User talk:Roscelese/Archive 9

Thank you
I had tried to revert the edit where Qibla was moved without discussion, but I must have done it incorrectly somehow, it seems it only reverted the content of the article instead of the actual move. Thank you for correcting that. Peter Deer (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Coleman 1RR
Be careful with reverting going forward, thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally RR exempts obvious vandalism, and an unexplained revert by an account devoted to hounding me seemed to fit the bill. Nonetheless, thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Carlo Bon Compagni
Hi Roscelese. Since you know the Italian language very well, could you please look at my stub on Carlo Bon Compagni di Mombello and the Italian version of the article? It would be nice if we were not having a heated argument about a controversial topic for a change. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, I can translate the Italian article, if that's what you'd like? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, yes.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for editing. For me this is more satisfying than our discussions on articles involving former muslims. If you ever would like to have some dutch text translated, you know where to find me.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ARE
Please keep the holier then though comments about me out of the report. Comments like "It's a shame that you see Wikipedia in terms of personal disputes, rather than an attempt to produce the best-sourced and most neutral encyclopedia." and "You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV (hint: it's not about making sure all POVs are represented)," are just poorly veiled attacks. As a long time editor on here I do not need to be told what WP is and isn't. I do not need to be told what NPOV is and isn't. As the person who brought the report and several reverts on the page your actions are up for review, mine aren't.Marauder40 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BARD
Hey, Roscelese! My reasons for posting here are twofold: my internet broke so my IP is new; also, further to your comment about verse/prose composition of Shakespeare's plays, I made a table yesterday detailing each character's speeches and scenes for Hamlet. I think it looks pretty good, and pending any changes you'd like to make, would you mind adding it to the characters section of the article on Hamlet? In addition, if you want to add it at the same time, the play is 75% verse and 25% prose. The reference for both the table and overall percentages is. Thanks! 109.149.78.250 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

review
Hey Roscelese. I was curious about your thoughts on my recent article Gay Women's Alternative. A user noted that it reads like a promotion, which was not the article's intention, since the organization is historical and needed to be documented. Let me know if you have any thoughts for revisions. Cheers Kelsey Brannan (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are one or two phrases which read a little as promotion - specifically, the "offered an alternative space for gay women to gather" and the ten candle things - but the rest of the article seems perfectly fine to me. I'll rephrase those parts slightly.–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kelsey Brannan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar debate
Given your opinions expressed at WT:TV on the West Wing articles, you should be aware of Talk:Woody_Interruptus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but I don't do a lot of work in TV articles - I'm just a West Wing fan. :D –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Feng Jianmei external link
Your claim that the Christian Post is not a reliable source is without basis. Just because you think they make stuff up in pursuit of "an anti-abortion agenda" doesn't make it true. Their is no BLP violation as the women in question is the source of the story (and their is also no claim that it is anything other than a story), not would be even if she wasn't the source. You are also wrong about your other points (an activist group is a reliable source when used to source their own opinion). I am not pushing for the text to be re-included as it adds very little to the article; however, the external link is valid and useful. The reader is perfectly capable of deciding whether the source is valid or not - they don't need you to do it for them.

