Jump to content

User talk:Roscelese/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Wikipedia has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for new articles and redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think you might have meant to direct this to someone else? That's not my field at all. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Beauty in the Bellow/Mikado

Thanks for the new ref. I moved it up higher in the section. BTW, do you have any thoughts to add to the discussion at The Count of Luxembourg? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that stood out for me was the synopsis. Do none of the editors already on the project know how the plot actually resolves? It reads like a blurb that's trying not to reveal the ending. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you meant the talkpage discussion. I'll head over. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, man. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I will be closing this discussion at AN/I shortly but would ask you to consider making a final visit there and, if you feel so inclined, resolving how you will conduct things in future. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll head over there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion there. While relatively few editors contributed, all who did were of the opinion that some of your edits and summaries in the past have breached WP:UNCIVIL. In your own interests, please moderate how you function here. In particular, if you feel another editor is an idiot or a liar, please find other words in which to say so. Using these words is a guarantee of escalated conflict. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

disruptive editing

Hi. I somewhat knew this was coming, but there are things you should know. There was a wave of islamic propaganda hitting wikipedia, due to the work of a single editor called Jagged85. His blatant misuse of sources and even straightforward lies were detected some time ago. It was an embarrasment for wikipedia and it even appeared of certain newspapers and blogs all over the internet.http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html; http://ahp.apps01.yorku.ca/?p=299; http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482023/did-al-farabi-really-invent-sociology.thtml; and here´s the evidence. I don´t have any personal problem with muslims.I have problems with propaganda and false claims, no matter where it comes from.--Knight1993 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your guide should be the appropriateness of the content, not the agenda of the contributors. It may be that Jagged85 had an agenda - I don't know, I haven't interacted with him - but here, for example, you removed information cited to books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press - not exactly known for their pro-Muslim bias - and here you removed an entire block of information cited to loads of perfectly reliable sources - in an article where sources aren't even generally necessary because the linked articles are sourced! This is unacceptable. If you think Jagged85 is inserting bias into Wikipedia, the way to correct it is not to insert your own anti-Arab/Muslim bias. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you know, I started trying to clean up after you, but probably the best outcome would result from you looking over your past edits, examining the sources rather than the editors, and reverting your edits where necessary. That way, it's a learning experience for you, and I'm free to work on my own projects. Good luck! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Action of December 1669

