User talk:Roscelese/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and yourself

Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese (talk · contribs) and Haymaker (talk · contribs), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.

Reditection of julaha article

can you please provide specific reasons why you redirected this page on article talk page  Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

While Ramdasia isn't very well sourced, it's still better sourced and better written than Julaha, and it states they are the same thing. This is not my area of expertise. Can you improve the sourcing in Julaha? Find sources that aren't user-generated (ie. wikis)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only warning

This edit clearly contravenes the interaction ban between you and Haymaker. Any further violation will result in a short block, per the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I directly asked you if it was a violation of the interaction ban if the other user had previously made the same or a similar edit but the edit I was reverting was made by someone else (in this case, Cloonmore, Mamalujo, and an anonymous IP), and you said that while you thought it would be, you'd have to run it past the other admins. Please let me know now if this is or is not part of the interaction ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the report on my talkpage (User talk:LessHeard vanU#Day 1) Haymaker gave this edit as being the one that you reverted. If there were no intervening edits then it is clearly a violation of the ban, and if there were it is still against the spirit of the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If he told you there were no intervening edits, he was wrong. Otherwise - I'll keep it in mind in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for The Problem We All Live With

Hi Rose, I have reviewed your nomination of The Problem We All Live With at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With and there are a couple of concerns I have with the nomination. Could you please see my comments on the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prod on List of killings of Muhammad

As a courtesy notice, I have removed the Prod from List of killings of Muhammad. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. You're welcome to take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is sufficient. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Roscelese, I think you're in violation of 1RR at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've miscounted, but thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert 1, 06:10, 31 August 2011

Revert 2, 05:56, 1 September 2011 NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They were both partial reverts and barely (14 minutes) within the window of violation, so I didn't report it because it looks like an honest mistake, but consider yourself warned about further edit warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first link is broken, but I assume it was intended to go to the edit that was actually a revert - the second, not so much. The text was newly added; I edited it to be more specific/correct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link NYyankees51 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this was a revert of this; this was a revert of this. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ros, you know better than to do this edit summary. If I did something like that you'd be all over me. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No instances of you reverting a problematic edit that you happen to agree with come to mind, so I'm not sure why your choice of edit summary in this long-shot hypothetical should be relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"true, but..." It was inappropriate and you know it. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude. She's a lesbian. Or do you know something we don't? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(preceding was an attempt at humor)

I know, but the jokes about me being romantically and/or sexually involved with other editors are getting old. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

CFD for Dover

I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Be careful

Considering how many editors have filed complaints about you I was surprised to see this. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many of those complaints were frivolous reports intended to stop me standing in the way of some POV-pushing, to the point where you and other editors were warned that you'd be blocked if you continued to harass me, I'm surprised you're thinking of jumping into that fray again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ros, at the risk of raising more conflict between us, you are most certainly not an anti-POV stalwart. To say that you are is laughable at best and maddening at worst. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion in New Zealand

I see that you removed some of the ext links to pro-life and pre-choice advocacy groups from the Abortion in New Zealand article. It made me think (ouch!). Such links are common on WP. Not sure what policy is about it but considering that we have complete articles on such groups the links may be ok. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely if a group has its own article, that article can or should be linked in the text (or perhaps in a see also)? The appropriate place for a link to ALRANZ, for example, is in an article on ALRANZ. A general article on Abortion in New Zealand should present an overview of the subject, its history and current status, rather than linking off-wiki pros and cons. Then again, I do take a rather hard line on external links. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My reading of WP:EL is that links would be ok. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #19 would seem to bar that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all the links in question are mentioned in the article and WP:ELNO #19 has a qualification that allows the links to be considered. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But if they're not, surely the major abortion-related political organizations in NZ should be mentioned? (And the exception to #19 requires neutrality, which these don't have....) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They should be mentioned in the article if they are notable and there are third party sources. I understand the need for neutrality in an article but WP:ELNO #19 makes no mention of links to partisan organisations. The links that you removed, which are pro-choice and pro-life, have a direct bearing on the article and are useful to the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

