User talk:Roscelese/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Advise regarding POV user

Hi Roscelese, yesterday I noticed a user by the name of Eratov making a number of un-summarized edits to articles about members of the Soviet Union. Although some of his edits seem legitimate, his changes to Arnold Deutsch and his extensive edits to Lavrentiy Beria and Gulag may be geared toward erasing criticism of the SU. Due to the size and complexity of this (and the little fact I know very little about the subject matter) I don't feel adequate to assess it myself. Could you give me some advice? Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I also know very little about the topic, and my computer's in the shop so my editing is going to be very limited over at least the next couple of days. Have you considered going to a noticeboard (like NPOVN) for wider input? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, some of the edits do look problematic, feel free to quote me on that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was such a board, so I've tried raising the subject there. Thanks! Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just brought Skyeking/VHEMT talk page up at WP:ANI. Your comments are welcome. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On our recent "talk"

Roscelese, our recent discussion seemed to spiral into territory it better not would have, if you feel offended I do apologize for that. I harbor no ill intent towards you or any of the groups you affiliate yourself with. Just out of curiosity, may I ask why are you so interested in the topic? What I've understood of the Torah, you're "off the hook" in (if you know what I mean) when it comes the topic and your religion. Tikru8 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in religion as a subject of academic study (and probably know rather more about the Christian Bible than most Christians), but even besides that - well, one can't really say that Christian interpretations of the Bible have no effect on my civil rights as a queer Jewish female when Christian politicians try to make them the law of the land for everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so I assume you are from the "other side of the Atlantic", makes perfect sense in that case. Even though those passages do not concern me personally, it's interesting because it has been such a political hot potato in my home country where the opposite situation is evolving: The popular opinion is becoming that if you dare say that you think God (i.e. the Bible) should have the ultimate authority in matters concerning the state church, you risk being labeled as a bigot if your opinion is the "wrong one" - i.e. contrary to popular opinion. Maybe in a couple of decades traditionalists x-tians here will be in the same situation as the "rainbow people" as we call them were in 20 years ago. Tikru8 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...Let's just say I very much doubt it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Come over here and find out ;) Over here, in the last elections, an openly homosexual candidate was the runner-up in the presidential elections while at the same time the biggest church magazine published by the state church openly condemned traditionalist x-tians, labeling them as bigots. Meanwhile the state and the state church themselves have started to cut funding for all x-tian organizations that do not explicitly state that they accept openly LBGT people into their leadership, ignoring what our laws on religious freedom say and the sola scriptura stance our state church (at least in theory) has. Tikru8 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I know a single LGBT person who wouldn't gladly accept the opportunity to have equal access to health care, employment, to marry the person they love, not be bullied to suicide in their pre-teen and teen years, etc., if the only trade-off were to lose the opportunity to use other people's money in the service of discrimination and to accept being called a bigot for holding positions which are bigoted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, as a traditionalist (but some sort of evangelical/revisionist) x-tian, I see a perfect "[What would Jesus do?|WWJD?]" here that should be promoted by "my kind" through words and action: In my country the equal access to health care and employment are in check (and there is also "legally registered relationship", which however does not satisfy most LBGT people) but the bullying is not. What is however sad is that the general population cannot make a distinction between not endorsing "gender-neutral" marriage for Biblical reasons in the church and homophobia/bigotry. On the other way around, I've noticed a paranoia in many x-tians that giving in on certain issues to the LBGT cause will lead to a "slippery slope" and therefore blanket-rejecting all pro-LBGT legistlation. Maybe I should become a politician to address both the concern that you expressed as well as the concern I raise.