments in the talk page as I do think many of them suggest contributors are bringing their politics and ideology into the shaping of the consensus. TripleVenom (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
does this look normal?
- Quite normal, sweetheart. No need to fret. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing up Cow cleaner 5000's vandalism. Again. He seems to show up on my watchlist every 2nd day now and it's getting old and unoriginal fast. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Claims of vandalism are inaccurate
I am upset that you refer to my attempt to improve Wikipedia as "vandalism", which is in direct contradiction to the assume good faith policy and the definition of vandalism, per Wikipedia, which defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." Since my edits were not a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, but a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia", they cannot be vandalism.
I must ask, why did you feel the need to call my good-faith efforts "vandalism"? JessicaSideways (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JessicaSideways: Adding a person's name to lists about pedophilia is unacceptable without the strongest of sources. It's defamatory as well. I don't know if you meant your edits in good faith or not, but impact matters more here than intent. Adding anyone's name, let alone a controversial celebrity's name, to North American Man/Boy Love Association or any other pedophilia related list is utterly unacceptable. If you don't realize that, that you lack the competence to edit here in a constructive manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am unaware of what country you live in at this time but in most countries with laws based on the Common Law, in order for something to be defamatory, it would first have to be untrue. Just because it is something that is unflattering does not automatically make it defamatory. By your logic, it would also be unacceptable to add Jerry Sandusky to Category:pedophilia (tried to link to that but I messed up. My bad), but someone has already done that. And yet, that edit has yet to be reverted. JessicaSideways (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- What sources do you have that Michael Jackson was a member of NAMBLA? Or any pedophilia/pederast advocacy organizations? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- If memory serves me correctly, the section I added his name to was titled "Associated individuals". Michael Jackson had advocated for unrelated men sleeping with boys on national television, including the Martin Bashir production "Living With Michael Jackson". If you need, I can get you timecodes for when he says that. JessicaSideways (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source for it. But it must specifically say pedophilia, pederasty, or other sexual activity. Literal sleeping would not count as pedophilia. And if you plan on putting him in the NAMBLA page, you have to have a source that specifies NAMBLA, not advocacy in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So, any future edits should be accompanied with sufficient citation of sources to demonstrate good faith? JessicaSideways (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, especially on topics as loaded and charged as pedophilia and sex crimes. If the person is living or recently dead, the bar is set a bit higher (see WP:BLPCRIME for more). If I was mistaken and was too WP:BITEy, I apologize. This topic requires an extra level of scrutiny and caution when editing and seeing multiple edits without sources is a red flag to me and others who watch articles like this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. JessicaSideways (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, especially on topics as loaded and charged as pedophilia and sex crimes. If the person is living or recently dead, the bar is set a bit higher (see WP:BLPCRIME for more). If I was mistaken and was too WP:BITEy, I apologize. This topic requires an extra level of scrutiny and caution when editing and seeing multiple edits without sources is a red flag to me and others who watch articles like this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So, any future edits should be accompanied with sufficient citation of sources to demonstrate good faith? JessicaSideways (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source for it. But it must specifically say pedophilia, pederasty, or other sexual activity. Literal sleeping would not count as pedophilia. And if you plan on putting him in the NAMBLA page, you have to have a source that specifies NAMBLA, not advocacy in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- If memory serves me correctly, the section I added his name to was titled "Associated individuals". Michael Jackson had advocated for unrelated men sleeping with boys on national television, including the Martin Bashir production "Living With Michael Jackson". If you need, I can get you timecodes for when he says that. JessicaSideways (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- What sources do you have that Michael Jackson was a member of NAMBLA? Or any pedophilia/pederast advocacy organizations? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am unaware of what country you live in at this time but in most countries with laws based on the Common Law, in order for something to be defamatory, it would first have to be untrue. Just because it is something that is unflattering does not automatically make it defamatory. By your logic, it would also be unacceptable to add Jerry Sandusky to Category:pedophilia (tried to link to that but I messed up. My bad), but someone has already done that. And yet, that edit has yet to be reverted. JessicaSideways (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Racism TD list
The Talk page for article Talk:Racism contains a TD list that is out of data and I cannot find the original TD list transclusion page to edit it. [[User:Inayity] seems to be the last to edit it (wherever it is) but Inayity seems to be taking a long wikibreak. As another long-time editor of the article, I thought you might have a clue where the list is located. Thanks for your edits and, in advance, for your reply on my talk page or the article talk page. Regards, Meclee (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, i found it and edited. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Meclee: Whoops sorry about that. Opened the tab and forgot to reply earlier. Glad you found it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
