User talk:Roscelese/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Economic_jihad

Does the style of this look familiar to you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Yes, it does. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar award

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

Cultural Infiltration

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

DYK for Prince of Poets

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

Thanks!

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

nazis on wikipedia

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

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

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

FYI

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

Your Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

J. Edgar Hoover

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

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

Men's rights movement probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Federales (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Roscelese behavior regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Here's a link to the difference for your convenience [1] Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Roscelese,

My tablet PC has a sensor, it notes when my eyes can't be found. Wikipedia should have a similar device: shut down the Internet connection when my brain can't be found. Again, thanks for the undo. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Right to die.
Message added 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

She Has a Name

Hi Roscelese,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. The articles 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name were split off from the main She Has a Name article in accordance with recommendations made at a featured article candidacy. The good article nomination reviewers have explicitly seen fit to see all three articles stand as separate articles. Current concensus is to maintain three separate articles, so a formal merger discussion would need to take place if you wish to change concensus. I would be grateful if you would notify me if you decide to start such a discussion. I do not believe that the articles should be merged; a merger would either bloat the main article or cut swathes of valid, encyclopedic information. Certainly, there are plenty of sources to support each of the articles; the tour is independently notable, as is the critical response to the play. You state that your concern is about promotion. My intentions in writing the articles are encyclopedic, not promotional, and I would be glad to rephrase any portions of the articles that you believe to be phrased non-neutrally.

Neelix (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'll start a discussion on the talk page. My concerns aren't that there is something non-neutral about the language (which you seem to have done a good job of keeping neutral), but rather that the excessive coverage is more suitable for the show's own website rather than for an encyclopedia, which aims to record what will be important in the long term rather than day-to-day details or heaps of local pull quotes. (Compare, for instance, RSC production of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1970)]] - like 2012 tour of She Has a Name, it's an article on a production of a play, but this particular production is immensely important in theatre history and has been discussed in scholarly sources for decades, and moreover the play is one of the great ones in the English repertoire.) Also, re: Category:Theatrical tours, I recommend you look at the category description - "Theatrical shows created especially to go on tour", like Michael Flatley performance events. Not productions that happened to tour, as many do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the category description accordingly; there should be a category that recognizes that the 2012 tour of She Has a Name was a tour. I do not believe that the articles about She Has a Name constitute excessive coverage, but I will wait to respond to your comments on the article talk page. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to the category description. If you wish to change the scope of a category, using WP:CFD would be a good idea. Same thing as Category:Entertainment events in Canada, which I also see you've added back. That is for events that aren't plays but that need to be categorized somehow (fashion shows, exhibitions, etc.). She Has a Name is already under "Canadian plays", so it is where users looking for theatre in Canada will find it! And then if they are interested in the 2012 tour, they will easily follow the link. :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Federales 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)

LOL Thereandnot (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

2RR?

Are this and this two reverts within 24 hours? Perhaps not. I just thought I might be able to return the favour you did me, when you drew my attention to a mistake that I made in that field.

I do not intend to undo at any time either of your two edits, the second of which you thought necessary in order to remove some suggestion that you saw as contradicting the cited sources. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the second is a revert, since it didn't undo anything that you had done. It made sense that you rearranged the paragraph for ease of reading - you just unintentionally implied that the rape, and not both the rape and the risk to life, were the legal justification for the abortion, which is at odds with the content of the source. So rather than undoing your edit to put the clause back where it began, I put it in a new place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "douglas karpen". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rachel's Vineyard

Please don’t politicize Wikipedia by deleting articles that differ from your own feminist world-view. There are people who believe themselves to have been hurt by abortion and it is simply petty to keep them from finding out about where they might get help. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've already linked you to our policies about using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but perhaps you should also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m a frequent contributor to Wikipedia. Mostly, I write about type foundries, typographers, Charlie Chan movies, and opera in Chicago. I’ve written about some pretty obscure stuff that way. The Chicago City Opera Company, for instance, only existed for a few years in the 1930’s, while the Trennert Type Foundry is also mighty obscure. I’ve also taken a fancy to a few off beat things, like the Former Cathedral Church of Christ the King, the folkloric aspects of Versehen, and health food advocate Gayelord Hauser, all of which articles I originated. I also like to make sure that bisexuals are represented, but this is a losing battle, because no matter how well you document it, people just want to think that Nancy Kulp and Caesar Romero are gay, and Tyrone Power is straight.

