User talk:Roscelese

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

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

Wikiislam

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

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers

Hello Roscelese! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for returning to edit war immediately on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism after protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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 restored a semi-stable version from before page protection, and would like to be able to discuss the changes that other users wish to make if they decide to use the talk page instead of simply implementing them repeatedly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to revert that article for the remainder of the block length. v/r - TP 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

(PS. I can't edit my user subpages while blocked? Is this new? I was going to use the time to work on a draft, and I could have sworn that was possible in the past.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry.--v/r - TP 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The system allows you to edit only your own user talk page during a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I can tell that now :P I was wondering if it had always been that way, since I thought that in the past, I had worked on userspace drafts during this down-time. Maybe I had them as subpages of my talk, I don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you aren't expecting to be blocked frequently enough for this to make a practical difference :-). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course not! But I'm a coder and I'm curious :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IPT

I did forget that you were there for Atsme's previous effort. While I was mentioning Atsme previous canvassing I was also alluding to [1]. She seems to think that wp:collaborate removes the requirements of wp:canvass. I guess because she used the word neutral she doesn't feel the need to be nuetral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)