User talk:Roscelese/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Reference errors on 8 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paul Larudee page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Equality before the law page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned

Though you're aware of the AE filing, please note that I'm proposing to notify several people including you about a possible sanction on future edits at False accusation of rape. See my proposal in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Roscelese. You can respond if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversial Reddit communities

As I requested in my edit summary, please discuss this on the talk page. I have opened a new section regarding my edits. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicsim

Hello - had to revert your edit. Please see Talk page of Article. Thank you. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of my edit on LGBT rights opposition

What you wrote:

"Rv; accusations of ownership don't really make sense when you're the only person proposing this change and lots of people are reverting you"

In raising an objection, and yet not bothering to either make a response or agree to my response, you are having the article locked in until you continue the discussion so that a resolution can be reached.

This is what I clearly meant by "holding an article hostage". You are holding up discussion, and therefore editing.

While it is true that Wikipedia does not have deadlines, you had plenty of time to respond. If you needed more time to think about what I wrote, you could have asked.

I made the edit because it seems like you were no longer interested in discussion. You did not respond to what I wrote and yet continued to edit elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong, and if that is the case, tell me: just when were you planning to respond? Lincean (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

[You wrote]:

• Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the material I've cited in the Dabashi article is from a reliable source. You are the one who insists that it isn't, but can't provide any evidence to support your claim (and you are responsible for doing this since you are the one making the accusation). Please stop making ridiculous accusations such as this. I realize your are desperate to come up with new excuse to remove this material (since your first attempt at BLPN failed), but surely you can do better. Don't forget that you tried this crap with the National Post a while ago, and you made up all sorts of excuses (some of which were very creative) as too why the Post can't be considered reliable - all you did was embarrass yourself.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

Feticide

I am sorry if I may seem disruptive. I have realised the aforementioned articles connect the concept of abortion with foeticide. I don't think this is correct, and so I guessed that Female foeticide in India should be deleted and rewritten. My goal is not to actually change the POV of the article, more like to make a clear boundary between the actual abortions and foeticide (which is not the same as abortion; only in the medical sense). Feticide can only occur if the fetus was viable; this is the US definition of the term. --92slim (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You wrote Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My response

Sigh. I am not referencing poorly sourced material. We have already established that the New York Sun is a reliable source. This material has been on this page for years and nobody has raised any liable or defamation concerns. Please stop harassing me with your false accusations and your self-righteousness. You failed at BLPN twice and now you are raising defamation claims? How much longer are you going to pursue this nonsense.

If you had concerns that this material was libelous, why didn't you bring this up at the beginning (i.e. Why did you only invent this accusation once your attempts at BLPN failed to accomplish your goal). And why, despite it being posted on both website of the New York Sun as well as this Wikipedia article for several years at least, has it not been challenged earlier? Why are you only coming up with this now? Is it because your efforts at BLPN failed and you are looking for new excuse to have your way? Please stop disrupting Wikipedia, and please stop making false accusations against me. Are we going to have to discuss this on every noticeboard in Wikipedia before you will be satisfied?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC))

Jusat to clarify re Yehuda Glick

I checked many sources and could see no evidence that Glick was any of those terms. Since the IPs were refusing to be cogent on the talk page, and editing out attempts to be neutral, that took into consideration Anshel Pfeffer's nuanced and ironic remark, and were popping back in just the one piece from it, it was in my view absolutely necessary to put the full passage from Pfeffer into the note, so that it laid before the editors the actual contexts of all these statements. Edit-warring customarily attracts people, who often do not examine the actual sources but just join in the POV lineup. It was thus a prophylactic measure against superficial opinion-mongering. It was meant as a measure to stop edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

SYNTHESIS AND SPECULATION

Uh, no. This:

The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes. According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics.

