User talk:Roscelese/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mankurt (film)

The nominator began re-writing the original article to make it about the 1990 film, rather than the neologism.[1] Agreeing with him and the direction he was going, I further modified the article to be about the film, rather than the word.[2] I'm thinking now based upon improvements and discussions, that if kept the now re-written article can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the word "mankurt" can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as suggested in the AFD discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I don't read Turkish, but I'll assume the references establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At the time apparently, cinematic (or any) co-operation between Turkey and the USSR was a big deal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Musical theatre

I would value your comments at Talk:Musical theatre, where an editor wishes to delete all of the ELs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

FPFJ

Ah! We meet again.. I think you're right about the name. I added it as a redirect but the list of IPPF affiliates has it the way you suggested. I fixed the name for the Netherlands affiliate to meet that, perhaps that should be done here too... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the page was created some time ago under that name, but it does look like it goes by JPFA. I'll speedy-delete the redirect and move the page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, you already took care of it. I forgot you could move over redirects (I think I had the wrong impression because a while ago there was a bit of a spat because someone had apparently created a redirect to prevent an article being moved, or something). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, I didn't see your reply here... Anyways, I think we found all the affiliates that currently have articles. I was wondering, I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I think the IPPF should be the primary topic located at Planned Parenthood and the United States organization should be moved to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This is from someone living in the US, but I think it simply shows regional bias? Thoughts? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - it seems to me like the US one is more commonly called "Planned Parenthood" while the international one is usually called by its full name. I'd leave it the way it is. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked Sitush to weigh in with the European perspective... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 - 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI/3RR regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Haymaker (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in an edit war, according to the reverts you have made on Bernard Nathanson. If you edit disruptively including breaking the three-revert rule you may be blocked without further warning.

• If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors.
• Alternatively you can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Psst! You're closer to a 1RR vio than Haymaker is. Look out for the WP:BOOMERANG... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At CPC? What are you referring to? I was fairly careful not to undo his edits. He removed "ministries" saying it was ambiguous, and I did not add it back, because that's a fair point. (Would it help, do you think, if I added "affiliated..." back? Because it's certainly true - it's just not the only thing that's true, in spite of Haymaker's attempts to change it month after month. At this point, though, Haymaker has reverted me, so I can't effect this compromise.) He removed "they are different from American CPCs," and I did not add it back, because while it's true, hey, 1RR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not counting his first edit last night, because it wasn't a clear revert of an edit within the past two weeks. So, he's had 1 revert today. You've changed a bunch of different things -- as with Haymaker, not reverting anything within the past two weeks except the one edit by Concerned (which while extensively sourced _below_, was _not_ sourced where they deleted it). Since you've edited more places, the possibility of accidentally hitting something someone else worked on gets higher. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I should add the twenty or so references back into the lead? (As for the first edit last night, to focus on the timing seems like a technicality, in the same way that one doesn't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring: this user has tried for months to claim that these entities are only "affiliated," an extensive discussion determined that we need to say more than that, and the user has made no attempt to reach a new consensus.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked up that discussion, and I'm not sure it established consensus. And adding 20 refs to the lede is disruptive, and will be dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to disagree, because when the issue came up, I, Andrew c, Dylan Flaherty, and Binksternet, agreed that "Christian" was appropriate, Haymaker and Cloonmore argued in favor of suppressing the information that the sources described these centers as Christian, and John Carter participated but, going by later comments rather than just his first comment, did not vote one way or another. Perhaps these users' opinions have changed, but that would have to be determined by another discussion. As for the references - that's what I thought. So what do you think I should do, if people are removing content that's supposedly unreferenced but I cannot add references? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Start yet another RFC and get an uninvolved admin to determine consensus in a month. --17:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We did not agree that "Christian" was appropriate, we specifically agreed to "are affiliated with a Christian organization". The two are not the same. - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own personal opinion, of course. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would it be worth it to start an RfC on this topic, or do you think that it'll resolve on its own? I don't want to be that editor, but in particular because of the new sanctions, as well as continuing problems with this user (I've taken half a dozen CPC-related discussions to RfC in the last few months, sometimes when there was already consensus on the talk page, because he rarely bothers to file them himself and keeps on making disputed edits), do you think it'd be a good idea? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh indeed. After all, with the new general sanctions, talking is pretty much mandatory, and the RFC format forces a neutral statement and a defined end of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll do it when I get back later. What about references in the lead for the medical stuff? Shall I choose a few of the many references, or just hope that people will notice it's exhaustively cited later on? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Baby killer