False accusation of rape

To answer your edit summary question, it was an error on my part. I meant to remove only the other part - I must've thought I was just removing the intro sentence to the block quote. Glad you caught it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Problem We All Live With

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Truly an excellent article. Reading this article, and reading some of the references, brought tears to my eyes. Anyone who mocks Rockwell should read and ponder this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I'll be able to expand it sometime - unfortunately for such a well-known piece the body of critical literature is not enormous, because Rockwell's work is often dismissed as kitsch not worth writing about. (My view: kitsch, yes, often, but certainly worth writing about.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Kaufman

It's the article about the notable person now. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by DMSBel on abortion

For the love of God can you please stop paraphrasing what I have said or done to suit your reason for reverting. Then accusing me of being disingenuous (big word - know what it means?)DMSBel (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My wording was awkward but I did not intend it to be disingenuous. Of all the reports I have seen there is a call for more research - demonstrating no definitive causal relationship is yet established. Is the word "yet" a problem also? Sure we can't pre-empt future findings either way, but you can't infer the current consensus is that a definitive conclusion on the matter is now established. What if we are wrong? DMSBel (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How might we better colaborate on the abortion related articles?DMSBel (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost my interest when you asked if I knew what "disingenuous" meant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought you'd just seen me using it and was copying. Losing interest when people ask the meaning of big words is not very collaborative (joke).DMSBel (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't ask the meaning of the word; you insulted Roscelese's intelligence by implying that she couldn't comprehend it. That sort of lead-in rarely results in productive collaboration. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh lighten up MastCell did you not see I added (joke) at the end.DMSBel (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Abortion and mental health

Hello Roscelese. I am trying to figure out what parts of my edits are inappropriate.

1. Is it that you consider Coleman's paper to belong in the Post-Abortion Syndrome section? She does not use this terminology in her paper; that was my justification for moving it to its own section under under the Current and Historical Reviews section.
2. Was it wrong to flesh out the Coleman section and add the statement on Coleman's paper by the president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists?
3. Is it inappropriate to add a tag because it's unclear which organizations makes the claim that "these studies are typically methodologically flawed...etc."? Is it inappropriate to add a "Many" qualifier? Is not "High-quality" is a weasel word? Shouldn't we just be reporting facts? "High-quality" is a judgment on those facts.

Thanks for the help Geremia (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're still giving undue weight to a scientifically discredited position in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, at the same time as you are attempting to discredit or downplay reliable material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please answer my questions one at a time? I'm not sure which edits violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Thanks Geremia (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding disproportionately large amounts of information about a single study from a researcher whose methods have been condemned by several major bodies now, a study that has had no impact on scientific consensus, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help at Tamil Tigress

Hi Roscelese! Things are getting a little heated at Tamil Tigress and its talkpage. Noticed you've had some input in cooling things down there before. I might have inflamed things again, and would most appreciate your thoughts and guidance. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm a little overwhelmed by the very long comments, but I'll see what I can do (in the meantime, I've removed everything which requires immediate removal). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Bye and Thanks

