User talk:Roscelese/Archive 10

PRODs
I have deleted you prods at Natural marriage and World Congress of Families and also taken issue with you at Afd. Just so you know, I know you always edit in good faith and I have massive respect for you as an editor. It just seems that whenever I get on the opposite side of an argument with you it feels a bit like this   Tigerboy1966   15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed
Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian Christian Lobby
Thanks for your comments at the Australian Christian Lobby article, I am always pleased to see another editor take an interest in this article. This article has several issues, several of which you have already commented on. Every time someone makes a comment on the page, regadless of whether I think they like or loath the ACL, I encourage them to peer review the article and make any changes they see fit. You see for well over a year the article was edited almost entirely by Sam56mas (strongly for the ACL) and myself (strongly opposed). Our many slow burning edit wars have left the article with some issues, and our contributions to the article have stagnated somewhat due to these conflicts. I firmly believe the article isn't going to improve unless other editors start making changes. Several other users have made passing comments on the articles talk page, but somehow suggestions on the talk page tend to get ignored. If you have the time please either make some changes to the article or bring the article to the attention of a project group. I have tried many time to get other users involved in editing this article but so far my efforts have been rather fruitless. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely can't commit the time necessary for a full peer review, but I hope I'll be able to make at least preliminary improvements (like the language and the sources if Sam56mas doesn't do anything about it and doesn't revert me). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 election Republican controversies involving comments on rape
I like the suggestion of putting everything in one article. Mourdock, Akin and others. What would you suggest for a title? Casprings (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Have some pie

 * At this point it's mostly just annoying. I'm looking into compiling a list of the accounts for a checkuser so that the entire IP range can be blocked, but unfortunately in some cases well-meaning people have oversighted the offensive account names, so I might need to get some oversighter help. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Roscelese. The case was Sockpuppet investigations/God Condemns Homosexuality but it's not been updated since 2011. User:WilliamH was the checkuser for that case and he has been active on Wikipedia recently. You might contact him if you think any underlying IPs ought to be blocked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Courcelles 17:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to United States presidential election, 2012
Regarding [], thank you! I've been looking at that mess of a sentence and trying to figure out the right way to fix it. Good work. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Murder of Shaima Alawadi". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Help out with Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections
Danger recommended you as an editor she respects, Here. I was wondering if you would help in continuing to develop. Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. My goal is to get it to good article status.Casprings (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"fact"
As THE ONLY news source that made the claim of a government report citing the death as a fact, that CBS piece is NOT a reliable source for the claim. Even the best sources are not always reliable and for this story CBS is not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, no, no it isn't. These are but a few of the many, many sources which confirm that she died after being refused treatment for her miscarriage. I recommend that you revert your frankly rather ridiculous edit. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i stand corrected. of the dozens and dozens of sources I reviewed over the weekend they ALL like most of the links you have provided state only that her husband claims she was denied an abortion and none of the sources claimed as a fact that the lack of access to an abortion is  the cause of her death.

"Her family claimed medical staff denied her a termination because they detected a foetal heartbeat. They believe ..." [http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-demonstration-leinster-house-674695-Nov2012/ has nothing at all http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/ireland-abortion-savita-halappanavar-indian-envoy Savita Halappanavar 'would still be alive if she had been treated in India' - that is a quote not specifically attributed, but probably the ambassador but he is in no position to make an authoritative statement about what happened in the hospital

the only source I saw all weekend that had anything stated as a fact was the american CBS which still is the only one stating that a government report has confirmed anything. however, you have found this ndtv source from today http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/savita-halappanavar-abortion-row-ireland-forms-team-to-probe-death-294865 London: Ireland today announced a 7-member team that will probe the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, an Indian dentist who was refused termination of her pregnancy despite miscarrying, and promised that the official inquiry would be fair and methodical that will take into account all factors.

and this reuters report http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/remembering-savita-halappanavar-idINRTR3AH64

