User talk:Scatach

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) 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

CWFA
Hello! I see you added a sentence to Concerned Women for America with part of the group's mission statement re: prayer etc. I've removed that because it doesn't really help a reader understand what the group actually does and may give the wrong impression (they are not the ACLU and would not want to be mixed up with them!) Do you have any reliable sources (such as books from reliable publishers, or news stories) that talk about issues that CWFA has been involved in, on that theme or others? (Also, I removed abortion from the opening sentence because I'm not sure it is what they're best known for. What do you think?) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a begginner with wikipediaScatach (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I know - definitely check out the Teahouse (linked in the section before this one), which is a resource for new members. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The distinction of CWFA being conservative ought to be removed, unless NOW should be considered liberal as well Scatach (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your addition of "feminist" to NOW actually handles that nicely. Is there a word that you think would be better than "conservative" as an opposite to "feminist" for CWFA? "Antifeminist" is obviously the literal opposite, but I don't think that adequately covers all the issues that CWFA is involved in. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * yes,feminist is the best way adjective for NOW. However, I think not using "liberal" "progressive" "feminist""anti-feminist"" conservative", etc. would be the most neutral, as any political alignment could be discerned from the article content. I say "christian women" would be best since that is how CWFA self-identifies. It should be mentioned that CWFA is against discrimination of women, as it is a women's organizationScatach (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the opening of the article should summarize what follows (WP:LEAD). Self-identification is useful up to a point, but consider that the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus is also an organization of Christian women, but one with quite different beliefs and activities. Wouldn't we want a reader coming in to the article to have an idea what it's about?
 * Re CWFA opposing discrimination against women - that does not follow from their being an organization made up of women. We must make sure that we state the facts (an organization of women) without engaging in original analysis (what they presumably believe because they are women). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe their mission statement,which was deleted,provided proof that CWFA is against women's discrimination.There needs to be more info to better flesh out the article. Their statement on non-discrimination should be added and cited. I believe it was deleted because it was showing the positive side of CWFA. That's the problem with this article, its biased and not showing the complete picture. Scatach (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Connected?
Your edits leave me with the impression that you might be connected in some way to Roscelese. Are you affiliated with her in anyway?Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I've messaged her about fixing the CWFA page, that's all. I only want to balance that page out a bit.Scatach (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

SPLC
Besides the issue of the move itself, what you did, by copying from the page rather than by clicking on edit, was remove all of the references, leaving just numbers such as [102]. You also added scare quotes to the phrase hate groups, which is deprecated (see WP:BADEMPHASIS and in this case violates WP:NPOV. The sort of errors new editors often make, but I wanted you to know about them. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I, in no way meant to vandalize the article,I need to reread the style manual. That being said, I think the SPLC article has MAJOR POV issues. First and foremost being that a decent amount of the sources come from SPLC itself. As for the quotes,calling a non-violent,farily mild(as far as hate groups go) organization a hate group is a stretch.Scatach (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Marking edits as Minor
Looks to me as though all the edits you call minor are major edits. Please stop marking edits as minor unless they are simply formatting, grammar, typos, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

October 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. AD (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AD (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hello internet pic something early 2000s.jpg


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Hello internet pic something early 2000s.jpg, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Frosty ☃ 04:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gilliam (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)