User talk:Roscelese/Archive 7

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.

Since it's basically the same thing, why not change the category's name from one to the other? Or put it all under Islamophobia. G'day --78.53.37.169 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the current category structure implies that the community views it as the same thing - for example, we have no "Anti-Islam organizations by country," just "Anti-Muslim organizations by country," etc. - so I encouraged the users who believed they were not the same thing to begin a discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding anti-muslim everywhere unless u can find a secondary scholarly academic source. For instance the EDL leader has repeatedly denied he is anti-muslim, but you ingore his statements.

talk

11:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I believe him over reliable sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain: the very idea of homosexuality was unheard of in Shakespeare's day - one could commit what we would today call a homosexual act (Elizabethans would have said it was "unnatural"), but a sexual orientation was conceptually impossible. Sex with boys (not men) was simply something one might chose to do. Socially and religiously condemned, of course. Also, the usual explanation for the Sonnets is that Shakespeare was exploring a popular Renaissance trope, that of the unresponsive beloved - in intellectual circles the idea of a male (boy or youth) as beloeved added an extra frisson. You need sources!

(Btw - "Islam" is a religion, "muslim" is one who professes that religion - to be anti-Islam would be to oppose the religion - a rather intellectual endeavour I think - and to be anti-Muslim would be to oppose the people. We see a bit of both in Europe and America these days, but perhaps Americans are more inclined to be anti-Islam and Europeans to be anti-Muslim). PiCo (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject is discussed at length in

censor the idea that Shakespeare was not heterosexual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

God only knows what Shakespeare's sex-life looked like. He didn't live with his wife, and I doubt he was celibate; he moved in circles in which sex with boys was at least praised, though we don't know if it was practiced; and there are very few stories about his personal life. (One famous one has him locking Richard Burbage (who played Richard III) out of a whore's room with the words "William the Conqueror came before Richard!") Nothing is known. For the sonnets, they're best approached through what we know of Elizabethan intellectual and the poetic tropes of the time. Get books! PiCo (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very nice, but it has nothing to do with your edit, which I will again be reverting, with the exception of using a different term in place of "homosexual." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you need to get some sources, ok? PiCo (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the section in question is in large part a summary of a complete article, which discusses historical and contemporary scholarly views on the theory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is dreadful, and wouldn't stand up to attack by anti-gay activists (and there's a hell of a lot of people on Wikipedia determined to prove that no famous person, in fields from politics to the military to the arts, could possibly be gay - have a look at our friend Hector Macdonald's article).

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	you refuted the pov-pushers in an admirable way. it was a delight to see you in action.  mustihussain  20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

i think an administrative action is required.[3], [4], [5]... and he reported me, lol! [6] --

[7] here

While I'm not supporting the idea of keeping these critical editions sections as separate, I think that there is some merit in having these publications appear in the references section under "other sources" or some such name.