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Women's rights in Ukraine

Everything is clear in this sentence: "найбільшою жіночою організацією у Європі" or "bigest womans organization in Europe" - http://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2010/12/29/11244/ ... Anyway, I have written: "one of the bigest" ... Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Don't leave spurious warnings for other editors, as you did here.[1] When leaving a warning, be sure to cite diff(s) so that people know what specifically you are talking about. When you leave a warning for an experienced editor, it is best to type out a custom message, rather than the warning templates. See WP:DTTR, which is not policy, but is still good advice. Finally, if a good faith editor is actively working on an article, try asking them about their intentions before jumping them with warnings a few minutes after their edits. They may still be assembling materials and getting ready to add the references you feel are missing. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 05:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be at all unclear, since I'd already asked her repeatedly to stop adding original research, and even if unclear it certainly wasn't spurious. As it so happens, the edits in progress appear to be finished, and SV has once again restored a large chunk of original research, which I will again remove. Have a nice evening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you declare an intention to edit war and act abusively, you could be blocked on the spot. It is essential that you not WP:GAME the system, and you must definitely leave diffs with warnings otherwise observers won't know for sure what you are talking about. This is a collaborative project, not an MMORPG. Jehochman Talk 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
lol "removing unsourced original research" = "abuse." But I'll keep the lurking observer in mind next time, thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the unsourced original research? I took a quick look at your revert, and I didn't see any dubious information. Wikipedia does not require an inline reference for every sentence. I believe you are being very tendentious, and I'm going to report you if you keep reverting without making any good faith effort to discuss your disagreement. Jehochman Talk 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require an inline reference for every sentence, but the "Style" section is completely uncited, the opening comment about Hanna's illiteracy standing in for modern understanding of the Holocaust is not only uncited but contradicts the cited source, there's another block in the "Metaphor" section that's cited only to the primary text, and there's some space between "inline reference for every sentence" and "someone, somewhere said this, trust me." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you disputing the synopsis? If so, have you read the book yourself? A synopsis of a book only needs to reference the book itself. Everything else in the article looks properly referenced too. Jehochman Talk 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing that the synopsis isn't what I've removed as OR, isn't it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, I think you may have violated 3RR at The Reader. Would you consider reverting yourself, please? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See response at the talk page. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You didn't reply at the talk page. Please revert yourself so we can avoid a report. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You're continuing to revert. Every revert (whether the same or different material) counts toward 3RR. Please read the policy and revert yourself again. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Please restore the tag pending the removal of the remaining OR. Thank you for adding the reference about Schlink's style; could you provide a source that uses that quote as an example? Otherwise it's still original analysis. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, someone else removed it. Could you please add it back anyway, until the remaining OR is removed or cited? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese, this is the very essence of disruptive editing. Five reverts in around 20 hours, templating an editor who's working on it, a forest fire of responses, insisting on adding a tag, and misinterpreting the sourcing policies. Please think on. Above all, read WP:BURDEN: third, fourth, and fifth sentences. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What kind of time were you hoping for? As I noted in talk, this stuff has been in the article for months with no citation. At the time you re-added it, it didn't appear as though you were planning to add one, since you, well, re-added it without citing it. Perhaps you could do with a re-read of that same page you just linked me to: first and second sentences. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Roscalese, SlimVirgin seems to have contributed significantly to at least 10 featured articles. I believe she knows how to write a proper article. User:Daniel Case is also listed on the talk page. Between those two I am confident the article can be put into excellent condition. Under these circumstances, you should back off an give them as much time as they need to fix up this content. If progress stalls, let's say after a few months, then you can raise further complaints. Meanwhile, we have many other articles that really could use cruft-removal if that's something you like doing. Regards, Jehochman Talk 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Report

As your first edit today was another revert, I've filed a report on the 3RR board. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Reader

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Roscelese reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roscelese (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I stopped edit warring before the report was made. I was warned for 3RR on the removal of original research - I reverted myself and stopped removing the original research. I was warned on the addition of an OR tag - I stopped adding the OR tag (wasn't able to remove it myself because someone else swooped in and did so before I could). Now that I know that 3RR applies to any edit whether or not it's of the same material, I've stopped violating the rule.* At this point a block is only punitive, not preventative.

  • The Wroe quote in the report was something I added in the course of my other edits (along with grammatical corrections and other small fixes), and asked that another editor restore after I reverted myself in the interest of preventing +3RR. Since no one had expressed any objection to its inclusion in the article (why would people object to reliably sourced quotes - or proper grammar?) I assumed that the lack of restoration was happenstance, rather than objection or lack of collegiality on the part of other editors. Under the circumstances, I don't think it's fair to describe the restoration of this quote - which no one had objected to, and which to all appearances had been removed by accident - as edit-warring.

Given the large amount of original research still present in the article in question, I request that I be unblocked so that I can continue the task I've already begun, which is to actually find citations for all this stuff. SV has said she's leaving the article, and none of the other editors involved appear to have any interest in doing anything about the original research given that it's been present in the article for months without anyone doing anything about it, so I'd like to continue referencing and improving the article. It seems inadvisable to block the only editor who's trying to find references.