IS TEXTBOOK SYNTHESIS AND POV SPECULATION. Quis separabit? 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It may be speculation, but its speculation on the part of the ref authors. It seems reasonably well sourced to me, the question is if it is of due weight or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, the comparison and analysis comes directly from the sources. Please review WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

John F. Harvey

Whoa, next time, check your aggression short of supporting an AFD to get the upper hand in an edit war. As here: [[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What? The original creator nominated it to get the upper hand, as should be very clear to you. What did I do to you to get you recommending a topic ban on the basis of spam cleanup and then coming to my talk page to yell this nonsense? What's your problem, dude? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Your claim of an "obvious BLP violation" on the Planned Parenthood page, isn't a BLP issue. I will give you the courtesy to revert yourself or I will report you for violation of 1RR. There are several sources listed within that section including ones that fit RS.Marauder40 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there is totally no BLP issue in accusing someone of selling organs for money. Geez. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

you mean someone caught on video doing just that. Marauder40 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact (Personal attack removed) does not, in fact, mean that poorly sourced attack pieces suddenly are BLP-compliant. --JBL (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marauder40, normally I'd respond to your "I'll report you for removing the unsourced claim that living, named individuals are selling organs on the black market" with a "come at me, bro", but I'm pretty busy IRL right now. Come at me next week, maybe? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

I am filing WP:AE#Roscelese with regard to your recent editing of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Wandering Stars

That was exactly what I was looking for. It definitely should be kept, but not the link to the main yiddishbookcenter.org . --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Before I get too into it...

Which Dr. Miracle do you prefer?

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52505178x/f1.zoom.r=contes%20d%27hoffmann.langEN

or

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55003564w.r=contes+d%27hoffmann.langEN

or

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274984/f9.zoom.r=Les%20contes%20d%27Hoffmann%20Offenbach

?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The first one, where he looks the creepiest. :D –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood David Daleiden

Dear Roscelese,

Given your removal of oversighted additions on 15 July 2015, you may want to see this change using rollback. The article David Daleiden has details which could be condensed.

-- Callinus (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"'Scare quotes'"

Please reconsider your revert on Orson Scott Card. Crazy person though he may be, he is entitled to a fair shake in our readers eyes. The practice of adding quotes around a single word to highlight your distaste for said word is a time honored tradition in newspaper editorials where I began writing; but it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Here if evenly presented facts are not enough to convince a reader of something they should generally remain unconvinced.

I like what you did placing "Scare quotes" within scare quotes, btw. Chrononem ☎ 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Bible

This is my first time editing a Wikipedia article and I have read the policies and guidelines. I write as a minister who has written nine articles on this topic since 2003.

I have made the following addition: "Some passages in the Bible which prohibit homosexuality have traditionally been interpreted literally—apart from their historical context of pervasive temple prostitution. (Wink and Pope refs) Some interpreters maintain that the condemnation of homosexuality in these texts is determinative for gays today, while others state that the 'abomination' of homosexuality was based on the ancient understanding that semen was the sacred giver of life (the woman serving only as an incubator). Moreover, many ancient sexual prohibitions—including intercourse during menstruation, masturbation and birth control—are no longer followed by Christians. Thus, Jesus' love ethic—used to critique and reject these ancient sexual practices of the Bible—may also be used to critique and reject ancient prohibitions against homosexuality. (Wink ref)"

My reasons for this addition:

1. While I left in place the first sentence stating the traditional position, I indicated these scriptures have a historical context which is pertinent: Temple prostitution is one significant example.

2. Another pertinent context is the prescientific understanding of the biblical author which explains the reason why one verse each for homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and masturbation (Gen. 38:10) prescribed the death penalty.

3. As sexual practices have radically changed from ancient times, scholar Walter Wink's advocacy for Jesus' love ethic to critique all sexual (and other) behavior is noteworthy.

The deleted passage is: "Today too some interpreters uphold that understanding of these passages, while other interpreters maintain that they do not condemn homosexuality,[weasel words] saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality."

