This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hi, please consult an etymological dictionary, so you know what the facts are, before you incorrectly "correct" someone elses edit. 71.47.254.61 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gave two disparate meanings, so perhaps I'm not the one uncertain on the facts. --Equivamp - talk 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I followed the BRD cycle and created a talk page on LGBT Symbols so we can discuss the Sapphic section. I hope we can reach a consensus!

Niconushinii (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Niconushinii: I see where you said you made some changes to the sources used, I got a bit busy but I'll look into the changes shortly when I get a minute to look through them all and talk about them. In the meantime, you can read previous discussions about reliable sources (and the related bar for notability on Wikipedia) for the topic in the Talk page archives (which should be linked somewhere in the boxes at the top of the talk page). That way you can get a comparison of what kinds of sources have been used and which have been rejected, etc. --Equivamp - talk 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the editor who removed my discussion of the validity of an assertion discussed in the article on TERFS. Perhaps I am missing your point. You don't want to be presented evidence on the talk page that an assertion of the article is likely false? Did you read the reference in the comment? Ariel31459 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on List of fatal dog attacks in the United States has been reverted. Next time you revert someone's edit and say they need a citation, please first READ the citation. The news article had been updated (since it was first posted) with the victim's name and age in the HEADLINE. I will remind you to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. You had reverted an edit from a new IP editor (their first edit) who geolocates to the town where the incident occurred. Normal Op (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was in line with WP:BLP (in its application to the recently-deceased) which states that poorly-sourced contentious material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (See also its discussion of listing names of non-public figures notable only for single events and where their identity is not important context.) I stand by the revert as the sourcing did need correcting, which I see in the page's edit history that you did. I wonder if you would have done so if the revert had not brought it to your attention?

I am not in the habit of researching the location of IP editors. I'm unlikely to start. And I don't see any hostility ("biting") toward a newcomer in the text of my edit summary, Must provide a reliable source for this information, nor in merely reverting a BLP issue with a link to a relevant policy. --Equivamp - talk 01:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sourcing did NOT need correcting. The content in the source had been changed; the URL to the source NEVER changed. The IP editor simply over-wrote the "fancy" citation (losing author, publisher, date, etc.) and used the raw URL, but the URL was the same as before. All I did was to put the fancy stuff back in, and update the archiveurl to the newer, changed version. If you HAD clicked the link (which clearly you didn't, though any other editor would have), you would have seen that the victim's name was right there in the heading of the news article. What in the world do you mean by "poorly-sourced contentious material"? The news article headline states that it was the Sheriff's Office who released the victim's name. And yes, reverting anyone's edit telling them they needed a source when one is already there, IS biting an editor. IP editors should not be treated with any less manners than those with accounts. Wikipedia is facing a crisis for lack of editors, high editor attrition, and steep barriers to starting editing at WP. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Normal Op (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archive-url is what I was referring to with both correcting and with "poorly-sourced".

I don't know what assumptions you're making about my intentions to keep making some accusations that I'm treating an IP editor differently than anyone else, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI, I see no reason to continue this discussion, so I ask that you don't. Equivamp - talk 09:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
141		Social stigma of obesity (talk)	Add sources
65		Childhood gender nonconformity (talk)	Add sources
268		King Kong (franchise) (talk)	Add sources
792		IPod Classic (talk)	Add sources
6,956		Transgender (talk)	Add sources
51		South Tibet (talk)	Add sources
84		Child and adolescent psychiatry (talk)	Cleanup
160		Transgender rights in Canada (talk)	Cleanup
4,760		CVS Pharmacy (talk)	Cleanup
1,391		Gender identity (talk)	Expand
48		Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka (talk)	Expand
321		LGBT culture (talk)	Expand
80		Healthcare and the LGBT community (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29		Anti-Khmer sentiment (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,279		Bisexuality (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
89		Vivian (Paper Mario) (talk)	Merge
400		Chalcogen (talk)	Merge
56		Gender identity under Title IX (talk)	Merge
4,602		Tom Cotton (talk)	Wikify
60		Womyn's land (talk)	Wikify
28		Gay media (talk)	Wikify
3		Bo's Place (talk)	Orphan
6		Manmasi National Christian Army (talk)	Orphan
7		Murder of Donna Eastwood (talk)	Orphan
1,307		Emasculation (talk)	Stub
30		Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 (talk)	Stub
12		A Patriot for Me (talk)	Stub
10		Joanna Haartti (talk)	Stub
16		Chaucer's Retraction (talk)	Stub
7		Isanzu people (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there’s a bunch of wikiknowitalls who live about 15,000 mikes away from where I live (Wangolina, population 10, I’m related to all of them) who delete my changes because they’re unverified, yet put up no reliable citations of their own. Double standard wankers Mcbloke (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcbloke: If your edit was just to remove unsourced statements, I would have left it alone. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia, reliability and verifiability are not measured by physical proximity to a subject, nor by how many people someone is related to, nor to whom they are related. The burden of citing a source is on you, the person who added information, not on someone who removes it. Please take a moment to read some of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, like those on civility. --Equivamp - talk 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Equivamp. My name is Dan Cook. I do paid editing on behalf of clients, mostly article cleanup. I recently got a request for help with a new article from a British entertainer, Sheridan “Shed” Simove. He had a Wikipedia entry that was posted in 2011 but was deleted this past June. I am reaching out to you because of your interest in editing comedy pages.