I see two reliable sources cited in the stub, therefore it meets WP:GNG. I removed your "prod", but you can take it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that those constitute significant coverage, per WP:GNG. See you at AfD. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I did it. I'm rather proud of "synthetic accretion". It might be a bad bit of writing, or it might be something growing in the back of the refrigerator. PhGustaf (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Please see the discussion on the talk page about a controversial sentence you recently rewrote. I'm trying to negotiate a dispute. Thanks Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the expertise on the topic as a whole nor on any of the individual areas of study, but thanks for thinking of me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Do check out the other classes going on in the Online Ambassador Program. There are other subjects, not just media. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pope Fabian

I didn't know that Fabian Forte was a pope. Live and learn. PhGustaf (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There actually was a Pope Fabian, it just wasn't the Nebraskan. I'm also guessing that if Bruskewitz were somehow to be made pope, he would choose a different pontifical name. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

Considering there is an active discussion on quantifying "they", and considering you are participating in said discussion, I am at a loss to understand why you removed the tag indicating there is an issue.Lionel (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's frivolous for the same reason Marauder's edits were frivolous. The sentence is an accurate summary of approximately twenty sources detailing lies propagated by CPCs, and neither of you has provided a single source saying that a single CPC gives out accurate information. "I don't want CPCs to look bad" does not justify attempts to soft-pedal this, and you haven't provided any other reason. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2 editors have voiced concerns regarding the same issue. There is an active discussion on Talk. Removing the tag at such an early stage in discussion is premature and could be viewed as disruptive. Will you restore the tag? Lionel (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You've yet to provide any policy- or source-based reasons for your addition of the tag, and thus adding it looks a lot more like disruptive editing than removing it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2011

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lionel (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History

WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Auto-assessment. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Mouse Problem

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For starting the discussion that got those danged Bias Categories Standardized! (Knock on wood.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi Rosceles, I created a new article, Joseph Maraachli case, I thought you might be interested in. Feel free to get involved. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look - thanks for letting me know!

By the way, would you care to weigh in on any of the outstanding issues at talk:crisis pregnancy center? We still need opinions from more users on how to deal with the Ireland situation and on the best wording for CPCs' provision of false medical information in the lead. (And perhaps you can read Haymaker's mind and figure out why he's restoring the "Controversy and legal action" layout and the "globalize" tag? I may be asking too much.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For tireless work on the front line concerning reproductive health. Span (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been following your work at the coalface for a while. You are doing sterling, long haul work. I am focused on poetry but wanted to say that I recognise your vital efforts. Best wishes Span (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much. It's nice to be appreciated. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Anthony's views

The reason I did not remake BS24's article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute into one describing more 19th century feminists is that Anthony is the clearest case, the most easily debunked. Stanton and Gage and others are on record about their anti-abortion stance whereas Anthony never said anything concrete. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. "19th-century feminist views on abortion" would be a rather silly article anyway - the important thing is the "dispute," not their views. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-silly article could be Abortion in the 19th century United States, calved off of History of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your diligent work on so many entries. I'm glad you're participating in WikiProject Women's History. If you have any questions, concerns, or bright ideas about the project, please don't hesitate to contact me on mytalk page. Since you've been active on Wikipedia for a long time, I'd be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might recruit more editors and get people excited about contributing. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

request for review

Hi, I'm asking you because, after seeing some of your messages, I believe I can trust you. Would you review an article I wrote, and if appropriate, remove the "unreviewed" template? Thanks! Affirming Pentecostal Church Bill BroWCarey (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll edit it and see if it's better!BroWCarey (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did reword the article, updated a few things. I am working on sources, so I'm not done. But if you get a chance, would you read the article again, and see if it sounds better? Thanks!BroWCarey (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