As they appeared, the material in each one was overly long and duplicated most of the initial lead of each article. However, reduced down, they could be a valuable addition. Any thoughts? Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that at the very least, any "editions" section would have to be limited to notable and/or commonly used editions, and it should be annotated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I agree with your moving to another section the mention of the feticide recommendation of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It was because of a misunderstanding that I placed it there. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on
   Standard discretionary sanctions
   ;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at
   Support for the legalization of abortion
   , with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:NYyankees51
   are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you relisted this AfD one minute after it was closed. I could be wrong, but my guess was that there may have been an edit conflict-type situation in which you had been about to relist the AfD but User:Dcoetzee closed it first. It doesn't matter to me whether the AfD is closed or relisted, but if you want it to be relisted, I would recommend checking with User:Dcoetzee first and then fully reopening the AfD. Either result, a keep or a relist, is fine with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I used an automated tool and I guess it overrides edit conflicts. Thanks for letting me know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hey, thanks for the comments!
As per the subcategorization question, I don't think that's something I have power over. At first glance it seems to me that subcategorization is an automated response programmed into the wiki according to how the articles network together through their various categorizations. Do you know how it works?
As per the question of including rape, of course it is a part of the list! I created this category about 30 minutes to an hour ago and have been slowly adding to it! I'll add that incredibly important one in particular right now before I get swamped with more articles and forget! Please add to the list if you will! My idea behind creating it was to create a uniting thread between the Gender Studies, Transgender, LGBT, Women, etc. portals
Eekiv (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...categorization isn't automated. What I'm saying is that "persecution of homosexuals" would be a subcategory of "gender-based violence," not the other way around. If you're not sure how it works, you could try WP:Help desk? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution and concern. Excuse me, for I may be misinterpreting you. I find the manner in which you are communicating to me to be belittling rather than collaborative (re: "Er..."). I am by no means a veteran editor on Wikipedia. I have never edited Categories before. I have taken a plunge on my own to begin editing on Wikipedia, and indeed to begin more advanced editing as a means toward lessening the race and gender gap. Please make this a safe space for me as a beginner to make my contributions. Eekiv (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point which, quite the contrary to arguing that the CDF statement is in line with clinical literature, was to note that neither mainstream psychiatry nor the Church's own theology backs up the Vatican's contention that transwomen (for example) are simply deluded men who have undergone a superficial change that leaves their fundamental maleness intact. This is not my original research, and there are any number of APA and professional pronouncements, as well as catechetical documents, that could be harnessed to make the same points, and which would be a more constructive option than wholesale bulldozing for someone professing to be concerned with tightening up references. If you would prefer to source this some other way then I welcome your guidance, but I'm afraid the status quo just isn't acceptable: as a queer Jewish feminist with a high regard for NPOV I am sure you would not want an article that tacitly presents one conservative Catholic POV as inevitable and incontestable as your edit does. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying with regard to the principle, but we would need to see a source which makes that argument. Do these APA documents specifically comment on the CDF statement/on Catholic doctrine? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're operating on a definition of "synthesis" so broad that you need a fresh statement from the APA for every instance where it's relevant you're probably going to be waiting a while. Put it this way, if we had a Wikipedia article that made two contradictory statements (or at least having the potential to appear contradictory), we would have a tag to put up for that. When the contradiction is in the source material itself (such as the Vatican condemning biological reductionism in one source and embracing it in another), all we can do is offer that juxtaposition to the reader. We would not be able to do that if Wikipedia's editorial policy defined synthesis in the manner you're proposing. To fall afoul of that, we need to be drawing something from the citations that is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas like I said each piece of that paragraph is an easily-sourceable fact about either religion or psychology, which the reader will still be able find in the relevant main articles if you remove it from this one. Now, if the issuers of the statement don't like the cumulative implications of those individually-verifiable statements, that's another matter, but it's not appropriate for us as editors to be minimizing the disconnect for them. If we had to wait for them to identify it themselves and write a new statement then any NPOV would be "synthetic" by that logic. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still synthesis. See the example at

WP:SYN with Smith and Jones: the Harvard manual is a reliable source in the abstract, but it doesn't comment on the Smith and Jones matter and can't be brought in to make a point about the matter, however valid that point might be. The key in what you're saying is that each piece of that paragraph is sourceable - but Wikipedia requires that the conclusion also be sourceable - and that the facts are about either religion or psychology - but the sources have to discuss the subject, not one part or the other. The conclusion may well have been drawn by others; consider looking in other sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please pop over to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs again where a troublesome anon user, subject of a current sockpuppet complaint about an IP in Carrollton, Georgia, has reverted your speedy keep decision and is now threatening to report you.[8] BlackCab (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese,

I have given my input to Talk:False accusation of rape. It seems that someone re-edited the article to include FBI criticism. Also, do you agree that the article needs a total makeup due to its bias towards the male gender? The article basically implies that women lie about rape all the time, and I find that very hard to believe. And, also, false accusations of rape may be more mediated than true ones, and thus we might need to include that in the article.

Thank you ^_^,

--MusicsColors (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Melissa Dunphy, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Dissonance (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) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, I have replied to your comment at

Answered. Cinosaur (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressed your Forum 18 suggestion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! As requested, I explained my reasoning for my edit. It's at Talk:Corona del Mar High School. I would very much like to have an outside set of eyes take a hard look at my edits and to be brutally honest about any bias I am showing without realizing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for beginning that discussion. I'm not sure if I'll be engaging on the content front - I may take a look later - but I hope some slight amount of mediation from me was helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[9]

Hi! I create article tittled as "History of Pudukkottai" for this i curved out information from Pudukkottai main article itself. I am not the contributor for this in main article Pudukkottai. I watched for many months but there is no climbs of copyvio in main article so i step in to create History of Pudukkottai. I am new to wikipedia editing so, from now there will be no copyvio from my side. Thank you...Incrazy (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not enough. You've also added copyrighted material to

