User talk:Little green rosetta

Hello, Little green rosetta, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Sindinero (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Family Research Council Edits

The designation by SPLC is factual, documented, referred to elsewhere in the article and especially pertinent considering that some wacko was in there shooting today after this designation was re-publicized yesterday. For this reason I am reinstating my edit putting this content at the top. (Ofazomi 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you posting Edit Discussion on this user's talk page when it clearly belongs on the Discussion (Talk) page of the article in question? Yendor (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Politely rude, pretending to AGF

I guess I know why the jerk store is running low. They are all editing on Wikipedia. Is there something about this place that makes people a smartass? Little green rosetta (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the irony of all of this is that attitudes are "catchable" if you know what I mean. The Teahouse is part of the effort to prevent it (from my view). Welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry you're having a hard time, is there something we can help you with? heather walls (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably being kicked out of the new user teahouse, when you are feeling annoyed with how hostile everyone is to you, does not help. I have had the same experience on Wikipedia, a lot of jerks. Can I help you with anything? Post here or on my talk page. I am at least good at sourcing information, and if you need help with that, just ask me. Eau (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this question was moved from the Teahouse page. I, too, cannot help but notice the irony in calling Wikipedia editors smart-asses right after the "jerk store" comment. How about we all try to keep cool, hm? Attitudes are indeed "catchable", so perhaps we'll all cool off that way.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But I think that is how people respond to being treated badly, they respond badly. YEs, we should all keep cool, but the way to get someone to keep cool is to acknowledge that they are feeling angry about something, not to require that the one who has been treated badly lead the way to keeping the cool.

I seem to have gotten the opposite treatment as Little green rosetta, in that other editors have gone out of their way to tell me that people act like jerks to new editors on Wikipedia, then offer to help me find ways to get around that. So, that made me feel like going a little extra out of my way and continuing with editing. Eau (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Little green rosetta, there is a pretty big incivility problem on Wikipedia, but I've checked some of your contributions and you seem to have found the worst of it. Some of the editors who you have seen around have been going at eachother for the past month or so. I actually asked an administrator to look into those two earlier today. Hopefully he will be able to calm them down and the areas you are editing will become much more congenial. Ryan Vesey 00:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one reason why I moved this to Little green rosetta's talk page. I wanted to make sure they got the attention needed to work with them to make sure they're editing in a healthy and happy environment. Sometimes it's better to take the anger fueled comments and bring them to a less public place than say, the Teahouse, and cope with them there. Thanks everyone for helping out. SarahStierch (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly how LGR feels. People are always ruining the edits that I make. And they try to delete my articles. I have to go get the newspaper and add stuff to keep them from destroying my article. I hate when they change my articles... When I put it back the way its supposed to be they say I'm edit warring and they are going to block me. But if they block me, who'll make sure they don't ruin my articles???? Totally unfair. And they keep telling me they are going to put me in a RFCU and put me on trial. Like I'm a murderer or something. They call me names all of the time. My best wikifriend got unfairly blocked by a mean admin and he resigned. I made some new wikifriends, Viriik & Belchfire--you'd like them LGR--and so they say I'm in a cabal plotting to do bad stuff! Whew.... I feel much better. Thanks for listening everyone! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Little green rosetta. I'm just curious, have you had a Wikipedia account before? I'm pretty impressed with the projects and editing that you've been doing as a new editor. Did you used to be an IP editor? If so, welcome to Wikipedia as an official first time editor! SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I've had accounts here before, but I ended up losing interest after a few weeks, so I mostly edited via ip. This is the first time I've created a new account in a few years and the new tools that are available during creation caught my notice, so I've been enjoying them. I also noticed the tea house and only looked at it today. What prompted my question is some biting sarcasm on talk pages, with even more biting edit summaries. Sarcastic edit summaries have always annoyed me. I was (and still am) interested on seeing how the newbies are taught to deal with this dark underbelly of Wikipedia. Little green rosetta (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad somebody asked this question, because I was about to myself. I realize that many people start out as IPs, but it always catches my attention when an apparently brand-new editor dives in like a pro. Speaking of which, kudos on the work you've been doing. As a side note, I always like it when people declare their previous named account(s), but that's just me. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pro, that's a first. My former accounts (that I can remember) shall rename nameless as is my privilege to claim. I've no plans on ever submitting an RfA, and having a new account entitles me to ditch the old one like a phone number who that crazy chick I slept around with had on speed dial.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What are your interests

