Jump to content

User talk:Little green rosetta/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ford Ranchero Edit

How is it unconstructive to list the Ford Ranchero's appearance in a TV series under "In popular culture"? There's a really nice Ranchero featured in an episode of that show 204.209.209.129 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, but you used a wiki as a reference. Since anyone can edit a wiki, that is not considered a reliable source, which is the only kind we allow on Wikipedia. However, I left your addition of the infomration and only removed the reference.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense, but the information I added is no longer there so I think you may have made a mistake and removed more than you intended.204.209.209.129 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to revert me, but try and remove the wiki ref if you can.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mitch Walker

Please see my comment at WP:RM/TR. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tease and denial

Tease and denial should be deleted, or at most merged into other articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocksville

I especially liked your comment to User:Xerographica about "a one way ticket to blocksville." Of all the admonishments directed to him, it is the best. I think (and hope) it has had a positive result. Well done. – S. Rich (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

word to the wise

WP:OWNTALK – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. But it appears there have been some intervening additions/reverts so that might be adding to the confusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Confusion is the right term. I'm not going to try and figure it out. In any event, just take it for a FYI. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1

Do you want to keep User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1 or would you like it deleted? It was created by Ysfan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me and for the offer, but I CSD'ed it already. I appreciate the heads up however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for stepping forward and giving Xerographica such good advice. All of your words are well said and to the point. You have gone out of your way with your simple and elegant admonitions, and I am proud to offer you this Barnstar as a small bit of thanks for your Random Acts of Kindness. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
LGR, I think your continued gentle admonitions have had a positive impact. I've noticed that X's most recent edits and talk page comments have moderated considerably. Here's hoping! If he continues with his positive contributional attitude, you (I'm sure) will have been a major factor in his reformation. Again, thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Little green rosetta. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ioby

Hi, you said that if I'm having difficulties with another editor to post on your talk page...so here I am. If you can get a chance it would be great if you can review the removal of content on ioby. The founder of the website had the content on his user page...User:Erinbarnes. I reviewed it and it looked sufficiently neutral and fact based. Being familiar with civic crowdfunding I'm fairly confident that the website is notable enough to warrant its own entry. So I created the article and moved the content over to the article. Then another editor, who I've consistently had difficulties with, removed the content with the following explanation "Delete promotional content".

If there is anything that is truly promotional...which I myself didn't observe...then throwing the baby out with the bath water is not helpful or constructive. And it certainly doesn't improve the article. Thanks --Xerographica (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look later tody.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I've started discussion on the associated talk page. Btw, did you get an "ok" from the user who had this content in their userspace? While not prohibited, it is considered bad form to do something like that without approval.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting observation about the "ok". But when original developer created his page, he "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that is why I said it wasn't prohibited. But it is considered a little rude.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at the article. The user had added the link to ioby to the "See also" section on the civic crowdfunding article. Given that they posted a red link...and posted reliably sourced and quality content on their user page...I put two and two together and created the page for them. What also factored into my decision to do so is that I figured that they might be hesitant to create the page themselves because of possible COI concerns. But it's not like I cut and pasted their content...I simply copied and pasted it. And now they know that at least one editor approves of and appreciates the quality of their content. Plus, now you can see Rich and SPECIFICO in action. --Xerographica (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution? --Xerographica (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with Rich & SPECFICO. I did question their actions, but they discussed with me in a reasonable fashion. Did you see how easy it is to engage someone if you AGF? As for Rich's removal, I don't know. Try asking him nicely, and I bet he will give you a polite answer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem engaging with them...my problem is that the ioby page would have been better off without their edits. They go around tearing down but they never build up. No worries, I'm sure they'll do it again. Hopefully, eventually, you'll see the pattern. --Xerographica (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
That was fast... Talk:Freedom_of_choice#SPECIFICO.27s_edits. --Xerographica (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
We won't discuss the pattern of your disruptive edits. And, it is considered improper to "improve" another user's User page unless (1) invited, or (2) the page violates Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
And what X did is prohibited without giving appropriate credit, per WP:COPYWITHIN. However, it could have just been fixed, per WP:RIA. (As user pages can be deleted under {{db-user}}, the copyright credit needed to credit the user, not the user page. A minor technicality, which could have been fixed, if the article were not overly promotional.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Redaction