It is poor form, when an editor criticizes you at the wiktiquette noticeboard, as I just did, to accuse them baselessly of a failure of witiquette. I've of course not made any personal attacks. I think that, as a person, you a fine specimen of humanity. Your edits, however, as I have pointed out, are disruptive and inappropriate. One does not contribute to the project by tag-bombing articles with wholly unfounded tags, as you did, and then doing the same to editors' talk pages. Kindly desist. Please take this as a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, unfounded accusations fall under Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Your repeated claims that I've been tag-bombing are inappropriate, as it's quite plain that I did nothing of the kind. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this "criticism at the Wikiquette noticeboard"; do you feel that it's okay to make personal attacks as long as you do so at WQA? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gendergap

Hi Roscelese, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this mailing list, which all can join -- https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- to discuss women on Wikipedia, and how to increase participation. If you already know about it, sorry to bother you, I just wanted to be sure. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you clarify (it's hard to tell from the linked page) - does it only require an e-mail for confirmation, or do messages arrive via e-mail as well? Or is it like The Bugle, which arrives on talk pages, or is it an old-fashioned newsgroup? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, yes, it's a mailing list where the messages arrives by email. I'm really glad you're interested, so I'll drop you an e-mail with more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning for censoring by using the collapse feature

Please do not use the collapse feature to censor comments of others that you may disagree with, or otherwise dislike, as you have now done twice here at a noticeboard discussion. It is censorship, disruptive, and edit warring. Kindly take this as a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution

I almost blocked you for 1RR on The Silent Scream, but in my opinion, you just barely stayed on the right side, and another admin might have made the call the other way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful in future. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

72.156.248.10

72.156.248.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As that you logged out, or is someone impersonating you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't me. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a floating IP, so we'll just have to wait until it gets bored and decides to go play with some alligators or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be doing or have done much. Not sure how it might have come across that page, but I assume it's a n00b who doesn't know that you can do what you like with your own talkpage. Epeefleche and I seem to have reached an agreement where neither will write on the other's page, and I'm cool with that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I started a thread at WP:ANI about an admin. You're not the subject of the thread, but you were involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added 03:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

could you please revert yourself?

In accordance with this and with this? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found mention of it in a Foward blurb, so I will. (Note that the first link you provided doesn't support the statement.) In future, keep in mind that refs should support the statement for which they're cited! "A bill was introduced" does not support "A law was passed." I hope that helps. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe the section's name should also be changed?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The bill was never passed in its complete form, and the source describes the use of some of its provisions as "provisions from this were incorporated" rather than "the bill was passed with some of its provisions taken out." But that could just be a semantic thing. Maybe we should discuss on the talk page and see what other people think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language

I consider this to be a personal attack, and recommend you revert yourself.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but "Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" and "It must be Palestinians because a totally different Palestinian did this" are pretty racist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said I hate terrorists of all nationalities, and racists of all nationalities. For example with antisemitism I despise self-hating Jews much more than antisemites of all other nationalities. So as you see it has nothing to do with racism.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you refused to revert your absolutely unwarranted PA against me I request you stay off my talk page. I am not interested in any communications with you whatsoever.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I found Librarians Weigh in on a Book Dealing with Same-Sex Marriage which may help the book discussion. Trekhippie (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll add it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of women who sparked a revolution

Shalom, Bonjour, your question in the discussion is Can you help suggest ways of improving it ?

