- 1 New Page Review newsletter November 2019
- 2 Please comment on Talk:Seth Rollins
- 3 You've got mail!
- 4 FWIW
- 5 Please comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight
- 6 Signature character amount 12-NOV-2019
- 7 Cultural Appropriation (Norse Mythology) - Two Citations Found
- 8 About your adminship...
- 9 Almost there
- 10 Chelsea Manning
- 11 Congratulations
- 12 Now that the RfA week is over, you have a challenge
- 13 Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret A. Zahn has been accepted
- 14 Now...
- 15 Regarding Farah Khan Ali
Please comment on Talk:Seth Rollins
You've got mail!
Hey, for what it's worth, re: your RFA, these can be super-stressful, and it can really suck to see people you've never worked with dragging your name through the mud. Anyhow, I hope you're not too stressed out, and regardless of the outcome, you're a very strong editor and have always been easy to work with. Don't feel compelled to write back if you think it could hurt your chances for the tools. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: thank you for the kind words. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support from me, too. May I respectfully make one very small suggestion you might like to consider? (Ignore if you wish) I reckon that maybe renaming 'Accolades' to something more akin to 'Accolades/Insults' - or even adding a small preliminary commentary - might show those who are incapable of understanding why you've posted those links that you do so purely to show you've been accused of being almost everything nasty under the sun. That you can rise above this and show it more as a badge of honour is actually a great attribute, and simply serves to demean those who attempt to throw petty insults. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Signature character amount 12-NOV-2019
Hi there! I noticed your signature is 217 characters. Even though this is well below the 255 maximum, there is a slightly better way to render it if you're interested. In the box below are the differences between your current sig and an identical version which uses only 185 characters:
Comparison of sig markups
The following is your current sig's markup, which is 217 characters:
The markup shown below renders the sig identically, but uses only 185 characters — a savings of 32 characters:
If you have any talk page stalkers who know better than I about this, hopefully they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it should work out well enough to help reduce the size. Warm regards,04:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Technically, Spintendo, your suggestion is invalid HTML. You've left out all the closing
</span>tags but one; most browsers are smart enough to know what you mean, but it's not technically correct, and shouldn't really be relied on. Reinstating the closing tags brings the sig length up to 207 characters, for only an 11-character savings. I wouldn't bother, but it's all good, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was hoping that strategy could be clarified as a workable / nonworkable one, which your input has done — so I thank you for that. I'm not entirely clear on how the invalid HTML would affect the day to day usage of that signature's rendering, but I'll leave that question to another forum. Thanks again. Warm regards, 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Cultural Appropriation (Norse Mythology) - Two Citations Found
Here are two citations. Can the revert be undone?
You reverted the new section added on 12th November, here:
About your adminship...
Congrats! =) I don't mean to put the cart before the horse here but it appears that the nomination will pass. As I said in my support comment though, be sure to try and address those who opposed your nomination. Good luck going forward! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. - Ret.Prof (talk)
- At least three of the opposers are people for whom I have zero liking and I didn't even see their comments before I voted to support! So I wouldn't worry too much. Deb (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Gun-jumping seems appropriate here. Congratulations and, as I mentioned in my !vote, the opposes slay me. Bag 'em and tag 'em. Hope you enjoy being an admin! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 20:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87, Ret.Prof, Deb, Scottywong, and Paine Ellsworth: Thank you! Scotty, can I order the purple ring if available? Or if they're metal, white gold would be great. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: My bad. Spelling was never my forte which is why I shy away from using the board in class. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with extra tools! Maxim(talk) 23:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|New Admin Torch|
|From Girth Summit via ToBeFree to EvergreenFir: Congratulations for your successful request for adminship. Please guard this eternal flame and forward it to the next successful candidate – never break the chain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)|
- Congratulations, and a good result. I'm glad you went for it and I know you will use the tools carefully and responsibly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|Welcome to the CABAL. We have snacks.|
- Congratulations EvergreenFir. Enjoy your new mop. - MrX 🖋 23:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well done. When you get tired of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the right block message, check out my monobook, some kind person put some code there that makes that sort of thing a lot easier. ϢereSpielChequers 00:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Congratulations. I've run out of admin T-shirts but I expect someone will find one for you even if it's second hand. Your RfA wasn't an easy ride and I know how you must have felt for 7 days - mine was also quite unpleasant. Many of the oppose votes can be discounted. I hope you will continue to support the process that promoted you and vote as often as possible. You'll also find some more very useful scripts for admins in my js file . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wow!, 250+supports (quite a few opposes but now you can prove them wrong:)) WOOP WOOP! Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Congratulations! RfAs can be brutal, I know. But it is to your benefit to see it through & not withdraw, although it can get personal at times, especially for female candidates.
