User talk:Roscelese/Archive 12

On TOP
Wow, you are on TOP of this stuff! I forget about the whole "Raw Sex in the Schools" thing for a few years, come back, put together an overdue article on one of the upity religious groups, and within minutes you have created a link to it! I am impressed. Within minutes! KDS 4444 Talk  03:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, I created the article on "Raw Sex" so it's still on my watchlist - figured I could help out a bit. Glad you appreciated it! :) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

JCPA stubbing
Hi, what exactly was wrong with the JCPA article that you considered it advertising? The article was in line with other think tank entries. Can you link me to Wikipedia's guidelines on this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.145.2 (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If other think tank articles are as blatantly promotional as JCPA's - sourced only to their self-published promotional material, formatted as a brochure of the services they offer - those need to be fixed too! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. Can you point me to a think tank page you consider neutrally-written,so I can bring this one up to snuff? I don't ask to be argumentative, merely to be able to have a well-written entry that meets Wikipedia standards. As you may have guessed, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. Thanks! 188.64.200.25 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I figured. I'm glad I could be helpful! I think it's pretty common for new users to see an article they think isn't very good and leap to the conclusion that "Wikipedia endorses attack pages" or "Wikipedia endorses advertisements" when really all that's happened is that no one has fixed it yet. Hm, an example - well, not saying it's perfect, but something like Family Research Council is based primarily on reliable secondary sources (not publications by the organization itself, but rather sources like newspapers and scholarly books). This helps us not only to know that the organization is notable, but also to know what information about it is considered important enough to include. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I've edited the JCPA article. If you have some spare time, can you take a look at it and see if I'm on the right track? I tried to clearly show what was JCPA's own statements about their work, but I'm not sure I cited that perfectly. Thanks again, 82.166.145.2 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Roscelese.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request
Hi there Roscelese, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test".  I have read Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know.  I left the following edit on the article talk page:


 * I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency.  Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors  who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics.  User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages.  Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well.

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Virginia Society for Human Life
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.10.73 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the your removal of the canvasing tags at the above AfD discussion. The IP has, in fact, expressed a concern on this. The template does not require a diff be listed (it is shown as optional). The IP has also explained his or her concern on the page itself. If you disagree with it, you can say so, but it is not appropriate to delete or refactor another editor's comments at AfD. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   16:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to a diff is optional in the template, but there's obviously no evidence of canvassing; it seems like the user (who, to all appearances, is either the same person as one or more users who have already commented, or who has come here from off-wiki as a meatpuppet) is looking for a tit-for-tat for being called an SPA due to being, you know, an SPA. That sort of personal attack is not acceptable. I haven't refactored the actual comment, but the template was used abusively. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, but disagree on removing the tag. I would support an SPI based on the various IP's behavior.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Help, I need help to change the name of an article
Hello Roscelese, do not know if this is the right way to talk to you. But I understand some Wikipedia. I need help to change the name of an article (Hypothetical Names for Planets). I can not. Because I do not have the option to "move". I want to do this to increase the product and make it better and more serious reasons.

Thanks, AdAstra2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, moving the article will not help. The article appears to be your own personal ideas for the planet names, and that's not the sort of content that Wikipedia hosts. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Actually the ideas are not mine, They are scattered astrology forums. But I can not put links to pages of bibliography forums. That does not help anything. I want to change the name of the article, raise it. I want to modify the information, adding bibliography of books. I'll make it more consistent. But for that I need to change his name, to be able to also modify the content. Please help me. Do not want to miss the article is my first experience in Wikipedia. In addition, if the item does not look good, just delete it.