I cannot help you about this page. I don't know in the historic questions, my speciality is the sports by the women (specially the women hockey). I wrote several pages on the women hockey but nothing page on historic women and political question. Bonne chance. , מזל טוב --Geneviève (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SBA abortion dispute

See here. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Russell self-revert

Thanks for self-reverting there -- as the sanctions are "broadly construed", they would have applied in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that...

"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, insulting someone's book isn't a BLP violation. Have a nice day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but saying they lied in their book is. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If arguments on talk pages about whether living people are telling the truth are BLP violations, then most of what occurs on talk pages are BLP violations. (Editors are living people.) Please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Scrivens DYK

Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed the issues you raised with a proposed alternate hook, and editing the article. Canada Hky (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state

Hi Roscelese, I just wanted to get your help on the Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state article. I'm working on a replacement article in my sandbox here - User:NYyankees51/marriage/new. The current article is not very helpful and I'm trying to make a comprehensive state-by-state list. I made a table listing all the states prohibiting gay marriage by voter referendum. I'm not very good at tables so if you know how to work with them to make it look better, that would be great, and any help you can provide to the sandbox article would be great as well. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, you're right that the current layout of the article is difficult and also largely redundant to the articles on the referenda. (Or if it isn't redundant, it should be, because the article on each referendum should contain that information.) However, I'm not sure that your new layout is optimal either. The way I would do it would be one unified table for all the states, which would indicate:

1. whether SSM is legal
2. how this legal status (whether legal or illegal) was implemented (ie. court decision, referendum, legislature, constitutional or only statute, etc.)
3. when it was implemented
4. probably notes

And of course the lead would summarize, ie. X number of states permit it, Y number of states prohibit, Z of which by constitutional amendment or something like that.

I don't think the margins by which the referenda passed are something that it is necessary to include in an overview article. They belong in the articles on the referenda - the only important thing in the overview is whether the measure passed.

What do you think? I'm good with tables, so I can help you out.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, you and NatGertler are right about the table. I don't have time to work on it in depth quite yet, but I have a proposal started at the sandbox page. As for the margins, I think it is helpful to include because it shows the differences in public opinion between the states. I would be fine with just referring to the referenda articles, but the margin isn't always to find in them. Anyway, once we establish what to include in the table, I would appreciate some formatting help to make it easy to read and navigate. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, feel free to edit the sandbox page and work with it as you want. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe give this another thought next time

• If the IP user claims that "new land was stolen from the Palestinian village" without providing any source whatsoever,
• If the IP user is complaining about "collective punishment of 8000 people" without providing any source whatsoever,
• If the IP user is complaining that "15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged" with no noticing that the info is in the article already.
• If the IP user came here to justify something that cannot be justified by saying "Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land."
• And if according to all those bogus claims the IP user tags the article that is at the Main page at the moment, guess what, it is vandalism!

All of the above clearly demonstrates that you had not a slightest idea what you were doing, when you reinstalled the tag with a pointed edit summary, but you know what I am not even going to remove it, because I do believe that there are lots of POV in the article installed by another side, for example I believe that the information that the murders "dipped their hands into the boys' blood" is supported by a few RS and should have been represented in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd do well to read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism before accusing people of vandalizing. Disagreeing with you does not constitute vandalism, and the IP provided perfectly reliable news stories about retaliation on Palestinians that was committed in response to the murder and that was not covered in the article. It's not your responsibility to add this information, but nor are you permitted to remove a valid tag because you just don't like it. Here's an idea, though: if you think the tag makes your precious main page article look bad, fix the problems with the article so that there isn't a bad article on the main page! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be so kind and point me out to the links to "perfectly reliable news stories" I pointed out above, and that were provided by IP?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And to help you out with the task I will provide below the IP post with my responses in green:

This article as it is now is completely unbalanced, as it does not mention the consequences for the Palestinian villages in the vicinity.