Civility

Just found your ' goodbye , good wishes ' message and it's appreciated. I withdrew from Wiki contributing because I did not want to get involved in the sniping and vitriol I saw (with surprise ) existing in a project I thought was of a more positive spirit. I tried to close my account, but it seems to be a complicated process, so other than this note to you, I will let it become dormant. As to " The European Brigade ", in brief, it was created in November 1861 in New Orleans as a compromise between the need for foreign nationals living in the city to contribute to the new Confederacy's manpower needs..and the neutrality that the various European consulates representing these nationals were ordered by their home governments to maintain between the US and Confederate adversaries. When the Confederate authorities in New Orleans insisted these nationals give military support to the new nation they were now residents of, a compromise was struck that would allow these foreigners to provide a police ( militia ) service to the city rather than be sent as actual Confederate soldiers to the Virginia battlefields. This Brigade was composed into battallions of French, English, Italian, Spanish and various other nationalities under the command of Belgian general Paul Juge. Their value as peacekeepers was most critical during the period from April 24, 1862 to May 1, 1862. On the earlier date, Federal gunboats under Admiral Farragut were able to bypass the two Confederate forts at the mouth of the Mississippi River and make the 5-day ascent up the river to New Orleans. During these 5 days, the city's Confederate land forces withdrew from what would be a useless defense against warship mounted -cannons. Soon panic, uncontrolled fleeing, and lawlessness engulfed the populace. The police actions of the Brigade during these frightening days and nights of looting, burning, revenge-venting, etc. kept a degree of order that was sorely needed. Their value was acknowledged when Federal General Benjamin Butler, in charge of the city's occupation, asked that the Brigade remain intact to serve longer as a police presence until martial law rules could be put in place. The Brigade declined this involvement in further civilian interaction and was disbanded in May, 1862. Two books.."the Night the War Was Lost ", Charles Dufour, 1960... and " Foreigners in the Confederacy ", Ella Lamm, 1940 ... cover the Brigade if you are further interested in the subject. I though since 2011 being the 150th anniverasy of the beginning of the Civil War, this article would be of interest, but I am frankly glad to be uninvolved in this less-than-friendly-to- newbies ( as well as many other contributors ) website. Best Wishes... ByronLeNaj 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have...

...nominated CitizenLink (Formerly Focus on the Family Action) for AfD instead of blanking it? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it to Focus on the Family Action, not realizing that Focus on the Family Action was itself a redirect to Focus on the Family. Why should I have nominated it for AfD? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it was an actual article...NYyankees51 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Focus on the Family Action already existed, and there's no need for two articles on the same subject, hence my suggesting that the creator discuss a merge and/or move on the relevant talk page. I just didn't realize that what I thought was a pre-existing article was a redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese - thanks for explaining the process behind the redirect, I've seen the labels on the article and will be working to clean it up. Appreciate your suggestions and the opportunity to gain more wiki experience through this article. Saris718 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have slightly retired

(I was sure I posted this on your page yesterday... must have forgot to save!)
Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Wikipedia, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between you and Haymaker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck in your semi-retirement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc

Hi, feel up to drafting an Rfc? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On what? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unclear. On whom - I was thinking of a user Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what problems you would be seeking to correct? The RfC/U guidelines state that at least two editors must have tried to resolve the same dispute, and I'm not sure that's the case here. If you wanted to go to WQA, I'd comment there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see multiple problems; my main concern is not the etiquette or civility, which I simply ignore - although his stalking of you (and possibly me) is problematic and indicative of a battlefield mentality - my concern is primarily that of POV; IDHT; EW; failure to work with others. I will not participate in any WQA action, as I don't consider that a problem worth addressing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd be able to help with an RfC/U at the moment, as I've known this user for something like two days. I'll keep it in mind, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese made a personal attack on me with an edit summary ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") - which implies that I am "crazy." It was a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and against personal attacks, but she has not been cautioned for it at all. If Roscelese continues this kind of confrontational personal behavior, then we may yet have to start an RfC/U on her. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that would reflect well on you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, why? Because you think that you have the right to violate Wiki policy and make personal attacks against me? Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Because your harassment of me would necessarily come up, and that's rather a graver issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your harassment accusation was, and is, ridiculous. Apparently, you just can't stand it when someone reverts you; too bad, it happens to us all at times. You were edit warring at the article and your "hounding" argument is just an excuse for your bad behavior. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you don't take Wikipedia's policies against harassment seriously. That's unlikely to work out well for you in the long run, so I'd advise you to begin behaving like an upright citizen rather than stalking people you disagree with and attacking them on article talk pages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you continue to falsely accuse me of harassment as a weapon against me. I will be following your edit history carefully from now on, and if I find you edit warring, or making other kinds of destructive edits, rest assured, I will revert you. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. While I've had users stalk me in the past, I don't think I've ever had anyone outright declare an intent to do so. Good luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that I am going to harass you - only that I am going to carefully examine your edits. I've no objection if you want to examine my edits. Please feel free. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict in sports

