User talk:Roscelese/Archive 13

IPT
I requested Mediation for WP:HOUNDING, and WP:TAGTEAM violations against me. Atsme  &#9775;  talk  13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More than one user disagreeing with you doesn't mean there's a TAGTEAM, it means you might just be wrong. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the hounding, Ros; after all, why am I commenting on this page now, eh?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Has anyone the itinerary for this supposed mediation yet?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Felibri
Thanks. See []. Off to bed now or I'd work on them. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already taken care of - Google just hasn't re-indexed yet :) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

read it again and get back to me
I'm trying to protect wikipedia from lawsuits.

And if you wouldn't mind please revert the article to my version before we have another one of these {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biography_incident] or worse on our hands.

And yes accusing dozens of rich and power people of discrimination seriously opens us up to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you're not. You're trying to give your personal opinions the weight of policy, but you're accidentally falling foul of WP:No legal threats. Please stop. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"No, you're not."????

I just said I was.

Are you calling me a liar? 107.199.68.228 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To both of you: I see edit warring about this issue, both recent and old, but nobody's attempting to discuss on talk with a view to getting consensus. Please discuss there, not here. 107.xx, I don't think Roscelese was calling you anything. Please both of you stick to the content of the category and let other people get a look in by keeping it on category talk. The history shows that several others have shown an interest. I strongly advise against making "lawsuits" a topic there, 107.xx. But if it's what you want to discuss, I can't stop you. Better read No legal threats first. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

Sauce Manufacturers
Hello. Just a question: now I've made an article on one of the major sauce manufacturers of the Netherlands: do you think that articles on minor sauce makers could be notble as well? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, sorry. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hissa Hilal
Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop following my edits
Stop following my edits, shall you? You reverted some 5 more 6 of my edits in a row just because you disagreed with me on one issue and now are seeking revenge. I will revert each and every of these edits per WP:STALK. If you think you have a reason for reverts other than having a revenge on editor you dislike then the talk page is the venue for that. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted you because it was called to my attention that you're evidently a single-purpose account making some really disruptive edits. Try editing according to the sources instead of according to your personal views about people's ethnicities and so forth. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I were an SPA then obviously a 2014 Ukrainian conflict SPA, as that's the topic I'm mostly editing. You on the other hand decided to revert me everywhere apart from that topic. As for this edit summary Laughable. I wouldn't laugh when dealing with such a sad topic. Do you also 'laugh' at adulterers being lashed in Iran? Do you 'laugh' at people possessing such obscene Devices (such as cell phone) being stoned to death in Pakistan? The feminist author I cited (Julie Bindel) pointed at such threats. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Winter
Dear Roscelese, I hope you are well. I would like please to ensure that we don't antagonize each other inadvertently or end up -- heaven forbid -- in an edit war. I apologise if I have annoyed you. It's not my intent. I just wanted to re-insert text that is still found on the internet, including on Shaykh Murad's website. Here is the link: http://masud.co.uk/cms/sheikh-abdal-hakim-murad/the-fall-of-the-family-part-i-and-ii/

I wish you peace. Thank you and best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

other folks talk pages
You may want to pause before removing comments from other users on editors talk pages, as you recently did on mine. If you feel that the comment at hand needs context, feel free to add it, but my talk page is not a place for you to scrub of comments that you do not want to be there. --14:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, I sort of just assumed that you wouldn't want the harassing comment from a proxying blocked/banned user to be there, but okay. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