I would only redact in extreme cases. (What a task it would be to redact X's comments!) Your sense of fairness is appreciated, but my commentary was crafted with a WP:SPADE. And as mentioned in my ES, WP:TIGER was posted in the discussion. Besides, I am a member of PETA -- People Eating Tasty Animals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Naughty language

Aw man, now I have to block you for dropping the F-bomb. (THAT WAS A JOKE) The preceding has been a test of the HUMOR ALERT SYSTEM™. Thank you for your cooperation. The HUMOR ALERT SYSTEM™: can I HAS? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

F-Bomb? Pull my finger.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Little green rosetta. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI postings

You may have missed the big notice at the top of the page - "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." As you seem fit to little my talkpage I see no reason you couldn't also advise me when you are required to do so. Insomesia (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need a fast block. Thank you.. It's not about you, but I mentioned your name so I have to notify you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation/Belchfire

LGR you were mentioned in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire You probably saw it but I just thought you should have been notified. VVikingTalkEdits 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Maafa 21

Thanks for you recent contributions to the article on Maafa 21. However, I suspect that given the folks we're working with there, we'll eventually need to go to some sort of board to resolve issues. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My edits were mostly cosmetic in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the article approximates a POV monstrosity. Kinda in the same class as the one the Southern Poverty Law Center when I started to work on it a couple of years ago. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I see the usual suspects are in this article. Binksternet's recent edits look ok to me so far. Tomato v Tomatuh edits for the most part. Roscelese is her usually charming lolcats self. Her POV pushing is blatant. I try to avoid articles she has her nose in because she is such an irritant.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is that the ones she gets a deep foothold in are, of course, the most ideologically lopsided. I once was successful, though, getting her to acknowledge that she couldn't use a pro-choice fundraising flyer as a reliable source. LOL Badmintonhist (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I've participated in a DR, but unless the stick is dropped we are headed for one. The problem isn't that the sources don't convey the message some of the POV pushers want to get across, it's the adjectives that make their edits POV in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I call it more-royalist-than-the-king (make that queen) editing. Finding a "friendly" source then pushing the hell out of it, so that subjective inferences become "objective facts." A couple of pro-lifers in Knoxville plead ignorance to a journalist's questions and this becomes the basis for stating as fact in our article that Tennessee pro-lifers like the film but don't know what they're talking about. The last time that I "got into it" with our friend it was over our article on "Pro-life feminism" which then stated, with no in-line attribution, that Irish pro-life feminists stayed out of political disputes over abortion. Since that proposition sounded rather dubious to me I maintained that we state it as the opinion of our source. Our friend insisted that since a reliable source had said it, this made it cold, hard fact and no in-line attribution was needed (you see, the point was to make it appear that these pro-lifers didn't have the courage of their convictions). When I found two newspaper columns by one of these pro-life women which utterly contradicted the assertion, our friend said that she wasn't at all surprised. It was as if she knew it all the time, but rather liked the idea of portraying the pro-life feminists as timid souls for as long as she could get away with it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, I did some poking around to see who added a diff that shall we say bended a source on the SPLC[1]. When I did a binary search to see who/when/why added this "fabricate" nonsense, I just shook my head when I discovered the source. How many gems like this do you think are buried in articles? Any editor that would have a perverse pride in getting away with such chicanery does not belong here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Djuhever wonder what some of your "editorial colleagues" are like in everyday life? Do they insult their co-workers (assuming they have a job) with snide comments about levels of competence; argue everything to their own advantage : laugh out loud when they think that someone else is in error? Just wondering. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be curious to what their contemptoraies think of their Wikipedia behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Now, as for the quotes, I'm willing to accept in the name of compromise that it might be used in the broader conspiracy theory material and not only in the film