I also ask that the reviewing admin read over the noticeboard report and take note of what parts of the report are in fact a content dispute. I have content issues too, but I didn't take them to Noticeboard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Mere 24hr block has expired. Note: I would have declined the above request based on WP:NOTTHEM, WP:EW, and the fact that Wikipedia does not have any strict timeframes for improving articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look, please

Sorry to see you got blocked. I wish you well. A few days ago, you checked in at the AfD debate for Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial, and commented that you would take another look in a few days. I just wanted to let you know, as an interested editor, that I've tried hard to improve the article. Your observations would be appreciated. All the best. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I'll be back at the AfD to change my vote when this expires, barring some unforeseen circumstance. Thanks for reminding me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. Cullen328 (talk)
I appreciate your kind words, and understand what prevented you from chiming in during the final hours of the debate. Wishing you well in productive and collaborative editing going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! Brazilian people love U.S. citizens. Many flights from TX, CA, FL, NY, and GE to Brazil exists. You are very welcome. In FEBRUARY, in the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil will be aproved the *SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL* ([2]), and the pages LGBT rights in Brazil and Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil need of you. Because will generate a heavy traffic on these pages, and we need you to help in the English spelling of these pages, you understand me? Please help me. Hentzer (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said the first time or so you asked for help, I don't have the familiarity with Brazilian politics/law or with the Portuguese language to help you. There are parts in the articles where I don't know what you're trying to say. I'm really sorry, but I'm not sure it's something I can help with. Someone at WikiProject Brazil might be able to help you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, Roscelese. I know from a recent discussion that this project is somewhat inactive. However, inquiries could help reactivate it. Maybe there is a Portugal project as well, since this is a language issue? Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize. There's that, although lack of familiarity with the laws and issues in question could still be a problem. I think WikiProject LGBT Studies is still active, maybe someone there knows something. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis and American Medical Association

Hi Roscelese,

A few days ago, you added a statement:

The National Cancer Institute, American Medical Association, and other major medical bodies have also concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer.

I found a National Cancer Institute statement about abortion and breast cancer.(<ref>"Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk". National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 2011-01-11.</ref>)

So far, I haven't found a statement from the American Medical Association. Do you know of any?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I have done the following searches:
  • http://search0.ama-assn.org/search/search?query=abortion+%22breast+cancer%22&database=-1 (searching AMA's own web site)
    • One possibility: a writ of certiorari in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. A footnote to a footnote says:
      The only medical risk cited by the State's amici is the alleged risk of breast cancer, a risk that even they admit is disputed. See U.S. Conf. Catholic Bishops Br. 18. The claim that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer has, in fact, been thoroughly debunked. See Carol J. Rowland et al., Answering Questions About Long-Term Outcomes, in Clinician's Guide 221-222 (discussing studies on the purported abortion-breast cancer linkage, including a study of 1.5 million finding no overall increased risk of breast cancer . . . demonstrated among women with a history of induced abortion.); Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer And Abortion: Collaborative Reanalysis of Data From 53 Epidemiological Studies, 363 The Lancet 1007, 1014 (Mar. 27, 2004) (Hence, the totality of the worldwide epidemological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.).
    • I have no confidence in my ability to interpret this primary source document. WP:NOR. I am trying to find a news article that addresses it.
  • http://www.google.ca/search?q=ayotte+%22planned+parenthood%22+%22american+medical+association%22
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going based on the text at Abortion and breast cancer, but if the sourcing is anything less than unambiguous, I have no problem taking it out or replacing it with one of the other bodies that rejects a link. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Roscelese.
I have removed the AMA from Abortion and breast cancer.
I have also replaced the AMA in Abortion with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (for readers across the pond).
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TJ Notable People

What criteria are you using for notability on the Governor Thomas Johnson High School article? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Existence of an article on the person. No more, no less. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a bright, clear line, but not one we use in general with this sort of thing. Of course I am willing to be corrected if you find a policy. Please excuse me, but it is breakfastime in my time zone. i shall return in a few hours. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:SCHOOLS#Alumni: "Per Wikipedia:Bio#Lists of people, alumni to be included should meet Wikipedia notability criteria." If articles are created with sources that establish notability, great. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
[[3]] does not seem to indicate persons in a list must have an article. But I admit many people take your point of view. Allow me time to contemplate. (Oh, and congratulations on your Barn Star!) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability." It is possible that I've been hasty, but it's also probable that the people are not notable, and they can always be added back if someone does the work of establishing notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For your excellent contributions in various choice related articles through wikipedia. WikiManOne (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.