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 BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bible and sexuality
I see that all my jeremiads didn't convince anyone that picking among mainline, scholarly translations isn't a POV issue. If one quote is from KJV and the next is from NLT or NIV, it will certainly be an odd-looking article. On another note, Paul's condemnation of homosexuality sounds a little different when you realize that the guy wasn't too keen on heterosexuality either. ("But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." . The cheerful dwarf (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think it's basically a stylistic issue. While I don't think it's a good idea to use versions that translate the Pauline stuff as "homosexuality" as though there's no ambiguity and no historical evidence that outright contradicts that translation, we ultimately discuss any important translation issues in-text, surely. (Or should - I keep meaning to get around to putting in the sources elaborating on "abomination," which in the Hebrew is more like "taboo.") I don't understand the argument that there's something confusing about the KJV version of Leviticus, though. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Book of the City of Ladies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ceres and Dido (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) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. TMD (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Shomrim (neighborhood watch group) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=613705798 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F613705798%7CShomrim (neighborhood watch group)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism
Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article
Hi Roscelese! I believe that you will be interested to read this article: "Feminist Scholarship and Its Relevance for Political Engagement: The Test Case of Abortion in the U.S.." I hope you like it, and maybe use it on WP. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou
I really am at the end of my tether. I'm now having him chase me around wikipedia to find other articles I've edited and "correct" these. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker: To see whether your complaint was actionable, I took the liberty of comparing your interactions using this tool. In the resulting page, there are links to various "timeline" interactions on one page. I saw two timelines that show recent instances of Esoglou following you around: Category talk:Bible-related controversies, and LGBT rights in Croatia. One was July 10 and the other was July 22. It's true that Esoglou had no other reason to appear at Category talk:Bible-related controversies, since there was no discussion of the page or the category on another talk page, in project space or on a noticeboard, and you didn't ping Esoglou about it. It's clear Esoglou followed you to that discussion by looking at your contributions. In the big picture, though, two instances of hounding twelve days apart is not going to excite much reaction against Esoglou if you take the complaint to WP:ANI. The two of you have been working on many of the same articles for a couple of years now. People at ANI would just advise Esoglou to stop following you around, which is perhaps enough of a result for your satisfaction. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Binksternet for the advice. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that he thinks my edits of sufficient threat to his world perspective that they needed to be countered, and vigilance maintained! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza RFC
I see your !vote on the RFC. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion and vote, but I would like to briefly reply. Since your !vote several other sources have picked up on the quote, which may address your concern about sourcing. (I have linked them in the RFC) Further, those sources all discuss the quote in the context of allegations of human shields (with some of them directly saying the quote is a call for use of human shields) contrary to your argument that "we have no reason to believe" - If the RS have made that argument, we should follow their lead. In any case, thank you for your time and consideration. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You made four reversions on a page in one day in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please restore the page Courage UK to its original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.226.109 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, you might want to review the edits made by the IP above; they added a very large amount of material to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, as well as making some changes that appear to be unnecessary. 122.60.167.21 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
Hi Roscelese, I have a strong suspicion that recent edits to the article made by IP 174.236.231.212 and by IP 174.255.192.167 have in fact been made by Esoglou. Because it's reverting material that was previously disputed only by him, one of the IP editors made changes only to this article and another on Salvatore Cordileone (again supporting the viewpoint of Esoglou). And Esoglou has tried to defend the changes on the talk page. The justifications for the edits have been based on "removing propaganda". In which case there are grounds for sock-puppetry. But I don't quite know how these things work and how you prove them. Amy help or advice you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiislam
Hi, see this. I thought you might be interested. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for returning to edit war immediately on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism after protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Restoring a consensus version is not an exemption under WP:EW. If you were unblocked, do you affirm you will not make any more reversions on this article for the remainder of the block length?--v/r - TP 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup - I see that restoring a consensus version's a waste of time anyway :/ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(PS. I can't edit my user subpages while blocked? Is this new? I was going to use the time to work on a draft, and I could have sworn that was possible in the past.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, sorry.--v/r - TP 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The system allows you to edit only your own user talk page during a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, I can tell that now :P I was wondering if it had always been that way, since I thought that in the past, I had worked on userspace drafts during this down-time. Maybe I had them as subpages of my talk, I don't know. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't expecting to be blocked frequently enough for this to make a practical difference :-). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not! But I'm a coder and I'm curious :) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IPT
I did forget that you were there for Atsme's previous effort. While I was mentioning Atsme previous canvassing I was also alluding to. She seems to think that wp:collaborate removes the requirements of wp:canvass. I guess because she used the word neutral she doesn't feel the need to be nuetral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiBullying
Please stop WikiBullying newer users like you just tried to do on my talk page Padresfan94 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please, you're not a new user and warning someone about sockpuppetry when they exhibit classic behaviors isn't bullying. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You literally threatened me with another frivolous investigation if I didn't stop opposing your POV. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Shomrim page
Hi, I'm a new user to Wikipedia, and I wanted to know what was wrong with the additions I made to the Shomrim page. I wanted to write about another organization. If you felt something was wrong you can revise it w/o totally deleting it. Thank you very much, and feel free to message me,JoelBuchbinder (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You should find a trustworthy source that isn't affiliated with the Shomrim group in question, and make sure that you add content that's cited to that source, rather than content that isn't cited at all or that is cited only to sources affiliated with the Shomrim. Is this helpful? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, thanks a lotJoelBuchbinder (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) re-did it. is it better?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelBuchbinder (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U
I'm wondering if you would help with an RFC/U. You are the only individual who has contacted Atsme on their talk page regarding their disruption in this tiresome and ongoing dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really have the time to take a leading role in this. I'll submit a View, but I can't really help compile the evidence with you. Feel free to check out the User Interaction Tool for me and Atsme, if it'd help. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no I wasn't looking for someone to help me compile the evidence but thanks for thought certainly. I just wanted to ask if you would want to be involved.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dug thru and gathered some diffs. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox I posted them there. I thought the SIOA conversation may in some way relate but I wasn't involved there. See if you think I should gather more if that is enough. I'm just trying to keep it simple.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"United States pro-life movement" page, section on violence
Hi there. Just a note to advise you that someone has re-introduced the case of Theodore Shulman and his online threat into the "Violence against pro-life people" section of the "United States pro-life movement" article. Didn't you say the article should only list actual incidents of violence, not mere threats? Also, someone has introduced the trivial case of Professor Miller-Young, who did what, shoved someone and damaged their gory anti-abortion sign. Hardly seems worthy of inclusion in the article! Please advise or correct the article. Thanks! Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article, but in future please be careful to avoid canvassing. Selectively notifying users based on their known or supposed point of view is against the rules. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR on United States pro-life movement
Hi Roscelese, as you may know, the page is the subject of discretionary sanctions. It looks like you've made 3 reverts in the last 2 days, would you mind self-reverting yourself? Juno (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm not about to start edit-warring over it, didn't the sanctions expire? I don't really have the time to go looking for dates, but I remember being concerned a while ago that they were about to expire. Talk page stalkers with more information may correct me, of course. (Incidentally, I have no idea how I managed to edit exactly 24 hours, to the minute, after my previous edit - I wasn't sitting on it.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not really an issue now as the text has been re-added but I don't think that sanctions for abortion-related articles ever expired. Please do be more careful in the future. Juno (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please
Self-revert at Articles for deletion/John Roco (2nd nomination). I can see clearly the situation and will deal with it in the next 24 hours, but this doesn't help. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked that editor. I still suggest that you self-revert and you can note my action when you do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the block. I wasn't able to see this in time to self-revert before the discussion was closed, but honestly, I probably wouldn't have done so anyway. It's obviously not a good-faith !vote. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Atsme ☯  Consult  05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR
Second and final warning of WP:1RR on Frank Pavone. You are in technical violation of that as of now. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2014 (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.