Instead of edit warring further, I suggest you make a post on the talk page and explain your position. I will explain mine and then we can have a third party look at it and decide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The CP regularly reports, for instance, that the healthcare law will fund abortion, when it is well-known and accepted by real news sources that the Hyde Amendment prohibits abortion funding. It also regularly reports that the morning-after pill works by preventing implantation (which anti-abortion advocates believe constitutes abortion), where modern scientific studies agree that it prevents fertilization. It also regularly reports that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, a claim which is totally rejected by all major medical bodies. Perhaps they are a reliable source on other subjects, but their persistent failure to fact-check on abortion and related issues means that they fail WP:RS's requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my experience, all newspapers misreport some facts some of the time. Being a reliable source, does not imply perfection.  In any case, the link in question is merely the reprinting of what someone claimed happened to them.  There is no implication that it is vigorously fact checked.  Unless you are arguing that they made up the story, there is no valid reason why it can't be an external link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most newspapers don't continue to misreport facts when they know they're wrong. Either the Christian Post is deliberately printing false information in order to sway its readers on abortion, or they care so little for fact-checking that they run the same false information issue after issue. Either would disqualify it as an RS. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or your perception of their reporting doesn't equate with reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Christian_Post_as_reliable_source_on_abortion 24.45.42.125 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith Stacey
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Belchfire: Roscelese has been around for a while, and I'm pretty sure she knows what 3RR is. I highly recommend reading the essay WP:Don't template the regulars. If you want to remind an experienced editor that they're at 3RR a simple note will usually suffice. Leaving a big ugly warning template usually comes across as patronizing and uncivil, especially when you're the other party in the edit war. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the useful tip, Adjwilley, and I'll keep it in mind going forward. You might have a look at the sub-section WP:DTTR, and I'll also suggest you have a look at WP:MOREX.  I'm sorry the template is big and ugly, but I didn't create it.  Belchfire (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ARS Invitation

 * Thanks for the invitation, but I can't commit to regular cleanup; typically I do heavy source-searching and editing when it's a topic I'm particularly interested in and/or creating an article on. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply
I replied to you on my talk page Pass a Method   talk  17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Focus on the Family". Thank you. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

advice
dear roscelese,

i would like your advice. there are, as far as i can see, currently 3 wiki pages about the books of bat ye'or,

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide,

The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude,

The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam.

i didn't manage to find any reviews of them in the jstor,







there are some reviews in reliable sources but they are less than handful, perhaps a couple dealing with the eastern christianity-book. do these books fail our notability-policy? sure, the term "dhimmitude" is indeed "notorious" but bat ye'or's books are clearly not academically notable. if you compare the 3 pages you'll notice the similarity and the want of reliable source (not a single reliable source in the main text). do these books pass our deletion criteria? if not, what about a redirect to the "dhimmitude"-page? in my opinion, bat ye'or's meagre credentials do not deserve that many pages on wikipedia.--  altetendekrabbe   10:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can take a look at sources later. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

West Wing AfDs
If you see a flaw in how I weighed the discussion, you'll have to be a lot clearer than suggesting my readings were a preferred result. Any re-opening of the discussion would lead to a re-hashing of the same two positions a) that the articles fail WP:N, and thus should be redirected, and b) that they should be kept anyways, because episodes of The West Wing are inherently notable. b) is not a very compelling argument - certainly it isn't made with a compelling case to ignore policy. If your preferred outcome is redirection - it's done, apart from the sourced one.  If it's restoration of the articles - find sources, establish notability, then restore the articles with the sources.  Re-opening the discussion is pretty pointless, they really couldn't have been closed any other way.

Apart from which, it should be obvious from both my comments and my actions that the discussion outcome is not the outcome I would've preferred. Personally, I'd much rather we had full articles about them. But the discussion is clear-cut; way too clear-cut for my own biases to change the outcome, beyond noting that since the redirection comes from failing WP:N, new articles that pass WP:N wouldn't be subject to the same judgement. Wily D 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that. Surprised, in retrospect, that I hadn't commented on it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan RFC/U
You mention YRC "driving away other users"; can you give any examples? (I note that Br'er Rabbit has given one already.) Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind an outsider's comment on this, I'd like to say that this case seems interesting for two things:
 * 1) Just how obviously out of control this editor is, and how much impunity he has. When I made a comment that was misunderstood as an insult, it went straight to ANI. When I posted accurate edit-warring notices on a user's talk page, it also went to ANI. This person is continuously belligerent yet there are no consequences.
 * 2) The cast of characters supporting him through thick and thicker. It's almost as if people who agree with him politically are willing to overlook his behavior entirely.
 * I'm fortunate never to have had to deal with YRC, but I can't imagine why Wikipedia would tolerate an overt bigot editing. I guess he would label me a "hater".
 * Anyhow, I'm not going to add my voice to the proceedings, but I have trouble not speaking my mind somewhere. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