History of early Christian thought on abortion

Hi Roscelese! Thanks for your comment. To make it easier for somewhat uninvolved bystanders, I suggest you provide a complete argument (i.e. explicitly list the source that supports your position). That will make it easier for third parties to join in. Also, if you cannot come to an agreement, WP:3O would be an option. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.

January 2011

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker .28Result: .29 - Haymaker (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

template

Hi thanks for the template - well, not really, a proper comment would have been better. - as you complained I will ask you here - you say on your talkpage "Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that a group or its members have committed illegal activity. " - could you please explain what allegations of illegal activity you are accusing these groups of? Also I suggest you take more care with your accusations of vandalism and you read the detailed explanation -WP:VANDALISM - any good faith edit attempting to benefit the project can not be described as vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're presumably a reasonably intelligent person. I doubt you really thought that replacing "This is a list of designated hate groups by organizations that monitor intolerance and hate group activity. Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that a group or its members have committed illegal activity." with "This list created by wikipedia user User:Roscelese is what they claim is left wing hate opinions of right wing groups" was a helpful addition. (You also broke the code for the table, though I acknowledge that could have been an accident.)
"could you please explain what allegations of illegal activity you are accusing these groups of?" - er, what? "Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that a group or its members have committed illegal activity" means that these groups have, er, not necessarily committed any illegal activity. See the lead of Hate group, which says of the SPLC's list "inclusion of a group in the list 'does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.'" Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

no index

Hi - you have removed a no index template from an uncited sub page you have created - please dont remove the template again as there is no excuse to allow your uncited article to be published in this way through a wikipedia user page. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit here, you remove the noindox from the uncited user creation - please do not do that again before you at least add citations to support your contentious claims. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Noindex keeps it from being indexed in a search engine, not from appearing in categories (as I originally thought), and there doesn't appear to be a policy on it. (If there is, let me know, of course, and I'll add the template back.) Does that help?
Please stop editing my subpages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

pLEASE STOP ADDINDG UNCITED CATS TO YOUR USERSPAGES - THSMNLS??Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have given you enuf good faith requests, if you remove the noindex again or you add cats that are attacking and uncited to your userspace I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else here, I just removed the categories from that draft, per Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects. Adding a colon (:) before the word Category leaves the link visible but does not categorize the page, making it simple to add the page to the desired categories once the draft goes live. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Query: if I come across a userspace draft in a category, should I notify the creator/remove the categories, or is that something for an admin to do? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It should be a completely non-controversial edit to add (:) or to comment out the categories in such a way that the draft is not listed as a mainspace article while preserving the ability of the creator to add the appropriate categories immediately on taking the draft live. As such, it is one of the exemptions for editing another editor's userspace; an informative edit summary can go a long way in avoiding ruffled feathers. This may be done by any editor. If the drafting editor replaces the categories, it likely indicates that they have not understood the reasons presented, and it would be best practice to raise the matter on their usertalk page to explain in more detail. Removing a draft from a category is usually not a time-critical matter.
As an aside, I think it unlikely that I will ever find that particular draft to be appropriate for mainspace. I am not confident, though, that the wider community would agree with this, and so I am putting aside my admin hat here. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


removing noindex from your hate article

User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups -

Is there special some reason why you are edit warring to keep your uncited article in the search engine results ? Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages says in the lede - Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. Please either cite it or remove it from the search engines , imo you should {{NOINDEX}} until it is accepted into project pace, it is presently uncited and attacking organizations and groups. Off2riorob (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