I'm terribly sorry about this, but I did just let you off with a warning about the same thing earlier this week. You kept edit warring and you declined an offer to self-revert. I had to file the report. Juno (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U on Atsme
Before I posted it I wanted to allow you to review and see if you agree these diffs are of issue. These aren't the only policy violations and really even a quarter of the diffs. But everything would take a really long time and there's no point. Either this will be enough to get her reconsider her behavior and change it or it will be enough for ARBCOM to get involved. Here is a link to what I have User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2. Let me know what you think.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think those diffs definitely show negative behavior, but rather than numbered links, it might be helpful for other users reviewing the RFC/U if you "previewed" what the links were, either with quotations or with an explanation of what they demonstrated. (BATTLEGROUND is accurate, but possibly describing a little more the nature of the battleground behavior.) I also strongly recommend that you decide what the desired outcome is - do you want Atsme to be banned from editing IPT and related articles? from Islam-related articles generally? ...? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With an RFC/U you can't impose or enforce sanctions so no blocks, bans, or disciplinary measures will come from this. Basically ARBCOM won't look at it without an RFC/U. RFC/U is basically a call to chill but ANI hasn't done anything and ARBCOM won't look at it without a RFC/U. So in the short run it could prove to be a waste of time but in the long run it may prove necessary. This whole thing is really annoying. It seems she will do anything but honestly seek a consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk)
 * I've added more to the cause for concern and desired outcome section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can help you by providing some diffs - the ones demonstrating your disruptive behavior beginning with the time I first disagreed with your POV pushing, your racist slurs against me, your public statement about your intent and purpose for me, the many uncivil comments and hounding on the Talk pages of other editors, on noticeboards and in forums, the ANI Roscelese initiated in her attempt to get me blocked and her pattern of behavior, the results of the two BLPNs, the results and discussions of our prior three ANIs - one of which involved the BLP issue, the apparent team work to cause me harm on Wikipedia, your pledge to "stop me", etc. I have a 23 pg. Word doc with plenty of diffs and will be happy to share. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add - the diffs I have are a result of the ANIs, BLPNs, and other discussions that have taken place in recent months, unlike the harvesting attempts that you are actively involved in with the two editors you recruited to help cause me harm. What a remarkable "collaboration", indeed.  Apparently, the last ANI Warning about your behavior toward me wasn't enough to stop you.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you're not helping your cause here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made an addition to the cause for concern section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, all of the diffs he's gathering have already been hashed over, and were already brought up in ANIs and BLPNs. It's ancient history.  He is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get his way in the ARB, and now the BLPN because  several editors have agreed with my position regarding the issues with IPT.  He shows up wherever I go - even in fisheries discussions, on the Discrimination talk page, on template talk pages, on other users talk pages, on other articles I have commented on, and he relentlessly berates me with groundless allegations.  His latest rant is that I'm forumshopping, whatever the hell that means.  I don't know what he's trying to prove, but he should have learned by now that his behavior is unacceptable, and the day will come when an admin is going to notice it. I may have made a few newbie mistakes in the beginning, but that isn't the case now.  The guy is obsessed with pursuing his stated intent and purpose to stop me from what he considers my "POV pushing agenda".   He has twisted the truth, taken my words out of context, added some of his own based on POV, preconceived notions and misinterpretations of policy.  He is obsessing over it, and it's getting a little scary, especially considering his recent comments and demands on my talk page.  His incivility was noted by a reviewer in a prior ANI.  Considering he has not edited any of the prose at IPT or tried to correct any of the issues, what is his purpose for acting like a self-appointed guardian of the article?  I'm the primary editor of that article, not him, so maybe you can explain why he is disrupting me from editing and why you are so willing to help him?  I don't understand what the problem is, or why I'm being subjected to such behavior.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok so I think it's pretty much ready. There's other stuff I could add but.... Do you think anything else should be added?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