lists
I absolutely didn't want the specific list to be the target. Another editor chose to headline it in the section, which is, I think, an error. BLPN was a good place to start. I don;t have the time to continue it in detail right now. I'm about to go away in a coupe of days. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I understand. For now, let's keep the list inclusion criteria the same, and when you have time, a larger discussion can be started. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose to stay neutral now on the inclusion criteria there because I agree that a wider discussion should be held. I'm trying hard to keep it wide at BLPN right now. Does that make sense to you? I return around 18 August and all sorts of things may have changed by then. But. if you brief me then I'll be happy to play. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidence?
"BLP has until now provided a convenient cover for users who want to censor non-heterosexuality on WP"- Can you back this claim up with evidence? Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I thought your comment was on the article, not the proposed merger paragraph. I see now it belongs in the same discussion. Sorry about that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi Roscelese. I don't believe we've ever had any contact or worked directly with each other but can i ask a request of you since i noticed you speak French? Could you watch this and note down pretty much every detail you can for me for use in the advertising section of the Citroen C3 Picasso article? I would be very grateful for this. Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do speak French but I'm not really in a position right now to deal with A/V media, unfortunately. Good luck finding someone to help you! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually experienced a random act of kindness from another user/watcher who did it for me. I just forgot to tell you. No worries about this. Have a nice day/evening Roscelese ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My new project - WWC
Hi Roscelese! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project. Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find the project page here.
 * On the talk page, you'll find a number of questions I'm seeking input on. I'm especially seeking thoughts about hosting the space off of Wikipedia (in the WordPress section). I hope you will join in on the conversation.
 * Finally, this project will be developed with volunteers from around the world who want to engage and support bringing new women to Wikipedia. If you think you'd like to be involved in some capacity, that'd be awesome. We're still working on developing roles, but, you can learn more about volunteer opportunities here.

A bit of help
First thanks for a quick answer on the notice board :D. Second, (and this maybe should be asked in the help desk), is there an alternative to inline attribution? Atm, to get good attribution, I think I need to say something like: The son said to a reporter that his father said "[quote]". All just to add to the chain of events that they stopped to pick up a injured man so to bring him to the hospital. What would you do? Belorn (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded on RSN. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hagarism
I request your assistance and opinion at that article please. Please see the recent edits and the talk page. 98.227.186.203 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

HELP!
Not sure what just happened: I was on the talk page for Christianity and Homosexuality. I tried to add one small comment at the end of the current discussion: Just as a point of information, I believe the verb sanction is being misused. To the best of my knowledge, to sanction something is to approve it. This is a bit antithetical to the noun sanction, which is a penalty. But that's English for ya!

For some reason, it put my comment in the wrong place, up further in the discussion instead of at the end. So I undid my edit. The preview looked good, but when I saved it, the entire talk page appeared blank! So I tried to undo that edit to restore everything. Everything shows up in preview, but when saved, everything is gone. I'm baffled. Can you look at the page and see first if there is anything there, and if not, try to undo my edits? I didn't do anything unusual or out of the ordinary, so I don't know why it acted this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BroWCarey (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Civility concern (at Maafa 21 talk page)
Hi, Roscelese.

In our conversation within the Maafa 21 talk page, if I have come across to you as being uncivil in any of my comments, I would like to apologize (WP:CIV). It has not been my intent to be uncivil. In fact, given the polemic nature of the underlying topic (i.e. abortion), I have worked hard at being decidedly civil. I admit that I have likely failed at times (hopefully as an exception and not as the rule), particularly in the area of forgetting to assume that you have been acting in good faith (WP:AGF). Hopefully, whatever uncivil comments I have made in the past can be overlooked as we move forward, particularly as we discuss the content of the Maafa 21 article.