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God." Tikru8 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An idea that is often raised is that of removing marriage from the legal domain entirely and calling everything a civil union. That would allow religious bodies to recognize those marriages which they feel like recognizing, so that LGBT-friendly denominations could recognize same-sex marriage, Catholic churches wouldn't have to recognize marriages of divorcés, etc. etc. (and of course since "marriage" is not purely a religious term, it would surely continue to be used by secular folks as well who had been united by a registrar) without this having any effect on which relationships could be legally recognized. However, I don't see that this is likely to come to pass, largely because straight people don't want to be civil-unionized. (Gosh, I can't imagine what it must feel like to have one's marriage not called one by the government!) I think people generally accept that, for example, the RCC doesn't have to marry divorced people; while I'm sure there would still be groups pushing for reform within the church, there would not be nearly so large a backlash if they'd stop trying to put their religious beliefs in the law the way they don't do about legal/civil marriage of divorced people. I still think the position is wrong, but my immediate concern is that they are attempting to enforce Catholic beliefs (and ditto other denominations, evangelical, Mormon, etc.) on people who do not share those beliefs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Logically " thinking that sounds like a good plan. But will for sure meet opposition and not just from x-tians as "marriage" has at least in my country never meant anything else except a lifelong dedication between 1 man and 1 woman (that has the purpose of producing offspring), thus many here resent "gender-neutral marriage" purely on traditional (and potentially linguistic) grounds, not religious. One potential solution that was put forward by the guy who won over the homosexual candidate in the presidential elections was to give LBGT -people same legal rights but still not call it "marriage" nor "civil union" but something else. I understand if some rainbow people don't like this but if we detach ourselves from the current discourse and the potential value difference associated with the words, there are at least 2 differences between a lifelong hetero- and a homosexual union: a) The ability of producing offspring for whom both parties are biological parents at the same time. b) the heterosexual union of 2 has 1 of each gender. Thus making a new word might not be a bad idea after all from a "logical" standpoint, especially since our new president is neither a) supporter of "fundamentalist" x-tian values nor b) bigot, thus he does not propose such things out of resentment or discrimination. Tikru8 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that in your country, marriage has only meant a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman with the potential for reproduction. What word do you use for the marriages (in all the languages I speak) in history that included one man and many wives, or marriages (again in my several languages) that end in divorce, or marriages (ditto) between elderly or infertile people? It seems like a very interesting linguistic question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have been more pedantic with the wording: What I mean is that throughout our history, if someone from my country is "married", it meant that he/she is in a union between 2 people (no more, no less), 1 of each gender and that the aspect of reproduction is strongly associated with the word. Thus many non-christian but still traditional people oppose using the same word for a union between 2 ppl of the same gender over here. Now for me as a very logos-oriented person pure tradition is a weak argument but it has been raised in public discussion on gender-neutral marriage by others, that's why I mentioned it. Any yes, we do use the word "marriage" for the types of "marriage" you mentioned too. The word is "avioliitto", consisting of the words "avio" (no contemporary meaning) and "liitto" (union). Just living together with a partner(s) (of any sex) outside a marriage, on the other hand, is "avoliitto", "avo"(in) = open, "liitto = union". It was proposed the change the word "avio" in "avioliitto" to something else when the question is a union between 2 ppl of same sex. Tikru8 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carina Vance Mafla

