Jump to content

User talk:Roscelese

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZHurlihee (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 2 September 2011 (→July 2011). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Patapsco913's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

20:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Undiscussed merge

Miradre (talk · contribs) has merged the above two articles (the latter into the former). She made a posting on Talk:Causes of sexual violence proposing such a merge and directed the discussion on both articles there. After 10 days and no reponses, Miradre closed the discussion herself and made the merge. Motivation for rape was formerly covered by several wikiprojects, but those headers have now been lost. In making the merge Miradre has assumed that "sexual violence" means "rape", even though it has a much broader scope. This does not seem to be the normal way WP:CONSENSUS works. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, okay, I'm not sure why I'm the only one you've approached about this, and the way you phrased your message also creates a WP:CANVASSing issue which could undermine any support you might have got from me. Please consider asking Miradre to undo the merge and seek broader input at the relevant WikiProjects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited the article but, noting that you have edited it, was seeking your opinion. Canvassing would involve making a proposal somewhere else and then seeking support. That is not what is happening here. What I note is that the lead of Motivation for rape has been incorporated into the first part of the current lead with "rape" changed to "sexual violence". "Sexual violence" covers far more than "rape". Anyway you have more experience of these articles, which is why I asked you. At the moment it seems as if a huge mess has been created. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of other editors have edited it as well, and done more than I did. Anyway, I've asked Miradre to build consensus by getting editors in from the WikiProjects that handle those articles. Note that I have not looked over the changes made and am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the merge was a good thing or a bad thing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miradre was warned about harrassing Itsmejudith and me by Atama. I expect that if Miradre repeated claims of being harrassed on a noticeboard, the result per WP:BOOMERANG would be an indefinite community ban. The circumstances in which Miradre started editing wikipedia, concentrating solely on topics related to WP:ARBR&I following the topic ban of two users, have always pointed to meatpuppetry. Miradre's edits in that area resulted in (a) an ArbCom motion modifying the terms of WP:ARBR&I (b) the current ban of three months from topics connected with WP:ARBR&I (as modified by that motion). There have been continuing problems with Miradre's edits since the topic ban was imposed. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know or particularly want to know the sordid backstory. If I appeared to favor one of you over the other, that was not my intent, and I apologize. I've said what I can and I do not wish to be involved in the dispute between you two any longer. If you disagree with the merge, you can open up a talkpage thread yourself and invite comment (in a neutrally phrased fashion) from suitable WikiProjects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Hey Ros, not to put myself where I don't belong, but is it possible that Haymaker is simply using a watchlist and watches all the articles you edit? Considering you and him come from two different viewpoints, it doesn't seem to me like stalking, it seems to me like close watch of a watchlist. The interaction ban seems a bit extreme, but I suppose if you both agree...Just my two cents. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's definitely not what's happening. Check out the report I filed a couple of months back - there is absolutely no reason to assume he would have had most of those watchlisted. Indeed, there were other articles to which he probably also stalked me, but I didn't name any article in my report where he had made the tiniest minor edit before. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a better grip on it than I do. But seeing as myself, you, and him (apologies if that's horrible grammar) edit the same topics/topic areas, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it might just be a watchlist thing. But, I'm not trying to get involved, I was just trying to make sure the interaction ban is not set up under a misunderstanding. With that I'll stay out of it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that he has every article in the topic area watchlisted, any more than I do - it's a very large topic area - and a number of the articles in question were also outside it. Thank you for your concern, but this is more than warranted. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 20, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired?

