User talk:Roscelese

Barnstar award

File:Detective Barnstar Hires.png		The Detective Barnstar
		For staying on the "GroundRisk" sockpuppet case when others, like me, have pretty much grown tired of the whole thing - thanks. Guy1890 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Infiltration

I came across your prod by accident. I undid it because the article looks fine on the surface. Feel free to AfD however.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince of Poets

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar!Casprings (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

nazis on wikipedia

Hi. Now we have some time left: please see the recent changes on Final Solution and Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. It seems some editors want to give the nazis a better image than they deserve. Could you help to prevent that? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see the changes you're referring to. It looks like you've already reverted the one on the boycott article (my view: not unreasonable to include a mention of the Jewish boycott if a reliable source mentions it, which isn't unlikely since the Jewish boycott was a response to prior anti-Jewish policies, but it absolutely can't be framed as though the Nazi boycott was just retribution for the Jewish boycott, as Sempi wrote it) but I've reverted the nonsensical edits about the Holocaust "allegedly" happening and so on. Careful of WP:CANVASS though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Final Solution-edit. I'll try to see if I can do more about it, and thanks for the advice.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at what this editor has been doing on the Declaration of Geneva page.. It seems we have a Holocaust denier here on several different pages.

YourHumanRights (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I saw that you had previously brought up issues of bias categories, so you may be interested in discussions at Category:Antisemitism in the United States, the bios within, and at CFD where there are two recent cats around anti-semitism + job. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic terrorism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gunn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please stop your disruptive editing. You are replacing OBJECTIVE editing with your own slanted bias while masquerading as if you are being objective. Let's not pretend we are idiots. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –danpiedra (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.234.204 (talk)

Your Opinion

I see you are also editing David Yerushalmi article and contributing constructively to it. I wanted you to look up the name of the Deputy director of communications at Thomas More Law Center. The article is included below:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/04/925474/-Anti-bullying-teacher-promoting-the-nat-l-gay-agenda

Does the name seem similar to the another user handle? if you check that users contribution history can you see some POV editing in topics related to Thomas More Law Center AND David Yerushalmi(who has a connection with Thomas More Law Center).

(Thereandnot (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for pointing this out. I will give the user a COI warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

Re: the categorization, I think the change you made is pretty good. I removed LGBT people as a category because I've seen no hard evidence that he is gay (and even if he was he certainly didn't identify as such), but the speculation about his sexuality (both during his lifetime and since his death) makes him an LGBT-related topic, I'd say (I'm not LGBT myself but just following the dictates of logic). So good job on that.

As for my edit (to War on Women) that you reverted, I'll admit that was quite POV, and your action was absolutely the right one to take. We shouldn't let personal opinions influence our treatment of an article; if this is impossible, we should recuse ourselves from said article. I was certainly not neutral there. So, from a relatively new Wikipedian to a pretty experienced one, keep up the good work! Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)