rfc/u
So I think the RFC/U is done. I just wanted to see if you had any concerns before I published it, to see if it's ready for your endorsement.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias editing
It is clear from your feminist posts that you are not an unbias editor. Please refrain from undoing edits that you don't "approve" of. 109.78.137.84 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I published the RFC/U
Requests for comment/Atsme it says that you have 48 hrs to certify this dispute before it's deleted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Atsme has indicated that she no longer wishes to take part in the RFCU. So I guess that is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I had more questions but I don't expect them to be answered since the ones I've asked so far haven't been. I guess I cede the floor to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not in a position to take point on this. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to take the lead. I'm just telling you that it seems pointless for me to ask anymore questions. She has avoided actually answering any questions asked. Actually she put a warning tag on my talk page for my responses and questions in that RFCU. I'm just saying that if you or Binksternet want any certain questions asked then go ahead. If not then right is just a good time to sit back a wait.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy. ReportTalk (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card listed @ wp:3O
Just a heads up that I've listed our dispute from Talk:Orson Scott Card at wp:3O LINK. Thanks.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Roscelese, about the RfC you posted, I was thinking it might be good for you to modify the wording slightly in order to present it more neutrally. I suggest deleting the word "extremely" in "...users opposed argue that it is extremely unusual...". The word seems to give more weight to the opposing view. (Compare to "...Users in favor argue that Card's political views have received notice in the press...". "Received notice" is pretty weak, and it would be problematic on the other side if someone presented it as "...users in favor argue that Card's political views have received very significant notice in the press...". Just a thought. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, "received very significant notice" isn't bad - it's basically what proponents are saying. What do you think of leaving the oppose view as it is and modifying the representation of the support view? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I just wanted them to be balanced. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a reliable source upon itself?
There are articles in wikipedia suggesting that Female Genital Mutilation is spread by Islam over 90% of Indonesia and Malay, articles in wikipedia suggesting that Eritrea and Ethiopia are not purely Christian states, articles in wikipedia suggesting that Muslim states have not elected more than 4 female heads of state e.t.c. e.t.c., but one CANNOT combine them in an article about Reza Aslan proving that he mislead the public about EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM?