Thanks for answering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Even so, it's not enough that the names are discussed in forums. If they were discussed in reliable sources - for instance, if newspapers reported that the IAU were considering some of the names, even if they were not official yet - we might be able to write about that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I explained very well. I'm saying that I can not really use forums as sources. What I want to do is change the name of the article and put the article published literature and books. Do you understand me now?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The title of the article isn't really a huge issue. If there is published literature out there that talks about those names as good names for the planets, you should add it now; we can always figure out the title later. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
Hello. I think you can just be Be bold and make the necessary terminology changes. I have not looked into specific issues, just followed the note on my talk page. Cavann (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute
I've commented at Talk:Gatestone Institute concerning pov issues I believe are in the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you 2 take a look at Talk:Bat Ye'or ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration voting
Don't worry; you're not the first editor to make that mistake. Your comments on the proposals are welcome&mdash;just put them on the talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Kit houses in Michigan
I've been discussing the kit house articles with Kithousefans on his talk page and we both seem to have come to the same conclusion at the same time - that an article about the history of kit house manufacture and installation in Michigan (as a reasonable fork of Kit houses in North America would be a much more worthwhile endeavour. If he and I were to propose a redirect of both kit house articles to the new title above, would you have any strong objections? Stalwart 111  03:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Not notable. Are there better sources than the ones currently there? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean "yup" you would object? You don't think that industry in that state would be notable enough for an article? I don't think there's anywhere near enough by way of sourcing to support various Kit homes of X, Michigan articles, but there seems to be plenty available to support a state-wide article, especially given the manufacturing history in Bay City and then rapid uptake in various parts of the state. You disagree? Stalwart 111  04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You tell me. Are there other sources? The ones currently in both of those articles clearly aren't sufficient. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely, and said so in both discussions. In support of a broader article on Kit houses in Michigan I found:
 * Mail-Order Homes: Sears Homes and Other Kit Houses by Rebecca Hunter (Shire Books, 2012)
 * On Frank Lloyd Wright's Concrete Adobe: Irving Gill, Rudolph Schindler and the American Southwest by Donald Leslie Johnson (Ashgate Publishing, 2013)
 * American Nightmare: How Government Undermines the Dream of Homeownership by Randal O'Toole (Cato Institute, 2012) - calls Michigan the "center of kit-home manufacturing".
 * Combined with the sources in the two articles (including this book) I think we probably have enough for a decent little article. Stalwart 111  04:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a draft at User:Stalwart111/Kit houses in Michigan. Stalwart 111  07:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina Rosenwald
I'm getting a bit tired of this IP reinterpreting what sources say. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think he's doing a heck of a job. Maybe you're a little too "emotionally invested" in putting negative things in the article about Nina.  There is absolutely no requirement that we allow her political opponents to smear her in the article, especially in the lead, especially since they're coming from the outer fringe of left field.  User Jason from nyc is right about taking the high road.  See article Barack Obama for example of non-controversial lead.  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, please remember WP:FAITH. Or do as I do, and relax by spending some time in editing non-controversial articles, like articles on 18th-century German nobility. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeff, WP:FAITH isn't a suicide pact. Comments by the IP such as (in an edit summary) "we're not permitted to call donations to organizations lefties don't approve of, "philanthropy"" or, when told that we should report sources accurately "Unless of course the obvious intention of the sources is to slime the subject of the BLP, in which case we might not want to stick to what they say quite so closely." don't encourage me. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O well. Let me just say that I will stay away from the Rosenwald-article, unless someone asks me, or if I see some technical improvement to be made (like the convention-links I placed some time ago). I wish you all good luck in editing it. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

followup on Hissa Hilal questions
Am I sure that هيل hayl means 'sand heap' instead of the homonym for 'cardamom'? Dear me, no, I'm not sure at all. It was only a guess. The only way to know for sure is to read the actual book and go by the context. I've searched all over the web in both Arabic and English (and in French too), but cannot find it online; I can't find any indication that the book itself can be bought here in America or anywhere outside of Saudi Arabia. If I knew who's the publisher, I would have at least a hope of ordering a copy. And I would, if I had the publisher's name and address. But that information is missing from my searches too. If you can find enough publication data, maybe we could actually get a copy. Perhaps another faint chance might be to find a Saudi Arabian book dealer and ask them.

