User talk:EvergreenFir
|
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 3 sections are present. |
Hoax
[edit]Please delete Yot_(letter) which is another mirror of blatant hoax, already deleted here: Jot_(letter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.8.148 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a hoax EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- So if it's not a hoax, please restore revision by "John" per this diff, since "John" is not even banned user at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.36.206.239 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For taking care of the user who was harassing and spamming me. Cheers! JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
Revert on Tim Pool article
[edit]Read my edit summary. I'm pointing out the why the source cannot be deemed to be credible. I expect you to abuse your administrator privileges to have the final say though. – Brenr 15:43, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 15:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that Tim Pool clearly has views all over the political spectrum. The political leanings of the guests on his podcast do not draw any conclusions about his own views, but rather a representation of those that accept versus reject invites to the show. – Brenr 15:46, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Brenr We go by what reliable sources say, not our interpretations of what is "clearly" the case. You summarily deemed 2 sources (not just one) as non-credible without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir and what I stated is accurate. If you read the article for yourself, you'll see that the claims I make are indeed true. My goal on Wikipedia is to restore the impartial, unbiased representation of subjects that are especially more prone to bias. I believe I've made those edits in good faith and I hope you can read into it objectively and not let your views (which you display on your user page) play into your judgement of my edits. Thanks! – Brenr 16:15, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 16:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Brenr which views do I display on my own page?
- Wikipedia is based on the verifiability of content with reliable sources. It is not based on what editors assert is accurate. If it were the latter, Wikipedia would claim homeopathy cured cancer and that the full moon causes crime. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are we at least in agreeance that the claims made in the Wikipedia article do not accurately represent the sources? If not, we're making no progress here with this discussion. Please understand I'm not here to disperage anyone, but based on your user page, you clearly have views that suggest lack of impartial judgment on subjects such as Tim Pool, a figure who is more recently regarded as right-leaning due to the current climate which is completely understandable. Can we at least establish that the "right-wing" label given is not honest as it doesn't represent his overall political views? I'd like to hear your thoughts! – Brenr 16:37, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 16:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Brenr we can agree the sources were subpar. I've updated one of them. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are we at least in agreeance that the claims made in the Wikipedia article do not accurately represent the sources? If not, we're making no progress here with this discussion. Please understand I'm not here to disperage anyone, but based on your user page, you clearly have views that suggest lack of impartial judgment on subjects such as Tim Pool, a figure who is more recently regarded as right-leaning due to the current climate which is completely understandable. Can we at least establish that the "right-wing" label given is not honest as it doesn't represent his overall political views? I'd like to hear your thoughts! – Brenr 16:37, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 16:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir and what I stated is accurate. If you read the article for yourself, you'll see that the claims I make are indeed true. My goal on Wikipedia is to restore the impartial, unbiased representation of subjects that are especially more prone to bias. I believe I've made those edits in good faith and I hope you can read into it objectively and not let your views (which you display on your user page) play into your judgement of my edits. Thanks! – Brenr 16:15, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 16:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Brenr We go by what reliable sources say, not our interpretations of what is "clearly" the case. You summarily deemed 2 sources (not just one) as non-credible without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turmeric on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)