Hello Roscelese,

In the recent spate of AfD debates about several books critical of Islam, you said that the writings of Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer "inspired" the recent terrorism in Norway. I am uncomfortable with that description. When a murderous fanatic goes on for some 1500 pages rationalizing his planned violence, I think we should be very careful with language that may assign even a tiny part of the blame to those who simply exercised free speech. Let me be clear that I disagree with these writers. But they didn't call for violence against innocents. Perhaps they influenced the killer's world view, but they shouldn't be accused of inspiring terrorism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the story very closely, but a number of the news pieces I've seen have used this term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I, but I do think that our BLP standards call on us to be more judicious in our choice of words than 21st century journalistic scoop hunters are. Perhaps you might want to ponder the matter further. I know that you are a thoughtful person. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your concern would be warranted if I were writing something of this nature in an article, but using the language multiple reliable sources have adopted in a user comment doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Anyway, thanks for your concern. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:BLP applies to any page on Wikipedia, including talk pages, user pages and even edit summaries. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, but as I noted, multiple reliable sources use this term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikiquette

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of God, what do they want from me now? I all but recused myself the last half-dozen times, and I've already made my statement there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beats heck out of me -- I'm listed as a party too. I'm going to just sit out unless specifically called on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

no problem with that, he needs to provide more (trusted sources) as much as he could, specially when the article is talking about real person! That's all.. Have a good day my friend. Sean (Ask Me?) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you

Thanks for the greeting. I got sucked into an abortion related dispute via RfC and that is probably where you first saw me and then I just started editing pages at random. Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach sound clips

Thank you so much for the steer you've given on the talk page. I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to adding sound clips. If I get into a tangle might you be able to come to my rescue? Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm quite useless when it comes to .ogg files. Sorry. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people of unilateral actions

I did not put the heading on Category:Native American military personnel indicating it was limited to those who served in the US military. That heading has been on the category since it was created in 2007. I would appreciate it if you did not falsely accuse me of acting unilaterally when I have merely acted to make a category agree with its previously stated inclusion rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if the inclusion statement is inconsistent with the category name, why is it automatically the category name that's the problem? Remember, too, that category content isn't trackable through edit history, so if your proposal is rejected and the decision is to change the inclusion statement instead of the category title, you've just removed something that belongs in there and that can't necessarily be found easily to be restored. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NYyankees51 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:)

I try to fix things, especially when I see that someone enters content not supported by sources. But most of my work is on sr wikipedia. All the best :)--В и к и в и н д T a L k 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Haymaker (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A word of encouragement

Hello Roscelese,

I see that you've been subjected to a barrage of criticism lately that has escalated to what reasonable people might well call "outing" in Wikipedia terms. I've said it before, and I will probably say it again in the future: I appreciate the work you do to improve this encyclopedia and to enforce and defend its policies. Keep your chin up and I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. How have you been since the last time we encountered each other at an AfD? :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been fine, both on Wikipedia and in real life, with the exception of a mild cold that lingered over a week. Today was the first day in a while I didn't cough. I saw a lot of my old friends today at a political fundraiser. And yesterday, a nice editor gave me a diplomacy barnstar. He used to live in the village in Scotland called "Cullen" so that was pretty cool. How about you? How have you been? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your cold, but glad that things have been going well otherwise. I've been all right too - will be going on a short vacation soon, so that'll be nice; unfortunately, a computer hiccup caused me to lose a couple of new article drafts, since I don't usually sandbox, so I'm annoyed about that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox is a wonderful place, because Wikipedia doesn't lose things nearly as often as us mere mortals. Plus, when you move the article to main space, the edit history goes with it, and your main space edit count is also bumped up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my old MO was to just keep the edit window open until the article was finished, but I won't be doing that anymore. I liked being able to keep the article secret until I unveiled it, but not losing my work is more important. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just make a sandbox with "/trick name" at the end. No one is likely to notice. Oh, yeah, I forgot. You've got stalkers. Oh, well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hee! Maybe I'll do that next time. No one will notice...except the aforementioned stalkers. :P Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

A report which concerns you has been filed at WP:AN/EW. - Haymaker (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI again

Believe it or not, this message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

About NYYankees51

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Conservative_Targeting_against_Progressive_Topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Flowingfire (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban

Right.. I guess you didn't see my footnote. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I saw the footnote - I was confirming that said footnote was correct! ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Summary_of_the_discussion_at_the_previous_section._PLEASE_comment.21

Hi Roscelese. I have created a summary of the discussion in a follow-up section, linked above. If you thing the summary is wrong, please comment in the previous section. Then I will update the smmary. I don't want the summary section to include back-and-forth comments by you and me. Regards, Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Yoest redirect

I will preface this by saying I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF and I am not trying to make an equivalence argument. In the discussion on the redirect page for [[Charmaine Yoest], you pointed out that there was a WaPo profile on Marjorie Dannefelser as an example of an article of the type you weren't seeing for Yoest. I just wanted to let you know that the August 15, 2011 edition of the Christian Science Monitor featured a cover story that is a profile[1] of Yoest. I would humbly ask for your opinion of whether notability is met now? Perhaps if I fleshed out the biographical data a bit more it might help as well. Thank you.

