User talk:Roscelese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

French rev. opera references

Incest in the popular imagination

Paul et Virginie
Caverne
Lodoiska
Melidore et Phrosine

Fratricide

Timoleon
Le mort d'Abel

articles

Pierre-Alexandre_Monsigny

Luigi Cherubini

• Lodoïska
• Médée (Cherubini)
• Les deux journées

Nicolas Dalayrac

Ludwig van Beethoven

• Fidelio
• (Eroica Symphony)

Gaspare Spontini

• La vestale (see Fr. page)

Daniel Auber

• La muette de Portici

Giacomo Meyerbeer

Étienne Méhul

• Ariodant
• Stratonice (opera)
• Chant du départ

François Joseph Gossec

André Ernest Modeste Grétry

Le Devin du Village (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

Jean François Lesueur

• Ossian

French_Opera#From_the_Revolution_to_Rossini

François Adrien Boieldieu

Mozart

• Le nozze di Figaro
• Die Zauberflote

Cimarosa

• Gli Orazi ed i Curiazi

Angelo Tarchi

• La congiura pisoniana

books

Pierre Constant, "Musique des fetes et ceremonies de la Revolution francaise," (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1899)

Lindenberger, Opera in history.

Operatic migrations : transforming works and crossing boundaries / edited by Roberta Montemorra Marvin and Downing A. Thomas

Early Opera in America By Oscar George Theodore Sonneck - Published 1915 The Boston Music Co -French compoesrs, performers, musicians, singers pour into W. Indies and U.S. - introduced Italian and French styles (only English before)

History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815 - by Archibald Alison, Edward Sherman Gould, Published 1850 by A.S. Barnes, New York -Napoleon was on his way to the opera when the Jacobins attempted on his life

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Ma Rainey.
Message added 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BelovedFreak 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tangents

Per this, very much agreed! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

arab palestine and all that... citations

"guys, can't you try a little harder"

I tried... really I did :)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's partly correct bibliographically - it's just that Wikipedia has citation templates for all this. Roscelese (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation?

Thanks for your contributions on the page Nazism in Arab Palestine.

1) For example what's wrong with "midrash.org"? of course it's reliable, historians and writers on the Farhud rely very much on it, especially as it is fair, that it shows the (few) Arabs that have helped the Jews during that massacre.

2) Why did you just remove the Der Spiegel article???

Der Spiegel reported that research shows "Hitler provided the Mufti, who later sponsored Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, with a budget of 750,000 Reichsmark per month to foment Jihad in Palestine." --User:Trendsies

Sorry - I had to add everything back in manually since there were intermediate changes, and I must have missed that one. I'll add it back in. As for midrash.org, it certainly doesn't look like a repository of historical information, and since Googling doesn't prove that "historians and writers on the Farhud rely very much on it," I'll ask you to show me a few sources.

The page does say it was a synopsis of a lecture - if information about that lecture could be found (such as the date), I think it could be cited in that format, with the link to the transcript. Roscelese (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RMK

Likewise, thanks very much to you for expanding it initially, and bringing the article's existence to our attention by linking it in Richard Strauss and Leon Jessel, etc. As one might expect, there's a fair amount of info in the German Wikipedia article, which is why I posted the box at the top. If one clicks "Translate via Google" at the bottom of that box, one gets a rough translation of the article. A lot of the info I added was via that route; plus I expanded that with some personal knowledge. There is still more to be gleaned from that German Wiki article and via a Google search, etc., but I don't have the time. Meanwhile, additional thanks, because your efforts indirectly helped point up an error in chronology in Strauss's article and also in the article that lists his compositions, and a complete omission(!) in the Wilhelm Furtwängler article. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish atheists

You can't be an atheist while practicing Judaism. Full stop. It may not be contradictory ethnically, but is clearly contradictory religiously Purplebackpack89 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Info

Please remove or change my personal info in your posts to me Abortion discussion threads.

You can change it to "Chuz Life" if you like,... or delete it.