Among the multiple sources covering this story, ones like this flatly stating a denial of abortion and stating that the abortion led to death are still the outliers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and even if there are claims that it is, there are many medical doctors saying otherwise --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that that's clearly not what the Examiner article says - the doctor quoted says nothing that can even be construed as denying that Halappanavar was refused an abortion or other medical care, but rather that the law is not the issue because it ostensibly permits lifesaving abortions - you seem to be aware that a multitude of sources confirm that Halappanavar was denied care, so why are you so insistent on scrubbing all mention of it rather than at least mentioning it as the source of the controversy and of the incident's relevance to the article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i have carefully reviewed dozens and dozens and dozens of the sources and have worked very hard to present content in proportion to what the sources actually present as "Fact". and i will remind you that no investigative panel / inquiry has presented any results and the governments was not even appointed until yesterday. I will remain conservative about what types of sources making medical claims that i give credence to per WP:MEDRES . lots of people have opinions, but if wikipedia doesnt allow man on the street reviews of films that they have actually seen, i have no qualms about restricting the presentation of medical opinions by who have not a tick of scientifically reliable evidence upon which they are basing their "opinions."--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Orientalism
This talks about how Jews were often victims of Orientalism during their diaspora years in Europe.

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm

Evildoer187 (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, I agree that some mention of orientalism may be warranted in the article - it's just that it should be written up rather than just linked, so that readers have some idea of why it is included. Do you think you could write up a short paragraph on that? I also don't think the category belongs because so much antisemitism is not about orientalism. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire at ANI
You are discussed in an ANI post about Belchfire. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma
The AN thread is closed, so I'll explain my point here.

If an editor has 50 edits, and 45 are seriously problematic, the odds are high that this editor is not likely to be a productive editor, and we should clearly state the problem, and if not remedied, block until they change or go away forever.

In contrast, if an editor has 15,000 edits and 45 are problematic, then we have someone who is mostly a benefit to the community, and it is worth the time to identify the problem clearly, and offer advise on how to contribute more productively. That takes time, but it is worth it in the case of someone that productive.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rereading, I realize I didn't address the core point. Your response to me suggested that if the diffs supplied were not the complete list of problems, but a random sample, then we presumably should conclude that there are a lot of problems to address. I don't disagree with the syllogism, but it was never asserted that the diffs selected were selected at random, and frankly, I doubt that they were.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - my point was that it was far too easy for me to find examples of GPM behaving in ways that violated Wikipedia policy just in the last two days and I had no reason to think this was a new thing. Since an RFC/U seems likely at some point, we will presumably see diffs from a wider chronological range. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a large number of very similar issues less than a month ago on University of al-Karaouine. On that article GPM withdrew after I threatened to take him to RFC/U but it is clear the problem is ongoing elsewhere. I did make substantial efforts to engage GPM there and get him to improve his editing style.

I am certainly happy to endorse an RFC/U at any time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also endorse such an RFC/U. Glaucus (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to express my gratitude that you took GPM to task for his behavior. I got into a brief editing war with him last year on an article. He used the issue of Jagged 85 as a pretext to COMPLETELY STUB any article that guy even TOUCHED. He would put as his reason that the sources need verification and when I would double check and put relevant citations back in, he would remove them again with the same message, over and over. At one point he refused to accept quotations of people (also sourced in Britannica and other mainstream references) on their own Wikipedia pages, all with the same excuse. There was literally no rational thought process at play in his decision making process and I left Wikipedia for a long time having become extremely disillusioned. I am ashamed to admit I even withheld from donating to Wikipedia because of this experience but will reconsider now that I've found there do exist plenty of voices of reason on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.38.203.59 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy - Update on the Dean Steacy Quote
Hello again. It has been a while. I thought I would bring this to your attention first, as we have clashed on this issue in the past. For the article Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy, your justification for removing the infamous Dean Steacy quote was that it was only sourced from op-eds and columnists and that the original documents were not available online. After a bit of research, I've found that a transcript of the hearing in question is available online at DocStoc http://www.docstoc.com/docs/89443391/May_10_2007. This PDF contains pages 4592-4861 of the CHRT hearing - the comments made by Mr. Steacy are on page 4793 of the transcript (lines 4-10) (this is page 205 of 273 of the PDF). As I wish to avoid another edit war if possible, I would like to discuss this with you before (and not after) any of the information concerning this topic is reinserted into the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Since you haven't raised any objections, I will assume that this issue has been settled. If you have any further concerns, feel free to contact me.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

Death of Savita Halappanavar
There is currently a discussion at regarding an issue with which you may have an interest, at the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#Medical_sources_required_for_medical_claims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar_and_MEDRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Nbauman_.28Result:_.29