Ok, I don't know who you think you are, but I have been working 3 days on the list, and I don't know what re the hidden motives you have, but I will fight you on this, and WILL REPORT ON YOU if you delete any of the items with the official references again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123o (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're a new user, so you may not yet be aware of Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. These policies mean that all material, and particularly contentious material about living persons, must be cited to reliable sources. How about giving these policies a read? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dvorak American quartet

Thanks, much better. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please re-examine

You recently voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga AfD. Since your vote, considerable changes have been made to the article and I request that you examine them and alter your vote accordingly, if necessary. Thank you. Silverseren^C 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested PRODs

Hello, Roscelese … to answer the question you posed at WP:AfD, one cannot simply revert/restore a {{PROD}}, even if it is dePRODed by the author … that is why I created {{Old prod full}} (please read the documentation for it) because a previous PROD can often be hard to locate just from the edit history … if it is contested, then AfD is the only available option for deletion of an article. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{13:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Please respect this: "This is still preferably addressed by user talk notification that they please talk on the article talk rather than further revert." as found at the bottom of the "closed" ANI discussion. Noloop (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I hadn't noticed you mentioned the incident on your userpage. As for outing, it appeared to me that you outed yourself multiple times during that incident. And yes, I was annoyed at you because you made an improper accusation of canvassing against me. In any case, if you're sensitive about that link, I'm happy to see what I can do about removing or hiding the revisions on my talk page that reveal it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I did so at the time, but I've since done literally everything in my power to remove the material, and, as I said, the fact that you had to get a cached version should have been a big clue that I do not want the material to exist. I frankly don't care how annoyed you were - don't post identifying information about people's off-wiki identities. I get enough harassment on-wiki without people knowing my blog and e-mail address. I've already requested revdel. That was a really dumb move on your part. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My question about who told you was also a serious one. I'm not saying I need to know, but you should know that other users have posted this information on-wiki before as part of a thread that led to them being warned that they would be blocked if they continued harassing me, so please be aware that this was probably not a friendly disclosure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, when the link was sent, I didn't notice it was from a cache, and I did not check the current version of the page to see if it had changed. I was unaware of the history of the incident and that it had already played out on Wikipedia.

As for revdel, you can simply ask me, I can delete revisions to my own talk page. I experimentally deleted the first one already.

The link was sent to me by someone who doesn't have an active Wikipedia account, as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done! Revision text deleted.

By the way, I have had success getting stuff removed from Google's cache, starting from this link: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=164734

If someone found a cached page, that likely means it came up in the snippet of current search results, so Google is still showing it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know you could contact Google to get stuff removed from the cache (thought one just had to wait and wait for it not to turn up anymore), so thanks! Also for the revdel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had hits and misses with it, at one point having to engage someone in one of Google's forums to straighten out a repeated denial of a request that clearly showed the cache didn't match the content. It isn't an automatic process, I've been told. Good luck with that. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I have stepped in something..... I was sent a private, canvassing email trying to foment opposition to Roscelese and that also mentions Amatulic. Since you are both participating in this thread, and the thread is about canvassing, I'll leave a note and a link here.[1]. Noloop (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Insult

Hello Roscelese! I do not in any way object the fact that you have reported the article Fatima de Madrid for deletion, nor your reasons for doing so. You are fully entitled to do so. I do, however, object to the accusation that I have intentionally created a hoax article. To me, this is an insult. And may I say that it is hardly constructive to ignore my arguments in the discussion in the way that you do. I would strongly suggest that you report me to Wikipedia for investigation, so that it may be determined whether I have indeed created the article as a hoax or not. I suggest that you moderate your tone to a less arrogant one. Regards --Aciram (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to this comment on the first page where you made it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Army of God

