User talk:Rebeccalutz

Welcome!
Hi, Rebeccalutz. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro!

ALEC
Hi Rebecca. Regarding this edit, it's generally considered inappropriate to re-revert a change that was reverted by another editor. The initial revert is acceptable under a common practice known as WP:BRD, but the second is often considered to be the beginning of an edit war. Next time, please start a discussion on the talk page if you feel the other editor's revert was incorrect. Also, please try to include an explanatory edit summaries with your edits, per WP:FIES. In this case I've started a discussion that you can find at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council. I hope to see your response there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very sorry about that. I don't mean to sound hostile or do anything wrong. I'll look for you discussion on that page


 * You just did the same thing (re-reverted) for a second time. Please don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|40x40px]] And now a third time, this time throwing in stuff that's actively being discussed on the talk page. STOP. If you continue in this vein I will report you to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW and request administrative sanctions.

COI issues
Ms. Lutz,

Your edit history since November 15 is consistent with an editor who has a conflict of interest with respect to ALEC and has been attempting to comply with WP:COI. Please don't take offense. If my observation is off-base then I apologize and feel free to correct me or completely disregard this message. And if it's correct then I still can't keep you from participating on the article. This is merely meant as a bit of friendly advice to a new (potentially) COI editor.

You seem to be complying with WP:COI fairly closely, which is far better than I can say about other COI editors I've encountered. I thank you and ask your continued adherence. I'll also note that this edit, in which you removed a pair of quotation marks, might have appeared to have been a "non-controversial" edit (per WP:COI), but in fact it wasn't as it was based on neutrality concerns, which are central to why we have a COI policy. Also, if you haven't done so already I encourage you to read the COI best practices recommendations. In particular, it would be extremely helpful if you declare your COI on your user and/or user talk pages, as well as at Talk:ALEC.

Finally, in light of your user name, you should also familiarize yourself with WP:REALNAME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern.


 * My edit was most certainly based on neutrality concerns. As an example, take the following two sentences;
 * Al Gore said that the effects of the storm could be attributed to global warming.
 * Al Gore said that the effects of the storm could be attributed to "global warming".
 * Putting "global warming" is quotes does not clear up any confusion for the reader about who said that, it's just a scare quote to lead the reader to question the sincerity of the statement.
 * The sentence in the lead already makes it clear who said those words, putting them in scare quotes isn't actually supposed to make it clearer as to who said it. Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to raise these sorts of substantive issues on the article's talk page so they can been considered by other editors. I'm just saying that if you're editing with a COI, then you should propose this sort of neutrality-related edit on the talk page rather than making the change in the article itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll bring this up on the talk page then. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to American Legislative Exchange Council
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
In light of the above threads and your recent editing and reverting at American Legislative Exchange Council, could you please clarify whether you have a conflict of interest (as defined here or by any of the common-sense meanings of the term) when it comes to ALEC? Also, please be aware of Wikipedia's policies on edit-warring and, in particular, the three-revert rule. Editors may be blocked from editing for reverting more than three times in a 24-hour period, or for persistent edit-warring even below that threshold. MastCell Talk 22:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Thanks for letting me know about the 24-hour period. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Question Reply
To answer your question, I did not undo it for Vandalism. It was undone as a WP:AFG edit. As I noticed you where doing it in good faith. But it didn't really add any thing to the article. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, well on this we will have to agree to disagree. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Civility
Hello. This is about this edit, whose summary was "I am willing to discuss the wording for lead but everything else is cited." This summary might be read as implying that you're not willing to discuss your changes outside of the lead. Is that what you meant? I hope not, as it would be rather uncivil and certainly contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)