--Nbauman (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph on Orientalism
Here it is:

Ashkenazi Jews, who are of ancestral South West Asian origins and culturally (and often physically) isolated from the indigenous European populations amongst whom they were resident, were widely understood to be an Oriental people in many of the European countries they had settled. One notable example of this is Immanuel Kant, who once referred to the local Jewish population as "Palestinians among us" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View book. As such, many of the oldest and longest enduring anti-Jewish stereotypes are rooted in Euro-centric prejudices towards peoples of the East. This trend, now commonly known as Orientalism, is the conception of Asian and North African peoples as mysterious, dishonestly and manipulatively intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of humanity. Examples of this include Jewish conspiracy theories and myths such as blood libels (even though consumption of blood is not kosher), the Jewish killing of Christ, myths of supernatural Jewish powers, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, Jewish money stereotypes, fears of a Jewish or Zionist 'plot to control the world' (see also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and the general idea that Jews/Zionists are immoral, mysterious, demonic, and often act secretly behind the scenes.

Evildoer187 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Balance on Feminist Pages
You removed my edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism saying that I was not neutral with no explanation. You failed to point out what specific sentence or point is not neutral. I see your entire removal of all of my edits, especially in the extremely short time frame between my submission and your removal, as Feminist censorship. This type of behavior is normal for Feminists alike and in fact that is one point which was added into the page; that countering a feminist no matter what it is, is seen as antifeminist. Anything labeled antifeminist, by definition given (which is not agreed upon) is therefore 'against women's rights'. This is basically labeling designed to shut down discussion.

You shut down any hope of any evolving or organic growth of the page. Please refrain from doing that from now on. I'm open to discuss what exactly was not neutral and to frame it in a more neutral way. I reject the idea of 'neutral' as what is in agreement with feminism so keep that in mind. In my experience, Feminism is the dagger under the cloak of "equal rights for women". So please note that I'm not the only one. I am a humanitarian and Feminism is far from that.

I'm up for discussion on this but not on your terms of censorship. I will be reinstating segments of my additions slowly on a daily basis, point by point which should give a chance for specific internal-editing-debating on each line/point in the spirit of being 'neutral' as I understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinyangbalance (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 December 2012
 * Whether added in installments or in a mass, if the addition is unsuitable for Wikipedia, it will be removed. Adding your own unsourced personal opinions, as though they in some way refuted published scholarship, is one of the edits that would be unsuitable. Wikipedia is not the venue to publish your rants; there are plenty of free blog sites out there. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing
You're going to have to give a clearer explanation than that; I have no idea why you'd think I'd have a particular opinion about that article. Any other admin is going to make the same close, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Wily D 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your close seems like a supervote because you explained which policies you personally felt applied to the article, rather than evaluating the merits and weight of the arguments. For instance, the NOTNEWS/WP:EVENT argument was made by many users, who did explain that sources ceased to cover it almost immediately after it happened and that it was fundamentally routine, so the fact that you personally don't read about bombings in the news (and thus apparently, like some of the users, are claiming that all bombings in Israel are inherently notable?) is pretty invalid and does not justify your dismissal of well-reasoned delete votes. Most of the keep votes, on the other hand, more or less did say that any attack on Israelis is inherently notable, which is obviously not policy-based. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An admin closing an XfD isn't just head counting, but they also weighing the relative merits of the arguments. It's their responsibility to explain which arguments they found to have a lot of merit (and conversely, those that they found to not have much merit). Just because a few people asserted that the article failed NOT#NEWS, does not mean I should accept that uncritically; I needed to both read their arguments, and consider what NOT#NEWS actually says.  The second part is where you discover the delete votes aren't well reasoned - they're well ?phrased? ?maybe?, but they're relying on a premise that's incorrect.  There's a substantial difference between asserting that something is routine and explaining it, and only the former took place (indeed, I suspect the latter is impossible precisely because it's not routine).  The keep arguments - well, some aren't well done, but the fundamental "It meets WP:N" was (indeed, that point wasn't really even in dispute).  Where arguments from policy are straightforward to make (i.e., that WP:SIZE recommends against merge - okay, I read that, I see it) the argument doesn't need to be made extensively.  Where the arguments require one to really squint at a policy and twist what it says, then they actually need to be made. Policy favours keep + headcount favours keep = result is keep.  Wily D  20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, so you wave off "it fails WP:EVENT because coverage did not persist and such events are routine," but accept "WP:ITSNOTABLE"? Yeah, I think this is going to have to go to DRN. That may result in a keep too, but at least it might get a close that isn't a blatant supervote. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous
Can you reword it then? At the moment an assumption is made that HA believes there's evidence and deny that it can be harmful. While they've probably released statements explicitly saying there's evidence, I doubt they've released a statement saying that there's no chance of harm. Or you can just remove the harm part of the sentence. Zaalbar (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't read that as the implication, but one could say "The mainstream scientific view holds..." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)
Last September you commented on Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). Please now see Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