The following are comments that I believe are questionable.
 * 1) My opening statement (18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * 2) My second statement (18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * 3) My latest statement (11:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

I am willing to admit that I started off poorly and ended poorly. Hopefully, though, my many comments between came across as civil. If you have read more of my comments as being either harsh or hostile, again, I apologize and hope that you will accept that I meant no harm. God bless!

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: [] Don't get fooled by Mr. Santos, once holder of the broadest topic ban ever issued.... The Banner talk 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Beleg: thanks for sharing your concerns. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft RFC on WikiProject Conservatism
I saw your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism, which leads me to wonder if you'd have any interest in contributing to an RFC. No pressure, though. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, yes. I can't contribute much at the moment as my internet access is spotty but I would be happy to compile evidence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sandra Fluke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

double pov fork
could you please take a look at this page? firstly, user:shrike is basically writing about the "dhimmi"-subject just like bat ye'or would have done, by cherry-picking sources. secondly, he doesn't even bother to mention that bat ye'or is shunned by the academic community and so on. thirdly, the fact is that the "the dhimmi: jews and christians under islam"-book is not notable at all. it doesn't deserve a page on wikipedia. should i take this one to afd?--  altetendekrabbe   15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know I said a little while back I'd check out the sources for notability and so on. Haven't had a chance to do it, will sometime though. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups
I put up an edit warring notice for User:Soniarangel for her four edits (this is in addition to the sockpuppet report.) To her credit, she finally goes to the talk page as she should have in the first place to give some justification on why this text should be included. I'm not sure why you reverted her comments; if Wikipedia's policies are to take possible edit wars to the talk page to be discussed, then I don't think we should roll back their comments unless it's clear vandalism which IMHO it was not. I've restored that user's comments to the talk page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted from my watchlist page - must have assumed it was another edit to the article and rolled it back without looking too closely. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, remember that WP:3RR technically applies to you as well, as the contributions on the main page didn't fall under any of the criteria outlined there (it's not clear vandalism and SPI hasn't come back with a call on whether they are officially socks or not.)  Nobody gets a pass on 3RR. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious socks are obvious. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. ''Please read WP:3RR for details on when you get a pass. If you think it's a sockpuppet, they have to be banned before it's considered OK.'' Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at this, and it's clear to me that Roscelese is reverting vandalism involving a BLP. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Nugent
Hi Roscelese. Could you take a look at my latest revision and its reversal at the Michael Nugent-page? A part of it was only referenced by youtube-vids, and IMHO this is not enough. This was reverted however, since "Being on YouTube doesn't make one notable, but notable things are sometimes recorded and put on YouTube. (TW))." So could you take a look at it, and see what opinion is the most correct one, according to you?!Jeff5102 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Boston Globe article
Is there more information in that article about the limitations the FBI faces collecting information about hate groups? I think this is important to put in the SPLC article as well as the FBI article. Thanks. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 12:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, as a government agency with a bad history of political repression, they can't track groups based solely on their views/speech - there has to be criminal activity. Also, even if a criminal is associated with a group, like Eric Rudolph and James Kopp, if it's not the group per se planning the attacks, it's not enough. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not even the expectation of criminal activity is enough to untie the FBI's hands. There has to have been a crime. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agreed; however, although I think this definitely should be in the FBI article, there is less argument for placing it in the SPLC article, as it is about the FBI not the SPLC. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that the SPLC saw a hole and determined to fill it themselves. The hole can be described as the FBI's inability to act in a preventive manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that spelled out in the article in question? KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is spelled out in either SPLC or FBI. This is why I was asking Roscelese about the BG article which I don't have access too.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me correct myself. Anti-Semitism Worldwide, 1999/2000, page 218: "Under current law [2001], the FBI is barred from investigating hate groups unless an imminent threat is perceived." US FBI Academy Handbook (2002), page 84: "The FBI investigates domestic hate groups within guidelines established by the Attorney General. Investigations are conducted only when three criteria are met: a threat or advocacy of force is made; the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law." These show more leeway than I had thought. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re to LGR: No, I meant in the Globe article, apologies for any confusion. I'm concerned about possible OR and SYNTH here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is mostly about the limitations imposed upon the FBI in tracking hate groups. For example "The reasons: the agency's embarrassing history of overzealousness and the First Amendment protection of individual rights."