Aren't those articles using original research material? Why does wikipedia use them? Why can't somebody quote wikipedia articles to prove his own point in other wikipedia articles, if the original articles are sufficiently sourced?

Furthermore, the statement that the U.S. of A. is not obliged or supposed to "reason" Saudi Arabia with an embargo is quite obvious: An embargo to any foreign state must either excused by any perceived threat of the offending country towards the country posing the embargo - whether that is the United States putting an embargo upon Cuba because of the missile crisis 4 decades ago or a cumulative embargo by many states over Iran against its' alleged nuclear proliferation. The United States, it's allies and their leaders have refused so far to claim that Islam bares the blame for any physical damage caused by Islamic terrorism, suggesting that Islam is a religion of peace and those terrorists are misrepresenting Islam. If they went on to punish Saudi Arabia for the spread of Islam as such, then they would be committing what Reza Aslan himself defines as Islamophobia. Thus, when Reza Aslan claims that the United States of America (and not the Saudi people or the United Nations) bare the responsibility for curbing the emanation of Islam from Saudi Arabia, he is simply suggesting that the United States of America has to engage in Islamophobia in order to prevent Saudi Arabia from spreading the message of Islam - especially since Saudi Arabia itself has complied many times to the calls of foreign countries to eliminate terrorism, by banishing Osama bin Laden as early as 1992 (as per the relevant wikipedia article) and many others since then.

I request to have my entry reviewed by senior moderators of wikipedia in order to clarify any legal issues, real or perceived.

Sikader (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:No original research in order to understand why you can't do your own analysis of disparate sources. (Also, you cannot cite Wikipedia.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

" The war on women "
Hello, I saw that you rejected my change to this article. But don't you agree that it shouldn't be writen like it is fact? The sources that are used are simply people making assuptions. It is the democrats trying to win elections. On an ecyclopedia we write about facts, not something like this. So I will recomend you to discuss this with me further, or I'll try to speak to someone higher up and tell them what you're doing to their credibility. Olehal09 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Uhh, if you think that threatening to report me to the ~authorities~ is going to work you're sadly mistaken. Basically, the article is about Republican policies that are perceived by media and Democrats as part of a campaign to limit women's rights, and the reliable sources say that it's not just reproductive rights. We are accurately conveying facts by pointing out that this term is used in X, Y, and Z instances. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, we have people on wikipedia who are actually interested in informing people, and not use this page as a propaganda aparatus for some end. If we want to make an good article, we should present opinion as something else than a reference. People opinions aren't facts, and I therefore removed some non factual statements. And I hope you will accept my wish to make this an encyclopedia. You seem very biased. Olehal09 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, since you're a new user I'm trying to help you get started by explaining that we're basing our articles on reliable sources (and I should have linked that earlier - oversight) in order to keep it neutral. But your hostility is rapidly wearing away my patience with you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thanks for that, but when I read trough these references they speak about republicans backing down from most of these policies. Except this with abortions, that they seem to hold close to their harts. When they back down from policies (just a single person having an idea, not an actual republican policy), then you should write something else than that "some belive republicans have a war on women because they want to restrict women's rights when it comes to contraception, rape laws and so on". When someone don't want to do anything of this, then you can't write it like that. Because they only are against abortions. You have to write "in the eyes of democrats they want to do this, but the fact is that they in reality don't". I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It seems like propaganda. Olehal09 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm....now we know your personal POV on that matter, but you're not a RS. Other editors think otherwise, and they aren't RS either, so we just document what RS say. Obviously Republicans would disagree. That's okay, but it cannot be allowed to influence our duty to report the matter and retain the spirit of the RS. Censorship is not allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (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 Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing
It looks like you have a pal trying to canvass another user into what ever the dispute is going on between you two.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. It can't be long before he is blocked, though. Users whose editing is only agenda-pushing and harassment usually get what's coming to them. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specific discussion can be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 09:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad day?
You having a bad day? Computer issues? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I accidentally hit rollback while my watchlist was loading, but put it back straight away, sorry about that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Figured you were having an issue with something. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