David Kato

Hi Roscelese... I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article on David Kato to be considered for an appearance on the main page in the Did You Know ...? section. The nomination can be seen at Template talk:Did you know#David Kato. You are most welcome to participate in the discussion of the nomination, should you wish. If the nomination is successful, you will be recognised as one of the authors who contributed significantly to the article. Regards, EdChem (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's so nice of you! I didn't think I'd contributed all that much. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I included the four editors who had each contributed 2000+ bytes, which these contributions of yours did.  :) EdChem (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help clearing up the Ensoulment#Catholic Church article. I hope my restoring Clowes' citations is okay. Let me know. Thanks—Geremia (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with keeping Clowes in the article, but it would depend on the statement he's cited for. He cannot be cited for the statement that the Church has always been consistent in its condemnation of abortion, because he is not a reliable source for church history. Even if he were a reliable source for church history, we would have to be careful about how we worded it because many other reliable sources contradict him - but we don't have that problem here because he is not a reliable source. Such sources can generally be cited only for their own opinions - Clowes isn't notable so his personal opinion doesn't really matter, but I've been assuming he speaks for anti-abortion Catholics here. But such an unreliable source has to be cited, if cited at all, as someone's opinion. (Maybe the problem is the wording? "The Church has been consistent," to me, means that they have always condemned abortion as murder, they have always said that there's no distinction based on gestational age, and the penalty has always been the same. But this is very clearly not true. I think it's better to explain that they have always condemned abortion, but that beliefs about why it's wrong have changed, due to changing beliefs about whether the early embryo has a soul and whatnot. I'm restoring my previous wording, but are there other changes you can suggest?) And we certainly cannot include the claim that "modern misinterpretations claim the Church's views have evolved," because Clowes simply isn't qualified to dismiss all these academics' studies as "misinterpretations."
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my comment about Effraenatam - the problem isn't that the bull isn't related to abortion, because it appears to be, but there are a few problems with how it's treated in the article. Firstly, the cited source doesn't say anything about gestational age, which is the ostensible reason the bull is mentioned in the article on ensoulment (which for some reason I keep typing as "enseoulment," presumably the moment at which a South Korean fetus becomes a person?) at all. Secondly, the source is horribly unreliable! It's an anti-abortion website rather than a scholarly text, and it makes no distinction between translation and interpretation (I don't think people knew about in vitro fertilization in the sixteenth century, but you wouldn't know it from that source) so it's really hard to tell what the bull actually said. Without proper sourcing, the text cannot be in the article - I don't want editors to have to go hunting through page history to find it, so I'm just hiding it rather than deleting it, but if you or someone else could find reliable sources for it, that would be great and it could be included in the main text.
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Put litter in its place

(This section contains humor and can be ignored or deleted at a whim.) <humor> Hi Roscelese,

I saw a recent change you made and that reminded me of a funny philosophical question:

If I put litter in its place,
and litter is "Collectively, items discarded on the ground" (from dictionary definition),
shouldn't I be tossing litter on the ground?

</humor>

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Noindex template

The template {{noindex}} should not be removed without consensus. See Wikipedia:UP#CMT. -Rrius (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, if only Off2riorob had linked me this when I directly requested him to, I could have restored the template myself and we'd have avoided this whole brouhaha. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not request deletion of the page. I have asked for the assistance of other editors with it, and have been waiting a bit on their input, but failing that, I'm still going to work on it. (In the meantime, I've added links to a few of the resources I'll be using.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Suit yourself, imo you are wasting your time but I will watch and wait and see. You are re - creating this http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map, why should it be recreated here do you think its notable enough to report and are you going to list them all or pick and choose. 929 active hate groups in 2009, my, what a lot of hate there is in America according to the opinion of the self appointed hate watchers. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Off2riorob and Roscelese,
I am one editor who intends to help with this list.
As I said on Southern Poverty Law Center's talk page, Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 7#Categorization or List:
Gilgamesh boldly created categories, Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League. The categories were immediately discussed and eventually deleted.
Sorry, Roscelese, for not helping with the list sooner.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So, the cats were deleted and now we move on to the article. As I said, imo your wasting your time and such a list is valueless and also attacking in nature, this SPL group have no official status at all, as I said you rather work on something of more real value. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Burlesque again

Please see Burlesque (genre), which has just been brushed up and now makes pretty good sense and is pretty well referenced. Then see the discussion at Talk:Burlesque - going forward and feel free to contribute your thoughts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about the subject to contribute much, but thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page.

