This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Roscelese. I'm analyzing the issue surrounding the quotation from Palestine Media Watch. I know things have been happening pretty fast at that article ( a problem, imo ) and I don't know what to expect next, but I went ahead and asked an editor who I understand speaks Arabic, Nableezy, if he could take a look at the video clip to determine the fidelity of PMW's translation. If anyone restores the disputed passage you might want to just let that be, until we get a reply from him. I agree that the sources provided so far are not reliable for the purpose, however.
Even if Nableezy says the translation of the segment on the PMW web site is correct, I'd still be extremely skeptical about whether it can or should be used. Specifically, we only see what the advocacy group Palwatch wants us to see; the 77-second segment is obviously clipped from a longer interview, and it even has a discontinuity in the middle, a cutout. After seeing what amazing gymnastics with the truth James O'Keefe was able to "accomplish" with his selective editing of the NPR and ACORN videos, I'd say we shouldn't trust any video clip at all where we're given only what the one who releases it wants us to see. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree - that makes sense. (I hadn't previously watched the video all the way through.) The fact that it's a talk show/interview as opposed to an official statement should also give us pause. However, that's presently irrelevant because we have no reliable source that says it's what he said. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I'm having a difficult time constructing an interesting DYK hook for Herbert Grossman. I'd appriciate some help if you have the time. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
...that conductor Herbert Grossman also collaborated on a popular translation of Puccini's Gianni Schicchi? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sorry, just couldn't resist three double-meanings in one sentence. Delete if it offends. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you. Both hooks are now at the suggestions page. I know your hook may not have been meant seriously OhioStandard, but Ithought it was funny and could make a good April Fools DYK. Thanks again.4meter4 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hook and article length OK. But 2 issues must be resolved: no citation specifically for "most importantly Samuel Taylor Coleridge" in the article; and many uncited paras. Please respond at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Spelling_of_Shakespeare.27s_name. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
resolved and passed. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed your move to "List of U.S. state constitutional bans on same-sex unions by type" - there is no constitutional amendment banning a same-sex union, but their legal recognition. The vague nonsense name that is now the parent article title should not extend to a featured list. Do you intend to clean up the currently unclear title in the parent article (same reason) and the issue about whether the article should be about the U.S. or not? Hekerui (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't be absurd - you lost your bid to keep the POV title, and making the title longer and more unwieldy isn't going to help you get it back. No one's going to understand "ban on same-sex union" to mean anything other than "ban on legal recognition of same-sex union." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Please consider that we all want to improve the encyclopedia and are not in it for "winning". You fail to assume good faith when I attempt to improve the page ("I'm reverting your disruptive move"), you make ill-considered accusations of impropriety ("you lost your bid to keep the POV title, and making the title longer and more unwieldy isn't going to help you get it back", "you're not going to get 'defense of marriage amendment' back by sabotaging the new title") and belittling language ("this 'but they only ban legal recognition of same-sex unions!' is a silly argument", "Oh please, no one interprets it that way"). I don't appreciate these personal comments and I don't think I made any statement coming close, except for saying "nonsense" above, which is not personal but may have not been a good word choice. Hekerui (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I had hoped you would remove these personal attacks so that more constructive discussion can take place again. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see those as personal attacks, and I hope that if you consider them to be so, you'll still be able to rise above them and perhaps even begin making constructive contributions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with your tone because it does nothing to resolve any issue. In addition to the stuff I mentioned above you derisively write "Next!" as a reply when I try to have a factual discussion, and make a personal comment in an edit summary ("i see what you did there"), which is not good etiquette. I intend to move forward constructively, but I find that difficult when these disrespectful comments continue after I asked you not to concentrate on personality but argument. Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt very much that anyone could look at my comments and see a focus on personality rather than argument. Again, I'm sorry you're irritated by my comments, but I trust that we can still have productive discussion of the topic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Roscelese!