I did find her in the Library of Congress database, and discovered that her name there is spelled Ḥuṣṣah Hilāl. In fact, Ḥuṣṣah is the name in Standard or Classical Arabic, while Ḥiṣṣah is a Saudi dialectal form (of which the spelling "Hessa" is another variant). I think it would be advisable to note both versions in your article. LoC has only one record for her: her book al-Ṭalāq wa-al-khulʻ shiʻran: qirāʼah fī waḍʻ al-marʼah fī al-mujtamaʻ al-qabalī (Divorce and Wife-Initiated Divorce in Poetry: A Reading on Women's Situation in Tribal Society), published in Abu Dhabi by Hayʼat Abū Ẓaby lil-Thaqāfah wa-al-Turāth, Akādīmīyat al-Shiʻr, 2009. The publisher's name means Abu Dhabi Agency for Culture and Heritage, Academy of Poetry.

Don't let not knowing Arabic be an obstacle to your work on this; ask me for help with it any time, I'm happy to help, happy you're writing about her. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it was published by a Kuwaiti publisher "مطابع الخط، " in 1993. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I just e-mailed them about it. Wish me luck. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck! :) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, they wrote me back and said they are printers, not publishers; anyway, they looked for a copy over there but could not find one... now I'm trying to think of some other way to find it... sorry... Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese's proposed deletion of a page
This post concerns user: Roscelese & this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_hardaway. The user has put forth a claim that the page should be deleted. From my perspective, it seems as though this person has offered contradictory reasons for proposing deletion. He/she has stated that the subject has a number of Google hits from multiple sources -- yet claims there aren't sufficient sources substantiating the article (There are 7 separate sources ranging from a premier lifestyle magazine to a respected university). It seems as though more than enough sources have been provided to show authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesteel9 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked thru the articles on the page. Many discuss the subject extensively. I don't agree with this request for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana7707 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
///Euro Car GT  00:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker
This person is edit warring on Satire - predictably, the problem is the word Islamophobia - I have tried to engage in discussion but (surprise surprise) s/he has nothing constructive to say. getting tired, but I don't want to give up... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Embarassing facts
I have reverted your unexplained deletions from Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development. Please keep in mind that embarassing facts are not necessarily NPOV and take the discussion to the talk page and talk about it before reverting again. -- Frotz(talk) 19:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are insufficiently cited facts about living people. That's a violation of BLP. I see that you don't edit very much, so maybe you're not familiar with this policy, but we are not permitted to host that kind of content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lay off the personal attacks. You have now thrice reverted an article on the very same vacuous grounds.  If you have a problem with the content, take it to the talk page.  -- Frotz(talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Frotz(talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 revert RR violation
 * Again, you are not permitted to insert inappropriately sourced, or unsourced, controversial content about living people. This is a violation of a very fundamental Wikipedia policy. Since you are a comparatively inexperienced user, you should familiarize yourself with policy, rather than templating people who are following it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi Orientation
You PROD2-ed this, but I have decided to take it to WP:Articles for deletion/Naqvi Orientation because it is clear that the PROD will be contested, after deletion if not before - the author is arguing on the talk page, and has already posted twice at WP:REFUND. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Xavier Ramirez
I have undeleted Xavier Ramirez, an article you contributed to the proposed deletion of, after the deletion was contested. You may wish to take it to AfD instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

deletion of CAIR's unindicted co conspirator status
I have deleted that section which says that a judge removed CAIR from the Attachment A list. This isn't true, and it wasn't supported by the citations. Livingengine1 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You have asked that I "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" to Wikipedia. Please tell me what specifically you are referring to? As far as I know I have done none of these things. Livingengine1 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request for dispute resolution over this matter. What you are claiming about CAIR simply is not true. You can not back it up with facts. Livingengine1 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand very well what the North American Islamic Trust is. They, along with the Islamic Society of North America, filed a request to have their names removed from the Attachment A list. On July 1, 2009 Judge Jorge Solis ruled in a decision combining both NAIT, ISNA and CAIR's request to have their names expunged from the Attachment A list. Judge Solis denied the request to expunge their names because "Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas."

However, Judge Solis agreed that their rights had been violated when the Attachment A list was made public. So, he had the Attachment A list sealed from public view along with his decision.

NAIT appealed this decision, and on 10/20/2010 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in NAIT's favor, ordering the unsealing of the Attachment A list, as well as, Judge Solis' decision, but said this about expunging -

". . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to expunge the mention of NAIT in the newly sealed attachment."