- You are now an admin! Take it slow at first, read the manual (guidance pages) & ask any admins any questions you might have. We may not have the answer but can probably point you in the right direction! Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing fancy or funny to say, just congratulations! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk?Please ping me in replies! (Thanks!) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, congratulations! Airbornemihir (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Evergreen! I don't subscribe to the perception that adminship is a promotion; you can't be promoted when you make no money from the thing. To me it's 100% a trust position, so I don't like to "congratulate", per se. But I will congratulate you for having endured that awful hazing session that is the RFA. Congratulations! You will make a great admin. I trust that you will ask other admins for advice, I trust that you will steer clear from adminning in areas that other people thought you might be deficient in, and overall, I trust you and it's lovely to see more women get the mop. Now clean up aisle five! You might want to peek at my tools file to see if anything might be of use, but I bet there's tons of tools I have no knowledge of that could help you more. Go EvergreenFir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Maxim, ToBeFree, CorbieVreccan, Valereee, MrX, WereSpielChequers, Kudpung, Coolabahapple, Liz, Puddleglum2.0, Airbornemihir, and Cyphoidbomb: Thank you all! I appreciate the support and the comments/advice. I will definitely "take it slow" and ease my way into this. As many of you mentioned, Wikipedia's RfA process is rough (especially for women, [in my case] non-binary/genderqueer folks, and trans folks in general) but it was worth it. I hope to gain the trust of folks who are weary or opposed, but I know that will take time.
Valereee - I hear the cake was a lie too. And thank you. I will definitely take the oppose !votes on board. I appreciated their input and do understand (most of) their positions.
Cyphoidbomb - I had decided early on in the RfA process that if I was successful, I'd use the mop icon as that's what this is. Just a glorified janitor in many cases.
- I'll say congratulations to echo the above, but per Cyphoidbomb you've just got some extra buttons now :) I hope you find them useful and continue to play an integral part in the upkeep of this encyclopedia! Sam Walton (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Congrats - well done on staying cool, I know it can be tough when the opposes start coming in, but I feel confident you can show them their concerns were unjustified - you're going to be a great addition to the mop corps. Have fun with all these sparkly buttons in really unhelpful places! Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Felicitations and welcome to the team. There is a learning curve but it's not very steep. Feel free to drop me a line with any questions or if you need help with anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Very happy to see this was successful. Best of luck, and if you need anything, feel free to drop me a line. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry for mis-identifying you. I'll try to remember in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Congratulations EvergreenFir! Best wishes to our newest admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that the RfA week is over, you have a challenge
Now that the RfA week is over, I hope you will be able to shake off the wikistress. Congratulations on getting the bit. Hope that you will continue your good work with equal (if not greater) enthusiasm and prove the naysayers wrong, denying them an "I told you so.." moment. Regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to post same message. Congratulations for new journey! — Harshil want to talk? 07:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret A. Zahn has been accepted
- Btw thank you for clarifying a potential conflict of interest on your part; your willingness disclose a possible connection does you credit as an upstanding editor. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: Lol it seems so! Didn't know Yourname is still active. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Farah Khan Ali
Hi EvergreenFir! I went back and found I used the wrong CSD tag, and believe that A1: no context and A7 definitely apply, because the article is too short to ascertain if that article talks about one specific individual and not multiple individuals of the same name. Also A7 is self-explanatory. But since you have reviewed the article I'm stopping short of IAR tagging for now. Regards, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 07:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)