Quite Notable

The person you deleted is quite notable as in "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Eleven combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq (there has got to be some sort of record for such things). Mortar platoon sergeant in a ranger battalion for donkey's years. High school athlete, became ordained so he could precide at his soldier's weddings. Quite notable indeed. Perhaps you could talk on the Governor Thomas Johnson High School talk page before you delete things. As for myself, I never met the kid. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then may I suggest that you create an article on him? I'm still not sure the criteria you mentioned would qualify him, but at least if there were an article, a) everything could be properly referenced and b) it would be easier to get the input of other editors as to notability. Please also check out WP:BIO (whether you think making an article is a good idea or not) - notability is generally determined by coverage rather than by achievements, and the achievements you list aren't of the kind that automatically confer notability (like holding nationwide office or winning a major award). WP:NLI may also be useful here - even if the subject has received significant coverage in local newspapers, it's still not a guarantee that he is notable enough. I hope that helps! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Howdy Roscelese, I did miss your reply and I thank you for drawing attention to it. As I understand it (from family and friends in Frederick MD), the death of this fine young man was quite big news in his hometown. I understand you (and others) object to my inclusion of these names on lists of notable alums and so on. When so many people take exception, I am forced to admit I might be wrong. But you are wrong to assume a person must have an article to be notable. This fellow is a tiny bit of local history. He was significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded," as required by the guideline.
That being said, I am willing to be convinced. I have this strange tickle in the back of my mind that I might be wrong. But I tend to be an inclusionist and am spring-loaded in the 'keep it in" mode. I welcome your further thoughts. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I on the other hand am something of a deletionist, but given the huge number of high school articles and what is probably a huge number of random alumni, I'm honestly not inclined to fight this issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I see a deal here. Let's leave the kid in question in the Governor Thomas Johnson High School article, and I on my part will try to be less melancholy and stop posting dead kids on HS pages. Deal? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

I happened to notice this on user:haymaker's talk page and found it condescending and unnecessary. If you have a dispute with haymaker you should report it. Please refrain from WP:UNCIVIL behavior. Consider this a warning. Lionel (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Haymaker had asked what Common Era was, and I forgot to reply in my edit summary, so I replied on his talk page. I assumed that he had asked because he wanted to know, rather than sarcastically, as it really wouldn't be very civil to make fun of a system for being more accommodating to non-Christians, so I thought the right thing to do was to respond in good faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Writing "You learn something new every day!" on his talk page, particularly in light of your and his recent history, can hardly be construed as responding "in good faith." However AGF I take your word for it. Lionel (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I use that phrase in reference to myself...pretty much every day, now that I think about it. One of those things I picked up as a child - funny how that happens. As for our "recent history," as I mentioned elsewhere, Haymaker is welcome to avoid topics where I edit if he feels that to do otherwise might be too stressful for him. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Haymaker (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IUD in RH Bill philippines