Hi, Roscelese. Just thought I'd mention a couple of things. First, I added some refs to the talk page for
Coming-of-age film
that might interest you, the first, especially, as it seems to focus primarily on the how women have been portrayed in that process by Hollywood. I also (sorry) opposed your "delete" at the AfD, but thought I'd mention that although it is odd on the face of it that the two films you mentioned there should be thought illustrative of the genre, it occurs to me that with a subtle shift of definition re "Coming-of-age" one could reasonably include them. If one thinks of the genre as something like "growing up into what your are at your core", transitioning, even late in life, to what you need to be and have always needed to be, then I think the case is more arguable for their inclusion. I've not seen Brokeback Mountain, however, so perhaps I'm talking through my hat on that one. Second, you have mail re the earlier question re the possible identity of a drive-by sock.
Third, I presume the AfD for the Nazi turned Jew fellow came from comments I made on my talk? If so, it's nice to know that you look in there from time to time. But I wanted to apologize for evidently (?) having missed the Miami source for the thing in my earlier search. I may have actually seen it; I can't recall now, since I came across the R.A. article when I was looking through a certain editor's article-creation list to see if her statements at an AE a month or so ago were correct when she said, as I now recall, that only six or seven of her articles were about arbpia matters. The subject of the article, if he ever existed, which I take liberty to doubt, is still not notable since a book of "anecdotes" doesn't make it as a wp:rs. Anyway, thanks for AfDing the article, however you came across it. It certainly needs to go. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not your fault - I looked up the name, and the hits I found were about a Stasi agent. I'm certainly responsible for my own searches before AfDing anything. Anyway, he appears to have existed, at least going by the Miami News which quotes him directly, in spite of the IP's contention that we only have this story via Reb Kahane; however, notability is still lacking. (Also, got your e-mail; will reply soon.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your gracious reply, Roscelese. I don't see that the Miami News article quotes him, though. The sentence near the end of the article that's in quotation marks is a translation of the name Reuel Abraham from Hebrew, if I understand correctly. It seems the name means, "I saw the God of Abraham"; the paper isn't saying that they interviewed anyone by that name or that the sentence is a quote from him.
I'm still very skeptical as to Reuel Abraham's existence. If this story were true, surely the man would be famous worldwide, and we wouldn't have to scrape for sources for him. We'd have interviews with him, photographs, biographies, an autobiography. He'd have been on Oprah, or at least on television talk shows the focus on Jewish issues; the History Channel would have done a piece on him. He'd be a poster boy, asked to speak at every Jewish conference or AIPAC convention or whatever that its organizers wanted to attract attention to. But no reporter appears to have ever talked to him. I'm not certain of it, of course, but this smells very much like another
WP:OTTO, just not one that was high-profile enough to have ever been refuted... Speaking of AIPAC, I added some more info about Dan Senor's involvement with the group to Talk:Start-up Nation. I need to research a bit further, but it looks like Senor's book tour was supported by AIPAC chapters in a great many U.S. states. So far I've seen announcements of that all up and down the Eastern Seaboard, as well as on the West Coast. Anyway, will probably research a bit further, and then add that back to the article. The disclosure belongs there, imo. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk
) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the indirect quote "From then on, he says, he feigned illness..." I agree that it seems like there should be more coverage than there is, but I don't think there's really solid grounds for disbelieving his existence - it's just that he's not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Giles Muhame
Hi Roscelese, I noticed your work on both
talk
) 06:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've really done substantial work on either of those, but I'll definitely take a look. Thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated.
talk
) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm off to bed, but hope to continue tomorrow. Thanks for the assist and keen eye! --
talk
) 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
List of sources on lidos
Hi there. I've not been on-wiki for 6 weeks and I see that List of sources on lidos has been deleted. This page was not created by me, but as part of a collaboration on new lido articles. There was a discussion on my user page last year on its creation User_talk:Lidos#Sources_list which you might like to read. Rather suprised that an article could be deleted so quickly, but then I'm a comparative newbie when I comes to Wikipedia.--Lidos (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to suggest having it userfied. The problem was that it was a bibliography rather than an encyclopedic list, and so it didn't belong in article namespace. However, it's definitely a good resource for editors - the books and articles etc. on the list could be used to improve the article on Lido. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello how are you
Hi i am Millanmane, just wondering how do you become an administrator?