I'm just curious, aside from what I see from your contributions, what are your interests? I'd like to hook you up with some editors who can help you along in those areas. Ryan Vesey 00:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I edit on a whim. A conversation with someone might make me look something up, then I get sucked into making a few edits. I usually check to make sure the lede matches the body. Journalism 101. I do enjoy current events, but a lot of these topics attract editors im not fond of. Little green rosetta (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you might be interested in checking out Category:Current events. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:In the news, there editors decide which articles should be on the main page as a current event. In talking about making sure the lead matches the body, you might be interested in editing articles at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. Ryan Vesey 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in collaborating with other editors. I notice your active at FOTF. There are 2 groups with which I am familiar and can recommend: WP:WikiProject Conservatism and WP:WikiProject Christianity.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank to for the offer, but I have no real deep interest in either subject. I forgot how I came to FOTF, but the lead seemed so biased that I have stuck around to try and get some consensus to tone it down. While in this instance the POV seems to be from liberals directed towards a Christian organization, I would like to think I would be just as diligent if these variables were completely different. But thanks again. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hats

You admitted that I didn't edit war, yet the only reason for the report is to claim that I did. This report is only about edit-warring, so everything you added about how you don't like my POV is irrelevant and would serve only to prejudice those who read it. That's why I hatted it and will keep it hatted. Understand? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize the irony with EW over your (inappropriate IMO) hats on a board dealing with EW, dont you? Little green rosetta (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that a page dedicated to fixing EW was being used to pile on personal attacks and other distractions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not irony at all. Please keep in mind that my message there was indicating that IMO you were not EW on FOTF as might have been suggested, even though I think you are pushing the line with POV edits.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	This is for you :) For the civil way in which you interact with Still - Viewmont Viking (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A

This post is to notify you that your edit constitutes a violation of WP:EW. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering your lack of comprehension in general about how wikipedia operates, I'll give your warning all the consideration it deserves.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

useless pissing match
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's see, someone makes a bold post, another editor reverts it. Should go straight to discussion, but you edit-war to bring it back. Yes, I think I understand exactly what happened here, and it's edit-warring by violating BRD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) May I suggest you file a 3RRN about it. Cheers. ViriiK (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Collect, you look different. New haircut? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I am Collect! Please do file a SPI report if you wish to do so. The results will be surprising! ViriiK (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Quit biting the newcomers. You can't put 1rr in your edit summary and determine that nobody else can undo the edit. If Little green rosetta hadn't undone your edit, I would've. Ryan Vesey 19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, he's been editing for much longer than I have. Even my IP career is short; he says he's had various accounts in the past. In any case, if you had reverted, you would be guilty of edit-warring, too. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It's called "Reaching consensus through editing". You should read about it sometime. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Great page, thanks! I especially like the part where it links to BRD, which LGR violated. And speaking of which, for some reason, ViriiK wants a totally bogus SPI filed against him and Collect. Can you help him out? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense" In this case, it should have been a bold discuss, cycle. You cited no valid rationale for reverting the edit. Instead, you reverted valid sourced information with bogus claims of Undue and NPOV. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I gave the reasons and then backed them up on the talk page, just like "RD" demands. It's all there in the history, so nothing you say to the contrary can change it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) BRD is an essay, not a policy. WP:BOLD is an guideline based on actual policy. Still needs to learn the difference. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Unless any of you have a condition that requires the need to get the last word in, then knock it off. Still, I strongly suggest you strike your implication of puppetry.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  20:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC) What implication? I just said that they're starting to resemble each other, much like an old, married couple. Collect is usually the one to sign with a sardonic "Cheers." and now ViriiK has taken up the habit. Perhaps it's a fad. Cheers. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I've always said Cheers or Thank you. To each their own. Just because another user also does this habit is not my problem. Meanwhile, you can still go file an SPI investigation. I whole heartily endorse it! ViriiK (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Hey, you know I love false reports as much as the next guy, but I have no experience on the unloaded end of the SPI gun. Talk to Belchfire; he can hook you up with a solid, as I'm told people say these days. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're getting or are annoyed but sorry for causing any annoyance to you from myself. Cheers. ViriiK (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Just a note of appreciation for your commitment to telling "the rest of the story" over these last few days. Belchfire-TALK 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

An Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – user:John D. Rockerduck 02:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be thrilled if you joined you seem to be an editor of excellant caliber John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but my recent interest in issues like FRC, FOTF is limited to seeking that the articles are neutral. I've no political bone to pick and would treat articles from the liberal perspective with the same brush of neutrality.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Conservatism mission is to improve articles related to conservatism and keep them from bias (mostly Liberal bias) to make them fair and neutral, not to add Conservative bias to counteract Liberal bias which would be Conservapedia's mission (a rather hypocritical and pointless endeavor) ; meaning you would fit in perfectly in fact our founder and Grand Poobah Sir Lionel, EG is a democrat, we are really interested only in those willingly to tell both sides of the story; this project is highly important for accomplishing those ends since even Jimmy Wales has said Wikipedia unfortunately leans left. So someone who would treat both poltical sides with neutrality with no political bones to pick (as you have demonstrated) is exactly what our project wants, and you would be an asset to making wikipedia truly unbias towards all party's which would be best served by joining the team John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some other time. I need to find new interests every now and then or else I will feel stale. Thanks though.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame you would have been a great addition; here's hoping you do end up joining some day, anyway thanks for considering salutations John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Left you a reply on my talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIVIL

This remark is uncivil. Please follow WP:CIVIL. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Harassing people is uncivil FYI. ViriiK (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted, but factually correct notices, especially politely-worded personal ones, as opposed to templates, are not harassment. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@Still, that wasn't uncivil at all. My post to Scientom had nothing to do with you Since you are so fond of citing policy and guideline to others (albeit your interpretation is usually incorrect) let me present one for your perusal. WP:BUTTOUT.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice to visitors

Please revert any edits except required notifications made to this page by User:StillStanding-247 made after 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	A wonderful barnstar for your anti-troll hunting abilities. See 22:45, August 28, 2012‎ JimWHall(talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,217 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (→‎Dennett: new section) on my talk page history. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. Now to make this troll stop.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Per JimWHall's attack against you, what IRC channel do you frequent on Freenode? ViriiK (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia-en   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for acting quickly to fight the good fight against user:JimWHall. Support your local Little green rosetta. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This should help

	Hello Little green rosetta, Lionelt has given you a bottle of Advil, for help with you know who. Take a handful and call me in the morning! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bottle of Advil! Enjoy!

Preparation H would be more apt.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Proposition 215 (1996), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about using blogs for citations

Hi there. I thought I'd ask you one-to-one rather than raise this on the talk page of Family Research Council. I originally saw a raw URL placed against the quote from Professor Jeffrey Berry, and so began to fill out the citation details: I then noticed that the article - which I was checking for the Berry quote - actually confirmed the edit made by StillStanding which Belchfire had reverted. I must admit I had been in two minds since the article is a blog, but thought since it was already being cited in the Wikipedia article then it must be ok to cite to substantiate StillStanding's sentence (at least demonstrating it's not OR). So I did. Then it was reverted by Techbear, who affirmed that blogs are not reliable sources according to WP. Hence my removing the Berry quote. Then you reverted this.

I'm now confused. Is it OK, then, to cite blogs in some circumstances but not others? I thought it was a case either of a particular article being useable or not: i.e. if it's reliable for one citation, then it logically would be for another. Can you help clarify this? Alfietucker (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Alfie. Unfortuantely I already started a thread there about this. My reasoning is there, but I appreciate you coming here to avoid unncessary bullshit. BTW, your previous edit removing the "unwarranted" piece was a nice one IMO. I'll take the liberty of pasting your text over at the page (if you haven't done so already). Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad I checked back here, as I was about to post a reply to your OP on that talk page! Yes, I'm happy for you to post my text there. Alfietucker (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. You are are a pleasant editor to work with.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:-) Thank you. I think it's far more pleasant to treat editors (and people in general - unless they're clearly unhinged!) as intelligent people worthy of respect. I've found you very civil in the past and have enjoyed working with you too. Alfietucker (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Taws