Hello! Your submission of Carina Vance Mafla at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carina Vance Mafla

Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Museo Nacional de Arte

Hello, would you take a look at the Museo Nacional de Arte? I stumbled upon it, and I see hardly any third party sources, so maybe we should start an AfD-procedure. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As the name suggests, it appears to be the national art museum of the country, which is itself a case for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when is something notable by having a name that implies notability? Where did the need that it is "the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources" go? Could you please explain that to me?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. It is the national art museum, along the lines of the National Gallery and the National Gallery of Art. A lot of governmental institutions and individuals gain notability from their status as such. It also seems a likely possibility that there are sources I don't know to look for because they are not in a language I speak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

O well, never mind. But please, try to calm down a bit at AfD-discussions next time. You were pushing me too hard to chance my view into yours, which caused me to go to the complete other side. And nobody benefits from that. All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:History of South Asia.
Message added 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD! CMD (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

March 8th Featured article

They're debating what article to run on March 8th as the Featured Article. That day is International Women's Day, so I think something that fits that theme should run.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)". Thank you. --В и к и T 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia on Wikipedia

Aloha. I'm not very familiar with the history of homophobia on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could bring me up to speed at some point. Do you think that policies like Wikipedia:No personal attacks and guidelines like Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette adequately cover this problem? Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem with the policies, which seem perfectly adequate - they just seem to be enforced unevenly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And what is the reason for the lack of enforcement? Would you say that some users have difficulty identifying homophobia? That's what I think. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly as a general rule it's harder to identify examples of a prejudice if one doesn't often encounter it and/or study it. I recall an instance some time ago when, ahem, some of these same users were inserting claims about George Soros secretly funding groups trying to bring about the decline of Christian morality. It's clearly a variant on a very old "wealthy Jewish businessmen conspiring to undermine Christian values with their money" canard, but (assuming good faith) if one doesn't study or hear these canards with any kind of frequency, one might not know that. I use this example as a parallel: if one has only passing familiarity with anti-gay narratives (a familiarity gained either from being on the receiving end or from learning about them out of interest or concern as a non-recipient), one might not recognize them as such. But that's a hefty dose of AGF that I don't think is warranted in all cases in the current discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not very impressed with the WP:BATTLE thinking going on here. Can't we agree that people who disagree on a subject don't necessarily hate the people they disagree with? Conservatives who don't support homosexual marriage aren't necessarily homophobic (although they often are), just as liberals who don't support Zionism aren't necessarily anti-semetic (although they often are). Taking a talk-radio us vs. them mindset to Wikipedia is a bad idea. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that here at all, so I think you are bringing your own beliefs to the discussion. Please read what is being said. If a user isn't familiar with an anti-gay narrative, how can they recognize homophobia? That's a valid question and one that deserves an answer. There is no battleground thinking going on here, so you are either ignoring the question or you are unable to understand it. My personal take on your comments, Magog, is that you are ignoring the views of others. Nobody here has taken an us vs. them mentality, and I for one make every effort to dissolve boundaries and work towards a coincidentia oppositorum. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Magog. Opposition to SSM or Zionism aren't what's being discussed here; rather, we're talking about biased canards, direct attacks on groups, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article on homophobia and I think it needs some major work. Could you take a look when you have some time and maybe raise the issue with the LGBT project? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think the problem is? I just made an organizational edit, but I'm interested in hearing what you think should be improved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia is currently a B-Class article that requires attention due to several issues preventing it from maintaining its current assessment as well as hindering it from improving to GA and above. Although I could write about the problems for the next week or so, let's focus on triage. There's a glaring "unreferenced section" tag dated from 2008 in the "sexist beliefs" section. There are also maintenance tags in other sections necessitating action, particularly in the "efforts to combat homophobia" and "criticism of meaning and purpose" sections. There are short sections and paragraphs which are generally discouraged style-wise, in favor of merging into longer sections. The lead, while not that bad, does not cover the most significant aspects of the topic; when I was reading the overview, I wanted to know who defined the term and when.[1] The origins section can be collapsed into one section incorporating both the etymology and first use subsections. Other areas still lack sources, such as the "social homophobia" section. Link rot has set in with a vengeance in the references section. There's a lot more to say, but I think that's enough for right now. Please note, this is not a criticism of any major contributor. This article merely demonstrates the typical symptoms of degradation over time, which is why watchlists are your friend. Bottom line for me, is that the article fails to capture the reader's attention and explicitly lay out what homophobia is and isn't in clear words. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken Rainbow (organization)

Whew, that was close. That article was close to being deleted. Nice catch! Btw, what prompted you to visit that particular article? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As you are no doubt already aware, your and NYY's recent campaign against LGBT-related articles is being discussed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'm concerned about this coordinated attack on LGBT topics. Is anything being done at this time? Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed over at the wikiproject - on the one hand that's got people finding sources and keeping an eye on the edits, and on the other hand the knowledge that this won't fly under the radar might be a deterrent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some good faith from Lionelt, starting with having him sign up over at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Members. Can't wait to see "This user is a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies" on Lionel's user page, right under the "This user is a member of the Democratic party" userbox. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinated? Proof? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[2]. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC coordination[3] Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a little of my input and experience...the first or second day I started editing on Wikipedia, Feb 7 or 8, I knew who NYyankees51 and Lionel were. They reverted my edits on LGBT pages, tagged my citations, tagged many LGBT pages, and it seemed as if they were watching everything I did.- Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 04:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD for romney neologism