 * There are quotes from Janet Reno and the then-current administration: "...Clinton told a group of Jewish leaders that he would review the FBI restrictions. " It goes on to say that more than 30 years ago, J. Edgar Hoover's the FBI tracked ideological groups, mostly liberal ones, on the basis of their beliefs.


 * Specifically, "The Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, and Students for a Democratic Society were among the groups monitored and infiltrated by an FBI unit known as the Counter Intelligence Program, COINTELPRO...". Certain groups can be investigated if their members have been involved in crimes. Then there is the reference to the SPLC, and further details about proposed hate crimes legislation and steering clear of potential 1st amendment concerns.


 * I did a search and found the text of the article here. Someone must have posted it there and I don't know how long it will stay.


 * The article does not mention that "the SPLC saw a hole and determined to fill it themselves." However, "The hole can be described as the FBI's inability to act in a preventive manner." would be a reasonable summary of the article.
 * – MrX 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

CfA talk
Was your statement "that's plainly false" directed at me, or were you missing an indent and responding to Arzel? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Arzel. I'll fix it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BTW I hope I didn't sound like I was throwing down the gauntlet, thats part of the reason I asked here.     little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance with vandalism
Hi Roscelese. I'm trying to tutor a new user (User:BlueStars83) in vandalism but he's struggling and i'm not sure i've explained it properly. Are you any good with this kinda stuff? Thanks and enjoy the rest of your day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really, really like your "challenge" idea! For vandalism, the "Recent changes" section is definitely the place to start but I recommend using filters - WP has a few tools which identify suspicious edits, so edits caught by a particular filter are more likely to be vandalism. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested hiding logged-in users edits but he's struggling more with identifying vandalism than anything. I'm not sure how to explain it better. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna be a budinski. Tell your new editor to not only hide logged in users, but search for the word "school".  Chances are he will see lots of vandalism examples.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits to articles on schools are picked up by the "possible libel or vandalism" filter (other good filters: "possible vandalism," "repeating characters," "nonsense characters," and "blanking"). Interestingly, the list appears to have been compiled in such a way that it also picks up fictional schools. Anyway, vandalistic edits are ones that are made with the intention of disrupting rather than improving the encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for that. He's able to identify vandalism now but i'll have to test him more on this as he may have just lucked out with the last attempt. Thanks again though and you both have a nice day/evening! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cumin
No apology necessary. I was playing with something similar, but never hit on a satisfying summary. I added Latin American, because it's one of the main spices used at least in Mexico. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Long DYK? Nomination
I think that I formatted my article for this DYK? nomination correctly now. Please look at it whenever you can. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Anderson at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA
Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not even remember editing such a page and have no knowledge of MMA, sorry. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   01:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
If you don't believe the discussion is worthwhile, I don't have a problem with being bold and restoring the material. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I was aware of being at 3RR and was not going to go past that. I might mention that it would pay to be careful for you too, as there have been 4 reverts in just over 24 hrs (which is sometimes viewed poorly by admins). There is nothing in this article that is worth either of us (or anyone else for that matter) being blocked over. Why don't we wait and see how the discussion on AfD and the talkpage go? That is one of the reasons that I listed the refs on the AfD rather than just inserting material. Later today, if I get the time I was planning on placing proposed material on the talkpage, along with the supporting citations. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go Phightins! (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't work unless the TB is on some kind of talk page, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Citizenship Change"