By hanging around making edits for at least a year, and learning about the
Can't believe I even bothered responding:) DMacks (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The History of White People
I was confused by your rv of my edits to The History of White People. You write, "The book actually is about the way in which Irish "whiteness," f.ex, was a tool against blacks and Chinese - not just a natural process of assimilation. quotes necessary." I just finished reading this book. Did you read it? It's a far-ranging book about the concept of whiteness and how it has changed over time, beginning with the ancient Greeks. There is hardly any mention of Asians and even Black people are a secondary subject (only the last chapter of the book discusses black race classifications). Only one chapter discusses the Irish in America (viz, 1840s-era prejudice against Irish and how they were not considered white in the pre-Civil War era). And certainly there isn't anything about using whiteness as a "tool." I wish respectfully you would consider rving your rv.
Great book, BTW. I found it completely fascinating. Chisme (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read parts of it, but not having the book on hand at the time I wrote the article, I used reviews: for example, the SF Chronicle source cited which reads "Then, after the Civil War in the United States, the Irish (and some Scandinavians) were slowly but generally allowed to opt in for anti-black political reasons," etc. which is based on p. 211, "No longer stigmatized as inherently different, Irish and Germans entered a second enlargement of American whiteness to become constituent parts of the American. For now there were newcomers to toil at hard labor and be stigmatized as racially inferior..." Is there a way we could incorporate both? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's History
Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.
If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
AfD closures
Just a note to say not to forget to post the AfD result on the talk page of the article in quesion, such as the Old Palace (York) when the result is other than "delete". Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty much 100% certain that the first edit was not a revert - I don't see any previous version of the article in which the text I added was included (other mentions of scholars all appear to be in the long form of the section). Just pointing this out - if you still think it's a revert, I'll self-rv. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean, that's assuming that the second is a revert, too ("scholars" to "certain scholars" to "those scholars who have commented", ...?). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Second one is definitely a revert, no question in my mind. I thought the first one was iffy, but I got a second opinion that agreed it would count. Better safe than sorry, huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
By my count you are right at 3RR. I'm a little confused. You were bold, I reverted, and per WP:BRD we're at discuss. But you keep reverting. Why? Lionel (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This article is due for deletion again. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since I don't know that anything's been done with it since it came back. :) I'm letting User:BQZip01, who also requested a shot at it, know as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I've been busy. I did what I could and removed the copyvio notice, but let me know if you catch anything else. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you happen to know when and how the photograph was deleted? The file discussion appears to have resulted in a keep. Or did it go down with the page, and it wasn't restored when the page was? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we can't just repair the observed copyvios. :/ I've put the template back up. The problem is that this guy has demonstrably copied content over and over again, with direct translations from Russian sources as well as from English. We need to replace his content, because we have to presume that everything he wrote is a copyvio unless we know otherwise. It was deleted on 9 May because it was orphaned. It can be restored if a new version of the article is rewritten. (Just to clarify: the rewrite goes here. The template should only be removed by the admin closing the listing or an OTRS agent verifying permission. :)) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's too bad. I'll take another look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, on second thought, I'm probably not up to rewriting it from scratch. My rephrasing is in the article history if anyone else wants to take a crack at it. :( Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the strong interest in this one, I think I'll stub it. :) I do appreciate your willingness to help out with it, and I completely understand the difficulties of rewriting. Unfortunately, we lose a lot of notable content that way. :/ I rewrite what I can (especially on subjects that I don't think anybody else will tackle or that strike me as just absolutely essential), but it's time intensive and there's just a never-ending stream. :P --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You have some awesome section titles here :-)
Thanks, Roscelese, but no thanks. I didn't mind spending time and energy working to make Wikipedia the great project it can be, but I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life. I just had to look up the ANI that resulted in her previous block, to try to give context to her latest accusation.[2] Haven't looked at that in a long time; interesting to note it was Boris1 who proposed "A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful." betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're leaving. Feel free to poke me if there's a fray you think I might find interesting. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the DYK OK and edits to the article. If you have access to any sources that could improve the article, be my guest! I went through 18 pages of google hits and used everything I could find. There was nothing else I found anywhere in print except in the Viking Guide. I'm almost tempted to hire the parts... Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I can get you stuff from JSTOR if you need. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, thanks. There were two or three articles which looked promising, but the stuff about The Lodger, frustratingly, wasn't on the front page and couldn't be accessed by me. I'll dig out their urls and let you have them later today. --GuillaumeTell 21:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, then I'll e-mail them whenever you've got them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, here we go. I can't guarantee that any of these will help improve the article, but one can but try:
Received. Thanks very much. You might think from my e-address that I could access JSTOR myself, but retirees, while able to hang on to their old addresses, lose some other privileges. The review of the St Pancras performance will be useful for expanding the synopsis, performance history and critical reception, and 950674, though truncated, gives the rather starry main cast for the broadcast. 951953 is ... interesting. --GuillaumeTell 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Susan Wicklund
nominate
) 08:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
request for assistance
In the article Apostolic, user LightBringer23 has posted content relative to one of the Apostolic churches listed. The content has no source, is poorly written "...was founded by some guy named...", and is overtly negative in its tone. Another user deleted the content. LightBringer23 reposted it. I deleted it, with the note that it was unsourced, poorly written, etc. He reposted it. I deleted it again, this time posting on his/her discussion page the reasons for the deletion. He reposted it. You've been around here a lot longer than I have. What's the proper course of action here? Thanks!BroWCarey (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This talk page lurker reverted again, and left a formal-looking note on the malefactor's page. He does seem to have an issue about the guy; the matter will likely escalate till he's blocked. PhGustaf (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Fainting
I suspect it might be that user. But since they are currently blocked, there is no reason to discuss anything.
Oh, that's not who I expected people thought it was. Anyway, I'm assuming good faith for now, absent evidence. (We really need to come up with a way of investigating suspected socks when we don't know the sockmaster, but we don't have one now.) Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback?
Hi, Roscelese. I don't normally issue talkbacks, but my page has seen so much activity lately that I thought you might miss my response [User_talk:Ohiostandard#I_am_considering_an_AE_request here], that you might miss it on your watchlist, otherwise. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Planned Parenthood
The description "nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider" is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it would appear that Planned Parenthood itself is the originator of the term. I would guess that the cited source plagiarized the term from Planned Parenthood's own literature. However, even if this were not the case, I would remove it on the grounds that the use of puffery by a source, does not justify its use in wikipedia. I would (read: may) replace the questionable sentence with a more unambiguous summary, just remove it entirely, and/or reorganize that section to preserve its flow. --Paul Vernaza (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there are better ways of handling it, but as I said, the "more unambiguous summary" would require sources we don't seem to have (ie. do they serve the most people, spend the most money on care, etc.) It might be better to move that sentence to the top of the section, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
re AfD: Parental Rights Amendment
If you are making such a strong claim against another user on-Wikipedia, have you reported the matter to
Oh - I suppose I could, but his username is his actual name and he's open about being in the employ of the organization, so I wasn't sure any action was necessary. This is not a policy area I stumble into often. ;) Should I take it there, then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that is probably best. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Roscelese, very much, for your polite and kind tone and demeanor during discussion of AfD: Parental Rights Amendment. I appreciate that. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Mr.Z-man's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Before you lecture someone on inserting text or re-inserting, may I suggest that you consider the 'Discussion' page to voice specific concerns rather than immediately seeking 'page deletion' or 'text cutting' based on your personal belief of relevancy. Wikipedia's foremost principle is consensus. Please, please, please seek that first! Some of your 'editor' suggestions earlier could have been far more helpful and time saving to isolate better information for the article of interest. Other portions you could have contributed from your own writing efforts had you thought about more. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If the intersection is non-notable,
burden is on you as the editor adding or restoring content: it is your responsibility to justify the addition of content completely unrelated to the article topic. And finally, all the content creation in the world doesn't make you a superior editor if the content you create is of low quality, which yours is, but this isn't even relevant because I also do a lot of content creation. Get off your high horse, and if you don't have anything useful to say, don't bother replying. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs
) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe part of the problem is that you are not understanding the application of sex integration to the topics in each of my articles that you have attacked before discussing. Here's a simple one: older men prefer younger women (that's ageism), getting older women to be interested in younger men, that's sex integration. Perhaps if you had made your uncertainties clear on the 'Discussion' pages instead of taking the course you have, these articles you've attacked would already have been far better, even with only one of us contributing to the writing. I believe you have some preconceived notions in these matters that are interfering with NPOV. The 'burden of proof' is not a problem for me - your cutting out text in clear violation of seeking consensus is! Then, you get even by using 'Deletion' templates. Where did you get the authority to do that? You put these articles up for 'Deletion' on your personal evaluation only. There was no consensus in that. Marshallsumter (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In order:
No, that isn't what sex integration is. Candid question: Is English not your first language? In English, sex segregation is separation of people based on sex, while sex integration is the opposite.