Although I originally voted to keep the article on romney neologism, I see your point about it possibly being a little premature. Another editor made a proposal that we should merge the romney neologism article into the Seamus (dog) article. I like this idea because the two topics are related, and it allows us to retain the core material without having to justify a whole article on it.Debbie W. 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey Roscelese. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Planned Parenthood

Category:Planned Parenthood, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Pro-life feminism". Thank you. --PeRshGo (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI report on user:Liamfoley

I have started an ANI report on user:Liamfoley for sockpuppetry. Feel free to comment and expand. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI report on User:123o

Hello Rosecelese. I write to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an incident involving 123o (talk · contribs) and myself; in which I have referred to a previous ANI report between yourself and the same user. Wesley☀Mouse 02:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Short message to you

Hello there. I just wanted to say I'm sorry for you being dragged into a personal dispute (I guess were supposed to be a hostile witness against me). Anyway, wanted to let you know that I learned a thing or two since our last encounter, so now is a good opportunity to apologize for an amateur response I made in the past. It would be nice if you will help me figuring out how to update the list from our previous discussion with new and valid data. cheers :) --123o (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! Basically the procedure is the same as I said it was earlier: before adding someone to the list, make sure you have a) a reliable source [not an unreliable one] that b) discusses the incident [a list of statistics won't do], attributing the drop-out to political reasons and c) names the people in question [no inferences]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Update

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is now a featured article. Thanks for your help on the talk page dispute a while back, it all worked out well in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Antifeminism

Thanks for adding OED def to the antifeminism article lede... I looked at a lot of dictionaries before adding that section, and then inserted a cite tag for the WP:NOR reasons you mention. It was kind of a preemptive "help me" tag that I am glad you were able to help with. Peace, MPS (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush reverts

Your at 3 reverts, and you can be blocked for that many. Much better to discuss on Talk rather than edit summaries. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I'm not at 3 reverts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hello Roscelese,

Recently after reviewing a DYK nomination, you told me to drop a line in WP:RSN, which I did, but seems it didn't go correctly as I didn't get an evaluation yet. Could you fix the error or initiate the discussion? Thanks. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Check your mail

Hello, Roscelese. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sent you the article about pro-life feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Healthcare West now Dignity Health

Hi, Ros! Back in January [4] Catholic Healthcare West changed its name to Dignity Health (and its management structure). Does the Category CHW just get "moved" to Category Dignity Health, or is it more complicated than that? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd bring it to CFR, but it should be uncontroversial. Maybe CFSR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it on the speedy list last night. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What is factually inaccurate about this article

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Nadir I doubt your reason for keeping that tag is same as al-A's. al-A i assume wants more muslims sources like sealed nectar used, am assuming you dont--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You already know I think The Sealed Nectar is a terrible source. Surely you remember that fact from when you were arguing to use it and I was pointing out that it's not a scholarly source. What's the problem? Does it not support your anti-Muslim agenda now? Al-Andalusi has already explained why the article is a POV fork and pointed out several places where you misrepresent the sources. Consider fixing those places or conclusively refuting the claims that you are misrepresenting the sources, rather than waving them off. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

i already responded 8 months ago. its not a POV fork, otherwise would be deleted: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Banu_Nadir#POV_fork , sealed nectar is a muslim source. of course its most likely biased. But its also scholarly, as the author is a well known scholar. You seem to think religious scholars are not scholars.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Does it not support your anti-Muslim agenda now?"....sigh. i have mainly used muslim sources in all my articles, the most anti muslim sources you can get. 11 of 16 refs in that article are muslim sources--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy

Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy has had changes in the length of biographical description of Sandra Fluke. It is currently quite minimal. If you have an opinion on how much biographical material on Sandra Fluke should be in the article, you can offer it on the talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for the factual inaccuracy tag?