And I take the integrity of Wikipedia seriously. When I figured out that Bruce Rauner, a Republican hack, had written his own autobiographical article, I called him out on it. I often purge material from articles on typefaces that is only promotional material for one digital foundry or anther.

Now, of all the articles I have written, only two have been purged. The first was Alfred R. Bosco, a type designer who did the face Romany for A.T.F. — and that was it. He did nothing else, so I guess he was insignificant.

And then there is Rachel's Vineyard. Now, this is a bona fide organization, a non-profit, offering people counseling services at a low cost (sometimes even for free), that is active on three continents. But of course, saying that abortion can be traumatic for some women, or (God forbid!) anyone should feel guilty after such a procedure, just isn’t politically correct — is it?

Has anyone tried to purge Mountain Moving Coffeehouse? That was a for profit feminist coffee house in Chicago. Now, I could name a half-dozen locally owned coffee houses in Chicago that don’t have a Wikipedia article, or I could purge Mountain Moving, or I could just say to myself, “This is important to someone,” and leave it alone.

So, try to look past your feminist agenda to see that you are only being small when you say that I am engaged in self-promotion, and snotty when you accuse me of “trying to right great wrongs.” Dutchman Schultz (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you find an article on something that's not notable, it is well within your power to nominate it for deletion. You're not even trying to argue, however unsuccessful such an argument is likely to be, that RV is notable - you're simply trying to use Wikipedia to promote it to others. This is at odds with the goals of the encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, statistics? There are twenty-four Rachel’s Vineyard groups on Facebook, and the main one had 4,523 “likes.” (Ernst Junger, the greatest German writer of the twentieth century, has only 741 followers.) They claim to be the “largest post-abortive healing ministry in the world,” a claim that is probably true, as the mainstream psychoanalytic community refuses to acknowledge that abortion is traumatic. By “not even trying to argue” does that mean that I’m being a nice guy and not some name-calling ass-wipe? We’re talking about an organization that is active on three continents — what more do you want to make them “relevant” to your pro-abort worldview? R.M. Schultz (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

By “reliable” I’m sure you mean “bourgeois.” Is the New York Times bourgeois enough for you? I took me only one Google search to find: “Rachel’s Vineyard + NYT”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I've addressed the triviality of this reference at the AFD. I'm amused at the attempt to bring the class struggle in, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts

Hi, the legal section I added to the article Sexual orientation change efforts is about the legality of the practices: the US state laws that ban them use the same term, though I'm not completely sure what it covers. I will try to add info on other countries if I find good sources on them. The section you added on Ecuador however, appears to be more about a specific incident instead of the legal status. I'd prefer to keep it on the page about LGBT rights in Ecuador itself since it's very a country-specific incident; would that be okay? Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There were specific instances of raids, but they resulted from the illegality of the clinics; I don't think the fact of there being events means that it's just an event. If you do know anything more about the legal situation in Ecuador that would be great though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but my point is actually that the article should (ideally) have a brief overview on the legal status in various countries, whereas the info on Ecuador is quite detailed/specific (while not even mentioning the legal status). We can't have that for each country, for that we have the LGBT rights articles. But well, as long as we don't have more info yet, I guess it's fine. SPQRobin (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - more information generally would be great. The situation in Ecuador just happened to be one that I knew about because I wrote the article on Carina Vance Mafla, so I added it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to False accusation of rape

"Can you clarify what encyclopedic value you believe your edits have?" These examples are used as references for a list of preemptive measures one might take to keep himself safe from false rape accusations. We have an article on Prevention of HIV/AIDS and I feel that we should have a section and perhaps when there is enough material an article on Prevention of False Rape Accusations. I do not intend to write about every false rape accusation reported in the press. I apologize in advance for my poor English language skills. I am not a native English speaker. Mieciu K (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we have lots of space. I'm mentioning single incidents that fall into a distinct categories so I don't agree with you. You think newspapers are not reliably at reporting a single case of criminal behaviour when that information can be independently verified through police and court records? Why would they misreport such cases when they risk being sued for damages and libel? What you are suggesting is deletionism, pure and simple. Mieciu K (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Space isn't the issue - your aim of creating a how-to guide simply is not in line with Wikipedia's purpose. Reliability of the news sources has nothing to do with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • A "how to guide" would be against Wikipedia's NPOV criteria as it suggest that some methods will be recommended as better than others. I'm mentioning that those methods exist. By the way, you replied to my post on your own talk page instead of replying on mine. Mieciu K (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • IMHO my additions are notable, they broaden the enyclopedic understanding of the subject by adding notable information. Why do you think they should be deleted? Mieciu K (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank's for the link to the Teahouse. I might take a look at it but it seems to be directed mainly for the new wikipedians and I'm editing wikipedia since April 2005 so it might not be exactly what I need. You are free to revert my changes as long as you are within the 3 reverts rule. Before you continue to revert my changes I suggest to see if other wikipedians share your deletionist views. Also a friendly reminder about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Feel free to message me anytime :) Mieciu K (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