All that happened was a paper shuffle. If you have other relevant information, I am all ears, but so far, you are putting misinformation on the Wikipedia page. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from one of your sources. "NAIT asked the appeals court to unseal Solis's opinion and to strike the part linking NAIT to HLF and Hamas. However, the appeals court declined to erase or vacate that part of Solis's opinion, which found there was "ample evidence to establish the association of ... NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine ('IAP') and Hamas." The appeals court said the judge's determination was unnecessary but that, given the posture of the case, it was not the appellate court's role to approve or reject Solis's findings." That means they weren't taken off the list. I will correct the Wikipedia entry for CAIR to reality. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, your latest rewrites at the CAIR Wikipedia page are in ERROR, and need a rewrite, and require your input at the CAIR talk page. If we don't hear from there, it will be assumed you are OK with changes to your latest edits. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey
As the last editor, i wondered what you thought of this Pass a Method  talk  13:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to leave it as a redirect. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at AN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Boim's
Roscelse, did you remove the information about the Boims? There was an initial award of 156 million, which was later reversed, but ultimately the award was reinstated. http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/7CR/v4-2/rowe.pdf

Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to rectify this portion of the Holy Land Foundation Wikipedia page that deals with the Boims, and correct your omissions. If I do not hear from you after a decent interval, I will assume you are either OK with my intended update, or you are continuing your policy of non-cooperation with other editors.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Roscelese. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the Wikipedia page for the Holy Land Foundation is now protected. Is this because of your violation of the 3 re-write policy, i.e. engaging in an "edit war"? Livingengine1 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, can we just talk about suggested edits on the Holy Land Foundation page without the edit warring? I have no interest in violating Wikipedia policy. I have no interest in turning Wikipedia into a primary source on this topic, or any other.


 * I have no interest in turning Wikipedia into a platform to incite against CAIR, or anyone else.


 * Let us agree to present an array of facts, staying within Wikipedia guidelines, and let the reader come to their own conclusions.


 * Let us further resolve to not put up erroneous information on Wikipedia, or use secondary sources that are in error.


 * I have left my proposed edits on the talk pages before including them in the main page. I have left notes at your talk page. In response, I get an bad attitude, and I have to wonder whether you are dealing in good faith.


 * Please, let us work together on this. It is clear at this point I have something to offer. You know more about Wikipedia than I do; let's work together.

Livingengine1 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No opposition?
No, I don't think there really was. Even the die-hard preservationists couldn't argue without losing hoax as well. Now it needs to get into Twinkle... Peridon (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah right! How do I do that? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr... Peridon (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly ask someone at WT:TW. I can't remember who put G13 up - it just appeared. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mighty Mystic
No problem! I was a bit confused at first, but then it made total sense. Easy enough to add my edits back in! Bonnie (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Shaima Alawadi
Hi! I found Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Shaima_Alawadi_(3rd_nomination) but I see Death of Shaima Alawadi. What is going on? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sebelius
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that my sources about Sebelius' relationship with George Tiller are unreliable; those sources themselves cited their sources to prove their claims, and seeing how quickly the edit was deleted, I doubt that effort was made to throroughly vet the sources. Additionally, I noted in my edit that what had been said were allegations, and cited the allegations - my statement was neutral in position. In a case like this, my edit should be presumed to have been made in good will. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JobJosephBeard (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that my sources are unreliable? If you would stop hacking them I would add more to bolster them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JobJosephBeard (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sources are agenda-driven generally and anti-Sebelius specifically, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (and indeed a documented history of making stuff up). Do not add them again. Do not add them again even if you add other sources to "bolster" them (especially since when you tried, you added another poor source). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Matt Trewhella
I think that this public figure needs a separate page. Covering his beliefs/teachings/personal history will help to give people researching Missionaries to the Preborn a greater understanding of why the organization operates the way it does.