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir.
Message added 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barry ^{(Why don't we talk?)} 07:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

If you do not agree with an aspect of an edit please do not do a wholesale undo. You may well be changing things that are uncontroversial and beneficial as what happened here Also, a controversial book in the United States that has not even banned does not have to be in Category:Censorship AND Category:Censorship in the United States. Please also note that I have created Category:Book censorship in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify your revert based on copyright issues re: revision 484380232 by Aduron78 having to do with RCC position on homosexuality. What was copyrighted here? Frankgyn (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entirety of the text was lifted from elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you tell, and from where? Have you tried a search with large segments of the text to find an original online source? Perhaps this is a problem in multiple articles on wikipedia that needs to be addressed when discovered. Frankgyn (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I can tell because I did a Google search. Very easy. To be sure I remove copyvio whenever I find it. I'm not sure what you're arguing here: should detected copyvio be left alone because some copyvio may be undetected? Certainly not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Claddagh ring

In light of this[5], I thought you should know - since you obviously didn't read the exchange on the talk page - that I am only trying to find a simpler way to express the generalities. You're right: the source is 'silly'. I'm all for a better one, but we don't have it! The one expert (Sir William Jones) who writes of the Claddagh, as it happens, copied his text from an earlier source which was half wrong!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the generalities would make sense if there were, say, five ways to wear it on the left that indicated single and one that indicated in a relationship - then the latter would be an outlier - but if half the ways to wear it on the left indicate a relationship, single isn't much of a fair generalization! Cheers, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The generalisation is fair, but uncited, true. That is what I mean: we just don't have the proper authority to go round listing the fifteen ways you'd wear it either hand. Each of us, of course, has got OR, as my wife wears one given her by her grandmother in the old way. For the article, we have one lousy modern view to cite, but then we have complaints that the article doesn't explain the reasons for orientation. Did me best to rewrite that bit without taking anything out, but jeez, it still looks a mess. Anyway I've proposed a solution on the talk page. You're always welcome to come add an idea.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Abortion

Do not assume that the abortion articles were my own personal analysis before deleting all of them and do some research. You'll find that 3 million Quranist Muslims think the same way and if you need proof of this then go to any Quran alone website or sites such as Submission.org that are Islamic websites Also the section which said excerpts from 'Quran' and Hadith was wrong because it contained no excerpts from Quran and they were all from hadith. Do you even know the difference between the two sorts of books? I have changed it to just say 'Hadith' which is correct. The opinion of killing life from the Quranic perspective is completely forbidden, even abortion - unless it threatens the mother hosts life. I should be allowed to post Quranic excerpts on the page to highlight this.

EddyJawed (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (GMT)

You should be able to cite sources that indicate that the excerpts are relevant to the topic. The suras about not killing people? Irrelevant without reliable sources designating embryos as people. The suras about female infanticide? Irrelevant without reliable sources saying that the same applies to abortion. The sura which you claim is about divorcee remarriage (2:226)? Even its relationship to pregnancy is unverifiable without any sources, let alone abortion, and 65:4 likewise says nothing about abortion.

Your original analysis is unacceptable. If the source says "don't kill a child," you don't get to write "the Qur'an says don't kill a 'preborn' child" even if you believe it really really hard. If the source says that Muslim beliefs partly come from hadith, you don't get to remove the hadith and write about your own personal "Quran alone perspective" even if you believe it really really hard. Users' personal beliefs are unimportant to Wikipedia because we depend upon reliable sources.

(The header is because the section used to contain excerpts from the Qur'an but, like the ones you added, they could not be demonstrated to be relevant, and the header was never changed.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You said "The sura which you claim is about divorcee remarriage (2:226)? Even its relationship to pregnancy is unverifiable without any sources". OK firstly have you read the first part of this Sura? It says '[2:226] Those who intend to divorce their wives shall wait FOUR MONTHS (cooling off);'....can you tell me what possible reason our GOD in the Quran would ask the divorcee to wait 4 months - specifically '4' months? - Is this not a good indication to you that its talking about the keeping an embryo alive as every where else in that document other 'Muslims' are talking about allowing to kill an embryo in the first 4 months. What other source do you need? I can source you many Quran alone commentators if you like, or their websites etc - since you are accepting commentaries as source from other Pro-abortionists 'scholars'- would this suffice?

Also when you talk about sources of abortion for 'female infanticide' well obviously in medieval Arabia which was the time the Quran was written, people didn't have the technology to determine the sex of an embryo and hence kill it pre-birth (as females are less favoured in Arab culture). This is the reason why we use the female infanticide verse is used where GOD clearly emphasises the gross sin of favouring males over females. This is clearly enough for any Muslim to realise that sex selection is wrong and has nothing to do with your assumption of my personal 'really really hard' beliefs.