My old name is an invitation to harassment that I would rather not have.--Chuz Life (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it, and I appreciate the effort to contact me rather than editing my comments. Roscelese (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lyn Duff

Hi, normally the process is to mark dead links, except in the case of BLP: WP:GRAPEVINE. Assertions about sexuality e.g. "In 1991 Duff, then fourteen, came out publicly as lesbian," or contentious claims e.g. "Duff was homeless, living on the streets" must be cited with inline citations. The remedy is to find a source, not restore the material in violation of BLP. The 3RR does not apply in this case, and if I don't delete it someone else will... Lionel (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The information was present in articles that were already cited, and The Advocate is not grapevine. If you have a problem with the sources, bring it to talk, but don't pretend the sources don't exist. Roscelese (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Your repeated accusations that I am deleting sourced content on Lyn Duff ostensibly because I think conversion therapy is "super" are outrageous and unacceptable. Accusing me of pretending sources don't exist is unacceptable. It is tantamount to vandalism and I will not tolerate it. My justifications relying on WP:BLP were clear. I have attempted to WP:AGF. Now that you have added inline citations, as if they were there all along, leaving this is ludicrous: "stop reverting extremely well-sourced info." At this point I feel compelled to issue this warning: please stop your WP:UNCIVIL behavior. Lionel (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

lol "accusing you of pretending sources don't exist" = "vandalism" Roscelese (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Political positions of Ron Paul. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This edit should not be used about an editor who is taking a minor part in discussion and who is demonstrating a nascent consensus against you; nor is the accusation of inserting biased perspective appropriate for a well-managed userpage-revealed COI; nor is this one word worth your committing a WP:3RR (which you did, though not the electric-wire 4RR). JJB 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nascent consensus." Uh-huh. Of people who have contributed to this discussion (I invited ClovisPt to contribute but s/he hasn't said anything yet, despite your misrepresentation of hir edits), two agree with me, and the one who agrees with you is the same one who insists that Wikipedia can only use a neutral descriptor for "pro-life" people if we adopt his inflammatory and biased descriptor for "pro-choice" people. You're not in good company, much less consensus. Roscelese (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Some content you added to Lyn Duff was plagiarized and/or closely paraphrased (in ital): "Although the treatment center was not officially affiliated with the Mormon Church, Duff later said that she was visited by LDS missionaries during her six months at the Utah facility and that the treatment she received had strong religious overtones."

From NYS Museum: "She says that although the center was not officially affiliated with the Mormon church, it had strong religious overtones, and missionaries from the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) visited her while she was there." Lionel (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not added by me (whoever originally added it obviously used that source and didn't cite), but I fixed it. Roscelese (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding or restoring [1] carries the same responsibility for the content, as in WP:BURDEN. Lionel (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I fixed it. Roscelese (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Lionel (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life

Would you mind pointing me to some community consensus that allows you to mark your textual changes and your reversions as minor? JJB 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by the guidelines (a few sections are relevant). People are generally allowed to politically self-identify (which is why you're not allowed to describe Strom Thurmond as racist, and people who do keep getting reverted), and current consensus is for describing the "pro-life" movement and "pro-life" people, and conversely "pro-choice" people, as such in encyclopedic prose; but non-people subjects aren't sapient and don't self-identify, and they have to be described from either a balanced or a neutral point of view. (Alternately, I could go to town labeling legislation as sexist and homophobic. But I'm pretty sure consensus frowns upon that, because all we have to go on is how people describe the legislation.)

You could say "X supports the Sanctity of Life Act, which he describes as pro-life. [If applicable: Critics such as Senator Y and Organization Z have called it anti-choice]" or "X supports the anti-abortion Sanctity of Life Act." I personally think the latter is less awkward, but if you think "which he describes as" would be a better standard, I don't have an objection.

However, I see that my marking the edits as minor was based on a misunderstanding of the specific rules for minor edits, so I won't do so in the future. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life vs. anti-abortion

Just a word of advice: I would stop the rampage before you really stir up some hornets' nests. There is no consensus for such a wide-spread change. Additionally, marking your edits as "minor" is an abuse of the feature. The "minor" designation is for non-controversial, trivial changes—something your edits certainly are not. Please stop. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, plus: the comments in Roscelese's reversions that "pro-life" is not properly descriptive of laws are contradictory to dictionary guidance; she has continued to edit without responding to my request for clarification; and continued stiff-neckedness combined with her userpage admissions would suggest a more serious review of the whole set of her other "minor" contributions. I would recommend starting a discussion at Talk:Pro-life, which I'll watchlist now if you want to start it. JJB 03:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary guidance? Pray, which? In OED, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage it is used only for people and groups (and by extension their positions), not laws.

I also apologize for not having my entire day free to respond to you. God forbid that I allow anything else to distract from my composition of a reply to you.

