User talk:Little green rosetta/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Proposition 215 (1996), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aww shucks. Thanks Homer Mr. X!

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

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

• {{SUBST:User:Kerfluffer/Sig}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here is a first draft:

– MrX 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I can respect that. It might bias the result, but the question itself doesn't fail NPOV, POINT, or any number of other problems that I've seen in RfCs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not necessarily about putting the words in the lead, unless of course SPLC is also in the in the lead. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the RfC guidelines that prevent a narrow question being asked, as long as it's neutrally worded. I have seen many RfCs that unravel into chaos as a result of loosely worded questions, or open ended questions. As it is, the unmoderated process is like herding cats.

LGR, you seem to support narrow wording. Do you support the wording in the draft I offered above, or some variant? What specifically would you change?

To address Aurthur's concerns, I would be willing to make it multiple choice with at most 2-3 unambiguous choices. – MrX 12:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Building prose by RfC is a bad idea in general. If we must suggest a phrase, then add "possible examples are". But regardless of what options are used, if I'm to co-sign this I would want language preceding suggestions asking the questions "Are the additional descriptors helpful to the reader? Do the descriptors in the lead effect the neutrality of the article?"   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. If you don't think the RfC is useful, I don't want you to feel obligated to help write it, especially if you think I'm going off the rails.

Here is a 2nd proposal incorporating your other comments (as well as Arthur's):

Please let me know your thoughts. – MrX 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Some indication that these are used in the lead is needed (IMO) as well as providing a link to WP:LEAD and appropriate MOS regarding linking.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to re-read the guidelines and look at some past RfCs before I post this. – MrX 01:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting responses so far....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I urge you to be careful with wording choices, even if those you are responding to aren't always as courteous? I don't want to assume too much, but I have seen editors whose actions (whether intended or not) goaded respondents into strong language. This has the effect of changing the subject from the content to the participants. I've watched many such situation end up at ANI, and I can tell you from experience that it is hard to sanction only the instigator, when the respondents, out of frustration, share unfiltered opinions of the other party.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You may ;). A sound suggestion and I will attempt to comply.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you, and urge you to remind me if I slip. I don't think I have recently, but some of my draft wording...:) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If and when this goes to ANI or wherever, there is going to be a ton of bickering. In part because some editors see this as a witch hunt. ISS is certainly going to be on the pedestal and there will be acusations that some are just "out to get him" because of a political agenda. I can certainly understand how someone could affirm that position, because on the face of things this appears to be a content dispute. From my POV, it's not. I've seen many other editors that appear to share ISS's political stance, and some that are even more aggressive in POV pushing, but none of them rise to the level of disruption that ISS exhbits.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

on my talk page concerning the Southern Poverty Law Center's nearly infallible hate group listing. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would urge you to be careful about reverting, no matter how 'right' you may be. It looks like you may have already crossed the 3RR bright line at Illinois Family Institute. – MrX 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't realize I did, but I would have self-reverted after your notification had the mysterious ip not done it for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Weight per what exists in the lead and the body.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I think I follow you. Just to take the first article as an example. In my opinion, rather than removing the 10 words from the lead, the lead should be expanded so that it summarizes the key points of the article (a sentence or two about AFTAH's political activism, and possibly a mention of the lawsuit and the Dan Savage controversy).

The AFA article, seems to me to have an almost perfect balance/weight (not to say the lead couldn't still be improved). I would probably break the second paragraph in two, and maybe copy edit for conciseness.