Am I misreading this, or is she really saying that her attempt at compromise is that the Katz quote is still acceptable for attribution to the film? A compromise that isn't a compromise. You can't make this shit up. WP:PUREBALLS  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Gee, I don't think I've ever seen you driven to profanity until now. In other words, "IN THE NAME OF COMPROMISE I'd be willing to spread this dubious allegation even further than I wanted to spread it before"! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Where were you guys a few months ago when R&B were having fun tag-teaming me?!? =} -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Staying away. My few interactions and several observations about Roscelese haven't been enjoyable. Binksternet however, is open to good faith discussion. Or maybe I'm just not following the articles you are. This is my first encounter with you AFAIK.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Normally I'd rather be singing than doing this. But I broke up with my singing partner recently and have had the somewhat doubtful pleasure of editing on Wikipedia more than before. Binksternet is a professional liberal but comparatively intellectual, and usually more tolerable, than our ol' pal Ros in his approach. However, he seems to dote on taking time out of his busy editing schedule to help her out whenever he can. Sorry, Beleg, that you were the one who got tripped a lot coming off the ropes. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a good experience for me--I'm sure--and having you join the fun now has made it worth the wait. I'm just glad I didn't give up altogether. :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I gave "Lucy" even the slightest encouragement on the Maafa Talk page. She inevitably lifts up the football when you go to take a kick at it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I really could use the assistance of you both on this question of whether or not Katz actually viewed Maafa 21, either by supporting my position and reasoning that she did not or by producing the evidence necessary to conclude that she has. I am willing to concede that she has if reasonable evidence is produced. Thanks for your help! :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't really help you on this one, Beleg. Katz may or may not have viewed the whole film. Don't expect utter "professionalism" even on the part of a professional historians when it comes to ideological warfare; after all, at one point she refers to anti-abortion activists as "anti-choice" activists. Her criticisms of the film are presented in acceptable sources for Wikipedia and that is pretty much that. It doesn't mean that her criticisms should be given undue weight in the article however. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but if she didn't watch the film, her comments are not relevant about the film, because she isn't commenting on the film's content but on what she has been told about its content. In other words, it's not her opinion that we are citing but Frank Carlson's (most likely) or that of whoever told her about Maafa 21. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you catch the latest Rosie? "Reverting to better version supported by consensus." A consensus of one? Are we dealing with a real person here or is this somebody's made-up character, kinda like the Notre Dame football player's "girlfriend"? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have long since concluded that she delights in pushing her wiki-adversaries to the limit using double-standards, straw man arguments, mockery, name-calling, bullying, etc., etc. in the hopes that they will do something stupid so that she can try to get them suspended. It has apparently worked in the past for her. Let's all be careful not to allow it to work again here. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like she's gone to NPOV/N, the place she should have gone from the start. Of course she filed a rambling, self serving opening.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And look who suddenly decided to opine on the matter. I find it odd an editor whose contributions to NPOVN have only taken place as an involved editor and never as a mediator. What are the odds of canvassing haven taken place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Rosetta, I am puzzled by your latest article contribution--adding a citation to an article that lists local, public showings of Maafa 21. The formatting is pretty raw, of course, but more importantly, I think I'm missing the significance of the article. Would you please explain? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, let's take content issues to the TP. However to address your question, the reason is Roscelese is constantly removing "documentary" from the lead, ostensibly for the purposes of debasing the film. I added one of many sources that exist that do call the film a documentary. I would have added the Washington Times ref, but was too lazy too ref it out properly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's an article on Sanger that was published just about the same time that Maafa 21 came out which both of you may find of interest. [2]
Thanks for sharing! That's a pretty powerful article. Many of his points are also covered in Maafa 21. Yes, I have actually watched the film: I decided that I must once R&B started jumping all over my head. I was thinking What's all the fuss about anyway? How much would you wager, despite all their flaming conclusions about the film, that neither of them has viewed it or attempted to research the citations offered in it? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
R&B? That would be Rhythm and Blues, I presume. Just don't get in the habit of referring to yourself as BS. I've watched about two thirds of the Crutcher film so far. No doubt that it overstates the "genocide" theme (basically by quoting people who overstate it) but it is instructional in showing the historical connection between "Family Planning" and eugenics. No, Sanger was not trying to completely eliminate the black race, but she undoubtedly wanted to reduce its number as a percentage of the population. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Guys, please take this to one of your talk pages. While I intend to see this edited properly, I'm growing weary of these shennanigans. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin

Hello. You recently added a "clarification needed" tag to the Charlie Chaplin page. I'm afraid some clarification is needed over the clarification needed tag! What exactly was it about the statement that confused you? I'm happy to try and fix this, but I can't see what the problem is right now. Thanks, --Lobo (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically the 600ish k amount. Is this amount adjusted to the modern period? If so what year?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well no of course not, there's no way that amount could make you one of the richest men in the world today! I guess it will be useful to add a footnote giving roughly what the amount would be worth in 2013. Would that clear up your confusion? --Lobo (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be much better. It would be a truly shocking figure in today's amount. I did a double take on this figure and wasn't sure if you had already converted to present value. Nice actor/actress list on your userpage. I too get hooked into J.M. movies, and not just because she isn't afraid to show skin either! Too bad she always called The Dude Jeffrery. I look forward to seeing you get CC to GA and beyond. I'm watching his Netflix queue now and might come back to improve the article myself. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

confused?

Hi,

You left me a warning-- "Warning: Making legal threats." on my talk page. I never made any legal threats!

87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it was someone else that is sharing your IP address that made this comment[3]?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, that was me and wasn't a legal threat. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

For adding the template here. I couldn't make up my mind whether to add one, or leave it a redlink. But I think on the whole probably better to go ahead and label it. KillerChihuahua 05:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your efforts that restored verified material in the face of determined opposition, at the article New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, I present to you this barnstar. Your efforts are a testiment that wikipedia can be truly neutral. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations from Viriditas

I see that you and I have received accusations from Viriditas of edit warring. However, other editors have not. Moreover, I believe that the editors of Viriditas, in response to myself, over multiple talk pages and accusations against myself could be seen as meeting wikihounding criteria. What would be the best way to go forward?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignore trolls.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: ). If policy supports inclusion of the tags, you might strengthen your case by explaining your reasoning. Referring to your opponent as a troll is not persuasive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, to which I replied on 3RR already. I prefer not to think I have opponents, but rather colleagues with differing opinions. However certain editors do make things tiresome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • lgr, I'm going to close the report at ANEW without sanctions. But consider this a warning that if you continue to edit-war (regardless of whether you breach 3RR) in the article, whether it be over tags or over something else, you may be blocked without notice. Also, any negative comments against Viriditas - better to keep them to yourself unless you want to raise a behavioral issue in the appropriate forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Little green rosetta. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller21Talktome 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Weigh in?

I thought maybe we could get your opinion on Talk:Bend, Not Break there are some ppossible BLP issues and an editor (TokyoGirl) is wanting more eyes and comments, I personally don't think there are issues here and agree with TokyoGirls writing but there are some that disagree. If you have time that would be great and if not we'll deal! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked, but didn't see anything that wasn't being addressed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome 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/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

So where are we in regards to the removed content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there is an impasse over this specfic article by TDC. While some are intent to impeach TDC overall, I still am unconvinced this article is not reliable. The "compelling evidence" submitted by T4D relying on misleading claims by MMFA is bunk. But since you asked for options, this is how I see the progression.
  • Restore the material and use the Foxnews article as a reference.
  • DRN. I'm afraid The RSN issue was hijacked by focusing on specious claims instead of focusing on the article in question. DRN would certainly get an editor willing to investigate the claims made by each side, something that didn't happen at RSN.
  • Move on. Can't win em all.
  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary

I saw this on my watchlist - "shit or get off the pot" I'm sure you know not to attack others, Little green rosetta. Keep in mind for future references that many people suffer from a "pot" addiction, and implying someone has one, is completely innapropriate. You may certainly not agree with their opinion on this RfA matter - but leave as is. "If you have nothing nice to say; say nothing at all." —MelbourneStar☆talk 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a colliquial expression, but it is no less appropriate then the comments of other comments made in that RfA -- specifically the one right above mine. Goose, sauce, gander, whatever.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It's all about keeping your cool in an RfA, if not for you, for the candidate. Having the "s/he did it first" attitude isn't the way to go, being the bigger person is. "An eye for an eye; makes the world blind." Anyway, I believe you get the picture. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. Thanks.~

archive question

Little green rosetta, I can't seem to get into the archives on Tea Party movement. It seems the threads I'm trying to open are split between two archives. I don't usually go hunting diffs in archives and I'm clearly missing how. I'm looking for diffs from March 2012 which should be in archive 19. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm asking because you earlier pointed me to the ANI archive which I had no trouble with, so don't know what I'm missing now. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, as there should be only one archive. Are you looking for a diff on the article or the talk page? You might want to try using the revision history search tool. Go to the articles history page, and there is a link in the external tools section.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk page for March 7, 2012. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, no such revision exists [4]. How do you know a diff on that page existed on that particular date?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That link is to May. I'm trying to link to 7 March 2012 at 16:17 and 16:38. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
If you scroll down, you will see the March dates. No diffs have 7 March as a date. Let me ask again, why do you think those diffs exist in the first place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I found them. I see my mistake. Puzzling it out with you did it. This is what I was trying to locate. [5] and[6]. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate that. And I love your user name. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Benjiboi again

Sorry - I just blocked another one :/ - Alison ❤ 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked I tells ya!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Little green rosetta. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay lisp, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Register (linguistics) and Accent (linguistics) (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) 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

About the Merging of the Article American Accent

Hello, you have merged the Article American Accent with North American English regional phonology. American Accent is a part of American English but it is a totally different thing. Also it has some difference from the phonology. As we all know that it is the way of talking and pronouncing, I think a different Article is necessary as a result of letting people know more elaborately about American Accent. So that people can talk and speak more fluently using American English. Because of the fact that people of other countries, who are not Native Speaker of American English try to follow American English in their day to day life for its simplicity. And American Accent is essential for the purpose of speaking and communicating with others. It is easier for the people to directly search for American Accent and have more knowledge about the Accent part only. More information will be added into this Article with the passage of time and if there is any mistake, then it will be edited. After your merging proposal was made, I have talked with few specialists of American Accent and they have also agreed that a different article is quite helpful and they have agreed to provide information and correction for making the article more appropriate and accurate. The rest is up to you. I hope you are understanding the point of view. You can help me in correcting things if you think are inappropriate in the Article. Will look forward to working together. Thank you.Sourov0000 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, though I think we should have some consistency between the same articles for BrE articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re your comment about the JJ book at ANI: This is my personal favorite in that genre of naming. The album is worth checking out if you have a chance. Cheers a13ean (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ew!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. I don't want to response you in another user talk page. I prefer that other user, like IndelibleHulk or Feedback answer you (first, because I'm not a English native-speaker). In the Wikiprojecto, we have some rules. First, we don't put in the articles the weekly matches. WWE have near 6 TV show per week. If we put all the no notable matches (usually, the TV show is for hype the PPV, so the weekly matches aren't notables) we'll have articles with one million of lines. The Funkadactils are notable because they are the valet of Brodus Clay, so we redirected the article. They started to wrestle, but the matches are weekly matches, thats why the article is so short, I remove the weekly matches and, as you can see, the article says the same that the Brodus Clay article. Thats why I prefer to redirect, no afd. If you want to know more, I think that's better that esked to Hulk or Feedback. I'm in Spanish Wikipedia since 2007-2008, but in English Wikipedia I spent less time, so I don't know if we have special rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User page draft will be deleted

Per the discussion [7] it was determined that the efforts that you participated in at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia had lead to the conclusion that there was not enough content to overcome WP:DICDEF and so instead of an article, the term will be a redirect to Wiktionary.