I have reverted your edit. While it notes that two robberies in which the perpetrators signed their letters "Army of God - Virginia Dare Cell" as acts of domestic terrorism. It does not state that the FBI has designated the organization as terrorist. What I would prefer is something along the lines of this in which it is listed. Truthsort (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what our standard was for that, so I chose a page at random from the other pages in that category - Jewish Defense League is also cited to the same article rather than to a list of groups. But at any rate your list from State is of course of foreign organizations! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good hookiness

You smartened up a DYK hook of mine before today, so I want to throw another one at you: Template:Did you know nominations/San Francisco Sentinel. Can my hook be livelier? Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a personal attack

Saying I do not encourage nor dicourage is not a personal attack, but rather me saying that it has nothing to do with my defense of the articles, and yes, my stance was in defense of the articles on Islamic and LGBT subject, I appologize if I offended you, I will try and keep from disclosing any opinions in the future. I thank you for your constructive critisism, please have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here was my defence of the article Muhammad in the Bible.

• Keep I am not a fan of Islam, probobaly neither are the people who nominated this page for deletion, but thats not a reason to delete, This artical desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. This isn't well sourced with internet references, but that is because because the quran is most likely there source, It is a notable subject in the Middle East and North Africa, salvage what can be proven, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

What I ment by That statment was I am not pro nor anti islam, the person who nominated the article for deletion was prejudiced about the religion denying its place on wikipedia, the article could be rewritten and improved, it only lacks internet sources because they have a one up the Koran a direct source, Notable subject, keep what can be backed up by evidence, what is wrong with all that?– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm glad that you're not letting your biases so rule you that you vote in AfDs based solely on them (though that doesn't seem to be the case here), which is why the votes are not the issue here. What are your comments about how you and other users don't like Islam and how LGBT people shouldn't flaunt their sexual orientation (by, you know, dating or talking about people they find attractive, like heterosexuals do?) adding to the discussion? What do they do other than create an unwelcome environment for editors belonging to the groups in question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I'm sorry about my vote on the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, its just I have many jewish relatives, my grandmothers always talking of how we should never forget the holocaust, and to see a name like that. I was pedjudiced on it, I will restate my, and my statments hould not be based on anger, so I will strike my statment, and say what matters, that the organization is notable, and has adequate references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, my relatives are the same way (grandfather was in concentration camps, enormous extended family in Poland nearly all killed), but anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism aren't the same - there is certainly overlap, but this doesn't seem to be an instance of such. I hope my comment was helpful, and I appreciate that you re-thought yours. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten my statment on Muhammad in the Bible

Here is my rewrite, that has now taken the place of my old statement, I hope that it sounds less opinionated, and more of a defence.

• Keep I have no affiliation with islam, I am saying that to clarify it is not my reasoning for defending this article. I know at least 450 million people who would find this topic useful. I will admit This article desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. The only reason this isn't well sourced with internet references is because because the Koran (a source more accurate than any website could possibly provide) is most likely there source. This is an extreemly notable subject not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but for muslims around the world, this is deffinatly salvagible, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your rewriting. :) [As a side note, we wouldn't be able to use the Koran as our main or only source - we would need secondary sources that interpret it - but I think that all together we seem to have found some good references that do interpret those Koran verses.] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play

Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium

Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Operas based on Shakespeare

Category:Operas based on Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Peoples Movement Assembly

Hello Roscelese, would you be interested in revisiting the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article, as it has been further edited and there has been further discussion regarding some of the comments that you wrote? Specifically, the importance of explaining specific meetings has been explained (this gives particular insight into the ways in which the methodology of the "Peoples Movement Assembly" has been enacted). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septima2011 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the article and the discussion, and while I appreciate your effort, notability has not been demonstrated. You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, not reliable sources that give it a passing mention or sources that are affiliated with the movement or otherwise non-reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Roscelese. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed, after which {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close were created. There is a discussion regarding non-admin closures of non-AfDs at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Roscelese! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Another don't-have-to-answer question

What are your thoughts on the rampant anti-Semitism from occupy Wall Street? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly that you're begging the question! (According to the actual meaning of "begging the question," not what everyone thinks it means.) Next time, try not to do that.