The HOME article needs similar editing as AFTAH. The lead needs to be expanded, and so does the article, especially the history section. Unfortunately, I don't see many editors interested in expanding these article. As for myself, I'm probably going to transitions out these hate group articles and into more positive people and organizations. After creating the Sons of thundr article earlier today, I thought I was going to loose my lunch after viewing their web site. I don't have a weak stomach, but that is truly an obscene spectacle. Anyway, enough about me. – MrX 01:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed the epitome of WTF are these people thinking?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You recently reverted an IP's edit at Mitt Romney dog incident. The edit was mine, although my IP has since changed. Is there some reason why you mentioned sockpuppetry in your edit summary? Are you aware that the edit in question was discussed at the article talk page, and there was consensus for it? Thanks for any reply.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're up to your 3RR limit, but in the same time span, you also removed some material without explanation and then added tags without explanation. While you've just barely skirted the bright-line limit, I think it's entirely fair to say that you're edit-warring. Note that I am obligated to leave this notice by procedure. Based on prior experience, I expect you will delete it and falsely accuse me of vandalism in your edit-comment. As a result, I will not try to discuss this with you further: I'll just report you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not "vandalism", but it is inappropriate and unnecessary. Only the formal AN3 warning (below) is required, and you should have let another editor make that warning, by requesting it in your report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems possible that WP:AN3#User:Little green rosetta reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: ) report might be closed with no action if you will agree to take a break from editing Homosexuality or its talk page. A reasonable period would be two weeks. My guess is that admins will not be eager to look into long-term editing issues by any of the parties but they will feel that something should be done about the 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't realize i was at 3RR. Yeah, thats no excuse. But it's a big encyclopedia so I can lay off the article and TP for a while.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Please make this offer at AN3, and say how long it is for. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually have to run out for a few hours now. Would you be so kind as to copy this discussion to the board for me? I literally have to leave in a minute. 2 weeks no article/TP is acceptable for me. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you bring up his repeated posting of (usually inappropriate) warnings on your talk page to WP:ANI, or some other noticeboard? It's not true that if, a warning is required, that he is required to give it. Editing your talk page when told not to do so is not exactly vandalism, but it should be a blockable offense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a nuisance to be sure, but I'm not going to waste a jot of ANI time on this until it becomes something more.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You should probably be more careful about issuing warnings yourself. I'm personally not crazy about this one. If you feel somebody has attacked you personally, it's often best not to defend yourself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you have expressed an interest in this content, I wanted to invite you to a discussion on how to best incorporate it into the article. – MrX 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You've asked for assistance with an RfC, which I believe is Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?. It would be helpful if you would expand your ANI to mention the name of the RfC, since you might attract more response if people know what it's about. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you object, I'm going to request closure for RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? I'm sure there is a queue and it will probable take several days for the actual closure. – MrX 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Probably will be no consensus.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem like no consensus. – MrX 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Don't fret. You're a stand up editor, even if you have a bra size for a username :D  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)"

Ba-da-boom!^ⓘ  Nobody Ent 11:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I had NO idea when I picked my username that (a) it would be connected to bras or (b) it would provide such fodder for other editors' amusement. I gotta say, though, that being joked about is far better than being beaten up. Have at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Only the truth can overcome the lies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about - the truth in bra size will set you free?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What your name means!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaah. "I have to see that face". It means whatever you want it to mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If there was a negative civility star I would award it right here, in regard to the way LGR sent nasty emails to Still. Wa-a-ay past the line of good faith. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your lack of faith is disturbing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So... you admit you're Darth Vader? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me exactly where in policy it says Sith are not allowed to edit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I dislike you. That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.198.149 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's MY editnotice you stole there, darnit! Good thing all of Wikipedia is gdfl, or you'd be in trouble, buster! /humor

Anyway, you have new messages at my talk page, yadda yadda. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:) The ironic part is that you ignored the edit noitice   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh heck no. I have years of watching wikilawyers wiggle. Your editnotice says no {{talkback}} notice. (I know, because I wrote it.) That's a template. I didn't template you, I wrote a nice personal message. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

