| Revision as of 02:10, 18 February 2015 editRms125a@hotmail.com (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users266,337 edits →RE Lorena Rojas← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:40, 18 February 2015 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,264 edits →RE Lorena RojasNext edit → | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| ==RE ]== | ==RE ]== | ||
| From url cited in edit summary: ''"Aged 44, her struggle against cancer started when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. In 2013, she disclosed to Mexican state news Agency Notimex that her illness was 'chronic' after her tumour spread to other parts of her body. In 2014, the mutation had reached her liver."'' Yours, ] 02:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | From url cited in edit summary: ''"Aged 44, her struggle against cancer started when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. In 2013, she disclosed to Mexican state news Agency Notimex that her illness was 'chronic' after her tumour spread to other parts of her body. In 2014, the mutation had reached her liver."'' Yours, ] 02:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for checking that. It must have updated or I didn't notice the ref was changed. The version I originally put didn't have the specific cause. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:40, 18 February 2015
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Independent Information
This page is unambiguously promotional.However, every time I try and make a page that isn't promotional you delete me while I'm making the page. I'm trying to create a page about my company as a lot of my interns coming from england find it hard to understand the russian website. The page is factual not promotional. Promotional implies bias which it isn't. If you feel I written biased info tell where it is and I'll delete it. I keep having my page deleted by different "monitors" and so I'm to explain myself ever time. Could please help/ Advise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yours Independent informtion
Titles of Refs
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Talk page FAQs
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What the Heck
My information was true considering the fact that a news report confirmed it, so they had no business deleting it, because either way it was true,they probably didn't even try searching it up! Here's the report: http://www.newsnet5.com/entertainment/celebrity/nicki-minaj-gets-animated-for-steven-universe_09416171
If they were following the rules then they could have easily done some research to see if it was true or not. I did.So I hope they got a notification too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)
- The talk page didn't have any one talking about confirmation on dates that's why I didn't bother! and I did give a source that apparently wasn't "reliable" but yet a News website confirmed it, making what I wrote true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)
Thank you
Thank you! that's all I wanted! fans have been waiting for this information for 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, EvergreenFir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs)
November 2014
Flyer22222
I would just like to let you know that even though i had vandalized a different page, the adjustment to the Anthony jeselnik page was completely valid because he very often in his comedies talks about how awesome he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22222 (talk • contribs)
Reverting changes to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour
Hi EvergreenFir, I just wanted to drop you a note to explain why I'm reverting your recent change to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour. If you view the page then do a find in your browser for "</ref>", you will see that this text appears at the end of the "Biological" section when it should never be visible to users. My previous edit removed it and your reversion reinstated it. If you take a look at the code for the 2nd & final paragraph of "Biological", you'll see there's one empty reference (after "among criminals") and one with contents (starting "J. Tiihonen" and ending "doi:10.1038/mp.2014.130."). The "</ref>" tag at the end of the paragraph which I removed previously has no matching opening "<ref>" tag and so is invalid, which is why I removed it and am now removing it again.
Your warning to delete
I believe I fixed everything. Please re-review. The links back up the sentences. Newsgirlsdontcry (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Newsgirlsdontcry: Thank you for editing, but only an administrator can remove that template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
HI, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ADMIN DELETED IT, I'M WORKING WITH SOMEONE VIA OTRS TO RESOLVE AND FIX. I NEED IT UN-DELETED. :O) THANKS 104.12.80.208 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Rollbacker
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Gilliam: Thank you very much! I'll check out the links about how and when to use it. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
About the edit I made...
Sorry about that...I am a fan of anime and all, and really thought that that could go in the "masculinity" page, sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge Earl (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Administrator's notice board
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
BrentNewland (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why should we remove that information? ICD has transsexualism classified under F60.0 or so, so I think that information is important. Note also that that's official classification by the current WHO document.
Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. VS6507 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you were so eager to delete what I wrote in the circumcision talk page.