EddyJawed (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2012 (GMT)

Your comment is a really good example of WP:OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If I cite the anti-abortion Quranist scholars with my Quran excerpts under a new section on that page, to display a more accurate view on the subject amongst Muslims worldwide - then will this suffice? - This is just a straight forward question. EddyJawed (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (GMT)

The scholars' opinion would have to appear in reliable sources and specifically comment on the subject in order to be included. That would still not solve the POV problem, but it would help with OR. You also may not remove information because it is personally disagreeable to you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Care

Re [6], please review [7]. You're not playing the game right - you can't tell someone you are talking about them - you have to hint obliquely. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks

For making the WP:BLP compliant edit at PLF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Roscelese. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Sonicyouth86's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am not a Sockpuppet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermas (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shaima Alawadi

Just wanted to let you know that I plan on nominating the Shaima Alawadi article for deletion as non-notable. I will post here again when I actually figure out how to do it. I wanted to give you super-early notice so that you could provide more sources or evidence that this murder is independently notable.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is always a consideration, but I suspect that it will, in the long run, end up being more notable than the "missing white female" articles that are consistently kept at AfD. Community consensus has almost obliterated WP:EVENT. That said, "more notable than something non-notable" is not the standard I want to meet in my own articles; I do actually think that this will be discussed for some length of time (among other things, if it's prosecuted as a hate crime it'll be the first time the murder of a Muslim woman was officially a hate crime, IIRC). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion here [8] I understand your point and you might be right. I actually didn't support my own deletion request, but merely started the discussion with what I thought were legitimate issues. We'll see how others view this, but I suspect you're right and it will be kept.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this morning that papers are speculating that this was an honor killing now. I think this is an extremely sensitive topic with huge and obvious BLP concerns. However, it seems odd to include the "hate crime" theory and not the "honor killing" theory. If the case turns out to be the latter, I doubt this story will have much legs and, consequently, would be deserving of an article. But as the article has survived the deletion process, I feel we have to address the issues in some manner. Anyway, I have only a passing knowledge of the events and thought that you might be better equipped to deal with this than I.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iraqi-woman-beaten-calif-home-planning-divorce-16086399

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/07/shaima_alawadis_murder_hate_crime_or_honor_killing/singleton/

LedRush (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've lost track of the story in the past few days as I've been dealing with other stuff. Feel free to add information if you want - otherwise, I'll try and get to it some other time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Christy Scott Cashman

You didn't leave a link in the G12 Speedy Deletion template, although you did in the edit summary, your tag should read {{db-g12|http://www.saintaire.com/company}}, provided that is the URL it is a copyvio of. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps - it's not a direct copy though, just a really close paraphrase, so I was worried that whoever reviewed it would just hit the duplication detector and remove the tag. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Freeloading Spaniards

Worth keeping an eye on that en: → es: translation project. Strong smell of freeloading - see "Purpose". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that the editors are trying to use Wikipedia as a host for schoolwork (surely if they meant it for es.wikipedia, they'd host it in userspace there?) Probably should go to MFD if they don't do something with it soon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sec. Summit

So the secular summit is secular. Good to know. And maybe we can say the Pope is an atheist, because he doesn't worship the One True God?

If you want that section in there, take it to the talk page like you should have from the beginning. Since we can't seem to agree on what "the" means, it would be helpful to have other comments. You can also make a WP:RfC. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to give Breivik

adjectives, such as terrorist, criminal, monster, A-hole if you prefer Wp to have pages that are of lower quality. I prefer otherwise, but I'm not a warrior. Have it your way. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

tag teaming

dear roscelese,

i need your advice. there seems to be a tag-team consisting of User_talk:Plot_Spoiler and User:AnkhMorpork as they're backing up each others edits on controversial subjects [9], [10]. are there any arenas here on wiki were such behavior could be addressed?-- altetendekrabbe  21:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not every instance of more than one person editing on a controversial subject is tag-teaming. They're obviously edit-warring against NPOV, but tag-teaming generally entails coordination between the two editors to, for example, circumvent an RR restriction. WP:AN might be the right venue to report an instance, but I don't think you'd have any luck there and you might face repercussions yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

a side comment

I encourage you to avoid leaving any commnent in my talk page, due in the past I have received some unacceptable rude comments from you, up to calling me an "idiot", some other users have complained about similar comments from you, and actually you have been blocked because of that sort of personal attacks, so perhaps you are too engaged with pro-abortion and too susceptible to fly off the handle so if any other user is really concerned about my doings let them do the job of warning me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Suit yourself. When your edits win you a longer topic ban, don't say no one warned you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Uwadi

