User talk:Roscelese

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)

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.

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 [1] 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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)

Claddagh ring

In light of this[2], 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)

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 [3] 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)

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?

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