No, I understand you're not making an OTHERSTUFF argument, and I appreciate the effort you're making to attest notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. The CSM piece is exactly what we'd need. Unfortunately, this comes at a bad time, since I've just been re-evaluating the sources on Dannenfelser and come to the conclusion that she is not independently notable either, since the WaPo profile is the only piece that doesn't just quote her as the head of her organization - meaning that the "multiple" part of WP:BIO isn't satisfied. The same's true of Yoest. Or do you have any other reliable sources on her that provide significant coverage? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tituba and Witchcraft

I have explained my position a little more candidly on the disscussion page on the Tituba article.

Thank you,-- User: Wolfpeaceful

Hello, Roscelese. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:26, 20 August 2011. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you

Thank you very much for accepting my apologies. We still have very different POVs and we are likely to debate, but hopefully I will be more helpful, collaborative and less thin-skinned.
Regards,
Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confederacy's European Brigade

Thanks for your tip on the article I am in the slow ( busy ) process of creating.
I fully appreciate the need to adhere to Wikipedia's article format and references policies .
I did include at the end of the portion of the article created so far a note indicating that I would cite valid   
references as I learn more about Wikipedia from an on-the-job training process that I am more comfortable with.
I believe the "narrative " appearance of this article will be less as references and links are used.
By the way ... I am a gay male and am also currently writing a Wikipedia article on an unusual serial killer known 
as The French Quarter Stabber ...unusual in that he was a teenager ( 16 ), black, a male hustler lving with a transexual 
and whose sexual-identity conflict led him to kill four gay men over a two month period in New Orleans' French Quarter.
I have noted that newspaper reports and newspaper photos from the time will be cited and reference.
If you find this work in progress of interest, use of "advanced search" on Google will provide some limited information on the subject as it was not well covered beyond the local newspapers. 
 Byron LeNajByronLeNaj 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByLeNaj (talk • contribs)

your comments ( user ByLeNaj )

Thank you Trophy
Please see my response on your talkback page. I appreciate your time and comments . ByronLeNaj 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's suffrage - Australia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women's suffrage - Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Women's suffrage - Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missouri#St._Louis_Post-Dispatch

Hi Roscelese, I just noticed your (rather old) request there, and if you're still interested in Growing American Youth (hasn't been deleted yet!), relevant sources have been archived at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I'll take a look and see if I can expand the article at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I don't have consistent access to most databases, but if you need any more articles, I can grab them for you pretty quickly. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have...actually just realized that the Post-Dispatch is on LexisNexis, so I went and rustled up a few more myself. Sorry to put you to the trouble. *facepalm* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy writing :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!
Regards,
Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelene reverting items without explanation or discussion

Roscelene hereyou've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts.

  • From this sentence: The prosecution[dubious – discuss] also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. You removed the dubious tag without comment or explanation. Why???? That part of the sentence is clearly a mistake. This is a civil trial and so there is no "prosecution" -- and the side that brought this out was clearly the defense. Could you please explain yourself?
  • And you completely deleted this sentence without any explination: The defense attacked Jones's credibility because she had signed a movie deal to promote the story of her lawsuit.[[6]] Why??
  • You also deleted several very short quotes (that were fully cited) with the insulting comment: "how hard is it to paraphrase or at least attribute?" Since it is so easy why didn't you work cooperatively with the other editors and paraphrase or attribute the quotes instead of just deleting them?
  • You also completely deleted all references to KBR filing a motion to be reimbursed by Jones for fees and costs for the civil suit she lost -- even though it was supported with a citation from The Wall Street Journal.[7] How can you support deleting all reference to this clearly relevant and Reliably Sourced piece of information? Please explain.