C-FAM
I think that the Disquis commenter "Austin Ruse" is the actual Austin Ruse, and therefore, what he says in his comments ought to be submittable as evidence of his beliefs. Rather like using someone's tweets as evidence of their views. What is the problem?TRLangham (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't even realize you were attempting to cite web comments. (I thought you were trying to cite bad sources in which he was quoted, since I hadn't followed the links.) That's even worse - we have no way of proving it's him. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I also cite columns he actually wrote for the daily caller and the catholic thing. Follow the links and you will see the articles are authored by him.TRLangham (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But these are not good sources. Can you provide a reason for including them other than "it's verifiably him"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why they aren't good sources. They are him, stating his opinion? The opinions are relevant to informing of Ruse's opinion as President of C-FAM. Why aren't they good sources?TRLangham (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:Reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I think that they are reliable published sources of Ruse's opinion, by Ruse. What reason do you think that they are unreliable? Do you doubt he wrote them? I state that he has stated etc, what is the problem?TRLangham (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The question isn't only whether he actually wrote them, but also whether or not they are appropriate for inclusion. Why do you think they should be included? Are there any reliable secondary sources that talk about these views of his? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think they are as appropriate for inclusion as details on his education and degrees. After all, it isn't an article about Ruse, but C-FAM. Indeed, since part of C-FAM's mission is to oppose pro-gay legislation, I would think that Ruse's views on the matter would be more relevant than who gave him an honourary doctorate! And why do I need secondary sources, when we have the opinions from the horse's mouth? Again, do you doubt that the sources I have cited are genuinely written by Ruse? If not, what need I am there of secondary sources?TRLangham (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that if you have the aim of shining a light on Ruse's beliefs in a non-neutral way, rather than documenting the mission and coverage of C-FAM in a way which upholds Wikipedia policies, you will not find much support from other editors. See WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV for relevant policy. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But I am just showing Ruse's stated opinions on the matter, using articles he has written! I have not tried interpreting them, or judging them, just stating them and pointing at the sources of the information. As President of C-FAM such views are relevant, or as relevant as details as his education and doctorates (or controversy over his "shoot them" comment. Based on your reasoning, it is impossible to record someone's stated views on a topic without being "non-neutral"!TRLangham (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You currently lack some discussion or form of proof that Ruse's beliefs and values are relevant and worthy of inclusion on an article that is not about him, but about C-FAM. This is where WP:COATRACK comes into play. In a biographical article about Ruse, all these things might be perfectly fine. In an article about C-FAM, some kind of relevance argument needs to be made by reliable secondary sources before you can balloon the article into a big referendum on Ruse's beliefs. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have given an argument why his views and stated opinions are relevant. I would also point out that currently there is a great deal of irrelevant biographical information in the article that isn't relevant, which you are not criticising. Why, for instance, does an article on C-FAM discuss Ruse's honourary doctorate, or his and his wife's award from JP2, or the controversy over the shoot you comment, which occurred in an entirely different forum? Lol, the old article read like a coatrack of praise to Ruse and his achievements. My, relevant and accurate, contribution restores some balance. Give me a good defence of why Ruse's many achievements are relevant in an article about an organisation he is President of, and you may have a strong case. As it is, you appear to be unjustly focussing in on my edits.TRLangham (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think removing the awards was good. It's all very promotional. I'm on the fence about restoring the mention of Groundswell - on the one hand, there's literally no text about Ruse/CFAM in the source, it's just an entry on a list, but on the other hand, it's one of the only R.S.S. that demonstrate that this person or group is significant. What do you think, Elizium? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was sort of reluctant to remove it, myself. So it could be worthwhile to restore it. Seems relevant enough. As long as it doesn't dip into WP:UNDUE coverage or extensive curriculum vitae of Ruse himself. Elizium23 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are definitely WEIGHT issues (the article was heavily edited by a person or people who appear/s to be affiliated with Ruse or CFAM, and while some of that has been corrected, it still shows). Maybe we can avoid having that statement look promotional (like "oooh, they're so influential!") by reducing some of the SPS? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback usage
Hello! Please note that using rollback to edit war like this will result in your rollback rights being removed. Let me know if you have any questions, m.o.p  18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not always active, so if I haven't noticed already, please let me know of the next time that Padresfan94 follows you to an article. I have left them a final warning. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kite, will do. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