hi - i'd like to know what it is that could have made it a better edit - hope you're not sore about un-"censoring" my other edits. sorry, i'm a newbie. the iud is a real issue in my country - the Philippines. our constitution protects both the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception (which is fertilization - complete DNA stage). versions of the RH bill enumerate different bc methods, including the iud (which is why the image is there). but i've been trawling through soooooo many blogs of women who've conceived while on the iud. some have carried to full term, while many have miscarried - the pain and suffering it's caused is palpable, but that's beside the point. anyway, it's my country, and our laws, and those are the facts. iuds in the philippines are legal, medically safe, and readily available - but they risk the viability of a fertilized egg. please help me make a good edit because it's information Filipina women should know.Batbear (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it - you're new, you'll figure out stuff in time. Have you resolved the issue with the images to your satisfaction (eg. by turning off images in your browser)?
Anyway. Firstly, any edit of the kind you made would have to be cited to a reliable source. In this case, the guidelines may be even more stringent because it's a medical claim. Secondly, placing it in that sentence implies that proponents of the bill are malicious and/or careless in providing for the distribution of the IUD, which is problematic both in terms of synthesis and neutrality. Thirdly, putting it as a caption to the lead image, ie. at the top of the article, gives it undue weight, suggesting that the potential of miscarriage is a large part of the debate surrounding the bill. If you want to include the statement, please find a reliable source that both substantiates the statement and connects it to the debate around the bill (it has to connect it because otherwise that's more synthesis). If you can't find a medical source that says IUDs cause miscarriages, but you can find an opponent of the bill saying that they do, that can presumably be included in a way that doesn't suggest it's substantiated, such as "RH Bill opponent Mr. X Y believes that..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

The edit war there seems to have died down for now. I'm trying to improve the article so we actually focus on what Planned Parenthood does every day rather than the controversies and lawsuits they have been involved in. I certainly welcome your collaboration there, its a big project, but I think PP has enough information available to at least take it to Good Article if not Featured. WikiManOne 08:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there's enough info, but I admit I won't be working much on it (I've been neglecting a lot of original articles). If you need help getting any sources, I can try to find some. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, any source you could find would definitely be a help. I've been in the habit recently of posting any sources I find in the article talk page, so if you find anything particularly interesting (I'm fearing the most trouble in the history section so if you could find sources for that) and post it on the talk page that would be really awesome.. :) Of course, if you could spend some time tweaking the article that would also be really cool. WikiManOne 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah - I meant things like "I know there was an article in this paper/this journal, but I don't have access to it" - since I have access to some newspaper and journal archives. If I come across anything, I'll let you know, but I won't be actively looking at the moment, sorry. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, "foetus" is not a typo, it's British spelling. So it's unlikely that anyone will revert you, but it's not necessary to make the change to begin with. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you probably have access to more but I do have access to some of these through school. Also, I started an article on Bart Slepian which you might be interested in... WikiManOne 09:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry man, already exists at Barnett Slepian. You might want to copy over any content that isn't already there and then speedy-delete yours as a duplicate or as a blank. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David Kato

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roscelese! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! :) (I didn't really do that much...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Recommendations

Noticed your post on User:WikiManOne's talk page (good advice, by the way) and as I normally do when I see a user I haven't seen before, I checked out your userpage (I like learning about people).

With that, I saw you translate articles in French and Italian. I would recommed joining those language Wikipedias. Go to My Preferences at the top and then click "Manage Your Global Account". From there, you can make it so when you go to any of the Wikipedias or Meta, Commons or the like, you will be instantly signed up and joined with your accounts linked together. It is what is called an SUL account. No idea what "SUL" means, but it is linked together. Go here and you will see what I mean by "linked accounts" (site is slow to load).

Also, I would recommend you join (if you haven't already) WP:LGBT. This is the LGBT WikiProject and they are always in need of help and with your translating skills, you could be of great use to them setting up similar projects on the other Wikis.