I will be requesting a deletion of the sandbox draft that you contributed to. Please feel free to contact an admin to have it restored and moved to your user space if you wish to continue working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews

Everything I have listed on Erica Andrews' page is sourced heavily. Please do not erase anything there. I assure you that everything is sourced. I have listed the sources. Please do not erase anything. I am not interested in an edit flame war with you. Lightspeedx (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MySpace is not a RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The MySpace page was kept by Erica Andrews of her achievements and background information as to how she derived of her show. Please stop erasing. Stop the erase. If you disagree that MySpace is a source, then one can say YouTube and everything blog based is also not a source. With that being said, then nothing should be listed of her. STOP THE FIGHTING. Go fight elsewhere and not shit on Erica Andrews' page - a woman has just passed away. Leave her legacy intact and find elsewhere to do your fighting. Lightspeedx (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is yet another source about Tandi's TEA. http://www.montrose-star.com/wp-content/uploads/Star_Nov07WEB23.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube and blogs are often not RS as well. You nailed it. Please remember you don't "own" this article and if you continue acting as if you do things will end badly. You say you don't want to fight, yet you continue to revert to restore unsourced information.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Little green beer! (Courtesy Norrin strange)

Thanks for responding. I do understand the perception you've expressed from my earliest writing (2009), and I just want to assure you I'm trying to include only the most important events supported by references that are reliable for the content for which they are cited. I think that Iman Crosson being in a 30-part series (not a mere "gig") of someone as notable as Deepak Chopra, and being named one of the best five Obama impersonations by a Huffington Post writer, are not "cruft." I think that the Chopra reference provided the instant WP:verifiability that is the foundation of reliability, though it was in a blog format. I don't plan to contest these issues further, but I hope you would discuss specific issues with me (I do like intelligent discussion) instead of soliciting help from other editors introducing my contributions as "cruft." We may differ greatly in how much detail we believe is proper in articles, but in your case I sense we can disagree amicably and above-board.
In the meantime, have a Cold One on me. RCraig09 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Top X lists on blogs (yes, Huffpost is mostly bloggers) are the very definiton of cruft. If a Barack Obama impersonation is notable, we expect a RS to state this, For example, consider the case of Louis Ortiz.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My ban appeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Please_remove_my_ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

When the community (ie AN/ANI) approves an indef block, it's considered a community ban. Don't get yourself blocked over it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (my precious).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Not sure

I'm not sure why you're looking for Scientoim socks when that editor is unbblocked (see [8]). Am i missing something? I'm confused. Pass a Method talk 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Scientom has socked before to evade scrutiny and edit war to get an article to the right version. The fact that he/she is not indeffed at the moment is odd. I'm writing it down to off wiki business. If my examination troubles Scientiom, they can rest easy if they simply don't sock anymore.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, as to clear up the confusion, Alison blocked these puppets in early Feb, hence Scientom's recent "return".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Trouble with Anderson basketball issue

Yes, there was a disruptive IP on that article, but they have been blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Trouble with The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Open to your suggestions. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Sondra Peterson Entry

I note your problem with the sources in the Sondra Peterson entry, but as I stressed there: the actual SOURCE is not the web page itself; it is the magazine that happens to be reproduced on that web page. This is the only way in which you're going to have reliable proof of that source, since 1960s fashion magazines are not published on the web. The only alternative - since Vogue and Seventeen are WP:RS - is to link to them the way that sources that are not online are generally referenced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_to_sources