There is no reliable source citing the individual's Slo citizenship. They may cite birth-place, ability to speak language, and the like, but there is no source citing his nationality. In fact, I know he is not Slovenian by his citizenship. Feel free to change this without the explicit RS, but be sure that you will be asserting a wrong info. This is a riskier move than leave this piece of info blank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the cited source explicitly states that he holds Slovenian citizenship. If you believe something has changed, please produce a more recent reliable source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. You are right, there is one old source. Let me try to see what I can do as I know this is not accurate.--Mcsngrca (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Zeng Qinghong
The source was a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks. The person who wrote that cable was Kenneth Jarrett, the former U.S. consul general in Shanghai. How does that not qualify as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMurata (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's hearsay, which would be questionable even if it came from a vetted secondary source, but I don't know what the decision of the WP community has been on leaked stuff as sources for BLP. It seems questionable but you could check RSN or BLPN. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In what sense is it hearsay and why is that a problem? This isn't a court of law. I guess you could argue that it's hearsay from the standpoint of the cable was written by a U.S. diplomat based on what someone else said. But if that's your criteria for evidence then I would think virtually all the sources on Wikipedia would qualify as hearsay. I would bet that most of the sources on Wikipedia are news sources. If you consider what they publish as testimony then I would bet that pretty much all their evidence is based on what other people tell them and would therefore be hearsay. I would think the only thing that doesn't qualify as hearsay would be opeds written by the people newspapers usually talk to. Now, if you're talking about what Andrew Zhang said as being hearsay, again, I'm not sure why that's a problem as this isn't a court of law. But actually there is nothing in what he said that indicates it was hearsay. From my reading of the cable, it just appears that he flatly says that you can bribe Zeng Qinghong for 500,000 yuan. He doesn't say that he heard that from a third party. He may have heard it from a third party. Or he may have first hand experience with it. He works for JP Morgan China which indicates that he is in China doing business. This indicates he has first hand experience with dealing with government officials such as Zeng. Why would using leaked documents be questionable? The only difference I could see is if people didn't believe the leaked documents were authentic. But if the WikiLeaks documents aren't authentic then why did the New York Times and a bunch of other new outlets write stories based on the leaked cables? Why is Bradley Manning being locked up? As I am new to Wikipedia I don't know who or what RSN or BLPN is. Who are then and how do I contact them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMurata (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RSN is the reliable sources noticeboard, and BLPN is the biographies of living persons noticeboard. They will help answer your questions! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa
Sorry for this mistake. I should have looked more carefully, and seen the colons. Thanks for correcting the mistake, and explaining in your edit summary. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Revised definition of censorship. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Censorship in Islamic societies. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DYK for Jordan Anderson
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NCLR see also link
The reason I added Athlete Ally to NCLR is because they are an advocacy organization, albeit with a different focus. So you know it was not just random or arbitrary, the addition was based on reciprocity in the fact that the NCLR is listed at Athlete Ally's web site. – MrX 12:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Mafia (book)
Gun Powder Ma reverted you, I reverted him as he was replacing scanned pdfs of letters, etc, but he put them back again citing BRD which he didn't cite until I reverted him. I took the scanned letters to RSN, but besides the other problems I note that the article links to a number of copyvio YouTube videos. Anyway, GPM wants a discussion on the talk page... Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios fixed
That should pass muster now. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, explain to me exactly what is wrong with it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for inserting some sanity in the article about Islamophobia.