Velankanni Town, Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health, and God knows how many other articles. Please help remove it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done major edit in articles which was created by me, i have removed some elements from them, you may check for your satisfaction. Not only god even i also know how many articles i have been edited... Thank you... Merry Christmas... Incrazy (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I'm filing a CCI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead...Incrazy (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Raymond Burke

Dianella admixta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dianella

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I can review the critics, but I don't have any access. If you can copy/paste a few onto my talk page I would sort through them :) unitas (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow - if not then, the day after. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification - it all seems to be fine now. Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just closed the AE Report you filed.

Yeah, I saw - I commented on your talk page. (I didn't think to follow the link on remedy 4 to the discretionary sanctions page because I assumed that the difference was just that they were arb-imposed instead of community-imposed - I was already familiar with the community sanctions page, which did not link to the rules surrounding discretionary sanctions. But now I know!) Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
Message added 06:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
Message added 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your edit at 06:57 was a revert of [10]

Your edit at 06:59 was a revert of [11]

That's only one revert, but thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comment on the talk page should not be interpreted as a claim that we shouldn't mention Catholic disagreement with the church hierarchy. I, personally, have not been involved in the article until now and have no opinion about what should and shouldn't be included (e.g. whether it should be just about the hierarchy or about the church as a whole). Based on my initial reading of the talk page comments, I thought that the main argument against including Baudouin rested on the premise that the article was about the church hierarchy rather than Catholics themselves. My point was that such a premise would, of course, count against discussing Catholic opposition to the hierarchy's teachings. I now see that at least your main argument against including Baudouin rests more on the premise that reliable sources don't treat the Baudouin incident as relevant to the church at large. About this claim I have no opinion.

I suppose it isn't very important now, since my comment seems to have been largely buried under others at this point. But I thought I should clear things up. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, I've actually been really adamant about including lay opinion; it just seems to me that the sources don't treat the incident as relevant to the church, how others perceived it, etc. as opposed to saying that Baudouin's religious beliefs were relevant to the incident. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards,

