User talk:Equivamp

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

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

Hey, Equivamp. I just wanted to say sorry if I overreacted a bit in regards to your Anti-Terror Units edits. I generally just hate tag-bombing, as it is often done by people how simple dislike the contents of articles without proper reasoning. Accordingly, I get a bit touchy if I noticed these big tags being put somewhere. In contrast, you clearly had a good, thought-out reason for doing so at the Anti-Terror Units article. So I hope that my behavior has not left any bad feelings. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Drive-by tagging is a real problem so I understand the frustration. --Equivamp - talk 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! Thanks a ton for your work on trans articles and for being so clear and constructive on the talk pages! Joti (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joti: Glad to hear it, thanks. --Equivamp - talk 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I pinged you on Talk:List of formerly unidentified decedents and you haven't responded yet. Koridas ^(Heyyyyyyy) 22:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I received no notification of a ping. Nor did I receive notification about this message, and only noticed it because I was emailed about it. Maybe something's gone funky with my preferences. Anyway, I'll check out the discussion. --Equivamp - talk 23:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I will get this wrong since it's my first time. I understand your reversion of my edit of the plot details. Instead, I will go back in and correct one punctuation error and an inaccurate cast detail about a character, being more succinct this time. I hope that is ok. Thanks. --Lightstorm22 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightstorm22: Yes, that's fine, thank you. I'm not sure if that was in your original edit - I looked for additions outside of the plot summary section and would have kept it in the first place if I had seen it, but if it was there I must have missed it. If so, sorry about that! --Equivamp - talk 08:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: It was there, but no worries. It gave me a chance to trim it a bit when I put it back. It was also a total coincidence that I had added to the plot details mere minutes after you had fixed them again. That was the first time I had ever even visited the page lol, and I don't do this often enough to think to check the history first, but I will try to remember from now on! Thanks for directing me to the plot summary edit guides. --Lightstorm22 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomacea columellaris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don’t research too much on slime coats. But when I did some research on the topic it appeared that slime coats aren’t exclusive to fish species.

@

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

]

Maybe you could change its name to “Slime coat (fish)”.

talk) 14:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I welcome the help, I just think that some of the edits were not helpful while you could tell I was actively working on the draft. Eg, had I lost work due to an edit conflict with an edit that simply added two page breaks it would have been highly annoying. I'll make sure to use the in-use template when I plan on making several edits to it in the future to avoid it though. --Equivamp - talk 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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

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

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

		The Original Barnstar
		Here’s a barnstar for all your work for Wikipedia.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This isn't worth a revert or taking up space at the article talk, but wouldn't "politically motivated push" fall under "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb" as per

@Firefangledfeathers: Oops, you're correct. I forgot that "politically" is an adverb. (Although I still think it's way better with a hyphen!) My apologies. --Equivamp - talk

Hi Equivamp, you recently created the above as a redirect but didn't point where it should redirect to, perhaps you could fix before it gets tagged RfD. Thanks and happy editing JW 1961 ^Talk 22:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed now. Thank you! --Equivamp - talk 22:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Equivamp, thanks for looking over the page I edited and helping locate some tone and citation issues! I'm a new editor and appreciate the help, and I'm working to fix the things you flagged.

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

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

@

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

]

Thanks very much for this helpful reply, Equivamp! As a new editor I really appreciate it. It seemed counterintuitive to me to not cite the DSM itself for factual information about what the DSM says, but having reviewed the guidance about primary sources over at

WP:RS I can see how it makes sense to do that in order to avoid the implication of original research. I can go back and substitute secondary sources for some of the primary sources I used. Would you recommend that I take out all of the DSM citations as well, or should I just add a secondary source in each of those spots in addition to the DSM citations? Also, when I quote directly from Kinsey's book, shouldn't I cite the book? That's what the page Kinsey Reports does. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's interesting if the genus is no longer accepted, and this should probably be written about on another page. What about Ampullariidae? If so, can Ampullaria be redirected there? It is a highly likely search term. Geschichte (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: As far as I know, with the sole exception of fossil species Crommium angustatum, all currently-valid species previously in the Ampullariua genus have been moved to other Ampullariidae genera, so it would probably serve as a suitable redirect target. --Equivamp - talk 01:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on Karan Singh. Because I removed the lone that claimed him to be a potential candidate for 2022 India Presidential Election. I want to ask you whether "Is Cross Town News even termed as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Because what I know is Wikipedia doesn't consider any local or regional agencies as reliable sources." Only well established or proven news agencies are termed as reliable. And that claim is made by some "Ankit Love" who is an editor at Cross Town News. How can a view of a common journalist with no reliability be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Please answer me and clear my doubts. JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Equivamp - talk 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

@JaggaDaaku: Please be patient. I am not constantly online nor available to talk.