Secondly, that there's absolutely no evidence that it's a feature of the movement, rather than a couple of kooks who are a. a hell of a lot less mainstream than the right-wing protesters - and politicians - that say murdering six million Jews is only as bad as giving Americans affordable healthcare, and b. in some cases not even part of the movement at all. What there is evidence of is that right-wing groups are taking advantage of it to discredit the movement. Because when you assemble in a public space, you can't kick someone out because you disagree with him. All you can do is condemn him and counterprotest, but when your political opponents have got a video camera and an agenda, they can choose to film the one guy who will make you look bad and not the ten of you who are standing opposite and telling him he's wrong. So obviously I and everyone else condemn said kooks, but it has no bearing on the movement. Or rather, I shouldn't say "everyone else" - I'm sure the Emergency Committee for Israel loves them.

And thirdly, OWS is largely organized and attended by Jews, which is completely unsurprising given centuries of Jewish anti-corporate and other social justice activism. So nice try, but no. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like there's been a strong push in right-wing media to link Occupy Wall Street to anti-Semitism, but it doesn't seem to be taking (not for lack of effort). Has anyone outside the partisan right-wing media expressed serious concerns about this? The reputable non-partisan media seem to be treating this rather skeptically, as more of a political ploy than a serious issue (e.g. Reuters). Even the Anti-Defamation League, which expressed concern about individuals at the protests carrying anti-Semitic signs, was careful to note that "there is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants."

Can I ask a counter-question? Why is the right so utterly terrified by Occupy Wall Street? The attempts to discredit the protests seem to get more transparently desperate by the day. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that was addressed to me as a political watcher or to NYY as a right-winger, but in my perhaps-not-very-well-informed opinion (ie. because my interest in politics is comparatively recent, so I don't know what the response to the last round of anti-war protests or to the WTO protests was like) - my guess, however, would be that the lack at this point of specific leaders or goals that can be targeted means that we get generalized hysteria and mud-flinging instead, and perhaps that the protesters' lack of adherence to the party system, by and large, is troubling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the better question would be what are your thoughts on the anti-Semitism at OWS in comparison to the tea party. One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties. And there are a lot more than one. I just asked the question because you aren't a fan of the tea party and seem to be a fan of OWS. Perhaps it's a loaded question, but I thought you'd like to discuss it.