My attempts to discuss the problems on the talk page of the first article I encountered this problem on came to nothing, since you added the content back repeatedly without bothering to address my objections, neither as stated in talk nor in edit summaries. Now you've moved on to restoring totally irrelevant material without so much as even an edit summary, not even a content-free one like your previous ones. It's not me who's failing to discuss here.
Oh really? What are my preconceived notions, apart from "an article should cover a topic, rather than being a commonplace book for things
finds interesting
"?
If WP:BURDEN isn't a problem for you, why are you repeatedly adding this content without even the weakest attempt to gain a policy-based consensus for its inclusion?
If I'm "getting even" with you for restoring the irrelevant sections, why did I nominate the articles for deletion before working on their content?
You also don't appear to understand how a deletion discussion works; if I were able to delete the articles on my "personal evaluation only," I would already have done so and they would be gone. But I'm not, and they're not, and that's not how Wikipedia works. Instead, a deletion discussion is held to see whether there is consensus to keep or delete the article. Why don't you know this? You're not a n00b. Even if you were, surely you must have noticed that the articles did not disappear when I nominated them for deletion, and that instead there was a page to vote and provide one's rationale.
In conclusion: To my advice to you about reading article guidelines, I'll add the suggestion that you avoid personal attacks, like unfounded accusations of bias or disruptive editing. Have you considered finding a mentor who can help you out?
hi. when did the neutrality tag get added to the SPLC article? a cursory look through edit history did not show that. And does anyone else besides me think that the editor Mirardre, who is arguing for criticism in the lead, bears a suspicious similarity to blocked editor Legitimateandevencompelling? (i notice the timing of the latter's departure and the former's arrival are too coincidental). btw, i am posting this question to tomnorthshorman's page as well. -aNon 12.144.160.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
I don't think so. Miradre started editing a couple of months before LAEC was blocked, and they don't edit many of the same articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Women's History Project – Final call for comments on the Scope draft
Our workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop#Scope draft to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion that may interest you hereLionel (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
SBA POV
Thank you very much for this edit. I had no idea that article was harboring a POV spinoff of the SBA dispute for sooo long, getting it all wrong by following the wrong playbook(s), ignoring the scholars. Grrr! Your removal of that text shines like a ray of light. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem! I was happy I ferreted it out. (Well, that's not strictly true, I came across it by chance, but there's enough contention at the three or four articles that cover that dispute without spreading it to an article where it doesn't even belong.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Decemberists
I'm a rather peripherally involved in Trans Media Watch and one of the members attempted to establish its article today. I've been in a tizzy all afternoon trying to work out if/how I could remove the spam tag - as you noted, it clearly isn't. Wondering vaguely if the speedy delete nomination may have been transphobia-inspired, I do hope not.
Anyhow, ta. I was just about to start trying to work out how to find an experienced 'proper' Wikipedian to ask for help and then... voila! Here you are. Many thanks.