From the notice (emphasis added) I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there. If you message me here, I will reply here  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't reply here. I told you here, that I had replied there. I'm totes in the clear. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Chan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSVP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. Obviously it's a sock, but there isn't enough to take to SPI (which is a misnomer, as they do no investigating there). I'm about 90% that massage was the work of a certain IP-hopper who edits from the Department of Homeland Security. Belchfire-TALK 19:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that guy. Too bad WMF doesn't file a complaint with their network.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet been pushed quite to the point of opening up an ANI thread regarding Viriditas' battleground behavior, however if the subject of an IBAN is raised by a third party, I will endorse it. Belchfire-TALK 22:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What appears to be obvious is that he is setting up some case against you and is collecting '"evidence". If you edit within policy he will have nothing to present. Well nothing of substance anyways if he believes this "false edit summary" argument. If he keeps up with this vein of attack, an IBAN request will be the next step.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI in case you were not aware... the community is now on-record supporting the concept and the practical application of a one-way IBAN. Belchfire-TALK 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware, but I'd really prefer the problem to end voulntarily.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you have recently tagged an article regarding an album with the CSD criteria of A9. I declined it due to A9 only applies in musical recordings with (1) "no notability/significance" and (2) "non-existent artist article". Both of this must be present for tagging an article with A9. Have a nice day! :) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for educating me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For article Anthony Morrison (entrepreneur) I have used sources affiliated with the subject when dealing with his private data, but there are other sources, such as CNN, NBC, LA Times etc. that were cited here. I know you want to help, and I want you to help me improve this article. Thank you --BiH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The third graph in Early life and education is ok, but defining his startups as succesfull should be left to a RS, which is one reason I added some tags. A little puffery exists in the article, but nothing that can't be fixed. Regards.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you response. I'll fix those lapses ASAP. --BiH (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a head's up, you recently tagged this article for speedy deletion. However, I can find reliable sources that mention the article's subject here, here and here, so I have undone the speedy tag. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't help but see that your screen mame is a Frank Zappa reference so I thought you'd like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Frank Zappa which had just recently began. Cheers and I hope you do your best to make muffins even better. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I said that because he got a barnstar for fixing that article--Mosalman (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake... I hit the wrong button and went in and undid my changes. Sorry about that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have a long history of reverting. You have reverted more on Wikipedia than you have actually contributed to Wiki. What is wrong with you? Are you a compulsive reverter? Yesterday, you reverted one of my edits with the comment :unexplained deletion. But my comment was right there. Do pay attention next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikasb2003 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please try to WP:AGF. I am using an automated tool to undo vandalism. Perhaps I should have used a custom edit summary, but the fact remains is that you did remove sourced content from an article without respect to policy. Please continue this discussion on the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be sourced content. But your source is an Israeli government statement in an Israeli newspaper. It is an not an unbiased statement. If you research enough, you will find that many people disagree that Israel brings any benefit to US. They say that Israel is a liability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikasb2003 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The source AFIACT is reliable. If you have an issue with this, take it to RSN. Otherwise, please keep your POV pusihng on the talk page where it belongs.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, with respect to this edit, I just want to let you know that while I agree with your {{POV}} and {{close paraphrasing}} tags, you probably owe it to the community to start the discussion by adding an explanation on the talk page. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I do. I'll try and get to it later.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to go by the book with this kind of stuff [2], otherwise you end up making a mess, like this: [3]. Belchfire-TALK 13:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi LGR, could you please reconsider this template? That IP had not edited the article since last night, did not put the content back after its final removal, opened a perfectly reasonable Talk page discussion regarding the edit, and as the article currently stands the BLP concern the IP raised seems to be addressed. I can't see a good reason for that template, might you consider removing it? Cheers... Zad68 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the new talk page discussion before adding the template. From what I read, it appears he is still taking the approach that absent of evidence, it is perfectly fine to add unsourced information back into the article. Do you not see it that way?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In the IP's Talk page discussion, the IP mentions twice that the real concern is that the article calls Nye a "scientist." I think the IP was trying to allow that content to stand but put qualifiers on it. Maybe the IP didn't realize that another option would be to change the content from saying "scientist" to something else. The latest change from "scientist" to "science educator" should address the IP's concerns, right? In my opinion, because the IP has shown the willingness to open a Talk page discussion, and the IP's concerns seem to be addressed now, it seems an unlikely danger that the IP will continue to insist on poorly-sourced content in the article, so that's why I'm thinking the template isn't needed. Thanks for considering... Zad68 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted. Let's see what happens.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated! Cheers... Zad68 15:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: What else can I say but, your instincts were right here, although I'm not sure the template would have made a difference. I'll keep the article watchlisted too. Zad68 14:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted myself soley out of deference to you. I'm sorry your way didn't work out. Thanks for watching this however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying my edit to Bill Nye's article is unsourced when I cite his own CV on his own official website? Wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.110.8 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for talking to me. Secondly, please sign your comments using the tilde ~ key four times in a row. Now about the source you used. It mentions nothing about Bill Nye's research or publication history. Just because it makes no mention does not mean you can conclude that he has no research or published material. In order to include the statement you are trying to add you must find a source that makes an explicit statement that Bill Nye has not been published, etc. Please read this essay for a more thorough explanation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind being hatted when it's legit. Your hatting at WoW wasn't legit, and I do mind in this particular case. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the discussion is heading to a bad place. Especailly for the ip.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of the discussion lets do it here. The source says all bills in those states meaning it includes the one in Arizona. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you spefically looking at the NPR source? I see four instances of the whole-word "all" on that page and none of them points to that.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says several states "are debating so-called "wrongful birth" laws that would prevent parents from suing a doctor who fails to warn them about fetal problems." Are you really saying that Arizona and Florida, states that passed bills of which the article is about, are not actually included in the first sentence of the article? Sorry but that's prima facie ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which article you are reading. This article specifally mentions Kansas and New Jersey. Florida is mentioned, however says nothing about that state passing a law. It also mentions Arizona law, but the text in our article doesn't paraphrase it correctly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the NPR article and it says exactly what I quoted. So unless the article is about laws that do that and it just happened to mention some unrelated laws in Flordia and Arizona that aren't that definition, then we are talking about the same article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has vandalized my edit to WoW. Could you please undo any edits that vandalize mine so I don’t get accused of edit warring? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How come you started a sockpuppet investigation and didn't bother telling me? Insomesia (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification isn't required in SPI cases. The reason should be obvious. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because you like Nuke's excises/edits and want that to stand to harass me given the context under which you came to learn of said article, doesn't mean that I, nor anybody else, can't edit it back! Sorry, that's how it works. Repeat, you do NOT own the article, an argument that goes both ways per your silly lecture!