In response to your question, MastCell, the right isn't terrified but angered by OWS, or more accurately the reception of it. The media used one instance of a racial slur, one instance of a man carrying a gun, and one unconfirmed and highly disputed instance of another racial slur to paint the tea party as racist, violent, crazy, hateful, etc. Yet there are numerous cases of anti-Semitism, violence against business owners on Wall Street, and even riots for OWS, yet the media refuses to report on it and instead they embrace it. So the right is not afraid but indignant at the treatment of OWS in comparison to the tea party. You can dispute whether these cases are inseparable from OWS, but you can't deny that the treatment of each has been unfair. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties." Very funny. Even if you do, as you seem to be saying, believe that murdering six million Jews isn't all that bad and thus that Tea Party protesters who say so are not antisemitic, it's kind of difficult to ignore a party leader calling for the replacement of the Speaker of the Texas House because he is Jewish, among other examples that it would be easy to list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties." I laughed. You're going to get nutters at any big rally, it's simply a fact of life. Here are a few examples: [2], [3], [4]. Painting any group with a broad brush like that is foolish. NW (Talk) 18:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you want to compare media coverage, you have to start by acknowledging that the Tea Party has had explicit, unyielding, vocal backing from the country's major cable news network since the movement's inception. Maybe we're reading different coverage of OWS; the stuff I've read describes confrontations with police, arrests, protesters who look ridiculous and can't string together a coherent sentence much less articulate their grievances, declining sanitary conditions, along with various other angles. It seems to be warts-and-all. Anyhow, I'll be in Manhattan in a week or two, so I'll bring back some fair-and-balanced personal reportage. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to Ros, but any anti-Semitism or racism at tea parties is from isolated incidents. At OWS it is not. You're right that you can't avoid them, NW, but in proportion to the general population there is much more anti-Semitism at OWS than there should be. And MastCell, you're right the tea party has gotten vocal support from Fox News's opinion hosts, not the journalists. Looking forward to your reportage!!! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And you presumably know this because you've been to a large number of OWS events, is that right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that Fox's separation of opinion from news is not universally perceived as successful. :P You know, like when a news executive instructs his news department to "be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress." And then, that night, Fox's news department reports that there are "some reports of [insurgents] cheering in the streets" at the 2006 Congressional election results ([5]).

Or maybe when Carl Cameron, a newsman, fabricates quotes attributed to John Kerry to play up his supposed lack of manliness ([6]). Or maybe it's the steady stream of Fox's news employees explaining how the news division fixes its coverage around a political ideology set out in a daily memo ([7]). Or the effect of reading those memos from the head of the news division, or those in which the VP of news instructs his on-air journalists to use focus-group-tested Republican phraseology whenever possible ([8], [9]).

Or when their news division can't seem to stop overrepresenting turnout at conservative gatherings ([10]), nor tell the difference between various African-American politicians ([11]), or seem to consistently mislabel Republican politicians as Democrats once they're caught up in a scandal ([12])... but then again, maybe I'm just being cynical. Maybe they do have a firewall between their news and opinion operations. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pwned. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll remind you that Shepard Smith is the face of Fox's news operation and he is not popular with conservatives [13] and probably a liberal. Is the liberal media much better? Regardless of whether there is a conscious conspiracy at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. as you allege there is at Fox, any bias passed off by Fox's news hosts doesn't hold a candle to that of liberal outlets. For example, compare Carl Cameron, a reporter, to Dan Rather, an anchor. I wish we had some outlet that was fair. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The biggest difference between FoxNews and, say, the New York Times is that the Times corrects its errors. If the Times makes a factual error, it publishes a correction. If FoxNews makes a factual error, nine times out of ten they don't even acknowledge it, and in the tenth instance they make a brief excuse and then reiterate their talking points. Others have made this point more eloquently than I; for example, see Friedersdorf 2011: "Fox personalities are willing to participate in arguments about its fairness relative to other media sources. But Fox is unwilling to defend its content against the objective standard of accuracy."

Think about Dan Rather, since you brought it up. Look at the response to "Memogate". CBS appointed an independent panel - chaired by Dick Thornburgh, a Republican - to review their handling of the case. They formally retracted the story. Heads rolled - they fired the producer of the segment, a number of other executives, and, ultimately, Rather himself. Can any serious person imagine FoxNews showing even 1% of that degree of accountability or commitment to accuracy? And Rather's sin was a failure of due diligence. Can you imagine if he had actually fabricated quotes himself with the intent of making Bush look foolish, as Cameron did to Kerry? Did Cameron face any discipline for this breach, which was in fact rather more serious from an ethical standpoint that Rather's? MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New Hampshire

What is wrong with the sources. I will give you a million sources. The New Hampshire Republicans will attempt to ban Same-Sex Marriage in early 2012. They have at least 50% of the votes, but they could need 2/3 because they would need to override the Governor who will never sign such a bill. It has a great chance of passage considering over 70% of both chambers is controlled by Republicans. Civil Unions would then become legal in the state of New Hampshire. Any Same-Sex Marriage would be void. I don't know how that could be anymore clear. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Telling people they can just Google for sources is not acceptable - you have to cite reliable sources yourself, and the "New Hampshire Liberty Alliance" is not one. It is your job, as the person adding the material, to find reliable sources. In the time you've spent reverting me, you could easily have done this Google search you speak of and added a real source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You want several sources. I will give them to you.