We can do that, and it would certainly be within policy, but it makes the encyclopedia far more useful if a reader can SEE the magazine referred to. Your call: but the sources themselves are impeccable. NaymanNoland (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference of opinion as to how "perfectly acceptable" that "sourced" information is afterall. Please address this on the talk page of the article in question.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that it has been established that I have NOT been using sock puppets, please revert to the full entry. Your remark about "pre-sock" edits - even if you thought you were correct when you wrote it - is insulting. And I put a lot of work into the properly sourced entry, which keeps getting erased on inappropriate grounds. I am not going to revert this myself, as it then becomes an edit war. But if you are editing in good faith, I expect you to do so. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
As I've asked already, please take this discussion to the articles talk page where it belongs. I've already started a discussion of you wish to join.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Erica Andrews". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice Erica Andrews

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have had enough of this brown smelly stuff. Feel free to comment if you dare (ANI scares the crap out of me), but I do understand that participation can be a interesting experience.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider this your warning. You have failed to participate on the article's talk page. I have in good faith discussed the issues of attribution there, you have not.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Subpages and templates

I think {{Evidence subpage}} updates the date on its own based on the parameter you pick, in this case 30.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit warring after warnings

Your recent editing history at War on Women 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Why don't you join the conversation as several others have on the associated talk page?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seduction community

LGR, for some strange reason (at least, strange to me) you popped up in my mind as someone who'd be interested in this article: Seduction community. As I recall, I saw you posting some quite cogent remarks about women, men, and other gender related topics. As for the SC article, I hardly dare say how I came across it. In any event, I think you'll be interested. (As a reminder, you had made some comments about User:Xerographica when s/he was a hot topic.) Whether you are interested in SC or not, I'd like to say you impressed me to no end with your well-written and most helpful remarks. Please don't think I'm pandering -- and accept my best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass. That subject is too creepy for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Your unwillingness to get involved is understandable. Considering that the seduction & sexualities WikiProjects are inactive, I guess more reckless editors are off doing other stuff. (I've added colons to the links on this posting -- I think doing so will prevent linking back to this page.) Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My Bill Nye edit

Hi, you reverted my April 30 good faith edit (your words) on why Bill Nye left his relationship with Blair Tindall.

It seems to me that what I put there was obviously relevant to the topic. It made it possible for people to find out this information without further searching. What, if anything, was inappropriate about my edit that deserved reversion? Bill Jefferys (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isa tertiary source with no editorial oversight, we cannot use wikipeida articles as references for other articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources cited on the Blair Tindall page about this event; do you mean that it would be OK for me to copy that section with the sources cited into the Bill Nye page, but not OK to simply refer the reader to that page with a link, even though the information there is properly cited? If you are saying the latter, then what do you think the links all over WikiPedia are doing? Are they all invalid?
It seems to me that the virtue of links is that they make it possible to avoid unnecessary duplication of information on numerous pages. They make it easy to find information that is relevant without duplicating it. Am I wrong?Bill Jefferys (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Blair is already wiki-linked on the Nye article, so the reader can click through if they are so inclined. As for copying that entire section, while sourced, it might not be pertinent to the Nye article. If the part you want to add addresses the anullment, I have no problems with that, but you probably should use one of the sources used in the Blair article instead of the article itself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

STOP SLANDER

I'm not "disruptive" editing or "vandalizing" anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightspeedx. If you care to add anything feel free.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Erica Andrews, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

For bringing some humor onto the page of WT:RIGHT I give you this cookie. Enjoy! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea–Philippines relations deletion

May you explain why do this article proposed for deletion. I believe this is not an original research as I copyedited from references. Thanks. --Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't mean to submit that. Sorry  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened?

I see you got Arbcom blocked..That's a shame you have always been pleasant that I can remember and very helpful. I'm sorry to see this Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, LGR, sorry to see you go. Naapple (Talk) 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand these secret ArbCom blocks at all, and can't for the life of me figure out what happened. Anyway, it's always been nice interacting with you, and I'm sorry you're gone. Good luck in your future endeavors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

STiki emergency

J Rice

In April you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Little_green_rosetta/Archive_2&oldid=1151004828"