EDIT: Best to mark as a stub for now. Jordan Olinski (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

adoption
Given your care about sources, would you be willing to review File:World same-sex adoption laws.svg? I based it on our articles and the sources they had, but they often contradict each other. E.g., the West Bank allows joint adoption even though homosexuality is illegal, Cambodia and the Philippines allow adoption (perhaps only to foreigners?), but we apparently have no sources, etc. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a dozen other states where our refs did not support the claim, or where we had no ref at all: Greenland, Andorra, Austria, Minnesota, Coahuila, Florida, Arkansas, the Channel Isles, Falklands, Guam, maybe a few more. In some cases a law banning adoption was struck down, but we don't color in other states just because they don't have a law banning adoption. Etc. Amazing how bad these articles are, and have been for years. — kwami (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting Talk.
Your contributions on the talk page would be greatly appreciated, especially since no one supported keeping Rosenfeld if we exclude Allen on the talk page. It was up there for several days before I tried to make that change. You undoubtedly have an argument for not removing Rosenfeld; if you keep reverting us but I and TheArmadillo (who, by the way, "endorse[s] the legality of gay marriage and child adoption") are two of the three main talk page contributors, it looks like a consensus that isn't there. jj (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, you started a discussion and explicitly failed to gain consensus to add Allen. Do not edit war. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world
During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle  Faddle  10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Toulouse and Montauban shootings
Hi instead of constant reverting, it would be great if you could provide me the quotes from relevant sources that show "many French Muslims feared ... an increase in Islamophobia", as the only one that appears to use the word is "Extremist suspect in French killings profits far right in presidential race; Muslims afraid". Associated Press. 22 March 2012." - that says The powerful fundamentalist Muslim organization UOIF asked all citizens "not to succumb to the panic of stigmatizing Muslims, which feeds Islamophobia." One fundamentalist group (as the source describes) saying it clearly isn't the same as "many French Muslims".--Loomspicker (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi I am still waiting for a response to this. If you don't respond (edit summaries don't count) I will restore the version which is correctly sourced.--Loomspicker (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed sourced material and was inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Care Net
It's not true that you have to be a Christian to work for Care Net. Could you please change that back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougthehomosapien (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Their statement of faith affirms the divinity of Christ and other particulars that specifically identify someone who adheres to it as a Christian (and actually, specific denominations of Christian). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Women artists!
SarahStierch (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the talk page note. Yes, I did see your response, and I didn't see any evidence of stalking, in itself - neither was a reversion of your edit. (I also note that an explanation was eventually given, and that there didn't seem to be any further steps taken.) More to the point, I am sorry that you are feeling harassed, and I don't think any sort of harassment should be tolerated. I would be happy to change my !vote on the presentation of appropriate diffs, but I didn't think that the Ruether and Guerra edits qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs)
 * The explanation was that he felt the edits were justified, but in user behavior cases, we usually treat the content separately from the behavior. Edit warring is wrong even if your edit is a good edit. Stalking is wrong (and that's what it is here even without reversion; I recall it specifically being pointed out in past cases that deliberately and repeatedly showing a user that you're following their every move constitutes stalking even if you're not reverting them) even if he provides some superficial explanation for each individual edit. Does that help? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does. And I wonder why User:Black Kite accepted the explanation. To be fair though, you made several hundred edits in the September/October period, so I wouldn't have thought that those two edits constitute B. "following your every move". As I said, I've been expecting more diffs - I get the feeling that there must be more evidence out there, though it might be awkward and/or painful for you to supply it yourself. I would hope User:EvergreenFir does this as the proposer of the ban. StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I made my report based on Badmintonhist's edits, not Roscelese's. You are welcome to your own interpretations of the situation. My own encounters with Badmintonhist have been so-so, but I have noticed he's a rather belligerent fellow.  But when I saw his comment, I went to see if he had had any warnings in the past and found he had.  I do not take harassment and stalking behavior lightly, especially against women and LGBTQ folk.  In my own opinion, he has had plenty of warnings and chances.  He ignored them and should be removed from the community for it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Hi Roscelese. Thanks for posting that warning on my talk page. It got me doing some research. According to Wikipedia itself regarding Michael Flood: "He coordinates, edits and contributes to XY, a pro-feminist website ...  worked as a pro-feminist educator and activist..." (Bold face mine). That certainly does sound like a neutral point of view kind of guy to put front and center at the top of the wiki page on anti-feminism. Civatrope (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are neither of you using the article talk page instead of leaving this untraceable chain of templates and warnings across user talk pages?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans
Hi Roscelese. As you know, Badmintonhist is under an interaction ban concerning you. Now, I personally hate one way interaction bans because of the opportunity to game the system but that's what the consensus was and I'm not about to supervote. With that in mind though, and I'm not saying you are trying to game the system, but could you please refrain from things like this that give the appearance of it? If you could make an effort to also avoid Badmintonhist despite not being under a formal IBAN yourself, it'd be greatly appreciated.--v/r - TP 04:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't notice the thread had been closed. Thanks for the heads-up. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Roscelese, you're edit warring on Stop Islamization of America. Please stop. I realize your adversary is, too, and more egregiously (I have blocked them for breaching 3RR), but this conflict will have to be solved in another way than by both sides edit warring. If I have to, I'll protect the article. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
 * That might be helpful. What other methods do you recommend? Binksternet and I have both asked Livingengine1 to describe his problems with the article and he's basically refused to do so, so it's not like there's a way of finding compromise. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand it's very frustrating, and that the machinery for doing something about it is slow and creaky. But I suppose the reliable sources noticeboard and/or an RfC on the talkpage might get more eyes on the article, with luck. Actually my first thought was the NPOV noticeboard, but I've taken a look and not many people seem to want to help out there (and who can blame them). Bishonen &#124; talk 18:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