PerDaniel (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 

Since when?
See talk. - RoyBoy 04:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since for some time you've been the only editor arguing for it with everyone else in opposition. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And? I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression Wikipedia is a democracy. More to the point, my points remain unanswered on the talk page, which is fine by you? If they got "fed up" that's their call, but my points aren't salient? Such as ABC clinical research? - RoyBoy 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was so sure you were going to cry "Wikipedia isn't a democracy." I don't know why I decided against responding to that in my first comment. Know what else Wikipedia isn't? An autocracy. You do not get to impose your view over the disagreement of every single other user in the discussion. We decide things based on consensus here; perhaps you've heard of it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, quit the childishness; you're acting as though you presented Oxford University Press and they responded with a Wordpress blog. The sources presented by the users disagreeing with you are equally valid or (because not out-of-date) more valid, and you've already had this explained to you so the claim about your points standing uncontested is just false. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they do, but point taken. Presenting the ABC topic, hard to do well with some sources and redundant phrases. Their sources are better -- that's why they come later / closer to the conclusion. Jasen is an excellent comprehensive source; Mastcell conveyed only what ze wanted. I consider Wikipedia a meritocracy... when it works. Thank you for replying with candor, for the record this isn't about getting my way. - RoyBoy 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma and RFC/U
I noticed his strong anti-Islamic tendencies earlier and threatened him with RFC/U. I think that needs to happen. He obviously hasn't learnt anything. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Note
I may be away from WP for a bit, but (hello talk page watchers!) there's a lot of sourcing rubbish going on right now. Keep an eye out. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your 3RR report
Please see this edit of yours, which your edit summary claims is fixing a BLP violation. This revert is one of those that is being discussed at WP:AN3. Can you say specifically why you think you are fixing a BLP violation? Leave aside whether it's a copyvio (I haven't checked, but it could be). Merely adding sourced criticism doesn't fall under the 'unsourced defamation' clause. If your opinion is that anything sourced to the National Post opinion columns is a BLP violation, you might need to persuade a larger group of editors that you're correct. It would be appreciated if you can respond in the AN3 report. If I were voting on the content of the article I might well oppose including this, but my question is if it falls under WP:3RRNO. If not, it has to be counted against the 3RR limit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do consider the National Post, based on known facts about its bias and fabrications, to be an unreliable enough source that including its news material is questionable, to say nothing of opinion, other issues include:
 * Op-eds are not reliable for statements of fact. The Steacy quote is cited to three op-eds and a primary sourced remark by another opponent, so it's unverified, and based on the searching I did it's not only unverified but unverifiable. It's referred to in a bunch of (mostly anti-CHRC) op-eds but they ultimately refer back to the hearing transcript, which is not available online (not a case of WP:OFFLINESOURCES - it's not online meaning that no users have been able to access it and see that it contains what the unreliable sources say it contains.) We shouldn't be including unverifiable and controversial material about a living person, and we shouldn't then use that material as a hook for two full paragraphs of criticism of that living person (in which, among other things, they're described as "lacking basic general knowledge").
 * Op-eds are not reliable for statements of fact mark 2: Hyperionsteel has repeatedly reinserted the claim, sourced to an op-ed, that Shiv Chopra failed a test necessary for advancement and that his colleagues called him confrontational. Looking at the actual ruling, he failed no such test (instead, it was determined that he did not have enough experience) and that the remark about his being confrontational came from one colleague. Just because a non-fact-checked opinion piece falsified or exaggerated the facts does not mean we must follow suit and thereby violate BLP - very much the opposite.
 * –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is funny that the Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy is so heavily sourced to the National Post. One might argue that it should be rewritten, and that someone should try to find consensus for a more neutral version. If such a rewrite were opposed, help could be sought at WP:BLP/N. Anyone who cares sufficiently might be able to order the transcripts. If an editor reverts while claiming the BLP exception to 3RR they are not always on safe ground. The big-city Canadian newspapers should have covered this, but in the past I didn't have much luck finding old articles on their web sites. Our Shiv Chopra article looks reasonably balanced. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chopra article is better-balanced but I still had to remove the BLP violations (same as in the CHRC article). As for the CHRC article, yes, in its current state it's less an article on the controversy than a National Post opinion piece on how terrible the CHRC is. I have indeed argued that we need to rely less on NP op-eds and more on real sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion!
Hello, I only want to ask about why my article is deleted ? , Thank You GhiathArodaki —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you tell me which article it was? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Drown Ghost One .GhiathArodaki —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced and its existence could not be verified, so it was deleted. (Not that the ghost's existence couldn't be verified - that's not our job - but there was no evidence this is a legend anyone believes in.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's a new legend, i have heard about , so that's why there are no sources. GhiathArodaki —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You would need to have reliable sources that demonstrate both its existence and its notability in order to give it a WP article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)