CFC – Youth for Christ
Back in March 2011 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Learning German
How are you going with learning German? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a few years since I studied it; I suppose I ought to remove it from my user page. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's too bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel AFD
Hello. I just noticed Articles for deletion/List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel (2nd nomination) and the read the discussion. While I have no particular problem with any one thing you said, you may want to let others comment on the opposing side without a retort from a single voice. On all eleven keep !votes (and one delete which was initially a keep), you commented on each and every one of them. If there is a serious problem with a !vote, you have to have confidence someone else will say something if it's truly as bad as you think :) Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  03:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. After I changed my mind on the issue I really thought that some of the "keep" comments should have been left without a response as they seemed to be good examples of the "give 'em enough rope" maxim. As I think I've said before, you could get more positive results if you were a tad less combative.  Tigerboy1966   19:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
The edit I made was completely truthful and neutral, and was backed up by a source, so it does not violate the neutral point of view policy in any way, and if you want to undo the edit, then you have to disprove it with evidence backed up by sources. You can’t just silence inconvenient facts because you don’t like them. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source cited is a poor source. That being said, Roscelese, please don't use the vandalism summary in edits such as this one.  This ain't vandalism.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WoW edit
Your recent addition does not support the statement made with respect to the Arizona legislation. Please either self-revert or find a source that does. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the opening line of the article that parents couldn't sue a doctor who doesn't inform them of problems. Try again. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Several states, including Kansas and New Jersey, are debating so-called "wrongful birth" laws that would prevent parents from suing a doctor who fails to warn them about fetal problems. -- does not include Arizona. Try not to be so sloppy in the future.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and Arizona is mentioned in the caption of the lead photo and several times in the article text. What exactly are you contesting here, the existence of the state of Arizona or the definition of a wrongful birth suit? Political differences are one thing, but everyone contributing to Wikipedia should ideally be able to read. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the part in the caption where it is a 2008 photo? Not so relevant now, is it?  And furthermore down lower in the article it states The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts which contradicts the statement Under the legislation, doctors who don't inform mothers about prenatal problems would not be liable for malpractice.  Please read WP:CIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little green rosetta (talk • contribs)
 * Please stop wasting my time. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:LGBT psychologists
Category:LGBT psychologists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Nymf talk to me 19:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Hinata
I was about to post the following at Hintata's talk page, but realized it could come across as baiting a blocked user: From what you guys are saying, and from longstanding tensions I became aware of when I got into my little fight with Delicious carbuncle (speaking only of people's perception of him as homophobic, not evaluating whether or not this is true), it sounds to me like this is a good fight to have some time (in a cathartic, progressive sort of way), but that this might not be the right situation for it - I doubt there are many homophobes out there who are willing to take the bullet for an editor with <600 contribs who comes off like a troll. I mean, I'm sure (just statistically speaking) there's a handful of Wikipedians out there who'd legitimately support something as awful as what Hinata suggests, but I doubt any of them have any illusions about how unfashionable a view that is. I'll send BMK a talkback or something. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Info Box for Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
I added an info box for the suggestion of the editor that did the copy edit. I wasn't really sure what fit. However, I added the info box from United States elections, 2012. My thoughts were the article is a supporting that article. Also, I thought was is useful to know the results of the election in the article. Do you have any thoughts? A navbox or an infobox would add to the article, I think.Casprings (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many different kinds of boxes. Some - let's choose at random the antisemitism navbox in Protocols of the Elders of Zion - help a reader find related articles, while others - let's choose the one in my own Battle of Cádiz (1669) - provide a summing-up of key facts about the article itself. But the one you added is a summing-up of key facts about a different article. If there were a navbox for all the articles about the 2012 election, that's the sort of thing that could be added, but the election article infobox doesn't add anything that wouldn't be better added as text, and does add a lot of unhelpful stuff. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mkdw talk 04:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your defense of POV wording that you yourself added, removal of citations, personal attacks, and apparent ignoring of request for DR
Hey there. This is about your edits to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. These include (from my perspective, of course) the carefree reverting of added citations, favoring (frequent) hostile reverting in place of discussion, use of edit summaries for personal attacks and vocal assumptions of bad faith ("not that this will get Openverse to stop trolling", rv&"the citation tag was absolutely frivolous, don't troll", "rv frivolous tagging"). There is also your increasingly hostile and personal tone on the talk page (the latest being the rather disparaging "I recommend finding something else to edit - for instance, there are many stub articles on species which could use expansion or formatting"). I suspect you don't want to hear this from me, but your behaviour has been disproportionately hostile, and surprising for an editor who has been around as long as you have.