Please, I would like to work with you in a cooperative manner to improve the article -- but it would involve you stopping the insults and being willing to work cooperatively.Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those were accidental (I edited from an old version of the page and apparently didn't catch everything), but some of what you're saying I did is also just wrong. Look at the edit again. You could also drop the hysterical act - being asked to paraphrase something is not a grave personal attack. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the bit about the film deal appears nowhere in the cited source, so though the removal was accidental, I am not restoring it. They sought access to the manuscript of the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Roscelene is again is making claims about the sources -- but hasn't read them

Roscelene, once again you are making bold assertions -- that are completely and provably wrong. You've once again made an absolute pronouncement about what is contained in the source -- which you appear not bothered to have read. And you've justified your high-handed reverts based on these falsehoods.
You state above: The removal of the film deal bit was accidental, but fortuitous, since it is not supported by the cited source and, per BLP, needs to go immediately
But the cited Mother Jones article spends the last three paragraphs talking about her book and movie deals. For your convenience I've include the relevant paragraphs below.[8]

Hoping To Help (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And does this support the claim that KBR's lawyers used the film deal to discredit Jones at the trial? No, it does not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing — Drought Conditions

Hi there! You are correct, Drought Conditions is the only episode missing from the The West Wing episode guide. Unfortunately, the article has been deleted twice as it was deemed irrelevant.--DVD-junkie | talk | 06:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? One episode out of all the other episodes? Hm. Maybe there's potential for a DRV there - it's by no means clear from the AfD discussion whether or not this is meant to be a test case for the hundred-plus articles on West Wing episodes, and the fact that the others are uncontested suggests that the community has no real problem with individual episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFD

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

help with rollback at Bowie knife

I was hoping that maybe you wouldn't mind rolling back the disruptive edits of User:Reese98 on this page: Bowie knife to here. I'm not sure what the protocol is, and I don't want to mess with 3RR, and these edits clearly need to go, but they don't exactly seem to fall under the exemptions to 3RR. i'm not really involved with this particular page, but the same user was messing with a page i am involved with, so i checked its contribs and found the problems with the bowie knife article. i fixed the problems it created with Natchez, Mississippi and templated the User_talk:Reese98. i'm asking you because you seem sensible, and i'm too new here to understand what the appropriate response is. tia, — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they wouldn't fall under the exemptions, but I don't see that you've made a lot of other reverts to that page that would cause you to run afoul of 3RR. The Natchez matter is different, that's obviously not intended to be constructive - but substituting phonetic-English for IPA could have been done in good faith. I suggest that you talk to the user on their talk page and explain what's up with pronunciation, and maybe they will self-revert.
(Also, check out WP:CANVASS - while you're right that the edits lowered the quality of the page, you could still get in trouble for soliciting another user to edit in a particular way.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, will do, thanks. i wasn't intending to canvas, but to avoid having to seek rollback powers for myself, as i prefer to have no powers at all. anyway, will talk to user and see where it goes from there. cheers and thanks for good advice! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not seek rollback? Having it doesn't oblige you to use it, and it makes it easier to revert obvious vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know why not, i just don't feel as if i know enough about the social norms here to get involved in processes that involve asking for powers. maybe later i'll feel more comfortable about it. i left a talk page message about the bowie knife thing, but i just noticed this: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. on the 3rr page. does that mean that if i reverted all those edits, it wouldn't actually be a violation? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert count depends on how many reverts you make, not on how many edits you're reverting. So if someone adds two sentences to an article in a single edit, you remove one, there is an intervening edit, and you remove the other, that is two reverts, while if a whole bunch of different people make a whole bunch of different edits and you restore to a previous version, undoing all those edits, that is one revert. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed interaction ban between you and User:Haymaker

TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has volunteered to be one of the three sysops overseeing the proposed interaction ban. Their only stipulation is that they require strict observance of WP:CIVIL on all pages relating to the adminning of the restrictions; I feel that this should not be an issue in that better conduct by the parties is the purpose for these measures. I should be grateful if you would indicate if this individuals participation is satisfactory to you at the earliest opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, works for me! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haymaker has responded positively, with a suggestion for an initial 6 month period - with the potential for extension. I am happy with that, and recommend that you accept so we may get this iban started. Please let me know your response asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a longer initial period, but 6 months is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall put this in place this evening, UK time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STEFANO PELINGA ARTICLE

In reference to the article on Stefano Pelinga, I do not understand what was trivial about my article. In addition, I am forced to believe that you did not take any time at all to verify the many reliable sources I had listed in the article. They are easy to be found/verified; you can see these articles yourself by visiting Mr. Pelinga's website directly (http://www.stefanopelinga.com). Also, you can contact those publications directly to verify the information.

It is extremely easy to verify that all of the content in my article on Mr. Pelinga is truthful, the mentioned sources reliable and Mr. Pelinga's sports accomplishments undeniable.

I would very much like to resolve this quickly and have my article reinstated in Wikipedia as Mr. Pelinga has every right to be listed, as he is one of the most popular pool champions in the world. Should you wish to contact Mr. Pelinga directly, simply visit his website, and send him an email, or look him up on Facebook. He is very good about replying to everyone.

Distefwiki (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire or need to contact him directly; if he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources (ie. not the personal website which was the only source cited), he has no "right" to an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

Can you make the category renaming proposal for me(read the rules at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion and then make a proposal)? I'm too busy with study. Since you are more experienced with Wikipedia policy, you should do it quickly.
Thank you for your attention,
Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can put together later. Possibly the best strategy would be to make a subpage with the proposal and then just link to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's what I ended up doing - I made a subpage at WT:Catholicism and then linked to it from CfD. Hopefully this will get enough response for us to start in on the work! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You will see that I took the liberty of making a slight change to the proposal. I think it was a typing error on your part. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied it from the version at WikiProject Religion. I think the previous version was better because it accounts for what is happening to the currently existing category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and yourself

Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

  • Roscelese (talk · contribs) and Haymaker (talk · contribs), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
  • A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.


Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.[reply]

Reditection of julaha article

can you please provide specific reasons why you redirected this page on article talk page  Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Ramdasia isn't very well sourced, it's still better sourced and better written than Julaha, and it states they are the same thing. This is not my area of expertise. Can you improve the sourcing in Julaha? Find sources that aren't user-generated (ie. wikis)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

This edit clearly contravenes the interaction ban between you and Haymaker. Any further violation will result in a short block, per the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I directly asked you if it was a violation of the interaction ban if the other user had previously made the same or a similar edit but the edit I was reverting was made by someone else (in this case, Cloonmore, Mamalujo, and an anonymous IP), and you said that while you thought it would be, you'd have to run it past the other admins. Please let me know now if this is or is not part of the interaction ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the report on my talkpage (User talk:LessHeard vanU#Day 1) Haymaker gave this edit as being the one that you reverted. If there were no intervening edits then it is clearly a violation of the ban, and if there were it is still against the spirit of the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he told you there were no intervening edits, he was wrong. Otherwise - I'll keep it in mind in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom for The Problem We All Live With

Hi Rose, I have reviewed your nomination of The Problem We All Live With at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With and there are a couple of concerns I have with the nomination. Could you please see my comments on the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on List of killings of Muhammad

As a courtesy notice, I have removed the Prod from List of killings of Muhammad. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. You're welcome to take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is sufficient. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Hi Roscelese, I think you're in violation of 1RR at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've miscounted, but thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert 1, 06:10, 31 August 2011
Revert 2, 05:56, 1 September 2011 NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were both partial reverts and barely (14 minutes) within the window of violation, so I didn't report it because it looks like an honest mistake, but consider yourself warned about further edit warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is broken, but I assume it was intended to go to the edit that was actually a revert - the second, not so much. The text was newly added; I edited it to be more specific/correct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on False accusation of rape. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ . Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0813/Abortion-opponents-have-a-new-voice. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&oldid=448061059"