User talk:Roscelese: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Roscelese/Archive 15) (bot
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 62: Line 62:


I am filing [[WP:AE#Roscelese]] with regard to your recent editing of [[Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism]]. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I am filing [[WP:AE#Roscelese]] with regard to your recent editing of [[Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism]]. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

== ARCA request ==

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use.

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:17, 16 July 2015


ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hamid Dabashi

Jusat to clarify re Yehuda Glick

I checked many sources and could see no evidence that Glick was any of those terms. Since the IPs were refusing to be cogent on the talk page, and editing out attempts to be neutral, that took into consideration Anshel Pfeffer's nuanced and ironic remark, and were popping back in just the one piece from it, it was in my view absolutely necessary to put the full passage from Pfeffer into the note, so that it laid before the editors the actual contexts of all these statements. Edit-warring customarily attracts people, who often do not examine the actual sources but just join in the POV lineup. It was thus a prophylactic measure against superficial opinion-mongering. It was meant as a measure to stop edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTHESIS AND SPECULATION

Uh, no. This:

The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes.[1][2][3][4][5] According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics.[6]

IS TEXTBOOK SYNTHESIS AND POV SPECULATION. Quis separabit? 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SDUT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ McAteer, Michael (June 26, 2004). "Questioning Catholic hierarchy's priorities". Toronto Star.
  3. ^ Jacoby, Susan (May 3, 2004). "The Catholic Church and the Presidential Election: Vatican makes common cause with fundamentalist Protestants". San Francisco Chronicle.
  4. ^ Balz, Dan; Cooperman, Alan (June 4, 2004). "Bush, Pope to Meet Today at the Vatican". Washington Post.
  5. ^ Gibson, David (2007). The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle with the Modern World. HarperCollins. p. 42.
  6. ^ Heyer, Kristin E.; Rozell, Mark J.; Genovese, Michael A. (2008). Catholics and politics: the dynamic tension between faith and power. Georgetown University Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-58901-215-8. Retrieved 18 February 2012.


(talk page stalker) It may be speculation, but its speculation on the part of the ref authors. It seems reasonably well sourced to me, the question is if it is of due weight or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, the comparison and analysis comes directly from the sources. Please review WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Harvey

Whoa. Next time, check your aggression short of supporting an AFD to get the upper hand in an edit war. As here: [[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? The original creator nominated it to get the upper hand, as should be very clear to you. What did I do to you to get you recommending a topic ban on the basis of spam cleanup and then coming to my talk page to yell this nonsense? What's your problem, dude? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood

Your claim of an "obvious BLP violation" on the Planned Parenthood page, isn't a BLP issue. I will give you the courtesy to revert yourself or I will report you for violation of 1RR. There are several sources listed within that section including ones that fit RS.Marauder40 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is totally no BLP issue in accusing someone of selling organs for money. Geez. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you mean someone caught on video doing just that. Marauder40 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact (Personal attack removed) does not, in fact, mean that poorly sourced attack pieces suddenly are BLP-compliant. --JBL (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marauder40, normally I'd respond to your "I'll report you for removing the unsourced claim that living, named individuals are selling organs on the black market" with a "come at me, bro", but I'm pretty busy IRL right now. Come at me next week, maybe? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

I am filing WP:AE#Roscelese with regard to your recent editing of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&oldid=671728779"