False Accusations of Rape

I've added another source to point out that most scientists, logicians, philosophers, etc believe that no evidence is required to believe a statement false if there's insufficient evidence to establish its probable truth. This isn't my personal analysis, but rather a mere adduction of the fact that Lisak's standards for truth differ greatly from those established by the scientific method. It's uncharacteristic of an encyclopedia to cite sources that use an unorthodox scientific method without clarifying such unusual use. Not having my statement, or a similar statement, in there misleads readers to believe that every allegation that Lisak didn't count as false should be considered true, when in fact that would be thoroughly unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Replying on your talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no personal opinion of mine added, but merely accepted, cited, and linked fact. Scholarly consensus dictates that a claim is to be assumed false unless evidence suggests it is true. Lisak ignores that consensus, which is fine, but it is irresponsible not to point that out. Somebody else undid that revision. To avoid an edit war, I'm not going to continue to undo your revisions, but I will make suggestions on the talk page.Astrohoundy (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added another credible scholarly source to support my claim. If you remove it on the basis that you consider it to be editorializing, I will consider it an act of vandalism. (talk ⋅ contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what you "consider," since you clearly don't understand fundamental Wikipedia policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN

The Kaaba thing is at DRN but I can't see it being accepted. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I filed a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I filled a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion is here. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to the discussion. It is here. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lordvolton (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer O'Neill

Respectfully, you should try to avoid editing which is done merely for the sake of editing and which serves no useful purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.42.99 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Karpen

I thought you should read the dispute resolution recommendations.

"Follow the normal protocol

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page".

Sadly, you have not followed any of these suggestions. When you make wholesale changes to an article without seeking consensus it rubs people the wrong way. Rather than making wholesale changes without an explanation, you should introduce yourself and outline your concerns and work with the other editors to find a common ground. Lordvolton (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained this to you repeatedly: we cannot host controversial content about living individuals sourced to such obviously unreliable sources. WP:BLP is policy, not a "recommendation." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that The Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American are all reputable sources (which were added to address your concerns), despite your opinion to the contrary. It would have been courteous of you to simply ask for additional sources rather than make a wholesale change to the article without seeking any consensus. In the future please be considerate of others -- introduce yourself and share your ideas and give other editors a chance to work with you. When you impose unilateral edits and revert edits without a conversation it spreads discontent. Lordvolton (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your concern for my reputation is noted, but you still may not add unreliable sources about living people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just don't want anybody to be able to say anything bad about abortion no matter how well sourced, do you? R.M. Schultz (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a track record of removing material that conflicts with your POV. You should reconsider your behaviour.Intermittentgardener (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

TB

[2]

I would ask that you please leave these things up to admins. Instaurare (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't define my edits as destructive, but it doesn't even matter because my old ban is a zombie. Instaurare (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerned Women for America

I think that your edits at CWA are very destructive. Deleting content indiscriminately is not acceptable behavior. If this keeps up I will have to involve admins

After taking a close look at your talk page and edits, I think it is safe to say that you have a very obvious POV. Do you think you can edit Concerned Women for America objectively? Are you even trying to?Intermittentgardener (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

John R. Hunting

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from John R. Hunting, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, please to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you feel it should be deleted. Fbryce (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 8#Category:People of the Parent-Teacher Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FWIW, a couple of the tenets of your CfD are inaccurate. I populated the category from things that link to the PTA, and I read the context of each of those articles to confirm that said person had a leadership role in a PTA of some sort before adding. pbp 05:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