As a final note, if you're going to disqualify me from editing Wikipedia because I am a feminist, I suggest you apply the same standard to yourself, since we know self-described Ron Paul supporters are all out to inject that politician's bias into articles rather than making them encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What I referred to on your userpage was solely the clause "the attempt to remove non-NPOV political buzzwords from articles where they do not belong": if that's what you think you're doing and you think it's minor, I think you are not appreciating the process, and your contributions may need more thorough review. I skimmed the discussion below and also don't find your position trending in a wide-consensus direction. And, yes, those are the very dictionaries you appear to misrepresent. But I'll hold off on explaining the details until I'm ready to deal with the potential ramifications of doing so. JJB 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to copy and paste the relevant dictionary entries for you? Roscelese (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by the guidelines (a few sections are relevant). People are generally allowed to politically self-identify (which is why you're not allowed to describe Strom Thurmond as racist, and people who do keep getting reverted), and current consensus is for describing the "pro-life" movement and "pro-life" people, and conversely "pro-choice" people, as such in encyclopedic prose; but non-people subjects aren't sapient and don't self-identify, and they have to be described from either a balanced or a neutral point of view. (Alternately, I could go to town labeling legislation as sexist and homophobic. But I'm pretty sure consensus frowns upon that, because all we have to go on is how people describe the legislation.)

You could say "X supports the Sanctity of Life Act, which he describes as pro-life. [If applicable: Critics such as Senator Y and Organization Z have called it anti-choice]" or "X supports the anti-abortion Sanctity of Life Act." I personally think the latter is less awkward, but if you think "which he describes as" would be a better standard, I don't have an objection.

However, I see that my marking the edits as minor was based on a misunderstanding of the specific rules for minor edits, so I won't do so in the future. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roscelese. I'm not interested in starting a semantic holy war here, but I think the strategy of respecting self-identification for individuals is a good one. For non-people, we should either quote what reliable sources write, or write around it and avoid using the terms altogether. The solution at Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments is a workable one. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem with "which he describes as" is that it necessitates a source where he actually does so (as opposed to taking it on faith that "this law restricts abortion" = "he must have described it as pro-life somewhere"). I mean, it probably won't be a huge barrier, but what do you suggest for cases where no such source can be found? Do we go to other supporters? (And, as in the Ron Paul page, what about section headers where that kind of construction is impossible? I think there we really must go with "anti-abortion" as the only neutral framing.)

On a related note, I generally let sleeping dogs lie on the issue of people self-identifying as pro-life - if I'm writing a section from scratch, I go with neutral terminology, but I won't go through Wikipedia to change things - but do you have an opinion on such campaigns to change things from "anti-abortion" to "pro-life"? One user I run into occasionally is doing so, and I wonder if it isn't worth opening up a discussion on Talk:Pro-life even if this particular issue is resolved. Roscelese (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Too, in a lot of these cases the wording looks like an excuse to shove "pro-life" in there; better wording would describe what the law does/would do, without a descriptive. Roscelese (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on your sourcing question. If a source can't be found for something, than it can be challenged and removed completely. I'm against any large-scale changes like you're describing, unless an RFC has gathered community consensus. Any time something like that occurs, it seems to cause more problems than it solves. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, we seem to have established that you can't describe something in the text as "pro-life legislation"; — Roscelese — continues after insertion below

I disagree strongly. JJB 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain your position with respect to current consensus and Wikipedia editing guidelines, so that you might be able to effect the result you want? Or do you just want it on record that you disagree strongly? Roscelese (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Now isn't it funny that you accuse me of ignoring ongoing discussion. Apparently your position is so very strong that you're justified in making biased statements without consensus, yet simultaneously so very weak that it can't stand up to discussion. At least I haven't lied about other editors' positions. Roscelese (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

so you could either say "X supports the law, which he describes as pro-life," for which you'd need a source on the description, "X supports anti-abortion legislation such as..." or "X supports [law], which would [restrict abortion access in this way]."