They're baaaaack...
which is why this: There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: NinaGreen
I saw your comment at User talk:Iantresman. The topic ban on NinaGreen is indeed in force, but even when it was imposed it struck me as a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and in Nina's subsequent appeal against it every member of what could be called our Shakespearian community who commented on the appeal supported the topic ban being lifted. On both occasions, I thought that the meaning of "disruption" was being stretched astonishingly far. I am just amazed by the new indefinite ban. Nina is a good editor and deserves to be more valued than she is. Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in the topic ban discussion at all; I happened to see a topic that interested me come up while watching ANI for other reasons (I do a decent amount of Shakespeare-related editing, but a lot of it is categorization) and there was no question that the ban had been violated. Whether or not the ban was merited in the first place wasn't my concern, since there are avenues for appealing bad bans/blocks. Now that I've seen NinaGreen in action, of course, I strongly support a site ban, because she's clearly obsessive and has no concern at all for the rules. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a community topic ban, Roscelese, but an arbcom ban. Nina received an indefinite Shakespeare topic ban and a one-year site ban (now expired) in the Shakespeare authorship question RFAR in 2011. The sanctions regarding Nina passed 15—0, so I suppose arbcom just unanimously hates good editors. Both I and Moonraker, at that time Moonraker2, gave evidence, btw. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Anvil Chorus
How could your comment that the tune was Sullivan's apply? He would have been about 11 years old when Verdi wrote TROV?? Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he was 17 years dead when "Hail, hail, the gang's all here" was published. What is your point? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can SAY whatever you wish. ..
. . . But canon 205 says this:

Can. 205 Those baptized

are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth

who are

joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of

the profession of faith,

the sacraments,

and ecclesiastical governance.

Someone who " does not practice" no longer receives the sacraments, which is an essential for being in "full communion." (In a common way of speaking, "being a Catholic."). Further, someone who "does not practice" presumably does not participate in the Profession of Faith, which takes place every Sunday, and in a special way, in the Renewal of Baptismal Vows on what is commonly called."Easter Sunday." (Or more properly, at the Easter Vigil, the highest liturgy of the year, although participation in the Vigil is not essential, as long as one participates in the Easter liturgy, or has a good reason for failing to do so -- illness, responsibility for the public good, such as a doctor, or nurse, or firefighter, or lives in a place where such participation is not possible.) Someone who does not do this AT LEAST once a year is NO LONGER in communion with the Church -- "A Catholic."