About Women
Hi EvergreenFir. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikicology arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Level-3 warning
You recently managed to post three warnings on my talk page within five minutes in an increasingly threatening tone. As you probably know, the level-3 warning assumes bad faith. You will forgive me, but I find this offensive and rude. Wikipedia is not an online game for kids, and I would advise you to show a little more respect for other editors. Your main accusation is that I am making "potentially libelous statements" about living persons. You may not be aware of it, since your main interest seems to lie in subjects like "Batman" or "Biker Mice from Mars" rather than history, but Soros' speculation against the bank of England in 1992 is an undisputed fact.[1]So is the fact that his philanthropic engagement is used to further a political agenda[2] I hope that you will be more courteous the next time you interact with me (if any). I suggest that you read the article Ardhanarishvara, it will expand your culture and show you that we may in fact share some interests. Have a good day. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ardhanarishvara: There is an assumption of bad faith indeed and the increasing level of tone reflected my realization of your past edits. You violated WP:BLP twice and do not appear to understand how/why. You cannot make unsourced negative claims about living people. Investopedia is not a reliable source and not good enough to warrant such a claim. Aim.org isn't great, but at least you can say they said it. Given your past interactions on Wikipedia, I'd think you would understand the seriousness of WP:BLP and that you cannot make unequivocal claims of wrongdoing about living people. You have been warned by me and others. If you continue to do so, you may be sanctioned by administrators. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see that that you are intent on keeping an adversarial tone. When have I been warned by others not to make claims of wrongdoing about living people? If you have browsed my editing history, you should have read more carefully. Who makes you the judge of which source is reliable and which is not? Is there an official list? Who gives the imprimatur? Your overbearing tone is reminiscent of Stalinist intimidation. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Go read WP:RS. You've been warned. Lol at Stalinist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely don't like your tone. Go back to your comic strips and do not ever again interact with me. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot tell other editors not to interact with you. Doesn't work that way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. If there is a contributor who can not interact with others, this is it. Here are their first comments on talk pages of all users they tried to communicate with so far: IH, LjL, MVBW, VM, and now on this talk page. And they made less than 100 edits so far! Their comments on article talk page are extremely confrontational too [1]. Someone who is obviously not a new user could do much better. BTW, in their 2nd comment to LjL this user refer to BLP policy he apparently knows very well, contrary to his statement just above on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot tell other editors not to interact with you. Doesn't work that way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely don't like your tone. Go back to your comic strips and do not ever again interact with me. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Go read WP:RS. You've been warned. Lol at Stalinist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see that that you are intent on keeping an adversarial tone. When have I been warned by others not to make claims of wrongdoing about living people? If you have browsed my editing history, you should have read more carefully. Who makes you the judge of which source is reliable and which is not? Is there an official list? Who gives the imprimatur? Your overbearing tone is reminiscent of Stalinist intimidation. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes:, your phrase "contrary to his statement just above on this talk page" is misleading as seems to be usual with you. Where do I assert that I don't know WP:RS? Of course I know it. I was simply asking Evergreen what made him the judge of what is or is not a reliable source. Why is Investopedia not reliable? Besides, are you going to follow me on every page I visit? This is harrassement. You say that I am extremely confrontational, but can you expect me not to react when you follow me everywhere to delete my edits and raise extravagant accusations against me? Now you come here trying to rally another editor to your feud against me. All this because I do not share your putiniphobia. The mere fact that you are here is proof enough of your personality problems. You are wasting your life in futile fights with virtual enemies of your own making. It is futile to give vent to your rancor and bitterness on the internet. Instead, get outside, go into the woods, and listen to the birds singing. Try mountain climbing or sailing, read good literature. Have a good day. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well well well... I am mistaken. It has editorial oversight and is a tertiary source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Investopedia. And putiniphobia sounds like a horrid condition. Just wish I could figure out who you are ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- "your feud against me"? Well, the only thing this user really does in the project is feud (diffs above), and that does remind me someone. Not sure though if I have time to submit an SPI request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: Feel free to mail me any spi-related info and I can look into it if you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do not use email for WP purposes. OK.
