User talk:Little green rosetta: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:29, 20 August 2012

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

May I suggest you file a 3RRN about it. Cheers. ViriiK (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you look different. New haircut? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's called "Reaching consensus through editing". You should read about it sometime. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Z147

An Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – user:John D. Rockerduck 02:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 20:23, 20 August 2012 view source John D. Rockerduck (talk \| contribs) 470 edits →‎An Invitation ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:29, 20 August 2012 view source Little green rosetta (talk \| contribs) 5,428 edits →‎An Invitation Next edit →
Line 102:		Line 102:

	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 [[User:Lionelt\|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 [[User:John D. Rockerduck\|John D. Rockerduck]] ([[User talk:John D. Rockerduck\|talk]]) 20:23, 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 [[User:Lionelt\|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 [[User:John D. Rockerduck\|John D. Rockerduck]] ([[User talk: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.   [[User:Little_green_rosetta\|<font color="blue">little</font> <font color="green">green rosetta</font>]]{{SubSup\|\|[[Special:Contributions/Little_green_rosetta\|central scrutinizer]]\|[[User talk:Little green rosetta\|(talk)]]}} 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)