This issue seems to have come up after I changed POV wording that you added to the lead. I have been polite, refrained from personal attacks, and have made only modest and incremental edits (including the addition of a single cn/failedver tag that you found "frivolous"). I have tried a number of wordings in an attempt to reach consensus, have explained my concerns on the talk page, and have requested that we begin dispute resolution through a third opinion (though you responded quite readily at all other times, you ignored this, and instead reverted my cited edits to a yet-different part of the article). I want to resolve this dispute. Please take a moment to respond on the talk page of the article regarding how you want to proceed. Openverse (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A request: please avoid referring to edits as "trolling" and "unconstructive" in the edit summaries, especially when you are commenting on edits: 1) in controversial articles, 2) by editors you are in a dispute with, and 3) by editors who are new. I'm hardened enough, but you are almost certain to upset people. Some editors have a strategy of subtly aggravating "opponents", leading to even more heated responses. Inexperienced administrators, who don't have the time or patience to look through what led up to a conflict, then often react harshly to the heated response. You're a mature enough editor that this isn't BEANS to you. This is a strategy that I hope you take pains to avoid, since it tends to make wikipedia an unpleasant place. Openverse (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The (sincere) concern is for other editors. For you this is just a visible warning to be nice. Openverse (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council on American–Islamic Relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Emerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AIV report
Recently you made a report on 216.81.94.73 at Administrator intervention against vandalism. You referred to the editor as an "antisemitic vandalism-only account". At first, I was completely puzzled, as I could see nothing at all looking remotely like antisemitism, and nothing that could be called "vandalism" within recent weeks. I could well have just declined the report an moved on, but I looked further, and I am virtually certain that you made a mistake, and meant to report 2.126.221.170, not 216.81.94.73. I have blocked 2.126.221.170 for three months. Assuming I am right in thinking you made that mistake, it was lucky that I looked further, rather than just declining the AIV report and moving on. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I shouldn't edit late at night if it means I accidentally report the users reverting policy-violators instead of the violators themselves! Thanks for your diligence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an easy sort of mistake to make. I have done similar things myself. I thought I would let you know, though, so you can watch out for similar mistakes in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert on User:BarkingFish at Catholic Church and abortion
Hi Roscelese. Thanks for picking up my mistake in this article. I removed the word "bull" because on inspection, it appeared to be vandalism - knowing that most times, someone using the word bull in the context of a person speaking, uses it to indicate that what the person is saying or writing is rubbish. For future reference, it may be better to have the word "bull" linked to Papal bull so that people don't trip over it again. Regards,  Fish Barking?  20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I'm not sure that would have helped in your case since there are other (and earlier) uses of the word in the article, and we'd probably link it once. I think we just have to assume that most readers will know what a papal bull is, at the level we're writing. (This is not meant as an aspersion, it's just that the article gets thickly into canon law stuff.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.192.215 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council on American–Islamic Relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Emerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - MrX 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1RR
You have crossed the 1RR threshold. You certainly changed the meaning and tone in your last edit. I suggest you self-revert. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit conflicts sometimes happen when one is followed by a reverting user. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have at it
I'm going to sleep. I think we've come to a meeting of the minds on this. I'm sure BH and Beleg will give their 2 cents next time they come by. Nighty night! little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 07:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour
Hello! Your submission of Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel 16:48-50
I have brought to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard the question of the existence of more than one view of this passage. You will probably wish to comment. Esoglou (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Opera
I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Male film directors
has begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Male film directors