Kenneth Uwadi is back. It was an article that you did a, AfD and was deleted. There are a couple of refs that talk about him, but after reading them, they seem dubious. I deleted other refs that were unreliable or didn't talk about him. I'm up in the air on what to do. Could do a speedy delete because of the previous AfD, but it looks like new sources might have been added. Could you take a look? You saw the last revision, so you would be a better judge than I. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While it was some time ago, this new version doesn't look substantially different from the old one - certainly no suitable new sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic teacher dismissed for receiving fertility treatments

http://us.cnn.com/2012/04/26/us/indiana-in-vitro-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 I know there's a risk of recentism here; however, I'm not proposing to focus on just this one news article.

I think it is encyclopedic to discuss the church's stance towards human reproduction e.g. contraception and fertility treatments. I'd like to give it a treatment similar to the article on Catholic Church and abortion or Catholic Church and abortion in the United States. I notice that there is no article on Catholic Church and human reproduction. What do you think of that as a title for a new article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea is sound in theory, but I think there should be separate "CC and birth control" and "CC and in vitro"; then, your proposed "CC and reproduction" could be a summary article for abortion, BC, in vitro, possibly out-of-wedlock birth, and so on. Then within each article, one could figure out what news stories merited inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

False Reporting Section

I understand you have strong personal feelings on the matter, but Wikipedia entries should stay as neutral and impartial as possible, avoiding any strong, definitive statements and opinions. Anyways, I have started a section on the Talk page about it to discuss the matter further. Thanks.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrt your first point, that's exactly why I've reduced weight (in a summary article) of a widely debunked study, and restored a better-regarded one. The second, however, is not true; there's no "that's just, like, your opinion, man" in cases of scholarly consensus, and scholarly consensus is clear that Kanin's study, if not wholly worthless, is such an outlier that it is unnecessary to include it in a summary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it would better to have this discussion the Talk page, where I've started a new section, as opposed to here. Secondly, stating that a study has been "debunked" and is thus so incredibly worthless that it shouldn't even be in the article requires very powerful sources that state this fact. At present, the study is included in the article with the caveat that it has been "much criticized", which the sources certainly indicate. However, until you can cite precisely how and where it has been "debunked", there is no reason for deleting that study. The links you have provided (incidentally, all from researchers that have conducted RIVAL STUDIES) hardly show a "scholarly consensus" that the study is "debunked" or "worthless". (Also, those researchers are in no way the majority or form a "consensus" all by themselves, even had they used such language) Also, I would appreciate it if we could discuss this issue without you reverting my edits each time.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I could say the same of you. Please read WP:WEIGHT to understand why you shouldn't be repeatedly restoring this material. Gain consensus on the talk page first. (Also, are you seriously arguing that scholars are pointing out the serious methodological flaws in Kanin's study because they're, y'know, jealous or something? "Rival studies"?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician by education. If you make a powerful statement alleging that a study has been DEBUNKED and is WORTHLESS, the onus is on you to provide proof. So far, you have not done so. Making a powerful statement and then claiming the burden is on someone else to prove it wrong is not the way things normally work.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If we were stating in the article that the study was debunked, we would obviously need a source that used those words. But we don't say that in the article; rather, we're not including it because it's a single study and a particularly poor example of one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You used words like "debunk" as the reason not to include the study, and are now using the weaker, but still extreme phrase "particularly poor" to describe it. Once again, you need sources and proof. I have asked for these again and again, and you still have not provided them, all while making proclamations that "we will not include the Kanin study" on the Talk Page. At present, the study is listed with the caveat "much criticized", which is certainly accounted for in the links.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to continue using the phrase "debunk" if it would make you happy. The fact remains that we have no reason to include any individual study in a summary article, and that if for some reason we decided to do so, Kanin's would be the last one we would choose because it is such a very inaccurate picture of scholarly opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep making statements like "debunked" and "very inaccurate" without a shred of proof. This is not a message board or a blog. This is an encyclopedia. You need sources and proof, something you have failed to provide after repeated requests.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Still, that's no excuse for you to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have? I made 3 edits on the page in about 24 hours, and the last one was not in any way a revert, marking a substantial difference from the original. Anyways, I will gladly abstain from making any further edits on the page for a couple of days, but sincerely hope that Roscelese will discuss the issue and attempt to provide some evidence for her powerful claims.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ChessPlayerLev, you have been edit warring because you've been single-handedly reverting the contributions of two users, User:Roscelese and myself. User:QuizzicalBee was the third editor who undid your changes. People have been reverting your edits because many are unhelpful: for instance, you've repeatedly tried to remove the most reliable source we have, a 2006 literature review, with the explanation that the study is "bashing the police"; you have been trying to conflate the FBI category "unfounded" with "false", disregarding the fact that not even the FBI claims that "unfounded" = "false"; you've been trying to selectively delete one individual study which, due to its sample size of n=2,643 and other aspects, was deemed particularly good by Lonsway, Ashambault & Lisak and Rumney while simultaneously doing anything to retain the Kanin study which, as you yourself admit, has been "much criticized". Please try to gain consensus for your edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