Please understand that less reliable does not mean unreliable, nor does not listing editorial policies mean a source is unreliable. The suitability of a source is dependent on various factors which must be weighed on the balance against the claim being made. An

extraordinary

claim would require one or more high-quality sources, but there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that a politician is calling for a relative to fill a particular office.

And, yes, Wikipedia allows for certain personal opinions to be presented when they are

properly attributed

to the people that hold them.

It appears to me that your objection to the information is not that it is unlikely or untrue, and therefore the reliability of Cross Town News is of little importance. What it looks like to me is that you merely object to the inclusion of Love's viewpoint. If that is the case, you need to approach this from an angle which addresses

WP:DUE. --Equivamp - talk 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So A/c to you, what is more Ok? Reliable or less - reliable? And unlike you said, I don't solely object to Love's PoV. What I do object is that there is no credibility proven of that news agency as well as that is a personal thinking of an editor. Bcoz the article says Love wants so and so. So two major points are going against it. So I think its not necessary to mention these things in an article. And that too on article like this which is going to be most visited in a couple of months. Bcoz it may mislead the people. (Your thoughts?) Or shall we raise a consensus on this thing? JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to bring up the source on

WP:RSN to see what the community thinks. --Equivamp - talk 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Equivamp, User:Kleuske a discussion on a similar vein has also been started on the Bhim Singh article, please feel free to join if you have any constructive thoughts to add. --Death Star Central (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just wondering which parts you thought were synth. If you could copy paste the bits or bold them or something it would be very helpful. I would like to improve this article quite quickly as it is subject to a deletion vote. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible: For a start, the passage Male Disposability is well known in both farming & the animal kingdom. Typically speaking; male animals act as protectors of the family unit, heard, hive, or pack - often at the cost of their own lives. appears to represent two novel theses formed from combining the info in the sources. Your subsequent edits to the article are much improved. Also, when I reverted your edit, I meant to actually leave the definition you had added to the lead section and remove the rest, so if you want to restore it I have no objections. --Equivamp - talk 20:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thank you! If the current one is okay, I will leave it as is and rebuild the rest with your criticism in mind. I'm assuming the rest was okay? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the page, and added back the parts you didn't seem to object to. Could you take a look and tell me if that's alright? Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

@

Manual of Style. Most importantly, I think the lead section leaves a lot to be desired. The subject of the article is poorly defined, and not, as far as I can tell, actually supported by the cited sources. --Equivamp - talk 03:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the feedback - I will read it today to check for typos. Though I'm not sure which parts are unsupported, as I've been quoting directly from the sources and then rephrasing. It would be helpful if I knew which sections were meant spesificlly, but I will take a look at the intro. it seems fairly solid to me, but I suppose more could be done to expand on it in the overview. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible: Can you provide the quote which supports the second sentence? Equivamp - talk 10:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the second in the heading? If so, it's page 57 (as marked on the page, not the PDF page numbers) you just need to ctrl + f the word 'expendable' in it to find it. I have added exact page-numbers to the citation to be sure that people find it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible: That's the third sentence. What about the second? Or the first, for that matter? Equivamp - talk 10:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I assumed you meant the third citation. It's all supported by Farrell, but the second is from this book here. Specifically, it's a condensing of the portions related to defence fighters and the lives of males being spent by the colony. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fair enough. I don't object to that definition, though I think we should try to keep the lead short. It may be worth mentioning evolution throughout the page generally. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page about the

@

reliable sources say, not what someone who decided to come along and try to be helpful say. --Equivamp - talk 02:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems a bit biased if you're using sources that are openly against the topic you're trying to write about. Perhaps that's why there hasn't been any definition since the creation of the page. Sclaraidus (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not be unbiased; they must only be reliable. --Equivamp - talk 03:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias seems pretty unreliable to me Sclaraidus (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Springnuts (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Slime coat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't extrapolate from one source that multiple people feel the same way. This is

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

@Entropy: "Ellen Page" is not the actor's birth name, but a former stage name. The actor's birth name is not included in the article because it is non-notable per MOS:GID. Equivamp - talk 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: That makes sense, thank you for explaining! —Entropy ^(talk) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]