Maybe you should remove all the other texts there that don't contribute to anything? And maybe you should move the text I wrote to wherever it belongs, if you feel like it doesn't belong on the circumcision talk page. Because clearly it belongs somewhere on wikipedia. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I deleted it because you were discussing other users, not the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just like lots of other users there are doing. You should be consistent and remove all of it. And I disagree with you that I wasn't discussing the article. I was actually discussing who or what gave 3 users the right to decide what should be on the article.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages polices give the the right. They are clearly linked in their comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who made the "wikipedia policies" which clearly are biased towards medical sciences, since they have most sources.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are made by consensus. Medical articles need reliable medical sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but circumcision belongs much more in a religious category than in a medical one. And which consensus decided that circumcision should be considered medical rather than religious?84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure on exactly when the article was decided to be mostly about the medical issue, but there are there are other articles dealing with religious, legal, and controversy issues: Circumcision in Judaism, Khitan (circumcision), Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, Circumcision and law, and Circumcision controversies.
- Yes, I am fully aware that there are other articles, but the main article should be religious rather than medical. And another article should be called "Circumcision and medical effects". Most of the content of the current article should be moved there.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are welcome to propose that move, but honestly I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell. There's also WP:COMMONNAME to consider. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just like your battle for feminism doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in Saudi Arabia and much of the male dominated world? I like to believe we are moving towards more equality and more respect for human rights. Such as the right of a male child not to be circumcised. But I guess women shouldn't be allowed to drive in Muslim countries, since you think male children shouldn't have the right to grow up with foreskin.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- That, um, makes no sense. I'm saying a proposed move is likely to fail. You're welcome to try, but just letting you know it likely too not succeed per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are just as encouraging as most people were to the first feminists. If you believe in equal rights and respect for human rights, you will fight for it regardless of if you believe you will succeed or not. And look at western Europe today. I live in the country with most respect for human rights and least discrimination against women. Thanks to feminists that fought against the male consensus even if people told them that they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- That, um, makes no sense. I'm saying a proposed move is likely to fail. You're welcome to try, but just letting you know it likely too not succeed per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just like your battle for feminism doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in Saudi Arabia and much of the male dominated world? I like to believe we are moving towards more equality and more respect for human rights. Such as the right of a male child not to be circumcised. But I guess women shouldn't be allowed to drive in Muslim countries, since you think male children shouldn't have the right to grow up with foreskin.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are welcome to propose that move, but honestly I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell. There's also WP:COMMONNAME to consider. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fully aware that there are other articles, but the main article should be religious rather than medical. And another article should be called "Circumcision and medical effects". Most of the content of the current article should be moved there.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure on exactly when the article was decided to be mostly about the medical issue, but there are there are other articles dealing with religious, legal, and controversy issues: Circumcision in Judaism, Khitan (circumcision), Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, Circumcision and law, and Circumcision controversies.
- Yes, but circumcision belongs much more in a religious category than in a medical one. And which consensus decided that circumcision should be considered medical rather than religious?84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are made by consensus. Medical articles need reliable medical sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who made the "wikipedia policies" which clearly are biased towards medical sciences, since they have most sources.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages polices give the the right. They are clearly linked in their comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just like lots of other users there are doing. You should be consistent and remove all of it. And I disagree with you that I wasn't discussing the article. I was actually discussing who or what gave 3 users the right to decide what should be on the article.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to confuse me with someone who is pro-circumcision. Just because I am against circumcision doesn't mean I think the page should be about the religious aspect of the phenomenon. I think it's fine the way it is being about medical info. And I don't think many people will support your suggestion to move it. But that's completely unrelated to my position on circumcision. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration clarification request archived
Hi EvergreenFir, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
RE Lorena Rojas
From url cited in edit summary: "Aged 44, her struggle against cancer started when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. In 2013, she disclosed to Mexican state news Agency Notimex that her illness was 'chronic' after her tumour spread to other parts of her body. In 2014, the mutation had reached her liver." Yours, Quis separabit? 02:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking that. It must have updated or I didn't notice the ref was changed. The version I originally put didn't have the specific cause. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)