I think that the sourced text by the other user, at least the 2nd one can be added, maybe there wording is not correct, but you can review it once. Thanks OwnDealers (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. Worry about how you might interpret any expression of gratitude by me delayed it. I assure you that it is sincere and free from any arrière-pensée. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

CWFA help

Hi again ! I'd love if you could give me a hand with editing the CWFA page. Can you help me add more sections/info and rewrite the tone to be more cold, encyclopedic ?Scatach (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's begin at the beginning - before writing more, we should first find reliable sources. Since it's a somewhat longstanding big-name group, we should be able to find even scholarly work on it - why don't you check out Google Books, JSTOR/other journal databases, and that sort of thing for books and papers that talk about CWFA? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism and Sexuality.

Sorry, Roscelese, for responding so late to your question. I have been away on holidays and some commitments abroad. I agree with you that the version "the study . . .showed that dissent from the Holy See's teachings on sexuality was common among United States theologians" is correct. -- which is the present version online. So: all is well! Elsa Beek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsa Beek (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OR accusation

It may be useful when warning others to be more specific about what you are criticizing. I figured out easily enough that it's about this, but it isn't always clear. Also I disagree with what you have said, I was not doing any original research or analysis, I was accurately representing what was in the sources, something that the preceding text was not doing. Ranze (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For all the disagreement, this is an edit I admire. Wanted to do something similar but I was worried about the whole "n-word in section title" thing. That and I guess if it might cause potential difficulties with hashtag section-linking if beginning with a slash. Ranze (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you an admin here or something? I don't see my editing as disruptive. What you are calling OR/personal analysis/synthesis simply isn't. Your use of 'clarify' is personal analysis. My use of 'claim' is simply being NPOV. Not everyone is going to get scared off by the misapplication of these buzz terms. Ranze (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I've tried to explain to you why you can't analyze the sources to fabricate your own conclusions. I'm not sure I can be much clearer about it than I've been. If there's something specific you're having trouble with, I can try to help you, but if you're going to simply ignore basic facts about how our reliable sourcing and no original research policies work, your educational journey is out of my hands and all I can do is revert you if you edit disruptively. Don't take it to that point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me

I posted answers to those two Arabic questions you asked. Always glad to help out. I think Ḥiṣṣah Hilāl is so cool and it's great you're writing her article. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out later and incorporate it into the draft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

Your edit summary, in reverting my edit of the lede, says, "That's what the sources say." That is a false statement. Only one of the cited sources (Village Voice) alleges that more than one or two cases have been "covered up." And that source indicates that the community is now in transition, if you would please read the online version of the story all the way through to the last page. Rabbis are now telling their congregation members to go ahead and call the police. So accusing these leaders of "covering up" these crimes (A) on the basis of a single source, which itself attributes the charge to one activist for sexual abuse victims (your version fails to do that), and (B) at a time when even that one source acknowledges that any such problem was more in the past than the present, may be a BLP violation.

Furthermore, failing to inform police is not the same thing as actively concealing a crime. The term "cover up" indicates active concealment, such as destruction of evidence and intimidating witnesses. Merely failing to inform police is not a "cover up" in the usual sense of that term.

Accordingly, I am reverting until we get this sorted out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		Just because I thought you could use one. Cheers, GregJackP Boomer! 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MRM

Roscelese, just so it's clear to you, the probation sanctions apply to edit warring, not just to violating WP:1RR. I decided that your conduct at Controversial Reddit communities did not merit a block, but I did think about it. Please keep this in mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As a followup...

you can't analyze the sources to fabricate your own conclusions.

I realize now I did this in the one statement I removed, initially I think it seemed an obvious assumption. Though it's less obvious with you guys reverting the excerpts from the report. Why is it you want to only present quotes from Potok's late-March interview and the SPLC's May followup, but not quotes from the report itself? Shouldn't what the report actually says be more reflective of its content than later claims of what it says?

if you're going to simply ignore basic facts about how our reliable sourcing and no original research policies work

What I'm trying to understand here was, besides the thing I managed to recognize on my own, is there anything left in my previous version which you take issue with as thinking to be original research? Is this the claim/clarify issue, or some other issue? I'm not ignoring the policies but it is possible for people to accidentally OR in the process of translating a reference to encyclopedic speech. If I am doing so, I'd prefer if you could point out where and why so that could be discussed more specifically.

all I can do is revert you if you edit disruptively

You have options besides reverting, such as conversation. It's something I hope everyone can do more of here. I don't understand how my edits are disrupting anything. How does adding direct quotes (related to hatred, the issue of contention) disrupt things?