Now leave the article alone. I shouldn't have to prove myself to you. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Except for the second, these sources don't support the statement you're adding, so no luck there. But in any case, if you manage to find reliable sources (since you say it's so easy), you shouldn't be showing them to me, you should be adding them to the article. You could also cut it out with this nonsense about proving yourself to me and asking me to leave the article alone. Instead of whining, follow Wikipedia policies about reliable sourcing. You're answerable to everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you would have left the article alone. We would not be having this problem. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should I have done so? What a ridiculous suggestion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the free world/ Free world.

You were right about your mention of the article Free World and its content. it is terribly written. The article Leader of the free world has been merged to it as we feared. As you said, it would only delay the inevitable. I have nominated the Free world for deletion as clearly we can see it has totally exaggerated claims and superfluous arguments. Please help with the discussion. Thanks Roscelese!!! DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You know better than to post obvious uncivil attacks: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming." – Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You have been mentioned here.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life/Pro-choice

Does this satisfy your concerns? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll tweak it a bit for further conformity, but more or less yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict in sports

See my comment at RFPP. If the problem is emanating from just one person they should be reasoned with or blocked. Admins will be more likely to take action if you are specific on the article talk page about the items you are concerned about. That way the this editor will have a chance to fix whatever the problem is. The user's talk page has no comments from you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've described the problem on the article talk page, but I'll leave a note at their user talk page too. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to a specific athlete who you think was wrongly included in the list, and link to the source which you think does not establish the point? EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (2nd nomination) should be speedily closed

It was perfectly appropriate to renominate it. Did you even bother to read my rationale? For starters, the guideline you cite applies almost exclusively to articles where the outcome was "keep". It is perfectly acceptable to renominate something that is closed as no consensus; loads of AFDs with no consensus are just automatically relisted for another week. In fact, a close read of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED would note that your Speedy Keep looks surprisingly like the "Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again" that is suggested be avoided in the guideline you cite. This would suggest that it is you who is violating said guideline. Furthermore, most of the reason that the 1st nomination was closed was on procedural grounds that requested that Ashland be decoupled from Eugene, which was also nominated in the first AFD. So this is really a much different AFD than previously. And finally, I left a note to the original closer asking if what I did was right, and he hasn't said that it was wrong yet (though since he responded to the comment below mine I am pretty sure he read it) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for wrong edit summaries

Roscelese, I am sorry but I was not referring to you when I wrote the edit summaries at Reproductive Health Bill. I realized that you deleted the portions based on SYNTH only after I wrote my edit summaries. So I tried to improve the citations to abide by the policies which you cited.Neutr8 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but I don't see how you can claim to have improved the citations. You literally just restored the same synthy references. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The only one that broke the synth rule is that part of the article that cited aguirre's primer but this did not contain all the data that was afterwards cited. So I replaced aguirre with nidoy's science facts document which contains all the data.

The other para I restored is not a synth but a summary paragraph of previous discussion, plus the idea of deception which is common in Philippine discussion. Just google "reproductive health bill deception deceive" and you will find them. Neutr8 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You cannot add a paragraph saying "Opponents said X because Clinton said Y" and just cite Clinton saying Y, or say "Opponents said A because science says B" and just cite science saying B (particularly if that doesn't represent scientific consensus, but that's a wholly different kettle of fish). You also cannot tell people "just Google it." Cite your sources; it's your job, not anyone else's. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Found two citations and placed them in. Neutr8 (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)