I think what happened was Shed attempted to add in new information without disclosing his COI. (I’m pretty sure he did not understand the rules around such editing.) Another editor saw his work, decided he was not notable, and quickly deleted it.

I reviewed his coverage and I do believe his is sufficiently notable to merit a rather short article. Would you be willing to review my draft, since I am in a COI and should not be posting it? If so, please let me know whether you want me to put it in draft space, post it on your talk page, my talk page, my sandbox, etc. It currently resides in my sandbox. Thanking you in advance for any feedback you have to offer. DanDavidCook (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ted Kaczynski, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AviationFreak💬 20:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: You know, if the issue with the primary source was not that it was primary, but that it was undue, your edit summary could have reflected that. Or, failing that, you could have simply said as much to me and linked this RFC you're referring to instead of giving me a template warning for "disruptive" editing which did not exist. Thanks. --Equivamp - talk 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I was unaware that you were a regular editor and placed the template out of habit when reverting with TW. Feel free to remove this template if you'd rather not have it hanging around on your talk page. AviationFreak💬 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oddguy missed you. Malhub.com

You should come back. The older forums are gone but a new one popped up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to include in the post the multiple IPs from that range which have been active on the same talk page; the page stats show a 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:609F:B35B:467C:A139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); heck, you might want to include the page stats as well. jp×g 05:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Equivamp reported by User:Elix240 (Result: ). Thank you. —Elix240 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elix240: For future reference, on Wikipedia talk pages, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page. I'm going to move the discussion at Talk:Transmedicalism to the bottom too, when I post my reply, which I'll begin writing now. --Equivamp - talk 01:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you undid my edit on this article? 31.173.80.78 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski wrote an entire piece criticizing anarcho-primitivism, you don't know anything. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism. And this "long term consensus" you speak of was one jackass changing the page a month ago, and then a bunch of people like you just went with it. You are an enemy of truth and knowledge, and therefore an enemy of humanity. For such an "anarchist", I'd expect you to have some semblance of an understanding of Kaczynski's philosophy, but I guess not. I guess you enjoy misinformation, however. Thanks for lying to the masses and staining Wikipedia's reliability! Comradeka (talk)Comradeka

@Comradeka: You perhaps might benefit from reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

You should also be aware that any further insults, attacks, or personalizing of disputes on this matter, directed at any person or group, will be promptly listed at ANI. Decide for yourself if you care. Equivamp - talk 23:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: Perhaps you might benefit from reading WP:Ignore_all_rules.

Is your loyalty to the truth, or is it to Wikipedia's rules? It is absurd to claim that Kaczynski doesn't have a monopoly on what his own ideology is. Why do secondary sources have domain over what TK himself believes? Also, you haven't even demonstrated how these sources label TK an anprim. You probably haven't read them.

@Comradeka: Once again, please refrain from commenting on other editors. This extends to making negative assumptions about their motivations, or their "loyalty"; see WP:AGF. I see there's a discussion on the topic on the article talk page. That's a more fitting for a discussion than my talk page. I can contribute to it sometime later, perhaps tomorrow. For now I have some advice for you: There is absolutely no way that edit warring, insulting other editors, proclaiming that you intend to go against Wikipedia policy, will end in the article being changed the way you want it to be. It's likely to end up with you being banned or otherwise restricted. It will certainly result in wasted time and frustration for you. Equivamp - talk 00:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your little message, how about an actual response to what I wrote? You are spreading misinformation, somebody must do something about it.

	The Civility Barnstar
	In awe of patience where mine has worn thin, and in admiration of civility where mine is on the brink. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I noticed in a diff right [here] you said something about a sexist edit.CycoMa (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Equivamp - talk 02:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about editing Wikipedia on your phone is hell. But anyway what made you think that was sexist?CycoMa (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who I checked the link you presented. I didn’t realize that came off as sexist.CycoMa (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention at all.CycoMa (talk)

No worries. It was an easy fix, and now you know. Here is a link going into more detail in research on referring to women professionals by first name, if you're interested in learning more. Equivamp - talk 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gender Dysphoria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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]

@Applodion: No worries. I probably would have used an inline tag myself, but I restored the banner because another editor was the one who had inserted it. I did not notice they gave no edit summary nor talk page discussion. 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 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)”.CycoMa (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my contributions to your Userspace drafts. I didn’t mean to come off as disruptive. I was just trying my best to help.CycoMa (talk) 14:20, 28 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 Beale Air Force Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 911. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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]

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 MOS:HYPHEN? The examples there are "newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary". Firefangledfeathers 04:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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