About George Bary's Page
Dear Roscelese, I would ask you about discussion of the [].

Why do you want to delete painter George Bary's Biographic [] site? He is very important artist with really new vision in the contemporary art. If you are interested we can give you more information but not for site (by painter's request). Could you please, help us to keep this page and remove your request for deletion page.

Thank you.

We have deleted Inward Expressionism page for this time and will recreate it later with more influential information about this really interesting movement.

Una User:Lotus Flower in the Modern Art. — Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject, or that attest that he is important, in order to prove that he is notable. I suspect I should also be making you aware of the conflict of interest rules. I appreciate your willingness to delete Inward Expressionism, but if you re-create it, it is likely to be deleted again, since the problem was not a deficiency in the page itself, but the total inability of any users to find sources demonstrating that this was a real or notable movement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Roscelese,

I have satisfied your requirement and have erased inward Expressionism page.

I am not George Bary, I am art critic, also doctor-surgeon, professor [], []. And I am not going to promote sombedy!

George Bary's biography page [] exists during this period of time without any problems with Wikipedia. He is very famous person with very different view and conception.

Could you please, remove your request about deleting of this page because it creates an inconvenience for me as for the editor...

About Inward Expressionism: I will recreate Inward Expressionism Page in the nearest future and it will not be deleted because there will be very important sources about this movement. This is really very interesting must be known for people at large. Thank you for your offers and notes.

I hope for fruitful cooperation with you in the future on the pages of Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Una

User:Lotus Flower in the Modern Art. --Lotus Flower in the Modern Art (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI again
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

LGBT persecution of Catholics in Argentina
Please, don't remove sourced information, like here and there. Thank you. Blaue Max (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You must find reliable sources and write in a manner that adheres to WP:NPOV. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Stanley
This might be controversial, so can you please take the matter to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Steff Alexander
Why do you want to delete the Steff Alexander page? She has not just "been in only one thing". She has been is multiple theatre musicals, TV shows, and music videos; as I stated on her page.

Could you please keep this page and remove your request for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveplanes2003 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2014‎ (UTC)


 * She does not meet our standards of notability, either by achieving significant coverage in reliable sources, or by having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, etc.. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Special greeting...

 * Thanks Atsme! You too. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.) Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card"? (Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.) See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Easier to do this through tagging people...
Bishonen, Black Kite, Valenciano, Cwmhiraeth, Jackfork, and Frosty, thanks for dealing with that user last night! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And thank you Bsadowski1 and Bongwarrior. Would one of you mind semiprotecting this page long-term? Short-term protections have, shall we say, not been effective. If IP users actually need to get in touch with me, there are other ways. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can probably protect this for between 3 to 6 months, as long as you set up an unprotected talk subpage and link it from your main talk page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)