Which large-scale changes are you referring to? - my semi-related question about changing descriptions of people from "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" (not me; and while I disagree with it, I haven't been changing anything back), or changing instances of "pro-life legislation" to any of several neutral options (me)? Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On your first point, I prefer the third option, as it avoids the terms altogether. "Pro-life" is a loaded term IMO, because it suggests any opposition is "pro-death" by contrast. However, eyebrows are raised whether you change something from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or vice-versa. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll direct your attention to the comment below, which graciously allows "pro-life" people to be described in neutral, encyclopedic language only if "pro-choice" people can be described in inaccurate, propagandic language. If you had any doubts about the agenda here, behold. Roscelese (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that "pro-choice" isn't a loaded term? - Schrandit (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's loaded. So is "pro-life," but that's current consensus, where "pro-abortion" is neither consensus nor neutral. Roscelese (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be dandy with "anti-abortion" if reciprocally pro-choice politicians and laws were described as "pro-abortion". Alas, we (as an encyclopedia) have chosen to allow groups and individuals to self-identify (pro-gun control, rather than anti-gun spring to mind). I see no particular reason to make an exception on this issue. - Schrandit (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you missed everything I've said? People self-identify. Laws are not people and cannot self-identify.

Also, "pro-abortion" is patent nonsense. Roscelese (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We take the same approach with laws (a gun-control measure, for instance, rather than an anti-gun measure or affirmative action rather than racism). I don't see "pro-abortion" as being any more nonsensical than "pro-choice". - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

While I, on the other hand, find it just as nonsensical as "pro-life," but because one is a self-identification, consensus lets it stand even though it's not at all neutral. Do you need me to make you a chart?

Not that this addresses the actual issue, of course.

1. Dictionary usage is against the application of "pro-life" to non-people/organizations. (Interestingly, the OED accepts "pro-choice" as a word one can use to describe a law, but I think it's best to keep the policy equal.)

2. If you look at it as an actual word instead of a pretty political euphemism devoid of real substance, it doesn't even make grammatical sense. "This piece of legislation believes that abortion is wrong." What? It's a law, it doesn't have a brain. (See, on the other hand, "gun control law" - "This law controls guns.")

3. Finally, as #2 implies, self-identification is not at issue when describing a law, and your repeated attempts to bring it up are a strawman by which you hope to inject biased text in encyclopedic prose. Once you claim that you can use biased language outside of self-identification (the closest thing to balance we have), NPOV is gutted.

(Obviously, per #2, "anti-abortion" isn't ideal either. The best solution would be to actually describe the policies instead of throwing in political buzzwords and signing off, but until y'all stop doing that, I've got to meet you halfway. At least it actually approximates the sense of what the law does, rather than using a biased euphemism.)

- Roscelese (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"What? It's a law, it doesn't have a brain. (See, on the other hand, "gun control law" - "This law controls guns.")" The law controls guns by banning them. It would not be inaccurate to describe several pieces of legislation as "banning guns". It would also not be inaccurate to describe a piece of legislation that upholds the legality of abortion as being "pro-abortion". You claim to be hitting at dictionary usage. There are plenty of dictionary descriptors with POV overtones. We use self-description for legislation on every other topic I can think of, I don't see why abortion should be any different. - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the law actually does ban guns, I've absolutely no objection to saying that it bans guns (or using the phrases "the gun ban"; "restricts gun ownership" where it does not actually ban them, etc.) This would actually be the solution I suggest above - describe the legislation rather than being lazy and using buzzwords. Would you be content with "Ron Paul supports legislation that would define a fertilized egg as a legal person"? Because I got the impression that you're hell-bent on throwing the phrase "pro-life" in there whether it belongs or not. (This still doesn't address the header issue, though, which would need a neutral description.)

On the other hand, describing a piece of legislation, outside of countries like the PRC, as "pro-abortion" is at best (and that's a real AGF) inaccurate. A law that does not force or incentivize one choice over another is obviously not "pro-abortion."

We use self-description for legislation on every other topic I can think of - Of course. That's why the article on the dechristianization of Revolutionary France contains the phrase "protecting the French people from reactionary Catholics who were trying to take over the government" and why the Nuremberg Laws can only be described as "pro-racial-purity." Oh, wait.

Levity aside, you're begging the question. Does the legislation contain a phrase stating that it is "pro-life"? No? Then it's not self-description. Someone else has described it as pro-life, and you want to privilege their position over people who have described the law with other terms. Roscelese (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I started a section on the article's talk page here Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion_stance_wording in an attempt to allow more editors to have the chance to discuss this (and, also without having to blow up Roscelese's talk page in the process). Kansan (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RH Bill

Liked your edit of Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines). Thanks for the good work. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I only wish I could do more - it's such a mess - but alas, my time and energy are finite. Glad you appreciated. Roscelese (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruddigore

Hi. I agree with the first part of what you wrote at Ruddigore, but I reverted it in the interests of brevity. Plot summaries need to be kept as short as possible - we don't need to describe every joke. You are right that the Basingstoke joke is a significant joke in Act II, but I don't think that describing it adds anything to the plot summary or gives a really good idea of why the joke is funny: people really have to see the show to appreciate this joke. Would you please "be so kind" as to help us keep the length of the summary down? As for the extension of the finale, I think you are mixing up the versions. I don't think that "When a man has been a naughty baronet" was added in the time frame you state. What reference are you using for this assertion? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wasn't sure if the Basingstoke joke would be worth mentioning, since other jokes are (like the "it's expected of you" for the income tax return). And as for the finale, I was just going by my score (Schirmer) which has "When a man has been a naughty baronet" and the common-time "Oh happy the lily" as one version and the straight reprise as another, but on re-reading the article more closely, I see that's been addressed under 1920s revisions. Sorry. Roscelese (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reuben, Reuben (opera)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reuben, Reuben (opera), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.vocalistonline.com/tag/musical.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Crisis Pregnancy Center. Please do not label other editors edits as vandalism without any basis in fact. Cloonmore (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually explained my rationale at the administrators' noticeboard where I reported Schrandit - I initially tried to assume good faith, which was why I suggested Schrandit re-phrase the lead in a way that suited hir (without changing the nature of the information presented), why I asked hir for sources, why I repeatedly asked hir to stop making unsourced changes, etc. However, s/he has steadfastly refused either to provide sources or to explain what's wrong with mine, which shows rather a lack of good faith - so, per the definition of "a deliberate [bad-faith] attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," I'm calling it vandalism. Roscelese (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about this edit. You didn't provide any rationale and, more to the point, did not assume good faith. Cloonmore (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We've been going over this for days in the article's talk page, and that is where I asked for sources, asked Schrandit to stop reverting my well-sourced edits, etc. If you'll read it, you'll see that I began by assuming full good faith, and that I didn't begin to call it vandalism until Schrandit had reverted my text five or six times without providing any sources, any contradictory interpretations of my sources, or anything to question the reliability of my sources. Roscelese (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that you reverted my edit as "vandalism," or are you alleging that I am Schrandit? Cloonmore (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhh I see. I didn't mean to call your edit vandalism at all. I guess it wasn't clear in my edit summary which parts were referring to which edits. The "vandalism" was only in reference to my reversion of Schrandit's repeated edits that misrepresent the sources I cited; the only comment that referred to your removal of the section was "we have entire pages on other bills that never made it out of committee, that's not a reason to remove the section." I think your edit was made in complete good faith. I'm so sorry for the confusion! Roscelese (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:RoughTranslation tag

Hi. User Hentzer reverted your edits again without explanation. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I think his account should be block. Regards. Ron 1987 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. We don't know he's acting in bad faith, so a block would be totally inappropriate at this stage. I'll leave a message on his talkpage. Roscelese (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He removed previous warns from talk page. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Ron 1987 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if he removes the templates again, maybe we can do something. Roscelese (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He removed tags again from two articles. Ron 1987 15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a formal warning template on his talk page. Roscelese (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Again... See [12] Ron 1987 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of procedure, I've put a "last warning" template on his talk page. Next time, I'll report him. Roscelese (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunphy

Always a pleasure - happy to be of help. Excellent article - keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you very much *blush*. Though I'm more of a Gherardo than a Ser Amantio, really. (Never a Rinuccio - not even in my wildest dreams...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin

I think you are right, but you've hit 3RR, so please discuss this on the talk page where I've raised the issue. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CPCs redux

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Crisis pregnancy center. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You re-inserted cites that had been removed by another editor as not supporting the statement in question. Please read and only cite sources that support the matter being asserted. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See, this is why it would be a good idea if you and Schrandit were better behaved about removing information from the article. How was I supposed to know that you didn't feel the sources reflected the statement (a legitimate reason), when over the past couple of days you've been removing information willy-nilly because it doesn't suit your personal beliefs? Roscelese (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You were you supposed to know that the sources didn't support the assertion because my comment so stated. You, however, falsely claimed that the references were removed for "no reason." Further, you falsely state above that I've removed information "because it doesn't suit my personal beliefs." You can't cite a single instance of such. You're way over the line. Cloonmore (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have missed that (I didn't review individual changes as there was a large block of them when I had the leisure to check). Sorry.