My reasons for this deletion:

1. The first third of the sentence is similar to the addition. It could give a reason for traditional interpretation.

2. The remaining two-thirds of the sentence is vague regarding the reasons for the understanding of "other interpreters." More specificity, as the edit above, helps the reader's understanding.

The above edit provides needed information. Should resolution be needed, I am open to discussion.

Quoflector (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LGBT parenting article

Hi, can you please look at my talk points in the LGBT parenting article. I see you deleted my work and I want to dialog about this. Hope to hear from you soon.24.92.249.215 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, it concerns me to find that you have been told in July not to remove someone's edits without discussing it in the talk page, but this is exactly what you did to me on my edit with Mark Regnerus. I am very new to wiki pedia but find it to be a wonderful resource. However there are things that I'm experiencing from your editing practices that seem to break the rules of Wikipedia. I don't want to message bomb you with too many accusations, but I can give you specifics if you'd like to dialog about this, I think it would be best. I can see from looking at various posts from you that you are passionate about Wikipedia and you think it's important. But I have to say, you seem like a bully to me. I'm not just talking about the Regnerus edit, but also some unfair behavior toward my edits while I was just an ip address under LGBT Parenting. - that's me as the one trying to appropriately cite the controversy with LGBT parenting. I do agree with you as you say, we need not "teach the controversy"

Partly because of my desire to work this out, (and partly because I plan to get more active in lots of other articles, too), I signed up formally and became a registered user, otherwise I sense that just ip addresses are considered somewhat second class citizens around here. Plus there would be no way that you could contact me if you wished to. So here I have offered an olive branch. But as you can tell, I have views that are different than yours, but I don't think you should use your longevity of tenure here to push me around and marginalize and delete my properly cited additions, even in those articles that you are obviously very passionate about.

Would you like to work this out, somehow? It might be better for us to come to consensus and work collaboratively on some un-related project so that we can use our relative strengths to help each other make Wikipedia a better place. Who knows, we might even become online friends. But I think we have to resolve what I think is a conflict. So I will leave this note for you here and I warmly invite you to a discussion with me.

I have to be honest... I am a white, male, republican, conservative, heterosexual, roman catholic. But I still deserve dignity and respect, right?

I do hope to talk to you soon.Cityside189 (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, as I learn more and more by the minute here on Wiki, I want to assure you that I am just a new user and I have never have been on Wikipedia before. the reason I say this is because I was reading in the administrative arbitration section about the terrible time you and others have had with that user who is now banned. I'll just go on my way and get some other editing experience with other articles but yes it still stings a little of how I was treated.Cityside189 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, well. Filer blocked as a sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ATTN Mediation Case

Hi, I am the mediator for a case that you were listed in, please come to this page:

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, well. Mediator blocked as a sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transphobia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refused medical care. 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) 09:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note and request

Hi Roscelese,

I've unblocked User:Cityside189 contingent on a 1-way interaction ban with you. Per User talk:Cityside189#Unblocking. This is a 1-way ban, so you are not subject to any constraints. But 1-way bans are tricky (some would say impossible), and it would help admins enforce it if you make an effort to keep your distance from them where possible. Re-reading this I already realize how murky this is; hopefully you understand what I'm trying to get at? I mean if he shows up at an article you've been editing, you don't need to walk away or anything, but please don't revert him if you accidentally run across him at Underwater basketweaving or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I've been the unrestricted party in one-way interaction bans before, and I know not to go looking for the person, because that ends up being baiting. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the user is a sock of someone I've interacted with before, based on his comments to me, and I doubt your unblock will last very long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.    Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big-Endians (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Your work and dedication to Wikipedia is appreciated. Marshan3q (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources of Shakespeare's plays

Hi Roscelese,

I'm just recently back from an extended wikibreak (kinda burned out after the SAQ ArbCom case, combined with being busy IRL) and looking through various archives I came across a link to your Sources of Shakespeare's plays. I must say this is a good idea; both as a utility for editors, and as a potential list article for mainspace (stupid auto-correct, no, I don't mean "moonscape"!). There's also some quite low-hanging fruit to pick in the more developed play articles, all of which should have Sources sections. --Xover (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:

• making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
• making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

Just a quick question: would you like me to remove the rollbacker userright? Of course I understand it's an unpleasant situation for you: I just know that if I were in your spot, I'd want to lose the right so that I wouldn't accidentally use it (e.g. clicking the wrong button on a watchlist) and thereby get in trouble, and I thought you might think the same thing. Under no circumstance will I do this unless you ask for it, and if you do, I'll remove it with a rationale of "removed by user request". I'll notice a response more easily if you leave a response at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I see no need to remove it, since I still use it for vandalism. In cases where I've used it accidentally, I've immediately reverted myself; frankly, if it should somehow happen that I fail to do so and anyone hovering over my edits takes me to AE over an obvious accident, they'll probably get boomeranged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. You're right; any reversion that's immediately followed by "oops, I didn't mean to do that" and a self-reversion should be ignored, especially since you'd have provided a reason for your action. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

I saw you nominated two articles for deletion. I have proposed E.M.Gregory to start List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing b/c I saw similar articles such as List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. Can you please comment on the later articles? Regards, Settleman (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

National Review

What makes you think that National Review is a "poorly sourced" reference citation?? Just because you probably generally disagree with its editorial positions, doesn't mean its a "poor" source. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Identify a general principle: I believe that extended quotes from ranty attack pieces are appropriate to include in encyclopedia articles under the following circumstances: __________________. --JBL (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say WP:Other stuff exists, but if I had a nickel for every time ranty attacks from the ultra-liberal HuffPo or NYTimes were generously sprinkled hither and yon, I could buy all of Wikipedia's server hardware for my personal use. Correct me if I am wrong, but the proposed edit was 1000 or so bytes? How extended and ranty could it possibly be? Furthermore, it is exactly on point and reverters should be embarrassed they are covering up, considering how many times the word "organs" has mysteriously disappeared from articles related to the CMP videos: the plain evidence clearly shows that organs are at the heart of the matter, yet the PPFA narrative demands we discuss only tissue from a clump of cells, and that is exactly the narrative that established involved editors in this topic demand be represented in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to begin your comment with its own refutation, what's the point? --JBL (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Shaheen

The edits I made are sourced to an article that was based on use of 1980 newspapers. The previous incarnation of the article was the misleading drivel put out by the Shaheen campaign. What they were running was clearly a pawn shop. Bob Fennelly, her husband's brother-in-law went to jail. These are facts that are indisputable and the attempt to supress them is a clear sign of pushing a particular point-of-view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC) It is a perfectly well referenced souce to anyone who accepts the truth that the Manhattan Declaration relates to Religious Freedom. Everything stated is documented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jeanne Shaheen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 29 October 2015 (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:

As I made clear in my edit summary, I believed I was reverting a BLP violation, which is exempt from 3RR so that Wikipedia does not host potentially libelous material while waiting for an editor who is "free" to revert to arrive. Floquenbeam and Calidum also noted the BLP violation in this article, while Cullen328 and 45sixtyone likewise noted the BLP/attack issue inherent in the existence of JPL's new page added in the reported edits. RHaworth may feel the same given his speedy deletion of another attack page on the same subject. The upshot of namedropping all these people is that I'm not waving the BLP flag spuriously. If BLP does not apply here - which I disagree with and believe that it does - an opportunity to revert my edits would have been appropriate, since they were made under a longstanding, recognized exception for purposes of enforcing a core policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Roscelese was reverting blatant WP:BLP violations by another editor, which falls under the recognized exceptions to 3RR. She should thus not have been blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked the blocking admin to review this block. In my view, the other editor was adding a gross WP:BLP violation (falsely accusing a living person of involvement in criminal activity, using poor quality sources and misrepresenting others). In that context, Roscelese's efforts to remove these BLP violations should not have resulted in a block. I will plan to unblock on these grounds, unless the blocking admin objects. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, given the comments from Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and from the blocking admin here, I am going to go ahead and unblock. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that the edits that Roscelese was reverting were a BLP violation, namely, smearing a politician based on guilt by association because a brother in law was convicted 37 years ago, and Shaheen and her husband had a business partnership with the person. The cited source states explicitly that neither Shaheen was implicated. This is, in my judgment, an obvious BLP violation and I support the unblock of Roscelese. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a warning and kindly ask you to stop stalking me on all my edits and submissions. If this persists I will take your actions to an admin. It will not be difficult to prove.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary seemed to indicate that you intended to move the article to mainspace and that its prefix of "Wikipedia:" was simply a mistake. If you intend to continue working on it as a draft, you should keep it in your sandbox or in draft namespace. When an article is in mainspace, it should not contain factual errors, original research, or other policy-noncompliant material. "Wikipedia:" is a prefix for project space, eg. noticeboards and essays, not articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

not interested in your excuses. Your page is littered with warnings, blocks and infractions. Want another? If not, I repeat: stop stalking me. Last time I'm going to say it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. samtar ^{t} 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested

I trust your judgment, so I wonder if you would have time to take a look at my 11-01-15 edit to Oneness Pentecostalism in the Notable Adherents section, and the ensuing events (reversion, restoration, talk page). I will be the first to admit my editing skills aren't the best, but not certain that any errors merited reversion. Anyway, be that as it may, would you look at my original edit, and see if you feel it has merit and should be included, and if so, what changes should be made to it. Your input on talk page would be valuable as well. Thank you! BroWCarey (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that would demonstrate your notability? I don't think the sources you provided are adequate, since the lgbtran.org one seems to be self-authored and the latter is not significant coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I do:

Comstock, Gary David (1996). Unrepentant, Self-Affirming, Practicing. Continuum. p. 74. ISBN 978-0826414298. Newspaper Enterprises (1983). The World Almanac and Book of Facts: 1984. Doubleday. p. 353. ISBN 978-0385189989 Will either of these work? BroWCarey (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no access to the second; can you tell me what it says? It's unlikely that one source would demonstrate notability, even if the Comstock one has enough content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a list of US denominational headquarters. The information in the pertinent listing (3 decades out of date) is as follows:

National Gay Pentecostal Aliiance - (1980) Pres., Rev. William H. Carey, P.o. Box 55194, Omaha, NE 68155 Similar information, with updated addresses as the HQ moved, is found in the same publication for several years in a row, from 1984, at least through 1992. (That was the last year I purchased a copy, so I don't own any later ones.) The listing, including my name, is found in all those issues.BroWCarey (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's just a directory, I'm not sure it'd be enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Request help reading and writing

Hi user:Roscelese, in light of recent US Constitutional / Supreme Court attention on the issue of hospital access for abortion clinics (especially in Texas), would you be able to include some words in the abortion article about the incidence of unintended live birth in abortion patients? I was able to find clinical guidelines in the Society for Family Planning journal Contraception on the subject of inducing fetal demise, which references a few reports saying that unintended live birth is not unheard-of, and a possibility during D&E as well as labor induction abortion procedures... http://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf Thanks! -SocraticOath (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you hoping to add? That source looks like it would be more useful for expanding WP's treatment of its main subject, "induction of fetal demise before abortion", than as a source for unintended live birth, which it covers only very briefly. Feticide#Use_during_legal_abortion is quite small compared to the material in your source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Either one, really... but my cursory knowledge and effort weren't able to get many facts at all related to unintended live birth, so it seemed that this treatment might be as good as it gets. Do you see where this paper might cover material that's currently unexplored by WP? Thanks,-SocraticOath (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I put in some elbow-grease and pulled together three or four sentences on this subject. Do you think it will be reverted? Thanks, -SocraticOath (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It took some convincing and a lot of refinement, but my proposal has now been incorporated into the abortion article. Did you see it? -SocraticOath (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From the talk page, it looks like there's still a lot of discussion going on over whether it should be included, if so where, if so how much, etc. You should stop putting it in and work on building consensus on the talk page first. I haven't been following the discussion, but my earlier concern remains - the text, as it currently presents the statistics, seems to deliberately obfuscate how common the various procedures are that generate these failure rates. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sex and drugs