• As a direct consequence of the murder, the nearby village of Tuqu', a village of 8000 people, were in effect collectively punished, even if collective punishment of this kind is against the Geneva convention.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• There were also reports of stones thrown on the villagers by nearby settlers.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• 15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• And, most importantly: new land was stolen from the Palestinian village of Tuqu' during the "investigation" after the murder.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(Exactly the same thing happened to the villages nearby the Itamar-settlement 2 weeks ago, after the Itamar killings: a whole village was under house-arrest by the Israeli army, while settlers from Itamar simply stole another 20-25 dunum of privately owned Palestinian olive groves. There is a reason why Israelis call the occupied West Bank for the "Wild West Bank"!)

• • No source, unrelated--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land.
  • soapboxing--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes: "Settlers stoned Palestinians on the roads through Gush Etzion." Time Magazine, "settlers threw stones at Palestinian cars and the Israeli army sealed off the nearby Arab village of Tuqu," BBC Report, and this link. This article deserves a {{POV|date=March 2011}} tag.

• The exact quote from Time magazine is "Two Romanian immigrant workers mending a security fence at the Gaza border were blown up by Palestinians. Settlers stoned Palestinians on the roads through Gush Etzion." How this info is related to the murder of two boys, and why it should be in the article?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• In regards to BBC quote, the info was represented in the article before IP added the tag. Here's a quote from the article "They arrested 20 Palestinians from nearby villages and imposed curfews and roadblocks in response to the attack--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to point out the line in the article that said settlers attacked Palestinians in response to the murder, as found in the BBC source, since you claim that it was already there? (It's also funny how, in the same comment, you claim both that the reports of stoning and arrests are unsourced and that they were already in the article. You're a funny one, Mbz!) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming a bad faith, and you are mistaking. I did address the only "valid" point made by IP at the very same day it first came about. I said: "if we are to add what you said should be added then we need to add "On Tuesday, a body of another Israeli settler, who had been shot and stabbed, was found near the settlement of Itamar, south of Nablus." from the very same BBC source, and sadly so on, and so with no end in sight." After this IP demonstrated no interest in adding both info from the same RS. That's why I did not mention it at your talk page. On the other hand exactly as IP did, you also did not mention the killing of the settler.

BTW, if you'd rather me not to post to your page, just say so, and I will be more than happy to stay out.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should the IP do your work for you? Add it yourself if you want. The IP didn't remove a tag while claiming there were no problems; you did. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for King & King

Thanks for me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Roscelese

Thank you for helping me create an article . Could you tell me ASAP how you edit semi protected articles if they have some wrong information. Thank you dude. From Millanmane.

Er, I don't think the thanks are warranted, but anyway - if you want to do that, you can comment on the article's talk page and ask the users there to edit it for you.

(Also, sign your posts with four tildes - like this! ~~~~ Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Category:Rape victims

Thank you for the suggestion. I am getting more opinios here. --Minerva97 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks a lot. If I need something, I'll ask you. --Minerva97 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded to your post on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.34 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hate group listings

Hi, I've been working on the SPLC group listing and found a link to your page in process. I think both lists can be useful and maybe even dovetail each other as the first list has subject area's defined whereas your list notes specific for each group which I think is very helpful. I just wanted to say hello. Jnast1 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think both need to exist - they just seem to have slightly different guidelines, and I guess we'd need to decide what was best - ie. the mainspace one is organized by type and includes everything, while mine is organized by name, includes only ones with Wikipedia articles, and also provides ADL listings and the rationale for which the group is listed. (I've been working on mine since before the mainspace one was created.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the mainspace one can speak as to why the SPLC generally sees each subject area as meeting their guidelines but yours is focussed on specifics to each organization. Plus you found a way to incorporate the ADF in your list which is fantastic. Also your list is only for articles that exist whereas the mainspace one includes all the SPLC ones. Jnast1 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is not so much to ask for