As for your personal beliefs, though - like I said in talk, there's more than enough evidence. That means you're either ignorant or malicious; I personally think ignorant is the kinder option, but you seemed to take exception. It's not like you have any actual policy reasons for suppressing this information, so I kind of have to conclude that it's a bias thing. Roscelese (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Chuck Baldwin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Schrandit (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

CPC details

I'm not going to rehash the whole debate here, but I did want your direct feedback on a specific issue.

We've been going back and forth over who to attribute the statement about CPC's giving inaccurate medical advice. Your recent change was an improvement, but I'm thinking that, with 13 different sources, we can't reasonably summarize them and we don't really need to specifically attribute the statement anyway. As I pointed out in the common sense argument, anyone can see for themselves that their medical advice is misleading, so we don't need to treat the statement like it's an opinion. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think either way of putting it is fine. Roscelese (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're neutral about it, I'll take that as mild support. My concern is that, so long as we try to attribute what doesn't need attribution, it will continue to be a magnet for edit wars. Dylan Flaherty 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting timing

I noticed a funny coincidence that I thought you might also find funny.

As you may have noticed, Mamalujo recently visited the CPC article to leave us with some tags. As it happens, this happened right after this edit. Life sure is funny sometimes. Dylan Flaherty 21:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, I love it when people decide that article namespace and talk namespace are totally equivalent. Roscelese (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sure this is just a coincidence. Speaking of which (and at risk of canvassing), would you be interested in commenting on this? Dylan Flaherty 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(To be clear, I don't believe this is actually a violation of the rules against canvassing because I have no idea of whether you'd be favorably disposed to the proposal. I noticed that you've been on Wikipedia for a lot longer than I have and have shown good judgement in general, so I wanted your opinion at least as much as I might want your support.) Dylan Flaherty 21:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the respect you're showing for my judgment - but that's an area of Wikipedia I have very little experience in, so I think I'll pass. I hope everything resolves itself in a way that's satisfactory for all involved parties. Roscelese (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Like suicide attacks, such things are for volunteers only. :-) Dylan Flaherty 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Roscelese, would you be willing to register an email address with your Wikipedia account? I have a question to ask that I would not want to ask in public. (If you're concerned about your privacy, I would recommend registering a GMail address.) Dylan Flaherty 18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually registered one already; I've just enabled the "e-mail user" feature if you want to e-mail. Roscelese (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

But all questions about my first initial will be ignored. Dylan Flaherty 18:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Minority Report

I got that deep focus site confused with this one:[13] I had googled that Bryan[t] Frazer and he also writes for some newspaper or website that appears on google news iirc and I saw him mentioned positively in a few news articles by other writers. Thanks for pointing that out, I removed that reference from the main article as well. If I have time today, I'll try to go through all the references in both those articles that might be deemed questionable there are probably more I missed. AaronY (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, because you are from an english speaking-country, please help me in the Same-sex adoption in Brazil, Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community, and Criminalization of homophobia in Brazil. 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Roscelese (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Redoing {{Antisemitism}} categories

I noticed your edit at Żydokomuna. Having taken a further look, I see you're redoing {{Antisemitism}} as {{Antisemitism in country-X}}. I did find there is a sub-category within {{Antisemitism}} for anti-Semitism by region or country but I don't see the categories you've been creating. I haven't done much with categories, but I'd expect you need to add these new ones you're creating as subcategories there to keep everything "whole." Probably better to do them along the way than let them all pile up at the end. Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The subcats for European countries are in Category:Antisemitism in Europe, itself a subcat of Category:Antisemitism by country or region. I created the former in the hope of being able to include Europe-wide phenomena (like accusations of host desecration and the phrase "useful Jew" - arguably, Nazism- and Holocaust-related things as well. Though I haven't added any of that yet) in a geographical categorization. Roscelese (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod

Okay, I didn't understand that, thanks (: [14]. But can you tell me if this proposal is okay, since the proposal is for an article which did have and AfD, but the AfD closed delete, and that AfD didn't have anything to do with the current concern? Please revert it for me if needed. Thanks. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD just says that you should make sure the page hasn't been at AfD before, without mentioning what to do if it's for a different concern. (WP:SPEEDY excludes re-created pages where the AfD concern was addressed, but that's a different matter.) I'll revert, erring on the side of caution. Roscelese (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hey... can you give me some advice? I'm seeing all sorts of these articles (barbie and elsewhere) which I think probably aren't really notable. Is PRODing the way I'm doing like this [15] appropriate? Just tagging them means they just stay tagged forever, they seem forgotten and unloved and I'm thinking shouldn't have been created. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the notability - I used to see loads of commercials for these when watching TV with my little relatives, but that doesn't mean anything - but I'd recommend AfD rather than PROD just because other deletion discussions seem to have concluded that the films are notable enough. If these are nominated rather than prod'd, perhaps people with more Barbie expertise than myself can put their $0.02 in (probably more people monitor AfD than prod). Roscelese (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Right... Trouble is that makes people angry... I'm really going to have to study up on this issue, of unsourced and/or un-notable subjects. It somehow bothers me, but I don't know what to do about it without just pissing people off. My experience is people vote keep not because they can find any good sources but because they think things ought to be notable. Thanks (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Chill with the talk page notifications, please

We have watchlists and you can assume if we edited the article 10 minutes ago it is on our watchlists. best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, God forbid I should want to make sure that interested parties contribute to the discussion. What a huge Wiki sin. Roscelese (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

speaking of wikisins, please check out WP:STALK, unless "God forbid" you happened across Civilian casualty ratio without checking my contribution history. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh nooooo, I edited one of the same articles you did! That certainly reflects "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I should have remembered that people own anything they edit here. Roscelese (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

well, you did disagree with me on two articles, one of which you clearly found by looking through my contribution history, so yes, it appears like you are acting somewhat in conformance with the part that you quote from the policy I mentioned. not entirely sure how WP:OWN is relevant; I made one more edit to the article then you did.[16] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're free to report me if you think I'm stalking you. I'd truly love to see that play out - no joke. Roscelese (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the reporting type and I usually have better things to do then to follow another's contributions. Not sure if those two characteristics are a coincident though.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking out this contributions list that you claim I'm stalking, it looks like you've been around a while. I'm surprised to see that, but I'll give you the advice I was going to give anyway: Acquaint yourself with the rules. It's a very helpful thing for a new user to do, especially if that user is going to run about accusing others of breaking those rules. Good luck on your Wikipedia journey! Roscelese (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. But please cut out all the nonsense and stop following me. Further non-constrictive responses will be ignored, most likely.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the advice, but it doesn't appear to have sunk in: Acquaint yourself with the rules. It's a very helpful thing for a new user to do, especially if that user is going to run about accusing others of breaking those rules.

I'd have thought that non-constrictive responses were to be preferred to constrictive responses. But, chacun son goût. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have given you reviewer rights. Please see WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for further information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If I can kindly request that you cease making personal attacks like you did here. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it's extremely obvious that the quote is not a comment on the book, to claim that it is makes you either malicious or very, very ignorant. Would you prefer ignorant? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

template italictitle

Is there a reason why you are adding this template to these 2 opera articles, while there are hundreds of others opera articles without this template? 84.192.228.114 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have those two on my watchlist because I've contributed to them in the past. (And remembered to watch them, unlike most of the other opera articles I've added to.) Is there a WikiProject Opera policy against italicizing titles that I don't know about? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats#Title_display. 84.192.228.114 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

mention

Hi amigo, thanks for the mention in that afd discussion, thats the strangest article, imo not in the slightest of educational value. Thanks for presenting your update at the Weir BLP, looks like the article might need some addition in the next couple of weeks about the upcoming book/autobio, if it is correct as per some of comments in the cite, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, as for the Weir article, guess we'll see when the article comes out. (or if anyone else comments in talk) I don't read People but presumably someone will get around to it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

nice catch!

Thank you for catching [17] that error of making a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Active Banana (^bananaphone

I didn't feel it was a voice problem (didn't think any reader would seriously think Wikipedia was endorsing the necessity of asking Catholics these things) - it was just a grammar thing, because from the quote they weren't strictly queries. :P But thank you. (I hope your keyboard recovers.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Patience and Sarah (opera)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese/Mariner's Mirror

Hi. :) When noting Resource Exchange at the ref desk, I completely overlooked that you were hosting this on Wikipedia! (Which is kind of peculiar, since copyright work is what I do. :)) I'm afraid that we can't do that even in user space. :/ If we don't know that it's public domain, we can only use brief excerpts from it in accordance with WP:NFC. WP:C applies to every page hosted in the Wikipedia website. I've blanked the text, though it is of course still available in history. Have you considered hosting it in Google Docs? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried, but it was annoying with formatting (since I got most of the text by searching Google Books, the bolding would copy over and it was tiresome to reformat). But I'm just about finished with the article, so no harm done - also because part of it is public domain now, the author having died in 1936, so I've put that on Wikisource! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you could confirm the d.o.d. of the author. That resolves it nicely. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mossad, Animals