Becca
talk
) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You'd have been allowed to remove the tag - it's only the article creator who isn't allowed to remove it. Also, you and the creator might want to check out
WP:COI if you are members of the organization - if you're just members rather than employees, etc., it shouldn't be a problem, but give it a look-over anyway. Good luck! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs
) 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
re "others"
Do you have in mind an admin who you think is both fair but is also familiar regarding your participation within WP. I shall be asking the same of Haymaker, since I feel that having a good admin who can assist a party in conducting the interaction ban is better than having a "panel of three" sitting in judgement - any discussions between the admins will then less likely leave the editors out of the loop. Once we have all the parties in place I can then circulate the proposed wording of the interaction ban - taken from one of the previous ones I have adminned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll think about it. Would you prefer that I ask said admin or that you ask them? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Who are you thinking about? - Haymaker (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it best that I approach them officially, but there is nothing to stop you from making inquiries of them whether they would be willing to be approached. The admin will also have to be acceptable to Haymaker (and vice versa for Haymaker's choice). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Action of December 1669
GAN
Talk:Action of December 1669/GA1 - on hold for an initial seven days, mainly to do with adjusting the use of a primary source. SilkTork *Tea time
OK, no problem. Thanks for the help! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
GAN review of Action of Dec. 1669
Thanks for taking this up! I look forward to hearing your feedback. (And thanks for the virtual cuppa on your talkpage! :D) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In case you're not watching the GA review page, I replied there with some questions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, do you think you could respond to my questions about which places need more citations or seem like original interpretation? I'd like to fix those within the seven-day deadline, but I need a bit of guidance as to which the problem areas are. (I also posted at MH about the title and got a suggestion which works for me, but I'm going to wait another day or two before moving it, since it's been moved a lot.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'll take a look now. SilkTork *Tea time 12:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I would create redirects from the French title if such do not already exist, and put the category on the redirects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good idea. The information on either may eventually be split off from the article onto the redirect page, and it will also make clear in the category that the French versions are meant. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Regards :)
talk
) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Jack Fellure
Why can't you discuss things on the talk page like a reasonable person?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I gave my reasoning, referring to Wikipedia policies, to the Prohibition Party's lack of status, and to the absence of coverage in reliable sources. You removed the notability tag with the edit summary "nope" and expanded on this reasoning by citing a policy erroneously. Now you can see if other people at the AfD agree with you, based on the merits of the article rather than on your belief that I didn't discuss it to your liking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take things personal on wikipedia. I was wrong to remove the tag with such an edit summary, but I later clarified my position on talk page. That is where discussion should have occurred. An AFD was not the best course of action.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. You are, of course, welcome to make your best case there for keeping the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Inherent notability of species?
I believe you, but is there a place on WP policy pages where I can find a discussion of notability of species? Had I known about it, I would not have PRODed the article.
drop me a line
05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a policy page for it, but every AfD I can think of for a species has closed as a strong keep, consensus apparently being that a species is notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to pass this tonight, but as I worked my way through it I encountered another misreading of the primary source. Wikipedia articles must be factual and reliable. So I have failed it. Once you have worked your way through the material and made absolutely sure that nothing that is said in the article is a mistake or a possible interpretation, then please resubmit. SilkTork *Tea time 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, hopefully the next time I submit it I'll also have the time to respond to criticisms (work...as I can edit from my phone, but not put sources side-by-side, draft text, etc.) Something I'd better keep in mind. Thanks for all your help. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (
pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here
, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles
here
can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates
WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk
) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong
Do an edit like this [3] again on Armstrong's page and make another ad hominem attack on me to go with it and you can find yourself reported to AN/I.Sleetman (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