One who has ceased to "practice" the faith by receiving the sacraments and participating in the profession of faith is NOT in fact "Catholic." They are still baptized, but that refers to their history, and not to their current status. Many atheists were baptized as children, but as they are Athiests, they are NOT Catholics, irregardless of whether they ever made a formal renunciation of faith.

AT ONE TIME, canon law allowed for the renunciation of faith to be entered into the formal record of baptism, as is done with Confirmation, marriage, religious profession, and Holy Orders, but this is no longer provided for/required by Canon Law.

If you look at canon 205, it appears to propose the possibility of being among the baptized, but NOT being in full communion, which is the status of a former catholic who "does not practice" the faith.

I am not sure where you received you degree in Theology, such that you pronounce my assertion "false information." You might have noted that I *am* a priest, and asked for clarification.

I am one of those fools who has sent a donation to Wikipedia in the past, as I consider it a useful recourse, and I *had* regularly encouraged others to do so. But as my contribution was dismissed out of hand by what appears to be an editor with an agenda other than simple fact, I think I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrRob (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have to obey the rules of the Catholic Church. Instead, we use reliable sources that discuss the subject at hand. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the Code of Canon Law of the RCC is not a reliable source for what it means to be a member of the RCC, I cannot imagine what *would* be a reliable source on the issue. The Democrat Party says who is a member.  The Boy Scouts of America say who is a member. Why on earth would you part with what the RCC itself says about who " is a Catholic," ("enjoys full communion with the Church") except to satisfy your own hidden agenda?

This isn't about "obeying the rules of the Catholic Church," either. It is about simple common sense. Any organization can say what constitutes membership within its own body. If they cannot, who on earth can?

A retired police officer who does not work as a police officer is NOT a "non-practicing" police office, but a FORMER police officer. While it may be true that a doctor who closes his or her practice is still formally a physician, and thus could be "a non-practicing physician," this applies to their degree and certification.

This is not true of someone who no longer practices the Catholic faith. They have ceased in their practice, and in so doing, they cease to be part of the Church. They are not "non-practicing but still Catholic," they are "former Catholic," "once-Catholic," or "ex-Catholic."Canon 205 is a reliable source backing up what I assert her.

I am not going to waste time doing a revert war with you on this. You have "won." But if you *really* care about accuracy, honesty, and integrity, you ought to be looking at all this quite differently. At the very least, you would have asked for clarification from me, or if not from me, from someone else well-educated and currently practicing the Catholic faith. (You know, an ACTUAL Catholic, rather than a former one.) FrRob (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory they are both the same.
 * Your wish to polarize the community, to divide the faithful into those who follow every instruction of the Church and those who do not, is quickly going to come up against a couple of key issues, the biggest being birth control. Some 97% of American women have used birth control. Would you throw out the self-described Catholics among them to call them "former Catholics", even if they go to confession and receive the sacrament?
 * Many of our scholarly sources acknowledge that, in the real world, there is a very tolerant acceptance about who is Catholic. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Already answered, in the citation of Canon 205, that those who receive the sacraments, participate in the profession of faith, and are subject to ecclesial governance share fully in the communion of faith. Your example of birth control is a red herring, as someone who was careful to form their conscience might honestly arrive at a decision to use birth control, but this would NOT change Church Teaching on the matter. It would merely be an example of the primacy of conscience.


 * The issue of abortion is quite different. A "non-practicing Catholic" who "favors legal abortion" is thus "in favor" of any Catholic who procures, pays for, performs, or assists in the procedure" being able to do so, even though this will canonically make them excommunicate. Either this "non-practicing Catholic" rejects Canon Law, or they reject the authority for Teaching on the part of the Pope and the bishops. This is an essential point of Catholicism, one specifically rejected by the Protestant sects.

If one rejects Canon Law, or rejects the Teaching Office of the Church, or both, in what possible sense are they "Catholic?" (ESPECIALLY as we are ALREADY speaking of folks who "do not practice." If they don't receive the sacraments, don't attend mass/take part in the profession of faith, AND reject Canon Law and/or the Teaching Office of the Church, in what *possible* world would the be considered "Catholic?"

