User talk:Roscelese

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Have at it

I'm going to sleep. I think we've come to a meeting of the minds on this. I'm sure BH and Beleg will give their 2 cents next time they come by. Nighty night! little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 07:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour

Hello! Your submission of Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour

On 5 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the original producers of Offenbach's The Tales of Hoffmann relocated its second act to Venice to include "Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour" (the Barcarolle), the opera's most famous piece? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel 16:48-50

I have brought to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard the question of the existence of more than one view of this passage. You will probably wish to comment. Esoglou (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WikiProject Opera

I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male film directors

Category:Male film directors

Fantr (talk · contribs) has begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli legislative election, 2013

OK. I'm just not sure how this is dated? The background and campaign sections should refer to stuff that happened before the election. Is it in the wrong tense? Number 5 7 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tense and related issues are a large problem - "campaign issues are expected to be," "election is expected to cost," "would make the party the second largest," etc. requires not only changing the tense but what were the campaign issues and what did the election cost? - but with such a large section on parties during the run-up, it also seems strange that we don't include any of the results in that section, even though we have them in a table at the bottom. What do you think? The 2009 elections article isn't a great template since it doesn't have so much about the parties. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through and fix the tense at some point. I see what you mean about the parties section. The problem is where to fit it in - at the moment it's before the results, so I would (as a reader) only expect to find pre-election information in there. I guess we could include a bit of detail (like "ultimately the party only won 15 seats and joined the government" or something). Difficult. Number 5 7 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I figure. Sorry I can't be too helpful - I'm not really in the loop, I just went and updated the Shas article and then noticed the election article was dated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Roscelese, please be careful not to use personal attacks, such as is in the summary of your recent edit at Maafa 21. Otherwise, you may be in violation of general sanctions for Abortion-related articles. Thanks!

I am specifically referring to your accusation that I have a "dismal track record." I feel that your edit and this comment are intended to limit my ability to participate in the article. If that was not your intent, please make that clear and consider self-reverting the corresponding edit.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Civilization Jihad" article

Hi I,ve noticed that you participate in some of the more controversial parts of wikipedia. Didn't know who else to report this to but this article has an interesting history. Its largely paranoid drivel gathered from heavily right wing sources about grand takeovers by Muslim minorities of white countries (quite anti semitic I think). Most of the sources are fringe and frankly this piece seems quite dangerous and of the fear mongering type. I tried looking for neutral sources but honestly I couldn't find anything to support what the main contributor claims. Attempts to delete it have largely been stifled by one or two users who keep arguing that issues should be discussed instead of deletion. Well 1 month with no activity has passed and the user Mr T has not edited it at all whilst editing other articles in the meantime leasurely. This is clear evidence of bias - the author has no intent of fixing the article. I propose to delete the article but don't know how to. At the very least it should be stubbed. I cant find academic sources that support any of this material. It all seems like "original work" to me. 92.40.254.42 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]