One more thing, I've raised the issue of the legitimacy of edits to Armstrong's page here. You're welcomed to join the discussion (if you wish to do so).Sleetman (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That isn't really an ad hominem either, though it's certainly rude. To provide an editing-related example (because the examples in the article are fine, but not about editing), "Your edit is wrong and you're a n00b" is rude, but "Your edit is wrong because you're a n00b" is ad hominem. The characteristic of ad hominem is that it attacks an argument based not on its merits but on the person making it. The More You Know! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but doesn't the statement "your views are unimportant" imply that they're unimportant because you are [whatever you are]? Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Dunno. Perhaps I have an overly formal view of the fallacy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
All I can see is Sleetman being unreasonable and rude. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"Ad hominem" Ah yes, Remember it well from Latin Class "against the man" one of the rare uses of the Latin adverb "ad" to mean "against" as it usually means towards (directionally) as in "ad nauseam!" Roscelese - At least YOU are ONE person who can express herself perfectly in the Lingua Franca of the English-speaking people - English! SimonATL (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Joe Wiegand Article
OK - so where are we on this article? I have added additional information to the article, expanded external links into the article as well as links out of the article. I do NOT work for the guy but I have seen him, myself, and he does an excellent job and has portrayed TR in all 50 states. He's also, as you know, portrayed TR at the White House and commercials and has been widely recieved everywhere. Q
Question. So HOW is this guy insignificant or why are you still proposing the article be deleted? What else do you need to remove the "candidate for deletion" tag. What are your primary remaining objections. How many people do YOU know who have portrayed one of the top 5 US presidents in all 50 States and the White House. How is THAT track-record insignificant or unexceptional to you? Do you have something against Theodore Roosevelt, the White House, Bush II (I'm NO fan of his, believe me - astonishingly incompetent). Please let me know your remaining issues/questions. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's wonderful that you're so enthusiastic about him, and I agree that he sounds like he'd be interesting to watch. However, in order to have an article on Wikipedia, a person generally needs to have received
significant coverage in reliable sources. If you wish to object to the deletion nomination, you can vote here. Please bear in mind that, unlike a proposed deletion where an objection by any user can halt the deletion, the article may still be deleted even if you vote to keep it unless better sources are added. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs
) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - I put these comments on the wrong page as you pointed out. I can see from your user page that people like George W. Bush (whom I think was the least qualified person for the Presidency in the 20th Century) and the proverbial quintessence of macho jingoism, Theodore Roosevelt would have little appeal to you. I personally admire about TR is NOT all that Macho BS (it was par for the times and he was NOT all "hot air" (wading into the middle of a pack of hunting dogs and stabbing a mountain lion thru the heart to keep the dogs from tearing the mountain lion to pieces is not some mere hot air excercise) BUT - for the fact that he was prepared for the job. Why this seeming war on Wiegand and, perhaps, by extension, TR? I do not work for Wiegand nor am I affiliated with him, but I have seen him and he does TR very well and he's portrayed TR in all 50 states. Compared to tens of thousands of totally un-sourced and outright factually incorrect articles on Wikipedia, this article on Wiegand covers the the subject material. I've been on Wikipedia for years, myself, we both know one can use Wikipedia to make war on any article or editor a person pleases. These "wars" can be direct or indirect or can be wars of attrition, too. I do not want disputes on the Wiegand article to escalate. I think we've pretty much put to rest the "non-notable" candidate for deletion topic. Come on, this guys notable by wikipedia standards and there are 3rd party news papers that discuss him. When that "not notable" tag was challenged, why would you feel compelled to resort to additional tags - primary sources, etc. Can't we keep things on the up-and-up. Perhaps you don't "like" TR or this Wiegand character or anything that they represent - fine. This is also not 1904 either and thankfully, the World has turned. The era of "only" so-called "strong men" and "weak compliant women" has ended. My daughter is 18 times undefeated in Tae-kwon-doh, in WA and OR state, 2d in the State of WA in women's wrestling and wants to go to the US Naval Academy and become a fighter pilot. She's a perfect e example of how doors have opened up and a woman can be whatsoever she strives to be. Yes, the world has changed but TR remains a product of his era and Wiegand portrays that man and his era very well and a Wikipedia article on him is totaly appropriate. Your thoughts - here or elsewhere? I've opened this up on the Wiegand article discussion page, also. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, okay, cool story bro, it's great to see women doing martial arts (I have a purple belt in jujitsu myself)...anyway, I've got no particular beef with Teddy Roosevelt, and I'm not sure why that of all things is the explanation anyone would leap to. (Racism/jingoism a bad thing, but trustbusting a good thing - like many admired historical figures, he wasn't a saint, but nor was he a devil.) Thanks for your efforts to remove more padding from the Wiegand article. What would also be good would be to begin integrating the newly found references (the ones mentioned at AfD) into the article, since, as I said, it still has only a) coverage of his performance at the WH and b) self-published and otherwise non-independent promotional material. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll remove as much padding as possible. There's just way too much on a re-read. Good suggestion about incorporating more of the 3rd party materials. My time is very limited right now, but I'll get at it ASAP. TR WAS a product of his times, to be sure, an amazing bundle of contradictions, trust-busting Republican! The guy is proof, for me, at least, that the Party of Lincoln did NOT have to descend into the Right Wing "stand-pat" reactionary ultra-conservative thing it morphed into. The Party was NOT founded as the "Conservative Party" but as an anti-slavery party uniting Whigs and Democrats and signaling the end of the Whig era. Anyways, I'll get on with the Wiegand thing as time allows. Please consider removing the "not significant" flag because I think we've pretty much established that. Check out a video on him some time - the guys really amazing. Maybe he's beginning to "think" he's TR! Haha. By the way, I'm a member and a trustee of the
