User talk:Philipegalite

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

SPLC
Please take part in the discussion on the talk page about this rather than adding it to the article right now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your addition and subsequent removal by Rivertorch. I agree with Rivertorch for removing your changes and encourage you to follow Doug's suggestion to discuss changes on the talk pages.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC
Hi. I noticed that you've edited exclusively about the SPLC. Could you do me a favor by letting me know what motivated you to create a Wikipedia account and do this? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress at SPLC
Thanks for your efforts to finally bring balance to the article. We're close to finally achieving consensus on the nature of the criticism to be added. I hope I can count on your continued participation. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress at SPLC
To: StillStanding-247. I read Wikipedia history quite a bit. I ran into the SPLC entry because of the shooting at the FRC. When I read the SPLC entry, I could not believe how bias and one-sided the entire article was written. I rated the page and then an automated reply asked if I would like to edit the page. So, I did, only to discover I could not edit the page. I was virulently attacked. I then tried to explain my edits, only to be attacked again. So, I just gave up.

Today, I am pleasantly surprised to have received yours and Lionelt kind notifications about my post. I hope that in a small way I have contributed to the resolution of this dispute. The SPLC article needs to be rewritten and valid criticisms entered. Philipegalite (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tag
I left you a response on my talk page. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/LuckyWikipedian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My response
I don't know where to post this, so I will do it in my own Talk page. Thanks to I'm StillStanding and The Four Deuces for making me aware of this false witness accusation of a "suspected sockpuppet" and for providing information and advice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuckyWikipedian

Let me just say, the FRC shooting was extensively covered by multiple media outlets and the work of the SPLC has been known for years, so the fact two posters commented on this in such time sequence was nothing but coincidence. I don't know of and have nothing to do with LuckyWikipedian or his account.

It is difficult "to remain calm," as suggested, but looking at the "recommended reading" Wiki posts of StillStanding-247, I find that the posters (or editors?) that attacked me (and, it seems, have been disputing the SPLC for a long time ) have committed multiple violations.

So far, I have only made one, a single post on the SPLC ( that I edited once but was still removed), as I have already explained (see previous posts above). I was attacked by a pack of partisan wolves in direct violation of Wikipedia policy (as I'm quickly finding out!), and I gave up soon after, disappointed, as I have described –and is documented throughout. I was not given a warm welcome and the courtesy due a newcomer to Wikipedia:

"New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

My thanks to Sir Lionel for the only unreserved warm welcome, and again to I'm StillStanding and The Four Deuces for making me aware of all of this and their advice. And I rest my case!Philipegalite (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You should post your response at Sockpuppet investigations/LuckyWikipedian. TFD (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have elaborated my response and posted there:

I am told to post here. This is like a kafkaesque situation in cyberspace: I'm invited to participate to edit an article in which the "neutrality is disputed" (even if by a generic invitation); I'm attacked for doing so, even though I'm in fact trying to balance the article in the direction needed with a single referenced paragraph; I'm not treated fairly as a newcomer, as is required by Wiki guidelines; I'm now accused of being someone I am not! Yes The Trial comes to mind!

In a better light, I want to thank StillStanding-247 and The Four Deuces for making me aware of this intemperate, distracting, false witness accusation of a "suspected sockpuppet" and for providing information and advice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuckyWikipedian

Let me just say, the FRC shooting was extensively covered by multiple media outlets and the work of the SPLC has been known for years, so the fact two posters commented on this in such time sequence was nothing but coincidence. I was triggered to post by one of the articles I have read which I cited as a reference. I don't know of and have nothing to do with LuckyWikipedian or his account.

It is difficult "to remain calm," as suggested, but looking at the "recommended reading" Wiki posts of StillStanding-247, I find that the posters (or editors?) that attacked me (and, it seems, have been disputing the SPLC for a long time) have committed the real and multiple violations (see below for at least one).

So far, I have only made one, a single post on the SPLC (that I edited once but was still removed), as I have already explained (see previous posts on the SPLC Talk and my own Talk page). I was attacked by a pack of partisan wolves in direct violation of Wikipedia policy (as I'm quickly finding out!), and I gave up soon after, disappointed, as I have described –and is documented throughout. I was not given a warm welcome and the courtesy due a newcomer to Wikipedia:

"New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers (my emphasis), and remember everyone was new at some time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

My thanks to Sir Lionel for the only unreserved warm welcome, and again to I'm StillStanding and The Four Deuces for making me aware of all of this and their advice. And I (think) rest my case!Philipegalite (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Philipegalite (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar Experiences
Hi Philipegalite, welcome to Wikipedia and please stay. Your are at a prestigious institution where only the best of the best volunteer editors come to mark their knowledge/territory. Like all of the premiere places everywhere in the world, it is supposed to be apolitical but that simply is not the case as your quickly found out. First off be very careful of all the policies around here lest you be accused of being someone else. Side Note: I hope you stay after being accused of being a Sock Puppet since it appears LuckyWikipedian has left and we'd hate to lose two new editors over one accusation.

The hounding of new editors is a debate at the highest levels but nothing is being done and the hounding seems to be going on a lot around here. Some people think they, and the things they write, are more equal than others. Unfortunately they think logic is equivalent to saying the same thing over and over even when new evidence or new angles of defense are presented. This behavior and pseudo-bullying will happen wherever you go in life. So why not stay here?

You have met Sir Lionel and BelchFire, two people who will treat you the same whether you agree with them or not. And you have met 1 or 2 who will appear to be friendly and offer advice so long as you agree with them. But while seeming to get along they are building evidence against you, enough to make you feel paranoid. My response, and you are free to follow your own way, was to let these kids have their little niches and contribute in other places. Remember that once you write something, you no longer own it. So again, welcome and try to have fun, what's the worse they can do - pay you? I make my contributions by sticking to my expertise which is grammar (except my own). One day I might rewrite a small piece of the SPLC based solely on a grammatical error just to see if they'll hound me. Then again I have a tendency to just disappear for long periods and come back when I want.

I hope you can find your way and your niche and perhaps someday one of us will get a criticism to stick against the SPLC. Yendor (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)