nominate ) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Peace in Islamic philosophy I have added a chapter titled "Peace between Muslim and non-Muslim countries" You have deleted the entire chapter claiming that it contains copyrighted material. I have two questions: 1. Which part of my chapter is copyrighted? 2. Why did you delete the entire chapter, rather than its copyrighted part? Quinacrine (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) The non-quoted and some of the quoted text is copyrighted, and the rest is poorly sourced. You obviously know that the text isn't your own, so why do you continue adding it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Tea With Terrorists Hi, You PRODded PROD tag was removed by the article creator. I have taken it to AfD ; your comments there would be welcome. Thanks; bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion requests Hi, Roscelese Are the recent articles I created bad topics, or just too stubby for main space? I usually start an article and hope for WP:TEAMWORK to flesh it out. I've hardly ever written an article all by myself, but in my ten years here I've begun over 1,000 articles which other people also worked on. Here are the most recent ones I've created, for your perusal: Black poverty Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman Heterosexual couple Man out of the house (welfare rule) Elaine Donnelly (writer) Elaine Donnelly Blacklisted by History Blaming the Victim Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives Global warming and hurricanes Just another species A Christmas Carol (TV 1949) Socialism and famine Christmas Every Day My Hitch in Hell Piers Forster Korean descriptive verb Cash flow sign convention Gism Craig Quigley Sudie and Simpson Gender norming Unit cohesion J.C.C. McKinsey Wicker Amendment Some are small, a few are medium. Several address controversial issues, in what I hope is a completely unbiased fashion. If any of these need work, please let me know ... or even pitch in and do some fixin' yourself! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC) If sufficient notable), it is what you might call a "bad topic." Looking at some of those other articles, they seem to be notable but stubby. That's the kind of article that can be improved by editing (by yourself and others). But if there simply isn't the material available with which to improve an article, it doesn't belong here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs ) 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC) This user may hold the copyright Per [12]. We should see if we can get a release. I shall email him. talk · contribs · email ) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Oh. :/ Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks Hello, Roscelese. Thank you for reverting me here. On second thoughts, I think you're quite right, a hatnote at Sexual orientation is a better approach. Sexual Preference (book) probably belongs within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies; I would add it myself, except that I'm not a member of the project. I wondered if you might want to add it? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Good idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC) English Defense League Hi Roscelese, I'm confused with your change to my entry. I believe Ben Gidley is talking about member of the English Defense League that he calls "the suited wing." I make no judgment as to the so-called two wings in the Gidley article but I thought this view should be brought to the attention to those doing research on the organization. The hooligan wing was already discussed. I'd like to know your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The quotes you pulled are describing the anti-Muslim organizations that influence the EDL, not the EDL itself. As I said, I have no problem including the material - it just has to be written in such a way that we're not attributing views to the source author which he does not hold and confusing readers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps the Gidley article is itself confusing. He talks about a "suited wing of the EDL." They "draw" from "clash of civilization organizations." He then talks about those organizations. Thus, one might or might not assume that what they take from those organizations are the attitudes he cites. Since I'm trying to understand the "suited wing" I assumed Gidley was helping me understand their influences and hence their beliefs. Is that not how you read the Gidley article? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sure that Gidley is telling us about the organizations that influence the EDL so that we might better understand its "suited wing," we just can't say or imply that Gidley is describing the "suited wing" when he is in fact describing the organizations that influence it. "They tend not to be interested in race and ethnicity" etc., in your writing, looked like it was meant to describe the EDL when that's not what Gidley is saying. Similarly, he's not saying the members "come from" these organizations and are "reasonably high intellectual level," etc.; that's a description of the groups that influence the EDL, not of EDL members. More generally, I'm not sure Gidley is arguing that there are two competing groups; it looks to me more like he's saying the EDL is influenced by two competing strains of thought/behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. I would like to inform the reader of this influence without making the paragraph an sub-article about other organizations. Something should be said about this "suited wing." The Hooligan wing was already discussed. I'd like to drop the Hooligan sentence and inform the reader that Gidley sees another dimension to the movement. How does that sound? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Again, I have no objection to the material, just to the misleading way in which it was included. Paraphrasing more instead of including quotes (like "They...") might help. I'm not sure what the point would be in removing the hooligan sentence, though? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Ed Poor Hi. I couldn't help noticing that you've proposed/nominated a number of Ed's latest excrements for deletion recently. You may be interested in this admission by him on my user talk: "Yeah, it's true, I barely know what I'm doing. I just know how to pick a good topic, but I can't write for beans." I think such an admission should disqualify him from creating new articles on Wikipedia (and possibly from editing altogether). Otherwise he simply turns the rest of Wikipedia into his own personal pooper-scoopers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, Eds not new here. He even used to be an admin, lol, back in the early prehistoric era of the 'pedia. If I remember correctly he was desysoped and eventually went to Conservapedia (see here), where they undoubtedly love his POV bias. Personally, I'm unable to tell if his new spate of creating malformed POV pushing articles and then "aw shucks"ing it off when called on it is due to incompetence or devious sneakiness. But I agree that something may need to be done about him soon if it continues. He must have 4 or 5 articles at AFD now for exactly the same mistakes, mistakes you don't make after 10 years here unless your IQ is 68. Heiro 06:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I can't say I disagree, but I'm not sure I'm the right person to bring this to. If it's serious enough to warrant going through all his contributions, it might be an AN or ANI issue. However, I'd strongly recommend continuing discussion with him before taking such a step. To me, it doesn't actually seem like the problem is that he's creating a bunch of unsourced stubs that other people then have to source - that's not the most productive way of going about article creation, but it isn't particularly destructive (as long as sources are out there) because no one has to expand them. What I see as the problem is creating articles on things that don't exist (see Socialism and famine) or that otherwise can't be determined to be notable, with the aim of pushing a POV, and trying to brush it off as "yeah, I know the article's not finished, I'm just not good at following through, y'know?" when the articles can't be fixed because the sources just aren't there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs ) 06:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Heironymous: it's hardly "new", he's had spates of such creations (at least on-and-off) for years now (just take a look at the history of his user talk). Roscelese: I don't know who this is "the right person to bring this to" (a WP:RFC more appropriate (I'm fairly sure Ed's had them in the past). Or should we be seeking further to convince Ed directly to stop this activity first (user RFCs require that "at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" first). HrafnTalkStalk(P ) 07:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Oh yeah, RFC/U is also a thing. That could be better. But we would first have to agree, I think, on what behavior it is that we are asking him to stop, since we have different opinions on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I noticed that Hrafn, after I posted the above, I did a little more digging. Although I've seen his name before, he only really came to my attention in the last few weeks. I tend to agree with you both, in that both aspects of his editing(the POV pushing and the incompetence in creating articles) are major problems. If someone starts an ANI or RFC I'll try to help as I can, but real life for the next 5 or 6 weeks is gonna be kicking my ass(I'm an artist and have a show at the beginning of next month, every single waking second is supposed to be spent in the studio, I'm playing hooky right now, lol). Let me know if and when I can help, but I'm not gonna have a lot of time for the likes of Ed. Heiro 07:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing that Ed is an inveterate POV-pusher -- it was in fact what originally brought him to my attention, on intelligent design-related articles. But as he's been topic-banned there (and on Unification Church articles as well) for some time, it's not generally foremost in my mind these days. It's also not an aspect of his editing style that I think is amenable to correction (or he wouldn't have gotten himself topic-banned in the areas he's most interested in, in the first place). Short of an all-out ban for POV-pushing, the best that I think we can hope for is to get him to stop creating such terrible new stubs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC) FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (aka Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Oh my. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#User:Ed Poor - POV and COI HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Hrafn, those cases are from 4 or 5 years ago. I've straightened out since then, but some people persist in confusing "adding balance" with "pov pushing". The question is always: when is coverage of a standpoint disproportionate? (And please don't misinterpret my remark about "knowing what I'm doing". All I meant is that I don't know how to write a complete article, all by myself. Let's have a little WP:TEAMWORK , here.) And I wish you would stop branding me as a POV pusher. I'm adamantly opposed to that practice, which is why I wrote User:Ed Poor/POV pushing. I think you'll agree that Wikipedia's aim is not to produce articles which produce an "objective" point of view on a topic when it is a controversial one. Rather the aim is to summarize the arguments and evidence for all sides in a controversy, which is why the arbcom has forbidden deletion of information purely on the grounds that "advances a point of view". [13] If an article at point A in time concentrates mainly on reasons why people on one side approve or condemn something, that article may be unbalanced. But as long as the contributor has not cited that side as being correct, but as "having an opinion" then the article probably is not biased at that point, i.e., not violating NPOV. Further, if someone were to come along at point B in time and give reasons why people on another side have opposing views which contradict the first side, this would (1) provide balance and (2) still remain neutral, because the article would not say that either side is "right" but merely that X says Y about Z in each case. I recall that one of the stubs I recently created began so one-sidedly that another contributor commented on the lack of balance; he did not, of course, suggest that in was "biased" (i.e., violating NPOV) because I was careful not to imply that the side I was writing about was "correct" or even "in the majority". I was writing for the enemy, in accordance with an essay I wrote 6 years ago. Please don't afd it! If you can show me where I have created an article in recent years, which violated NPOV policy by failing to adhere to any of the following norms, I hope you will point it out to me specifically (preferably on my user talk page), so I can repair that failing as soon as possible; if I can't do it by myself I will ask you for help, of course: "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. The last one would probably be my weakest point, as I typically begin an article merely by summarizing points of view; it is only later in the lifetime of an article that I usually begin to pay attention to the levels of support for those views. Also, it's never been clear to me whether it is sufficient to say, e.g., "while almost all historians agree that the Holocaust took place, there are some (chiefly in the non-Western world) who call it a hoax" and then go on, at length, to describe one of the most distasteful topics to me personally: the reasons Holocaust deniers give for their position. Is it the number of words in an