Israeli legislative election, 2013
OK. I'm just not sure how this is dated? The background and campaign sections should refer to stuff that happened before the election. Is it in the wrong tense? Number  5  7  18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tense and related issues are a large problem - "campaign issues are expected to be," "election is expected to cost," "would make the party the second largest," etc. requires not only changing the tense but what were the campaign issues and what did the election cost? - but with such a large section on parties during the run-up, it also seems strange that we don't include any of the results in that section, even though we have them in a table at the bottom. What do you think? The 2009 elections article isn't a great template since it doesn't have so much about the parties. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will go through and fix the tense at some point. I see what you mean about the parties section. The problem is where to fit it in - at the moment it's before the results, so I would (as a reader) only expect to find pre-election information in there. I guess we could include a bit of detail (like "ultimately the party only won 15 seats and joined the government" or something). Difficult. Number   5  7  19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I figure. Sorry I can't be too helpful - I'm not really in the loop, I just went and updated the Shas article and then noticed the election article was dated. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Roscelese, please be careful not to use personal attacks, such as is in the summary of your recent edit at Maafa 21. Otherwise, you may be in violation of general sanctions for Abortion-related articles. Thanks!

I am specifically referring to your accusation that I have a "dismal track record." I feel that your edit and this comment are intended to limit my ability to participate in the article. If that was not your intent, please make that clear and consider self-reverting the corresponding edit.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Secular Islam Summit
I've blocked you for 72 hours for continuing to edit war on Secular Islam Summit after I declined the case and asked for discussion. You have as much of a part to play as kwami in the situation, and hopefully you will reflect on that. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're supposed to discuss the edit instead of edit warring, not while edit warring. You've made the exact same edit five times in the last two days, and it's not the first time you and kwami have gone at it on that very same article. The fact that your first reaction to this block is to post an unblock request explaining how you're in the right is dismaying. It indicates that you've not reflected at all on your part in this problem. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Q: User Renovate Animos
Hello talk page watchers - anyone mind asking User:Renovate animos what's up/inviting hir to talk page? It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone's reverted my edits for the purpose of harassment rather than anything else (or even the first time that's happened at this article), but it'd be nice if there was some other hidden explanation for an account that's been inactive for seven months to suddenly go active again and do little else other than revert without discussion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell
Keep an eye on Kermit Gosnell, please; there are flagrant BLP violations going on there and even people accused of terrible crimes aren't exempt from that policy. It looks like some steady users are already on it, but more eyes won't hurt. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You recently edited
at an article I just created (thank-you), Jacqueline Marval. I am trying to remove a ton of red links at the List of artists in the Armory Show and created that stub. i am not happy with it, she sounds like a fascinating person and I feel that i am not doing her justice. The rub is that much of what is written about her and her circle & partners is in French. On their wiki, for example. And I happen to notice that you read French. I have a long and torturous history with the language that I won't go into. Could you take the time to perhaps expand this article a bit. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I tend to use just sources that I have at home and that led me into a woman-famous-for-the-men-in-her-life trap that I was not happy with.  Thanks for rescuing both Marval and me. Carptrash (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Civilization Jihad" article
Hi I've noticed that you participate in some of the more controversial parts of wikipedia. Didn't know who else to report this to but this article has an interesting history. Its largely paranoid drivel gathered from heavily right wing sources about grand takeovers by Muslim minorities of white countries (quite anti semitic I think). Most of the sources are fringe and frankly this piece seems quite dangerous and of the fear mongering type. I tried looking for neutral sources but honestly I couldn't find anything to support what the main contributor claims. Attempts to delete it have largely been stifled by one or two users who keep arguing that issues should be discussed instead of deletion. Well 1 month with no activity has passed and the user Mr T has not edited it at all whilst editing other articles in the meantime leasurely. This is clear evidence of bias - the author has no intent of fixing the article. I propose to delete the article but don't know how to. At the very least it should be stubbed. I cant find academic sources that support any of this material. It all seems like "original work" to me. Further, not a single source actually shows any of the material claimed to be written in it. It's alarming that antnof this stuff can even stay on Wikipedia without challenge to its neutrality and content. 