Is my defining misogyny in the parenthesis the issue you are calling OR? All I did there was transfer the definition from the opening sentence of our article about it, so that's hardly OR. Basically I want to narrow down what you keep calling OR. Is it:

1. claim/clarify
2. misogyny definition
3. something else

The edit summaries haven't been informative about the particular details. Ranze (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to including additional material from the report; I just don't consider it my job to restore your acceptable edits if they were mixed in with a bunch of unacceptable ones. Next time, try not including material that violates policy. I've already explained to you why your insistence that "Misogyny: The Sites" is secretly the hate group list is not acceptable and that edits working under that assumption aren't going to be policy-compliant, and you've ignored me to make the edits again, so this bleating about how we could just talk about it while leaving policy-violating material in the article is wasting your time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute

I agree with your assessment regarding the "Muslim Immigrants" reference links. I will leave as is and research better links. When a more accurate description is found I will reword and advise, welcome your thoughts and input. I Will be expanding the page over time and will be grateful for any and all contributions. Hawkswin —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that's one way to trim the drama at ANI

[3]. Not quite sure how that happened, but next time, just delete the whole thing, mkay? It'd probably make all of our lives easier! Resolute 22:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh goddammit. I'm on a really shitty internet connection right now and that's the sort of thing that happens when I try to edit. Thanks for handling it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You are reverting my edits without any explanation. "Unconstructive" is not an explanation.

I provided edit summaries, you should too. List your reasons for the reverts, or I will simply revert you back with the same explanation you provided me, none.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your personal feelings about the word "Islamophobia" aren't an excuse for disruptive editing. The edits you've made have made the articles in question worse, for reasons including the removal of sourced information, the introduction of unsourced and false information, the removal of necessary specificity (eg. substituting "abuse" in an article on Muslim footballers as though they are committing abuse - or "reports of acts" - ah yes, act I went well, act II there were a bunch of line flubs!), or the insertion of scare quotes. Do not continue this pattern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which edits you are referring to unless you list them one by one.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific reversion, you should ask me about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

All of them.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I explained most of them in edit summaries. You're the one trying to make changes here, not me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't. You can keep reverting more of my edits without an edit summary, but I will just revert them back.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit war, especially not to make articles worse. Instead, try to gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what the last 4 edits to this page are attempting, yet you won't respond fully.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said: You have to try to gain consensus for changes. This means you have to explain why you think your edits changed the article for the better, preferably on a page that other people will see. Complaining on my talk page about how I need to justify retaining the status quo is not seeking consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also stop abusing rollback button.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Roscelese hasn't used rollback here. She has only used the undo button. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've used rollback on a couple of especially disruptive edits, eg. introducing scare quotes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, just noticed that. Anyway User:Loomspicker, rollback may be used when the reason is quite clear why the edit was reverted. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I can just delete entire sentences instead as they are not backed up with reliable sources.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I noticed that you're extremely vigilant at deleting Wikipedia articles. I was curious if you select these articles based on your personal views regarding abortion and homosexuality or if you have a genuine concern for the quality of articles on Wikipedia? In other words, if you're content neutral then it shouldn't matter to you if the article is in favor or against your personally held beliefs.

Let me rephrase it. If presented with evidence that articles are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, irrespective of their content, would you support their deletion?

I'm trying to figure out if you're primarily targeting articles that disagree with homosexuality and abortion to vindicate a POV or if you're instead simply trying to improve Wikipedia. Rather than making assumptions I wanted to seek some clarification from you directly before proceeding further.

Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been stalking my edit history all that diligently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lordvolton - I think that the question itself is a bit on the attackish and you might want to support your question with diffs demonstrating your perception or retract the question. This can lead no where productive.--v/r - TP 17:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis, Roscelese recently nominated One by One for deletion (organization for ex gays), Concerned Women for America (they're against homosexuality), Rachels Vineyard (pro life group), and many others. I'm simply asking for some clarification rather than assuming she has a vendetta against pro life articles and articles related to groups that disagree with the homosexual lifestyle choice. And that's why I'm asking if she is content neutral and would be in favor of deleting articles irrespective of their content. That's not a personal attack. I think it's a pretty straight forward question. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the term "cherry picking." Essentially what you have is a small sample of her edits and you've deduced a perception based on that. When we say in WP:NPA that serious accusations require serious evidence, we mean that you'll actually have to spend a significant amount of time reviewing her AFD nominations to find a trend. Then you'll have to go through each pro-LGBT article she's touched and determine if she deliberately ignored some of those articles that fell afoul of the same criteria she has nominated others for. Unless you are willing to put in that sort of effort, you're question is on a very thin line. You'd do yourself a favor by retracting it for now and saving your concern for when you're willing to put in the investigative effort, if ever.--v/r - TP 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis, I think you're protesting a bit too much. This isn't an inquisition. I'm simply asking her if she is content neutral when it comes to deleting articles rather than assuming something negative. This is her talk page -- not an admin board. You wanted to know why I asked this question -- so I supplied you with my reasons. And now you're implying that I'm being unreasonable for asking her a simple question? You're suggesting that I review her edit history to see if she has nominated for deletion or voted to delete pro-LGBT articles to determine if she deliberately ignored pro-LGBT articles that "fell afoul of the same criteria she nominated others for."

I didn't realize asking this question would be so controversial, but per your request I will review her edit history and see if she has applied the same criteria to pro-LGBT articles and I will also supply a list of pro-LGBT articles that meet the same criteria for deletion. I assume she will be given every opportunity to apply the same criteria to those articles? Lordvolton (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't as simple as you think. I'm going to assume good faith that you believe it's a simple question. However, if Roscelese is on one side of a POV fence, as you believe she is, then you're clearly on the other side. As a neutral party, I think you need to take another look at your question and determine what your question implies, rather bluntly, and then redact it. Either way, had Roscelese said the same thing I did, it would've been seen as an attempt to deny. It took a third and uninvolved party to say "Hey, you're crossing a line."--v/r - TP 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I was fully convinced that she was on one side of a POV fence then I wouldn't need to ask the question. You're making a lot of assumptions. In fact, you're also assuming that you're a neutral third party. If I am asking about "intent" and asking for "clarification" and you interpret that as "crossing a line" then we'll just have to disagree about your ability to be an unbiased third party. I appreciate that you think you're being helpful and perhaps something good will come out of this when I'm done with my analysis of the LGBT articles and Roscelese's edit history. That was a useful suggestion. Lordvolton (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're presenting yourself honestly here. A month ago, you opened an AN/I thread entitled "POV editing by Roscelese", in which you made it unequivocally clear that you consider Roscelese a "militant POV editor". Now you're pretending that you've got an open mind about her and are simply seeking innocent "clarifications". It's a transparently dishonest pose, and one which doesn't do you much credit. Separately, it appears your accusations were dismissed as "thinly supported" by the closing admin here, yet you don't seem to have taken the hint that you need to support your claims with actual evidence.

Here's some completely unsolicited and probably unwanted advice: do the legwork before you accuse other editors. Present actual diffs up front, rather than waiting for others to request them. Say what you mean, and don't pretend to be on some sort of innocent fact-finding mission when you're obviously trying to build a case. Remember that people can actually see the difference between what you said last month and what you're saying this month and call you on it. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell, there is a difference between making a POV edit and deleting articles based on a POV. I'm not shy when it comes to making those statements as you've seen. If the two of you are going to protect editors then you need to go beyond talk pages and the pretense of being disinterested third parties and put in the legwork to determine the truth. The minute another editor starts "defending" third parties the assumption is that they've paid careful attention to the editor they're defending. Don't fall into the trap of being "tolerant" to defend "intolerance". When abusive editors are defended by the Wikipedia community those editors never correct their ways. What I want is editors with differing viewpoints to work together ... and that's what I've been trying to do with Roscelese. If you follow my edits you'll see that's the case.