article about any given viewpoint which indicate the relative levels of support, or can we use polls or something else to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views? Only a tiny fraction of a percent retain belief in a undue weight , because the article contributors have made sure to point out "ball earth" supporters outnumber "flat earth" supporters by over a million to one. I never said I could write a complete, fully balanced article all by myself. But that is not the standard. It is only that each version of an article should comply with NPOV and other major rules. If something is stubby, it should not be deleted but either (1) fleshed out by other volunteers or perhaps (2) userfied temporarily if presence in main article space of a poorly referenced and otherwise incomplete article offends general sensibilities. But please be careful about stubs which describe controversial topics. The remedy for being too short or for being imbalanced is usually not to delete it, but either to give good advice on how to fix it (on the article talk page), or to jump in and work on it. To Roscelese: sorry to rant on your user talk page, but I felt the comments above mine required an immediate response. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Ed: The UC topic ban (cited above) was only two years ago, and I'm fairly sure the ID topic ban was even more recent. (i) I did not "[brand you] as a POV pusher" I merely explicitly failed to 'disagree' with those making that accusation. (ii) Your (very recent) choice of topics (which seem prevalently on topics close to the far right's heart), and the far-right WP:DUCK . "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Giving over an article almost entirely to the opinions of unreliable fringe fanatics (as you did on Blacklisted by History‎) does not satisfy this requirement. Your stubs typically provide nothing useful in terms of useable prose, or sources with reliability and coverage to allow further expansion. Stubs you write tend to require complete rewriting from scratch. Your version of Blacklisted by History‎ was not even close to NPOV -- it was a slobbering far-right lovefest. The 'careful' response to partisan quotefarmed stubs is immediate removal -- whether by rewriting from scratch or deletion being at the 'pooper scoopers' discretion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) What Hrafn said. NPOV isn't just about language, it's also about reliable sources. The fact that you don't understand this, Ed, is troubling and is unlikely to stand in your favor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs ) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) LGBT sports people Thanks for the clarifying questions about the LGBT sportspeople category. Are you still in favor of keeping all the subcats? I've been working with the list for the past several weeks, and I'm pretty sure I have the vast majority on there. Is 169 people still "what could otherwise be an overly large category"? Also, that doesn't address the issue I posted - does diffusing by location actually make sense? Are LGBT sportspeople from the UK inherently different from LGBT sportspeople from Australia? Thanks for your input! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs ) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I think it's still a good idea to have them. (They also help diffuse the "LGBT people from X" categories.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Man in the house rule Roscelese, if law professor Dorothy E. Roberts says that the man-in-the-house rule existed, is that a good enough source for you? Since welfare's inception, states have conditioned payments on mothers' compliance with standards of sexual and reproductive morality, such as "suitable home" or "man in the house" rules. Welfare and the Problem of Black Citizenship - Yale Law Journal - April, 1996 If so, I hope you will withdraw your deletion request. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Ed: WP:TROUT. HrafnTalkStalk(P ) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Voluntary Human Extinction Movement Hi Roscelese, I hope things are going well with you. I haven't seen you around lately, but I think that's just because I haven't been as active at Afd lately as I was. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement about possible improvements to the article. I wanted to draw some more editors in, so I looked through the talk page and have mentioned this to the 5 or 6 editors that I saw there. If you are interested, please weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Wow, it's been a while since I thought about that article. I don't even remember what I was doing there. I'll do my best to mediate, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I think there was some conflict or Rfc about the amount of See Also links or some odd little thing in the past, that's probably what brought you there. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) The Count of Luxembourg Please see Talk:The Count of Luxembourg for some new discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) question Have you see this article- Discordia (film)? Do you thing it is also an AfD candidate? 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) I have it open in my browser because I'm meaning to check for sources, but I haven't had time yet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but... I am sorry that things have got a bit heated. I can see that you are an excellent editor and I know that you are acting in good faith. You may want to look at this edit again [14]. I think some people might see it as a breach of WP:3RR. Best wishes Tigerboy1966 (talk ) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) January 2012 Your recent editing history at block . If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Edit Warring I've opened up an edit warring report here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Contact Hello, Roscelese. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ "talk" 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) Events Whoops, sorry about that. I was adding the delsorts and didn't see I pre-empted your comment. chatter ) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Article deletion Hi, if you prod an article like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_exceptionalism&diff=473293569&oldid=468529014) please create a place for discussion. Richiez (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC) No, that's not how proposed deletion works –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Incomplete DYK nomination talk ) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Stop Islamization of America Please do not call me disingenuous for what other editors are doing and do not call them disingenuous for what I do. I saw your edits on the recent changes page was I was flipping through them last night (this can be verified by my recent contributions). You reverted my edit here, though your summaries are very confusing. You claim that the same person (a "you") is using Salon to support that Park51 is controversial but that I am suppressing that SIOA "created the controversy." This raises two points: I say that the term "created the controversy" is not supported by the articles there cited, and is inaccurate. If anything, the Salon article blames the New York Post for the controversy, but on the grand scale of things I am highly dubious that a small startup organization can just "create controversy" that receives media attention nation-wide. I have no care whether Park51 is controversial of its own right. The article is not about Park51. However if, as your edit summary claims, both claims are supported by the Salon article, it it very confusing that you have devoted so far 9 edits to removing that claim from the article. This seems to have become of importance to me, though, because you will now revert multiple edits at once under the premise that they all hinge around that claim. Lastly it's making a mess of formatting. The version I corrected contained a period between two out-of-order citations. Your most recent version duplicates one citation, followed by a period followed by another citation. It's not clear which you are citing for which claim. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I don't think it's you that's being disingenuous at all. I'm referring to Mythpage, who is really intent on including the claim that it's controversial but not so intent on using the information on SIOA in the cited source (which was not cited before, hence earlier removal of claim). Thanks for pointing out the formatting screwup; I've fixed it. For the Salon material, please refer to "To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger [SIOA leader, as explained later in article], whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. I must have thought it was just a transition and skimmed over it. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC) You have been page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk ) 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roscelese (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: There has been neither a bright-line 3RR violation nor a more general edit-warring violation. Now that a source has been added for "controversial," I'm no longer interested in removing it; on the contrary, my three reverts in the past 24 hours have been (twice) the explained restoration of reliably sourced material that was removed without any explanation and (once separately) the removal of a source that wasn't cited for anything. I've also discussed the content and sources amicably and productively with other users (for instance, see immediately above). Earlier, I left the article in my non-preferred state while discussing on the talkpage, and went to noticeboards for wider input. This is generally considered positive editing behavior, and I intend to continue this source-based discussion and explanation of edits in the course of improving the article. Please note as well that this block came completely out of the blue, without any opportunity for me to revert edits that others might have felt crossed the line, and that if I'd been notified beforehand then I would certainly have considered self-reverting. Decline reason: (1) You say that you have not been edit warring. There have been numerous sequences of edits you have made to the same article, in each sequence the same, or substantially the same, edits having been made. On at least one occasion you made five successive identical edits: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], together with at least one edit which contained the same substance as those five, together with other change: [20]. The claim that you have not been edit warring is therefore not substantiated. (2) You claim that this block came "out of the blue". You are well aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy, having previously been blocked for edit warring, and having yourself previously made reports on other editors at talk ) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. {{unblock | 1= I don't think this review adequately considered either my appeal nor the facts of the situation. (1) The "five successive identical edits" are edits I specifically pointed out I'm ''not interested in making'' - indeed, I've been working with that source and that content in my more recent edits - so blocking me on the basis of those edits is not in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy, being punitive rather than preventative. (2) I agree that no new warning is necessary on every occasion of, say, a 4RR, but in an instance where there have been only two substantive reverts and a "cleanup" revert (removal of a source that wasn't being cited), I ''do'' think the situation calls for an explanation of why another user might consider the behavior edit-warring and an opportunity to self-revert. (4) A cursory look at article histories and at block logs is not a good basis for the analysis of user behavior. For instance, JamesBWatson bases his decline partly on the fact that I was "recent"ly blocked for edit warring ("recent" = over six months ago); he fails to note that I was unblocked in barely an hour because two separate admins agreed that, rather than edit warring, I had been doing the ''right'' thing by discussing the content with other users and implementing a compromise. Too, it's easy to look at the November 2011 article history and say I was edit-warring, but what takes a little more time is to look at my edits and see that I was adding new sources in order to compromise with a user who disagreed with the material as cited at the time. Basing a block partly off past conduct is one thing, but basing it off ''incorrect'' views of past conduct is another.}} I've shut off this request as it appears your block has expired. talk ) 01:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) On the off-chance that the single purpose account editing that article is watching my talkpage or my contributions, I'd like to ask: What makes you believe that your personal political opinions are more important than what is stated in reliable sources? The source directly states one thing, and you changed the article to state the exact opposite. Why do you believe this is appropriate behavior? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC) And thank you Theinactivist for editing to reflect the source. Let's see how long that text lasts... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I'm glad you approve, and you're welcome. I'll try to keep it under control when I'm online. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 08:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks MaxSem for fixing the template :/ I can't seem to get it right, can I? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese/Archive_7&oldid=1143273633" Toggle limited content width