Ysfan (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Were you thinking "The Silence of the Lambs" or is it just me hearing it? In Cartmans voice, no less. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  I was just coming here to say the same thing... Zad68 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When the editor asked to be addressed as "it", I couldn't help myself.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously started a belly laugh out of me. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Roger Peterson (pilot), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, propose deletion are disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm STATicVerseatide. I noticed that you recently removed some content from GOOD Music without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't like my reason? Why did you put the two sentenances back?????? Either removed them or fix them. They are general statments and read like the only the right wing uses these groups...and that is not true. Joraejean

RIGHT WING POLITICS

This is what it says...and it reads as an opinion about all definations of political leanings...LEAVE IT OUT.

"Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs to class, with left, center, and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

IF IT IS TO REMAIN, IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED...BE MORE CLEAR...RIGHT NOW WE HAVE=

Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs TO.... 1 class, 2. with left, 3. center, 4. and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes

How do you reduce political belifes to 'class' The 'classes' would be correct, because the subject is not singular - it generally comes in upper, middle and lower.

The topic is Right-Wing Politics...

'AND THE WORST....WORST...is number 4....Which reads as if the right politicians represent the working middle and upper class!!!!!'

For God's sake...can't you see what misinformation this sentence states? It's a quote from a book written in the 60's, and who know where it was origionally placed? I would guess it might have been in a preface to explain general 'leanings'of each side. If that was the case, only the leaning of the right should be in this sentance.

Same with the 'general' last sentenance=

"Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

Just a general statment that could be for either left or right leaning...so it really doesn't belong in a specific group under 'Right-Wing'

Your's Truly,

Joraejean January 20, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joraejean (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Joraejean, we have ways of doing things here, and hounding editors here or by email is not the way. This is not the proper place to discuss this. Do it on the discussion page for the article itself. All other editors who watch that article need to be able to participate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)