Clay Jenkinson who's a Rhode's Scholar at Dickinson State and who also reprises Thomas Jefferson and Merriwether Lewis also does TR quite well. He's runner up. SimonATL (talk
) 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There isn't currently a notability tag on the article. There's a tag requesting more citations in general (because BLP articles need to be very well cited, and this one conversely has very, very few citations) and one requesting more third-party sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese,
I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the admin or non-admin status of an AfD participant does not matter to me. (Unless by "referee" you mean the person who closes the discussion? I think the non-admin closure process is pretty sound, too.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yeah, the "referee" I mentioned refers to the person who closes the discussion. Intuitively, it seems that admin referee is more persuasive than non-admin. But your point is also worth taking into consideration. Bluesum (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin closures work because non-admins can't delete anything and are instructed not to close any discussions that don't show a clear consensus. For any contested decisions, there's also the deletion review process. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification of
WP:AN/EW
report
Hello Roscelese,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Administrators' noticeboard
.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard
. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 11:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
Hello Roscelese. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Quran numeric miracle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 is only for an article recreated after being deleted at AfD. This one is now at AfD, but I see no record of any previous AfD or deletion. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Crossed paths
We seem to have crossed paths with the sock puppet investigations. I opened one with Quran Information (talk·contribs) as the master, as that account was created first. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Argh. I've never done an SPI before and I just went after the first one I remembered encountering, but I think you're right. *facepalm* If you add to your SPI the users on mine that you're missing, I'll speedy delete mine. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I explained at the noticeboard, the first revert of which I was accused was not a revert but rather the implementation of a compromise between myself and the user with whom I was disputing, in which we agreed that neither of us would get the version of the text we'd been trying to insert (see User talk:JorgePeixoto#1RR, where JP says "Maybe we should say simply 'ex-priest'."). Blocking a user for trying to resolve a dispute through compromise, instead of just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting again - for discussing the issue with the other user, finding a solution on which we can both agree, and implementing it - sends a poor message about the purpose of 1RR, suggesting that users should simply wait for the time to run out and make their edit again, rather than trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, as I did. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
As explained in unblock request, this was not a 1RR violation. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with this block, and am somewhat inclined to grant the unblock request. Even if you call the edit of 0401 UTC a revert, which is rather a tenuous label to apply, the block was still placed 15 hours after the last edit. What, exactly, is being prevented here? Roscelese was reverted again, had plenty of time to continue this edit war, and chose not to do so. I was a lot more inclined to grant this request before seeing the note below, though, where, Roscelese, I agree your conduct was sub-optimal. Courcelles 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It's an unrelated article, but as I said, I've agreed not to do it again. I'll just stay away from that user's talk page, and hopefully he won't bring his personal opinions to the article talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: If you think I should be blocked for that comment, that's fine, but declining an appeal for an edit-warring block because of civility issues on a totally unrelated article doesn't solve the problem I mentioned in my appeal, viz. that it endorses long-term edit warring and punishes attempts to compromise. If that's how you feel, and if you don't think that my word that I won't make such a comment again is sufficient, unblock me and block me again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As a comparison, take this edit by JorgePeixoto. Is it technically the second removal of the word "rights" in 24 hours? Yes. Would I ever, ever file a 1RR report on it? No, because we discussed the wording in talk and mutually decided that that phrasing was good. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to unblock as well, as this was not a 1RR violation. Courcelles, are you still thinking about this (in which case I'll hold off)? Other issue (below) can be dealt with thru discussion rather than blocks at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As you explained in your unblock request, this was not a 1RR violation, and I've unblocked. However, the page is certainly being heavily reverted, and it might be wise to voluntarily switch to a 0RR policy for a couple of days and focus more on talk page. However, this is not a condition for the unblock, just a suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
live.co.uk
