User talk:Roscelese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2016 – Discretionary Sanctions/Alert (topic=ab) – abortion[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Wiki Loves Pride 2017[edit]

You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating and Defending the Joe Wiegand Article[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I've doubled the article's length and added a more spirited defense of retention. If thousands of high schools in the US and around the world are notable, SO is Joe Wiegand. The attacks on the article are political in nature, NOT content-based. Thanks again!!! SimonATL 19:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Leigh Jones page[edit]

This page is highly biased. There are a lot of good publicity items about this case but Halliburton has published only the items in their favor. I also do not have historionic personality disorder. Furthermore the EEOC found in Jamie Leigh Jones favor. Halliburton lied about the EEOC finding. How can I change it to be accurate? Two laws were also changed and those are not included. Please see the talk page Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwillsetyoufree123: Wikipedia bases its coverage on reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source attesting that the outcome of the trial was different from what the existing sources say? It would be especially helpful if the source in question noted that other sources had published things incorrectly. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see all evidence presented on Jamie Leigh Jones page. This is highly slander to say the EEOC ruled in KBR's favor when it in fact did not. I even included the actual EEOC determination letter. Furthermore, Victor Scarano was affiliated with KBR and Jamie Leigh Jones does not have the disorder he diagnosed her with and never has. This must be removed. I included several articles on the talk page to prove his bias. He did this to sway the jury and is not a real diagnosis. Please revert the changes back to what I had edited them to. This is highly swayed in KBR/Halliburton favor. Jamie Leigh Jones changed two laws and that must stay. Also, the EEOC determination needs to be stated accurately not with the lies that were post about the letter. I placed the original letter on the talk page. This page is laden with libel. If this is not corrected please take the entire page down and delete it. What Bob23 is doing is wrong. A Wikipedia page must be unbiased. He removed all the laws Jamie Leigh Jones helped make, and everything that was in her favor at the time of trial. This is not good journalism and is his bias. If he is going to continue to be biased he does not need to be a Wikipedia reporter. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwillsetyoufree123: Our source says "A 2006 investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) backs up KBR’s story that the company placed Jones in a secure location before getting her home to Texas." Is the part you're contesting the "not locked in a trailer" part? It's true that I don't see that in the source, but I also don't see anything about that in the EEOC letter. Can we continue this discussion on the article talk page? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please look at my sources I included on the other talk page? Thank you. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)