Hi. Thanks for withdrawing the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Taws. It might make it easier for others to notice that the nomination has been withdrawn if you strike through the nomination statement (use <s>...</s>), and bold the words "I withdraw the nomination". I also see you are a recently joined editor, so welcome to Wikipedia. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Two edits to restore an edit made by consensus does not constitute edit warring.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Proposition 8. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Little green rosetta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To be honest, I hadn't been tracking my edit counts. In retropsect I made a few mistakes. Making 2 reverts on (8/29) before opening a discussion section on the talk page, and then two reverts today (8/31). In each case I should have made one revert. I should have opened the discussion on 8/29 after my revert was undone. The same is true for 8/31. Instead of making 2 reverts, I should have made one and requested that somoene else examine the consensus discussion. Also, edit summaries are not always the best place to discuss. As indicated in my EW report (and one would hope by my participation in the talk page) that I was/am perfectly willing to discuss the matter. So to sum it up, I was wrong and will try not to let that happen again. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thank you for acknowledging your error. I'm unblocking you with the understanding that you will stick to the talk page of the article and leave the article alone. If a consensus is clear, let another editor implement it. Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the blocking admin know. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly how one should ask to be unblocked. Maybe we should frame this as an example for the "wasn't me!"-crowd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC hate group controversy

Going stale? Yeah, I've noticed. Anything even meekly critical of the SPLC tends to go stale because so many of the article's editor are infatuated with the organization. I've called for RFC's before but it's not really my bag. I would prefer making a bold but well balanced edit and see what happens. Only the mighty North Shoreman seemed to object to my "template" proposal. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem there is simple stonewalling. The validity of the content and/or sourcing are not an issue - material unfavorable to SPLC will be resisted at all costs, regardless of what it is or where it comes from. I have seen admins openly engage in tendentious editing to protect that article, and a couple of editors have long-term ownership issues stretching back 5 years or more. I'm not sure what it will take to introduce some balance, but it should be obvious by now that all normal processes have been defeated by skulduggery. Belchfire-TALK 07:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Don't canvass as you did here: User_talk:MrX#NOTCANVASS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? If you want to continue to make ridiculous accusations, go finish Still's RfC. Plenty of them there already.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Before your latest revert did you actually take a look at the talk page? There is no discussion on that particular tag, only on the other ones - tags should not be placed without opening a discussion about them on the talk page. For the particular tag I removed (and it was the only one I removed, I left the others in place), there is no explanation on the talk page.

Are you just reverting me for the sake of reverting me, perhaps? --Scientiom (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the section in question is called "verification". I see you created a new section about the tag in the lead specifically. Thank you. I have no opinion at the moment about the tags, but I'm sure Arthur does. I trust he will respond in time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, glad to know there was a misunderstanding. :) As of late, I've been getting the impression you've got a personal vendetta against me or something - hope not. :P As for the tag, since it is incumbent upon the person placing it to explain it on the talk page, it should be placed only then (and in this case it seems to be an overdo since the entire article has a NPOV template right at the top)--Scientiom (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not targeting you. With respect to tags, a tag placed doesn't require the tagger to start a discussion, though I dont see why they wouldn't. In this case the section appeared to be the obvious place where this discussion should have occured, but your new section is fine as well.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, you really should undo your recent revert, as there is now a discussion. If you do, it won't be considered part of 3RR.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alewyn Burger

Hello, Little green rosetta. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alewyn Burger.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Intentionally_disruptive_editing_by_USER:StillStanding-247. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, or something like that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that a certain user was intentionally disrupting an article without the slightest bit of evidence. Your diffs showed that the user was involved in a content dispute with you, not in any intentional disruption. In other words, you assumed bad faith for the purpose of getting an advantage in a content dispute. This is often referred to as gaming the system, which is in fact, a form of intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Teammm ^TM 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, making edits you know are going to be reverted, that's good faith. Leading with your chin, that's good faith. Coordinating with indefed users, thats good faith as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Filing SPIs

For future reference, searching WP:SPI will take you to there. Most things are pretty well labelled, just make sure you've got some good diffs, follow the directions like Hamburger Helper, and leave the {{subst:uw-socksuspect|Investigation page name here}} template on the sockpuppet's talk pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I really appreciate your neutral approach to editing very controversial articles, and especially your tireless efforts to find common ground with other editors. Your willingness to intervene to mediate disputes and your stewardship of the project are examples to be aspired to. Enjoy your well-earned Barnstar of Diplomacy! – MrX 02:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Aww shucks. Thanks Homer Mr. X!