I think, on balance, you were right to revert my edit to abortifacient -- "sex and drugs" does indeed sound inappropriately flippant. But I have a serious purpose.

At the moment, I'm considering refactoring the highly unsatisfactory sex and drugs article to be something much more substantial, relating to the whole topic of sex (in the widest sense) and its interactions with drugs (in their widest sense).

Part of the reason why it's so bad is exactly because the subject is so vast. While it's easy to start off with the "sex and drugs... and rock and roll" aspect, it's very hard to see where that topic stops. The general case of the interaction between sex and drugs is a massive, multidimensional topic, all held together by the fact that sex and reproduction are ultimately chemical phenomena, and that drugs can affect every aspect of these processes at every stage; and of great interest because sex is central to human society. Everything intertwines; alcohol can reduce inhibitions leading to pregnancy; ED drugs can make sex possible where it was not before; fertility drugs can increase fertility rates; oral contraception can free women from the tyranny of reproduction; penicillin removed the fear of syphilis and other STDs; the morning-after pill makes unintended pregnancy less fearsome; antiretrovirals stopped AIDS from being an instant death sentence; yet at the same time, drugs can be used to facilitate rape; oral contraception can result in loss of desire; smoking can cause impotence; many drugs can cause birth malformations or miscarriage; party-and-play can spread STIs; and so on.

All of this is cross-cut by law, religion, social mores, unintended consequences, and almost every other aspect of society. This makes structuring any article on the topic difficult. In fact, its really too much for a single article. But the vastness of the topic makes it more, not less, important that we have a treatment of the whole spectrum of issues. We actually have source material everywhere for this, but it's scattered throughout Wikipedia, in every drug article that considers sexual aspects, and every sex and reproduction article that considers pharmacology.

One possible structure might be based on the stages of sexual activity, on the lines of drugs and sexual desire, drugs and sexual consent, drugs and sexual performance, drugs and fertility, drugs and gestation, drugs and sexually transmitted disease. (See my comments on Talk:Sex and drugs)

This is such an obvious topic that there must be pre-existing work on the subject in the body of medical, historical and sociological literature. So my next stage is to do some literature research to try to dig it out. -- The Anome (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: I think a split, using the existing page as a disambiguation, sounds reasonable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic David Lisak. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Round one of discussions have been open for almost 24 hours. Please make sure to leave timely responses so we can resolve this dispute in a timely manner. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: What is required from me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You could comment on how the information could be included into the article in a different way, if you were so inclined. But I would suggest waiting until Jvpwiki has made a statement, and responding to that. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD Ken Giami

Hello Roscelese you recently nominated the Ken Giami article for deletion. Could you please check the article again as it has been edited with verifiable references by other users and fufils Wikipedia's criteria for notability... Is it being nominated under any other deletion criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomabenjy2 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bomabenjy2 RichardOSmith (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regressive left

Roscelese: Can you please take a moment to clarify what you meant by your edit summary (on Regressive left) "reading comprehension problems, here", on the Talk page. I set up a section there. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hug

Roscelese: Since we have quite dissimilar views on the merits of Regressive left as an article, I would like you to be aware that I believe you deserve a hug (should that be appropriate, and if not, some figurative equivalent) for your nomination of the article at AfD and for expressing your viewpoints. Not only is it your right to express yourself ably, but it our right and pleasure to listen to you, and thereby refine and sharpen our insight. Wishing you all the best for 2016. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Ad Victoriam Movie

