User talk:StillStanding-247

Welcome

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Old Al (Talk) 00:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your summary there is inaccurate but I don't see any way to edit it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. And you're not allowed to edit other people's comments anyway. What part of it do you think is inaccurate? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm normally allowed to comment on the errors people make, though. Please see the article talk page for details on what you got wrong. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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 an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Focus on the Family". Thank you. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! Why did you thank to you yourself :) Vanischenum^Talk 04:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The instructions said to notify everyone, even myself, and the boilerplate includes the "thank you". :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Vanischenum^Talk 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, as no harm was done. It was just slightly funny. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.Vanischenum^Talk 04:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Being curious, I wonder what you will do when your IP address changes :) Vanischenum^Talk 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's something I hadn't considered. I don't know how often my IP does change, but I do know it's not guaranteed to be permanent. Still, if one day it becomes, say, 24.45.42.126, then I'm still the same person who once edited under 24.45.42.125, so the name still fits. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's cool and thought wisely. Thank you and Happy editing. Vanischenum^Talk 04:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Second welcome

Hello! I just wanted to say I'm glad you signed up, and I hope you have a good time on Wikipedia. :-) (Without, of course, being quickly blocked as you seem to expect!)

Just a suggestion for the FotF article (I looked up your edits, so if you feel like I'm Wikistalking you, feel free to tell me to stop.) For myself, I don't think the current source is sufficient to support that wording, the main issue being the "because of" statement. I would refer to WP:SYNTH, even though it's within a single source rather than between two sources - e.g. you might get further with, "...the Southern Poverty Law Center, which characterizes/has characterized it as...[etc]." I think that statement would definitely be justified, although you might still need to find more sources to support it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, your input is appreciated. I think we can deal with any objections to "because" by changing the wording a little. For example, "citing examples such as". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! StillStanding-247, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! Sarah (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Social conservatism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Social conservatism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"magic trio of reverts"

You don't have a "magic trio of reverts", you have a bright line that is taken as a clear indication of edit warring. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement -- you can be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, but I was dealing with a deranged bot, not edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chickfila

Hi, You mind adding to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#216.81.94.75.21--_216.81.94.75_--.3E.5D.5D_reported_by_User:Algonquin7_.28Result:_.29 Thanks 216.81.94.75 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I missed my chance, since they've already ruled. Frankly, I fully support your effort to keep the article honest, but I don't think reverting each bad change is the way to do it. I've tried to discuss this topic on the talk page, but I have to admit that I haven't gotten very far. Perhaps dispute resolution is the way to go. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, looks like it would not have mattered. The page now is even worse than before with even more people editing without TALK. I agree dispute resolution board is probably the only way and let a admin decide. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Compromise on Chick-fil-A

I disagree with you on this but think you editing in good faith so I concede since the issue is equally divided maybe I should seek a compromise to please both sides please check out recent addition to the Chick-fil-A talkpage for compromise proposal and let me hear what you think Algonquin7 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You say basic logic says if Cathy supports traditional marriage he opposes gay marriage since there is no logical argument to say that it is bad for traditional marriage I provided sources as you asked you denounced them as bigotry and bias that their claims were illogical sure I could ask you to prove your sources and I'm sure you would more than meet the challenge I could just say that all those sources (probably from organizations that support same-sex marriage) are all bias, and that they are anti-religious bigots that is the nature of the divide. In our country

As illogical as you think those arguments may be the reality of the matter there is a lot of people who believe those arguments they don't follow your logic to them same-sex marriage is logically bad for traditional marriage and all other types of things. I'm not saying their right or your wrong, and I won't make you out to be some anti-religious bigot or someone who wants to destroy the sanctity of marriage, because your not any of those things, you just believe what you think is right, fair, and best for everyone

I'm sure if someone tried to define you and say your support the destruction of the American family you'd say all you supported was marriage equality; so Why can't Mr. Cathy who only said he supports traditional marriage be allow to define his stand and his companies stand in this issue, As much as you think it is false that gay marriage harms families and traditional marriage people like Mr. Cathy, Dr. Wardle or Family institiute believe just as much that it does.

So let us allow them to define themselves and people can make up their own minds when they are presented with only the facts and no spin or opinion as this encyclopedia should not be in the business of making up anyone's minds for them.

go with my compromise It is truly pathetic how much time I'm spending on this (then again I have nothing better to do anyway) so let's end this without dispute resolution or either us getting exactly what we wanted, if not then I'll guess I'll go dispute resolute itAlgonquin7 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss the issue on the talk page, not here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Sorry sure I'll continue it there but I just wanted to disuss it with you since I feel your editing in good fatih and are reasonable while that 216 Ip adress is just unreasonable and editing in bad faith and bringing down the discussion Algonquin7 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but please extend the assumption of good faith to 216. I'm sure they mean well. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not when everytime I disagree with him he accuses me of "I'm editing in bad faith" also his recent block Algonquin7 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are stupid, pointless and arbitrary. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Try to cut anything from your posts that is about other contributors rather than content. (And at the extreme, if you keep threatening to take people to DR etc, the conclusion most people will draw is that you are the problem.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it to heart. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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 an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Chickfila, Winshape". Thank you. --216.81.94.73 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's enough

I'm going to request, as politely as I possibly can, that you stop stalking my edits, which is now convincingly documented in Wikipedia's memory. Belchfire-TALK 02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're being paranoid and hostile. I reserve the right to edit on the subjects that interest me. I think it would be best if you quit while you're behind by just walking away now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

However you don't reserve the right to arbitrarily decide what is supposedly policy and what is actual policy as you tried to do with "BRD" as well as "consensus to remove". ViriiK (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, since when is the New York Times a gay media outlet? I rest my case. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, who reported the issues first? I rest my case. ViriiK (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You've just lost your case, because the article didn't say anything about "first". Point is, you made a mistake. And then you made another. It gets old. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. The gay media reported on the issue first at the beginning of the month which the New York Times reported on the issue at the end of the month. I rest my case as usual. Go ahead and continue to make up policy anyways. I'll await more of your fictional policies. ViriiK (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you have your own peculiar view of policy, as it makes life more interesting. However, it's not persuasive, much less binding. That's why your change has been reverted by a couple of people already and will continue to be reverted. We have to follow the real rules, not yours. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean one other person other than you. Yes, we'll continue to follow the rules unlike Belchfire and I both know who. ViriiK (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add that's relevant to editing Wikipedia or is this just a pile-on? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Focus on the Family. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Stop trying to push your own POV by adding "anti-gay" without discussion and without consensus.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)