As always, please feel free to contact me with questions, comments, cookies :) and such. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually am a member of the Italian Wikipedia and in the past did some stuff there - but I'm not really willing to try and translate out of my native language (I've never been too secure in my ability to write/speak any of these languages, although I read them fluently and it's more a self-confidence issue than a lack of skill). Having seen the trainwrecks a few non-native speakers have put up here, I don't want to be That Editor. I'll check out WP:LGBT though.
Anyway, nice to meet you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That's understandable. I wish I could speak another language, so far I am trying graduate from Gibberish to English. :) Almost 30 years and counting, one day I will get it right. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PP History section

When you have a chance can you copy edit that? There's probably a bunch of little errors in there, but I can never seem to catch my own mistakes until like a week later. :) WMO 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks generally good, but what do you mean by "the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League"? (I also think examples/greater clarity would benefit the "force a halt to population growth through coercive methods" part.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.

Sanger award

Hey,

I'm working on an article for the Margaret Sanger Awards as one of my final projects on here. Its currently in my sandbox so if you want to help fill it in at all, I certainly won't mind. Also, there seems to be a good number of early seemingly notable public figures related to contraceptive access that don't have articles on wikipedia (currently two that I've found that received Sanger awards), would you be interested in helping write some of these once the awards article is done?

Also, I went ahead and took out the sentence you pointed out from the PP History section, I made some other changes to the article so if you want to look over it agian/copy edit it, give input on it on the talk page, etc., that would be great. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I've been neglecting a lot of other articles (some of which are also about reproductive health), so I can't promise a lot of commitment. I might take a look though. Good luck. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Operas by world premiere location

Hi. I'd be interesting in helping. Do you have a plan of campaign so that we don't overlap. It's the sort of thing that I like doing when I get stuck. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't anticipate a lot of problems - it seems to me that as long as one checks to make sure one isn't creating a duplicate of a category that already exists (ie. "Royal Opera House world premieres" for Category:Covent Garden world premieres), there wouldn't be any overlap. I figure one can start wherever one feels like starting - I began with a couple of major houses and houses whose articles had a list of operas that premiered there, but I haven't covered Germany or Russia at all yet, and I'm sure there are editors whose study is primarily there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, thanks, no problem then. --GuillaumeTell 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef

Hi, I think we were both wrong about the recent removal of content by the IP user on this page. That material was a large quote from a primary source which is not especially notable and gives undue weight to a specific attack of this person, in violation of our BLP policies. So, their change was correct even though they are probably not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia policies in order to follow the proper procedure. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was skeptical that the whole blockquote was needed, but NK are sufficiently notable that it probably isn't undue to mention their opinion, and the IP's reasons for removing it were obviously based in dislike of NK rather than in policy. That said, I'm not going to add it back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Current Events Barnstar
For good work with current events articles and keeping them neutral. Kansan (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aslie Pitter

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your template

You've just posted a highly inappropriate template on my Talk page. In suggest you self-revert. It clearly isn't applicable in this situation since the displayed beliefs of the 'closer' are highly relevant to this issue. DeCausa (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not going to self-revert. The template was entirely justified. It is not appropriate to attack other users' edits based on the religion to which they adhere. Even if we knew Alpha Quadrant was from a denomination that opposes abortion - even if we knew that Alpha Quadrant personally opposed abortion - your comments would still not have been appropriate. I urge you to read WP:NPA, particularly the section on what constitutes a personal attack. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Please pay attention to the postings. It's not about his religion, it's about his displaying a 'campaigning' icon. Aand it's not about editing, it's about 'closing' the discussion. DeCausa (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe AQ is an Episcopalian. Maybe AQ is a Catholic dissenter. It doesn't matter. There are pro-choice religious types, and anti-abortion atheists, and you have no evidence to back up your suspicion that the close was done in bad faith. This needs to stop now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DeCausa (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This was placed on your userpage, I have moved it here and reverted the userpage edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WikiManOne's religious attacks

Hi Roscelese, just letting you know that I went ahead and filed a WP:ANI report on User:WikiManOne here. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

Not sure whether her article is on your watchlist, but there's a very annoying IP there, and I have to go away for a while. PhGustaf (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'll see if I can help out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Roscelese's Day!

Roscelese has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Roscelese's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Roscelese!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese/Archive_2&oldid=1141417056"