Hello, you recently deleted the page I wrote about the ad Victoriam movie. this should not have happened as this is an actual film, released publicly. I would ask that you return this page to its original state

Langdon dwight (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reza Aslan

Hi Roscelese, The video I linked to, despite it's blunt title, seems to be very honest and well researched, giving very important information on Dr. Aslan. Please let me know why you don't think it is a valuable addition to the article.--Ortho (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RedRabbitIdeas

Hi Roscelese, Thank you for taking the item to provide notes on my article Rabbit Message and my user name. I'm more than happy to make any changes you feel will improve them. I did want to note that the article is written in the same method as a few of the other related articles, so while I am confused by the deletion request, but I will gladly follow any advice on that. As for my user name, it's a user name I have used elsewhere and doesn't reflect my business name or Url, but I have already submitted a name change based on your advice.

Thank you and I hope I can meet the standards set for articles, which is my goal. I am new to this... so I'm still learning.

Thank you for patience and help regarding these concerns :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRabbitIdeas (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll pick this one up. Might've ignored it, but the "doesn't reflect my business name" bit is almost insulting. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi Roscelese. Since you are the top contributor to the Planned Parenthood article, I am here to ask for your help in figuring out which came first: The chicken or the egg. The Blog article was on January 27, 2015. Its version is slightly more complete than the Wikipedia version.

Earwig's copyright vio detector shows two possible copyright vios on the PP article, but one of them I can easily rule out because it attributes Wikipedia as its source.

Can you show me the Diff where the other one is not a copyright vio? A Diff that shows that the Wikipedia entry predates January 27, 2015? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Just look in the article history, it's very easy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Syncophant"

Apparently, I have them. (Just for lols.) --JBL (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Roscelese,

I believe I have re-formatted the Time Illusion page that I have created and it no longer looks like an essay. It is much more familiar now to a regular Wikipedia page. Is this enough to keep it up? Please let me know. Thanks!

RADBB

RADDB (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for KEYZBABY

Hi Roscelese,

I'm doing my best to stay within the guidelines of Wikipedia, but every article I post gets marked almost immediately for deletion. I don't want to just remove the proposed deletion tag; I want to understand how to avoid receiving this tag each time I post. I've included what I believe to be viable sources to show relevance and notability, so I don't understand how more specific I need to be. Can you please elaborate?

Thanks!Mrenytfall (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia's notability policies to make sure that you are showing notability with reliable, significant, and independent sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Roscelese,

Can you check this page again to see if the sources cited have improved the article's notability? Thank you in advance! Mrenytfall (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Check out the reliable sourcing guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Transnational organization

I don't know what SPI is, and I dont understand why this article has been reduced to a useless stub.Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation. It was created by a user who added a ton of conspiracy-theory junk and created a whole bunch of accounts in order to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So if I resurrect the useful parts I should be OK?Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Which parts would you consider useful? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The stuff distinguishing between different kinds of organisations - international/transnational etc. I might find examples which are less controversial and more relevant.Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The stuff that was in the lede can probably be retained, yeah. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi Roscelese. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Roscelese. Planned Parenthood, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Planned Parenthood

On 18 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Planned Parenthood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Planned Parenthood was conceived 100 years ago in Brooklyn when Margaret Sanger (pictured), her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell distributed birth control plus advice, and were soon arrested? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Planned Parenthood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Planned Parenthood), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Million Award

Hi, Roscelese. Because of your longstanding efforts and the efforts of others, Planned Parenthood is getting over 1.7 million page views per year, so please add this userbox to your user page userboxes:
{{User MAward|Planned Parenthood}}

I have also added your username to the Million Award page. PP has had spikes of nearly 70,000 page views in one day, three times in 2015 and 2016, and averages about 13,000 page views per day. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Million Award for Planned Parenthood

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Planned Parenthood (estimated annual readership: 1,793,486) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)