Perhaps your concept of justice and fair dealing is spot on. In the due course of time all of our prejudices become apparent -- even on Wikipedia. Anyway, I've completed my analysis of Roscelese's edits and posted the results on my talk page. I've also included a proposed solution in the "conclusion" section. Let's try to work together. Lordvolton (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being cherry-picked, those claims are also false. Only one of those is an article I nominated for deletion. Lordvolton, do not ever use the phrase "homosexual lifestyle choice" on my talkpage again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior to TParis intervening into the conversation and asking me to review your entire edit history and compile a list of pro-LGBT articles to determine if there is a double standard, I was just trying to get clarification on your intent rather than assuming something negative. Lordvolton (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also like to make it clear, for the unusually dense, that my first response was not an invitation to continue stalking me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not being stalked. Wikipedia keeps public records of editing activity to hold editors accountable. You have a very strong POV and a history of not playing well with others. It makes sense that you would dislike scrutiny.Intermittentgardener (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Points of view aside, to the best of my knowledge no editor has the single-handed power to delete "inconvenient" Wikipedia articles on a political basis— articles may be proposed for deletion, and an argument for that deletion can then be given and either supported or opposed by other editors based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If Roscelese decides to "cherry pick" (I am using the term anew here) articles with particular themes that she maybe finds personally objectionable and target them for deletion, she may only do so with regard to set policy— and if her argument for deletion does not meet the requirements of that policy (policy that I think everyone can agree is carefully written to be devoid of political agendas) then the article will not be deleted. Is she picking and choosing what articles to nominate for deletion? I certainly hope so! No one can assess every article on Wikipedia, and everyone who decides to get into the deletion nomination business must decide to which articles to give their scrutiny. Some of that initial sorting and decision-making is undoubtedly political, but the ultimate decision to keep or delete an article is not. You cannot argue to the community that an article is politically objectionable and hope to see it successfully deleted. But you can pick politically objectionable articles for closer scrutiny, and then nominate them for deletion based on their shoddy references and lack of notability. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Neutrality of point of view is a policy that relates to article content, not to the decision about whether or not to propose a given article for deletion. I realize, Lordvolton, that you are making an effort to maintain civility here and this after you have strayed into some rather hostile territory. For that I commend you. But your initial question, despite its neutral phrasing, is actually heavily loaded and politically charged, making its façade seem duplicitous and your intentions deeply suspect. Do you have objections to deletion decisions made about articles that Roscelese has nominated? Great! Bring them up in the deletion discussions! Make the case that she is wrong! Show the world why her arguments cannot be substantiated! Tell everyone about the evidence you have found which she did not! But if you cannot do those things, then you have no business asking polite-but-loaded questions to other editors. Truly, there is no forum for that, however civil the presentation. {And as an aside to Roscelese: if there is any merit to any of these "articles" you have nominated for deletion, consider this: sometimes keeping an article around on an "objectionable" topic can be VERY convenient! It allows you as an editor to control the presentation of that topic (like the MOMS article I just put together), including its perhaps not-so-flattering side that its supporters might not wish were on Wikipedia after all but to which they cannot object without losing neutrality of their own. Anyhow, that's just a thought I had, nothing more!) KDS4444^Talk 04:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"allows you as an editor to control the presentation of that topic" - Umm, no, it does not. See WP:OWN. "they cannot object without losing neutrality of their own" Actually I object to the neutrality of that article, you'll see my changes, and I've been sufficiently neutral. Have you?--v/r - TP 13:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are understanding each other. I did not mean to suggest article ownership, I meant to suggest the completeness of article content. Your last two sentences don't make sense to me and seem to suggest my lack of neutrality with regard to something vague which I do not understand. And I do not know what "--v/r" means. If you have intended to confuse, you have succeeded. But I do not know that this matters. KDS4444^Talk 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article was not neutral. You left out important specifics from the sources preferring to choose vaguer descriptions that depict all Christians in a certain manner and you included some negative information that was not in the cited source. You also presented something as "no controversy" when the source says "with little controversy." Little is not none. "v/r" means "Very Respectfully" similar to "Sincerely".--v/r - TP 17:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that KDS's text suggested that all Christians had certain politics, but regardless, I'm not sure this is a discussion for my talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Society for Human Life

Removed PROD from this article. I'm not at all sure that it's a valid article, but it's very obviously not an uncontroversial deletion, so you will need to take it to AfD. Tigerboy1966  19:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you've been name-dropped by an IP on Jimbo's talk page about this topic. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy... That guy doesn't learn from his blocks. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

War on Women

		The Half Barnstar
		I award you The Half Barnstar which is given for excellence in Cooperation. Productive editing can be difficult on such contentious articles and I thank you for taking the time to discuss the issues in a professional way and work with me to improve the article. It's an example of how Wikipedia should work when we're civil and focus on content. Morphh (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)