I appreciate that you highly respect NPOV, and raised in the talk page that they seem to intentionally be disregarding this value and want the page to be biased. You are an ethical person! Asifkhanj (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT and Asian American

Would you care to take a look at the section I added to Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities? It summarizes one of the sources you offered at the AfD. This material is so dense, and the topic so far outside my usual editing area, so feedback would be helpful. I got the sense you were interested in the topic. --Pnm (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't solve the problems with the article (the main problem being that the article is a list of incidents, rather than a discussion of the principle), but it's a start - it's about wider attitudes. Thank you for your work. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a source that you think gets at the general principle better? --Pnm (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably be easier to find general sources on racism in the "gay community" than vice versa, because "ethnic minorities" are not a unified community - here are some about that. I may try later to find some stuff on heterosexism/homophobia/transphobia in communities of color, and on issues faced by queer POC, but that's a start, I hope? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 3 hours

You know how to use the {{Unblock|''your reason here''}} request, since you have been editing here a few years, so I am not going to template you. I have enacted this block owing to your response to an editor who had initiated an ANI discussion regarding the inappropriate tone or language in some of your responses. You either need a quick break to review your comments, recognise the issues, and make a mental note to avoid making these mistakes or simply need to stay away from the discussion while discussion proceeds. I haven't looked at the claims made by Haymaker to determine whether this behaviour is an ongoing matter, or if it is specific to one or a small group of editors with whom you may have some dispute - but now that it has been brought up, perhaps you should make some efforts to moderate your tone.
If you wish to make an unblock request, do so. You have read up to now, so I am certain you understand what the problem is. I do not need to be contacted regarding any unblock by the reviewing admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roscelese (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I described Haymaker's behavior as lying because, in an administrative discussion where truth should be paramount, he made an accusation against me that was completely false and that he knew was completely false. I don't want to insult his intelligence by suggesting that he doesn't know the difference between truth and falsehood - he knew it was false. Since it's an administrative discussion about my behavior, making sure that my behavior is represented accurately, with no fabrications or distortions, is, I feel, rather important. Thus, I both disagree with the reason for my block, and think that it should be lifted so that I can continue to take part in the discussion, particularly as I have explicitly made myself available for questioning.

Accept reason:

Please try to assume good faith on the part of your fellow contributors. I'm unblocking you to give you the opportunity to resolve your disagreement with Haymaker, so please try to keep your cool, as difficult as it may seem, in the interests of Wikipedia and yourselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to register this but I am not a liar and I resent being called a liar. - Haymaker (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd appreciate an acknowledgment of the fact that you misread my comment and that your misrepresentation of it was an accident, and an apology. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Roscelese, POV in the article about conspiracy theories was dealt with. The DR is closed as "kept". May I please ask you to reconsider your decline vote on the hook? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. I'll take another look over the article and then head back to talk/DYK. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on?

If I'd known, I would have. But thank you for adding her. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really directed at you; I'm surprised the sources would say "she wasn't actually the first woman to sail around the world" without saying who was. It seems logical to me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A dude

You wrote recently at ANI that you don't know what sex I am. Answer: a dude, married twice, four grandchildren. Grampa Bink. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize if using inclusive pronouns was a problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

16. Going on 17

Okay, if it isn't a waltz, what is it? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Isn't the "Triple Meter" an Olympic Event? :) Student7 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I watch pages for a while after I leave a message on them, and I have not yet unwatched this one. :) Since I love this song, it caught my eye in my watchlist. "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" is in a 4/4 Time signature. Waltzes are traditionally in 3/4 (though sometimes 3/8 or 3/2). Cf. [18]. I'm not sure what you'd call the song, if there is a description specific to 4/4 show tunes. But it's not a waltz. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What Moonriddengirl said - nothing leaps to mind, though I suppose a couple of dances in 4/4 could be suggested, but waltz can absolutely be ruled out. ("Triple meter" is a time signature where the primary division of the beat is three - so 3/4, 3/8, 9/8...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally do this, but I am going to edit these responses onto the article discussion page. The above were not constructed with "everybody" in mind. Please feel free to re-edit them to suit yourselves. Thanks for your responses. Student7 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)