SonicYouth86, I am hardly "edit-warring" considering that I created topics on both this and the Article's Talk Page (after making a total of 2 edits, one a revert) with the sole purpose of discussing this issue and gaining consensus. However, with the exception of a single passage which I put back into the article, you have failed to discuss the topic on the Talk Page at all. If anything, you are the one that prefers edit-warring on this issue (which you seem to be trying to "win" and will probably accomplish, considering there is one other editor, Roscolese, making the same reverts, also without providing sources for her claims), instead of rationally discussing it. For instance, right after this message, you made a revert on the Article on an issue you haven't brought up at all in the Talk Page. I won't revert it myself, but would kindly ask you to discuss it on the relevant Talk page first. For the record, while a sample size of n=2,643 may indeed be the largest, a couple of fellow academics with studies that showed similar numbers (both of them abnormally low compared to the mean rate of 10-20% false allegations found over 20+ different studies) stating a study is the "most rigorous" does not mean we can include that statement without quotes. I am fine with including "most rigorous" as long as it is properly sourced and quoted.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting is edit warring regardless of whether there was a discussion on the talk page, and regardless of sourcing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ChessPlayerLev, I replied on the article talk page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man, appreciate it.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New article on Edward S. May of Gates of Vienna

I was wondering if you could give us your advice, as a senior editor, on the question of [11] notability in the case of Edward S. May. While the rules for biographies tells us the criteria, I believe long-term experience as a Wikipedia editor can help us make a judgment call. I'm not sure I have it right. I lean towards deletion but I hate to dampen the enthusiasm of the author of the article, another fairly new editor and grad student in anthropology. However, the integrity of Wikipedia comes first. I’d appreciate your advice. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the references in the article, I'm not seeing anything that asserts notability. There may be more out there, and certainly it's a little difficult to search on a phrase like "Gates of Vienna" that returns so many unrelated hits, but the author seems to have tried very hard to pick up on any mention of this individual so I doubt there's much s/he hasn't found. I'll check back later and !vote in the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Unfolded Film

Hello Roscelese. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Unfolded Film to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

Quick Note, War on Women has been renominated for Deletion--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My involvement in that page has been very tangential so I'm not sure why you're contacting me. I'll take a look, but can't promise any valuable perspective. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But still... how often on Wikipedia does someone tell you that your opinion would be valued? :) MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:LGBT rights table Europe

Hi. Could you give your opinion to edit by Eraserhead1? See [12] Ron 1987 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. Deciding that some partnerships are to be considered marriage and some are not, when they're not officially marriage, seems like an OR-ish insertion. The problem could be solved by adding a note either by the specific case or as a general part of the header that some "recognitions" of unions confer more rights than others, sometimes approaching the same number of rights as marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you add your opinion here? Regards. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)