You're putting forth rubbish, an agenda driven use of the word, for purposes which seem very vague, but not particularly scholarly. FrRob (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's a literal meaning of the word "catholic."&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would behoove FrRob to read the sources - what our article describes as "practicing" is "attends church once a week or more," while the rest attend less frequently. Sacraments are not mentioned. It's a fault in the current writing and I don't know when or how it got there, but "non-Catholics" or "former Catholics" is even more obviously inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Doing archives
Of course as information professionals, we'd like to address any issues you raise here. Like any profession, archives has a good deal of jargon, but the best source we have is found here http://icarchives.webbler.co.uk/14282/multilingual-archival-terminology/multilingual-archival-terminology.html

If you think links to specific terms defined here (and in common circulation) would be helpful, I'll be happy to add those. horizontal integration 00:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfelker (talk • contribs)
 * This has nothing to do with my reasons for marking the article for deletion, which were that it was promotional and a likely copyright violation in its entirety (with certain parts being definite copyright violations). Please note as well that the creator of an article is not permitted to remove a speedy deletion template. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Communism and homosexuality
Hi Roscelese, would you let me know what you think that I am not understanding about your objections on the talk page? I'll look for your response there. Thank you, Perusteltu (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained that it violates UNDUE. It's not that you're responding to the argument and misunderstanding; you're simply ignoring it. What good would repeating myself further do? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Roscelese, please see my explanation about why the proposed paragraph does not violate Neutral point of view, which includes the UNDUE section. Perusteltu (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your name
I've seen you on Wiki at varying points since I've created my account. Until I looked at your account I had no clue that you were female. I mention this because, "It is apparently really difficult to spell my username? Whatever, I'll answer to anything that vaguely resembles it." I've been prounocing your name wrong in my mind. Knowing your female provides the proper pronunciation. It's quite a lovely name. Generally as a policy I don't view assume peoples sex on here. But occasionally for what ever reason something clicks. For what ever reason my peanut brain had your name as Roscoe Lese. Understanding now that you are a lady however the name clicks as close relative to Rosalie. I thought I'd share. I don't know if anyone's misspelling is related but I thought it would give you a laugh if nothing else.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * heh! neither is correct and the name would technically be gender-neutral, but it was a fanciful one anyway; if I had the opportunity to go back and change it I probably would, because it gives people so much trouble. (I know name change is a thing, but I've got eight and a half years of contributions attached to this account.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes after 8 years a name change would likely just cause more confusion. Am I wrong in pronouncing it as Rose Celese?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Phonetically more like rɔʃel'ɛze. (rosh-el-ay-zeh) Don't worry about it :P –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad to get Roscoe out of my head. I keep thinking of the Dukes of Hazard. What's the root language and meaning if it's not rude to ask?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The indicated pronunciation looks Italian to me, ending like caprese. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - Italian, such as it is. It's not actually a word, but I speak Italian and found it amusing at the time to combine/transcribe some fragments as though they were an Italian adjective. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I had thought of it as "Ros Celese", with the first name a variant spelling of Roz. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
It looks like you're engaged in an edit war at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than revert back and forth. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

oscar bait
Well, I had removed it since I just nominated it for DYK.

The best thing to do, honestly, would be to replace that list section with sourced prose, eliminating the problem in the process. It's sort of what I'm trying to do. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'd just rather remove the improve template after the improvements are no longer necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'd do it now but it's getting late, my time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your recent edits ... I had been planning to prosify that section today anyway. Saves me some work! Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't think I did all that much - mostly removed/hid information, unfortunately. The article really couldn't contain an uncited/poorly cited list of films. In order to include any individual films, I think we should talk about distinguishing "likely Oscar contender" from "Oscar bait," and also what volume of sourcing is necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to see this as a companion to Dump months, which I spent my Christmas vacation (such as it was) developing, since it covers some of the same ground. Maybe you could take a look and see what you think? As for your wording suggestion, it's a good idea, especially since the term does have some pejorative connotations as this source indicates. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am done expanding the article now. Do you think you could consider removing the tag so I can restart the DYK nom? Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar bait
Well, thank you for the article Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)