User talk:Little green rosetta

Tools

All tools	Interactions	Intersects	Edit Summary Search	3RR	Anti-vandalism	WikiChecker	WikiChecker/user	Range Check	Articles created

User:Little green rosetta/sockwatch · talk

• Little green rosetta/sockwatch/Acoma Magic
• Little green rosetta/sockwatch/Benjiboi
• Little green rosetta/sockwatch/Scientiom

Torchwood Edits

I'm slightly confused as to how to contact you so I am posting here. What exactly wasn't relevant with the Torchwood edits? If you read the main Torchwood pages about the characters it clearly states that Jack's character is considered pansexual, not just bisexual in the way of humans. In fact it is stated several times and even Jack stated on the show he is "omnisexual" so I don't see how it wasn't relevant or extra, it is the truth.

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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! 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) User page draft will be deleted Per the discussion [1] 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) 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 [2]). 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) Email Hi - 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. asking for a little guidance :-) 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) Please stop erasing perfectly acceptable, SOURCED information. You do realize that this entire Filipacchi affair is being watched by the mainstream media: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/ So, frivolous editing of work about her family is not advisable. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:32, 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. It is you who is acting in bad faith and adopted a typical adversarial, contrarian, power-tripping attitude that many wikipedia editors and small bureaucrats suffer from, you are a character straight out of Dostoevsky. >Cease your ""mothers day" trolling on Bloomex''... What is your problem? Should I show you the proof that I ordered Mother's Day flowers at bloomex yesterday? --Autismal (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)