Signature question

Since you bugged me about my signature, I'll ask you: how the redacted did you get it to work? Whenever I try to save a signature with a {{SubSup}} template in Preferences, it magically changes it to {{SUBST:SubSup}}, which gets expanded to a giant ball of crap whenever I save an edit (rather than expanding on display). I don't want to gunk up articles that way. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 07:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Goto your preferences, and transclude your sig to read from your "Sig" page

• {{SUBST:User:Kerfluffer/Sig}}

• Now go to edit your "Sig" page User:Kerfuffler/Sig (which I took the liberty of creating for you). You can drop html code in there as well.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah hah. Thanks. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No probelm, just make sure you watch that Sig page. Some vandal could come in and change your sig without you knowing otherwise.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN Christian Right

You weren't specifically mentioned in the DRN, but you've had some input on the topic so I thought it pertinent to inform you: [[1]] Naapple (Talk) 22:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch it for now. There isn much I can add that others won't address.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I felt obligated to correct something. When I stated that others had not participated at the DR/N, I meant both sides. At least there were enough opening statements from all and contributions to the consensus or it may have had to be closed as failed, but Psalms did everthing to keep it going and even many of the volunteers stepped back or recused themselves, which I didn't think was really needed but I did repect that choice. These subjects can make people very uncomfortable.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW Psalms did a fine job presenting his case and he has my respect.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A Token of Appreciation

The non-Random Act of Truthiness Barnstar

Though I am Wiki-Scared to get involved in that area, I am following your activities on the SPLC Talk page and I support the NPOV you trying to enforce there. This is my first attempt at Wiki:Love and hopefully I am not as awkward as I feel. And if you need something stronger than Advil and all that now entails, I'd offer some Aspirin with Codeine if you were in Canada where it is legal to offer such. Yendor (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Time travel

If SS can't understand simple English, why try to introduce sarcasm? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Nonprofit civil rights organization" RfC

I would like to start an RfC on the SPLC talk page to address the phrase "Nonprofit civil rights organization" in front of Southern Poverty Law Center. Would you like to help me with the wording, so we can get sailing with it. Avast! – MrX 18:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Im out for the rest of the day however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is a first draft:

RfC

Should the descriptor "nonprofit civil rights organization" be used in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when the latter is first referenced in other articles?

Example: "The nonprofit civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center..."

Examples of articles where this descriptor could be used are:

• Parents Action League
• Roy Moore
• Ku Klux Klan
• Morris Dees

This RfC does not apply to this article Southern Poverty Law Center.

– MrX 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate (OK, no, I don't) to comment on another user's talk page, but that begs the question. The question should be which (if any) descriptor is to be used in this context. I suspect we could come up with a reliable source which questions "civil rights organization", although it would probably be near the WP:FRINGE. I think "controversial civil rights organization" is more honest; although I have no objection to including "nonprofit", the organization wouldn't fit it Category:Noprofit organizations, as that's not a defining characteristic. Other descriptors that come to mind are "activist", "far-left", "anti-anti-gay", .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

With all possible due respect Arthur, I don't think there's a need to reframe the question to taint the process with a minority POV, nor to make is so open ended that it's never really addressed (like many RfCs).

If the community thinks that different phrasing is warranted, I'm sure that will be revealed in the RfC. I've already provided the basis for the phrasing. If you can dig up 61,000+ search results that support crafting the RfC differently, then I think it would certainly be worth considering. I specifically asked LGR to help craft this RfC language because I trust him/her to be objective, and consider all sides of the larger issue. 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to reframe. The question should be what (if any) descriptors should be used, with your option being "nonprofit civil rights organization". I've been involved with enough intentionally misframed RfCs to recognize those that "beg the question". At least you're proposing an option you'd like to see implemented, as opposed to the date delinking fiasco, with at least 5 broken RfCs, and one that was less broken, and produced a clear consensus, even if most of the !voters probably misread the options. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would rather just ask the question outright. Would putting these specfic descriptors in the lead improve the article for the reader, and do so in a neutral fashion?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack.

This is a personal attack against me; you're calling me a hyprocrite. Now, it happens to be false, but it's an insult regardless, so I'm asking that you redact it. Deleting this message serves as an acknowledgement that you read it, so feel free. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)