User talk:Little green rosetta

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! Talkback Hello, Little green rosetta. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page. Message added 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. OlYeller21Talktome 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Weigh in? I thought maybe we could get your opinion on Talk:Bend, Not Break there are some ppossible BLP issues and an editor (TokyoGirl) is wanting more eyes and comments, I personally don't think there are issues here and agree with TokyoGirls writing but there are some that disagree. If you have time that would be great and if not we'll deal! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I looked, but didn't see anything that wasn't being addressed.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC) New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case So where are we in regards to the removed content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Looks like there is an impasse over this specfic article by TDC. While some are intent to impeach TDC overall, I still am unconvinced this article is not reliable. The "compelling evidence" submitted by T4D relying on misleading claims by MMFA is bunk. But since you asked for options, this is how I see the progression. Restore the material and use the Foxnews article as a reference. DRN. I'm afraid The RSN issue was hijacked by focusing on specious claims instead of focusing on the article in question. DRN would certainly get an editor willing to investigate the claims made by each side, something that didn't happen at RSN. Move on. Can't win em all.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Your edit summary I saw this on my watchlist - "shit or get off the pot" I'm sure you know not to attack others, Little green rosetta. Keep in mind for future references that many people suffer from a "pot" addiction, and implying someone has one, is completely innapropriate. You may certainly not agree with their opinion on this RfA matter - but leave as is. "If you have nothing nice to say; say nothing at all." —MelbourneStar☆talk 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC) It's a colliquial expression, but it is no less appropriate then the comments of other comments made in that RfA -- specifically the one right above mine. Goose, sauce, gander, whatever.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC) It's all about keeping your cool in an RfA, if not for you, for the candidate. Having the "s/he did it first" attitude isn't the way to go, being the bigger person is. "An eye for an eye; makes the world blind." Anyway, I believe you get the picture. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Fair 'nuff. Thanks.~ archive question Little green rosetta, I can't seem to get into the archives on Tea Party movement. It seems the threads I'm trying to open are split between two archives. I don't usually go hunting diffs in archives and I'm clearly missing how. I'm looking for diffs from March 2012 which should be in archive 19. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm asking because you earlier pointed me to the ANI archive which I had no trouble with, so don't know what I'm missing now. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Not sure what you mean, as there should be only one archive. Are you looking for a diff on the article or the talk page? You might want to try using the revision history search tool. Go to the articles history page, and there is a link in the external tools section.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Talk page for March 7, 2012. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC) As you can see, no such revision exists [1]. How do you know a diff on that page existed on that particular date?  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC) That link is to May. I'm trying to link to 7 March 2012 at 16:17 and 16:38. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC) If you scroll down, you will see the March dates. No diffs have 7 March as a date. Let me ask again, why do you think those diffs exist in the first place?  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Okay, I found them. I see my mistake. Puzzling it out with you did it. This is what I was trying to locate. [2] and[3]. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate that. And I love your user name. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Benjiboi again Sorry - I just blocked another one :/ - Alison ❤ 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I'm shocked I tells ya!  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Mail Hello, Little green rosetta. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 31 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay lisp, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Register (linguistics) and Accent (linguistics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Formal mediation has been requested The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC) About the Merging of the Article American Accent Hello, you have merged the Article American Accent with North American English regional phonology. American Accent is a part of American English but it is a totally different thing. Also it has some difference from the phonology. As we all know that it is the way of talking and pronouncing, I think a different Article is necessary as a result of letting people know more elaborately about American Accent. So that people can talk and speak more fluently using American English. Because of the fact that people of other countries, who are not Native Speaker of American English try to follow American English in their day to day life for its simplicity. And American Accent is essential for the purpose of speaking and communicating with others. It is easier for the people to directly search for American Accent and have more knowledge about the Accent part only. More information will be added into this Article with the passage of time and if there is any mistake, then it will be edited. After your merging proposal was made, I have talked with few specialists of American Accent and they have also agreed that a different article is quite helpful and they have agreed to provide information and correction for making the article more appropriate and accurate. The rest is up to you. I hope you are understanding the point of view. You can help me in correcting things if you think are inappropriate in the Article. Will look forward to working together. Thank you.Sourov0000 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Sure, though I think we should have some consistency between the same articles for BrE articles.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC) April 2013 Hello, I'm Viriditas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Michael & Me, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Second warning Yesterday, you were politely asked to stop following me around to pages and reverting me and you were asked to use the talk page to discuss your changes and add requested sources.[4] Your response was "Go away and don't come back"[5] and to tell me to "fuck off".[6] Today, I returned to Wkipedia to discover that you did not add sources as requested[7] and that you continued to follow me to pages you've never edited before to revert me.[8] To recap, you were politely asked to stop stalking me and you continued to stalk me. You were also politely asked to add sources justifying your reverts and you did not. Further, your responses have been dismissive, uncivil, and have flagrantly violated our policies and guidelines on verification, reliable sources, and notability. If you persist in this behavior, I will have no choice but to report you to the noticeboards. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)