- @My very best wishes: Feel free to mail me any spi-related info and I can look into it if you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- "your feud against me"? Well, the only thing this user really does in the project is feud (diffs above), and that does remind me someone. Not sure though if I have time to submit an SPI request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since the BLP issue above was about George Soros, let me just show you, for example, this diff by presumably another user about the same George Soros. There are many other similarities in their behavior.
- Both of them had a superiority complex: one of them called himself User:Againstdisinformation, another called himself User:Ardhanarishvara (Mr. God), both redlinked.
- Both conducted notorious soapboxing: this versus this.
- In addition, this knee-jerk reaction on user talk pages ([2], [3], [4]) indicate that he interacted in the past with the same users who he blamed from another account of the same "putinophobia".
- Editing same or similar pages. Old account finished his "career" by editing page about Human rights on Ukraine [5] - see second collapsed box where he marked a part of his statement as "bold", just as in page Human rights in Russia from new account [6].
- Both users frequently removed all undesirable content from their talk pages.
-
-
-
- That looks like a WP:DUCK to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
References
- ^ "How did George Soros "break the Bank of England"?". Investopedia. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
- ^ "The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power". Acuuracy in Media. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
April 2016
Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of The Amazing World of Gumball characters has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Glacialfox (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Glacialfox: wrong talk page I think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lol sorry, it's been a whileGlacialfox (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Glacialfox: No worries! Just wanted to make sure. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lol sorry, it's been a whileGlacialfox (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverse Racism: Dear White People
I don't know how to have discussions on talk pages, I hope I am doing it the right way. While I understand that one needs to be objective on wikipedia, I don't understand how citing the dialogue from and around a movie that touches on reverse racism is non objective. The opening paragraph on reverse racism seems to give one side priority, which I don't see as objective. For example, racism is institutionalized and there needs to be a distinction between racism and prejiduce. This is not prioritized on the page. Help me understand. Also this is literally the name of the article "Dear White People director: 'There's no such thing as reverse racism' so how does what I posted skew this? MahnoorLodhi (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MahnoorLodhi: Thanks for contacting me! First, welcome to Wikipedia. I know this must be frustrating... what Rms (the user who reverted you) objected to is what we call WP:SYNTH. Basically, you're taking multiple sources and combining them into your own ideas and words (like teachers always tell you to do). What's annoying about Wikipedia at times is that it is discouraged. Instead, we basically repeat what others are saying. Sometime times we summarize things in the lead of the article, but in the body of the article things ideally should be parroting what others (specifically either notable opinions of reliable sources) say about a topic. To be honest, not every article or topic on wikipedia adheres strictly to this. It's more strongly enforced on controversial topics, topics about living people, and medical topics. So a page like reverse racism honestly gets a bit more scrutiny than, say, anomie or some other less controversial topic. I think Dear White People is a good thing to add to the article, but stick to the facts. Say what the sources say (paraphrased) and if they give examples of reverse racism or responses to it, use those same examples.
- If it's any consolation, a got a barnstar for banging my head against a wall until I figured out how to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's frustrating when a source says "X is Y" and another says "Y is Z", but you cannot then say "X is Z" without a source explicitly stating that even if it seems obvious. You seem to be really trying to understand what's going on and I appreciate that. I did start a discussion on Talk:Reverse racism so we can work on things together there. Hope this was helpful (even if just a little). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)