92.40.254.42 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While you should be aware of WP:CANVASS (short version: don't try to recruit other editors to do things for you), thanks all the same for the heads-up. That's a clear deletion candidate. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I had no idea such a policy existed! I thought I was merely reporting this since I'm an uninvolved party. This will probably be the LAST time but I feel I must report this too. The original contributor Mr. T I've noticed has been violating this CANVASS policy and he seems quite well established given his edit history. I just recently took a look at his edit history and found that he's been canvassing several times discretely on article talk and user talk pages instead of resolving issues solely with the editors concerned in that particular article edit conflict. For instance recently on the Gilgit-Baltistan article the user left two "talkback" templates on two users talk pages saying he'd replied to their messages on the article talk page. When I took a look at the article talk page out of interest i found these two editors had never left a history of discussion on that page. It seems like a clear cut case of canvassing given the fact that the article was already under dispute. Given that Mr T has a history of creating nonsensical articles full of drivel about "mass Muslim takeovers" I think this warrants some action. Perhaps a topic ban or block? It's dishonesty at the most. I don't think Wikipedia has need for these types of editors. 92.40.254.42 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not the person to take this to - try going to a board or talking to an admin, maybe. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The page civilization jihad had no grounds to be nominated for speedy deletion. If you had actually gone to the sources they were well researched and written by notable academics. This subject merits a page and the fact that you come and delete it without trying to improve and join in the discussion is irresponsible. It had been nominated for deletion before but saved by a variety of neutral users proving that they found this page wikipedia worthy.
 * GroundRisk (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I ask that you please leave my page alone so I can improve this article. If you would like to help and contribute feel free. I am open to suggestions. If you are familiar with the subject matter, which I am hoping that you have done a little bit of research on it, you will see that it is a subject that merits a page. Thank you and I hope that we can find a way to resolve your issues with my article that doesn't mean delete it in its entirety.
 * GroundRisk (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Undid revision 551842513 by GroundRisk (talk) are you f...ing kidding me?) (undo)" Geez you sure are defensive. Best. GroundRisk (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: ??
I'll not self-revert; my explanation appears at WP:ANI, where you can see that I did it because you were edit-warring with everyone else. The proper solution for this situation was not page protection but a block for one person; you should be thankful that it didn't happen. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First I've heard of the ANI discussion, but I'm unfortunately not surprised that Kwami's making trouble again. I'll go over there now. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never even heard of this article before, so I am not fond of your unfounded accusations. Take this as your uw-npa3.  Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you haven't edited it before; I'm scrambling for reasonable explanations for reverting against consensus other than personal desire to do so, but not coming up with anything. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Oh dearie dearie me, your statements at Talk:Secular Islam Summit do look so much like personal attacks. "Try reading harder next time"? For shame. CAIR did not even mention your pet prof. At all. YOU try reader harder. They don't even know she exists. "Don't waste everyone's time"? I'm afraid it is YOU who have wasted everyone's time by edit warring instead of gaining consensus for your little changes. And "If you're going to continue trying to edit this article, behave like a reasonable editor"? Really. What a catty little thing you are. Scold, scold, scold. Don't you have any real arguments for your position that you have to rely on personal attacks? How rude. I can't believe you are still allowed to edit here. 61.4.72.107 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get much clearer than An article by the St. Petersburg Times quotes Georgetown University Professor Yvonne Haddad as saying: "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup [at the Secular Islam Summit]. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam.". I recommend that you stop using whining and personal attacks as a substitute for essential things like reading the sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:BLP. " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...." Yes, they have been accused by your pet neocom professor of apostasy, which is punishable by death under CAIR's sharia law.  You probably don't care yourself if a few more Moslems kill each other, but Wikipedia does not have to make the same inflammatory and irresponsible mistake this prof has made. 61.4.72.107 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If people like Ibn Warraq are proud to have converted away from Islam, it is not your place to shove them back in the closet. If you continue whining to me about your personal and totally unfounded interpretation of the source, this comment will be the last that you leave on my talk page. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prince of Poets
Hello! Your submission of Prince of Poets at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)