I'd rather would not see your user name in my watch list in regards to new articles I write. After our past encounters I do not consider your involvement in my new articles to be one of a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia. I believe that it will be better, if from now on we will go our separate ways.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to list every article you create on DYK, it's not bizarre to imagine that someone else who also regularly works at DYK might come across them. Have a nice day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not say you hounded my contributions. I did not ask how you found the article. I only said that counting our past and very unpleasant involvement it will be better if we are to go our separate ways. Please have more trust in other editors. If there are problems with an article others will see it too. Please have a nice day too.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe that your articles deserve special protection because you've disagreed with me in the past. If you don't want problems with your articles to be corrected, don't make bad articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it is not what I said at all. I said I'd rather you avoid editing my new articles because I feel you do no not like me personally to say the least.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand that you're asking me to refrain from editing an article if it's you that's created it. I'm telling you that I will not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After I said that I hate antisemitic Jews much more than antisemitic people of all other nationalities, which is true, your dislike of me personally got to a new high to say the least for unknown to me reason. If you really care about wikipedia it is better to avoid wp:drama, and it is the only thing I'm asking you to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I will not refrain from improving bad articles just because they're your bad articles. The easiest way to avoid drama would be for you to accept the improvements other users are making, instead of repeatedly harassing them on their talkpages with accusations of bad faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again even you repeatedly calling my articles "bad" demonstrate quite well what you are after.

Once again I am not talking about "other users". I am talking about one user, who is involved with me, and dislikes me personally. This user are you,Roscelese.

I did not harass you, it is you who have been harassing me over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you describe edits to your articles as harassment speaks volumes about your work here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be just a little bit more fair? Not only I describe "edits" to my articles as harassment, but I actually include editors, who help me to improve my articles even a little bit in my DYK nominations. I have done it over, and over, and over again. I say "thank you" to many IP users, who edit the articles I wrote. Your "editing" of my articles is a different story. You are doing this to make a point, a point that my articles are bad. Once again I am asking you to have more trust in the community. If an article needs some improvement, it will be improved. Wikipedia is a huge place. My areas of interests are very different from yours. It is not necessarily for you continuing making points on the articles I write.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claims of bad faith aren't making your case for you. If you can't handle people you don't like editing your articles, don't make articles, or make ones that don't need substantial improvement. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to understand what I am saying is frustrating. I did not say I do not like you. I said you do not like me, and your "editing" on the last 2 articles I wrote was made with the only reason - to make a point of your disliking of me personally. But I see talking to you is useless. You are the one, who likes to create wp:dramas in the areas, where they are so easy to avoid.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything more to contribute, or are you going to repeat and repeat again these groundless claims that correcting problems in articles constitutes bad-faith destructive editing just because you are the creator and I am the one correcting? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, under the edit window you will have noticed that it says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited... then do not submit it here." New articles included. Your request to go separate ways is a good one in case of poisonous interactions that cannot be otherwise addressed—the encyclopedia is a big place, so avoiding others can be accomplished—but telling an editor which articles to stay away from is not how to go about it. Neither is trying WP:OWN a new article. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment,Binksternet. Not only I want my articles to be edited, but I specifically ask for help of editing my articles for 90% of the articles I write. If I don't ask for help for 100% articles I write, it is only because I am afraid people are getting tired of me constantly asking for help. I am also far from exercising WP:OWN, but User:Roscelese was not editing my article. She removed more than half of it, even info that was left by other editor, who really tried to improve the article,and she did it without ever coming to the article's talk page to discuss the situation. She claims it was a "bad" article, but how "bad" it could have been, if it got promoted for DYK, and not by any user, but by an administrator, who is specifically involved in DYK process before User:Roscelese's "improvement". So, no, it was not an edit to improve the article, it was an edit to get me out, and because it was not the first time User:Roscelese behaved that way towards the articles I started, I asked her not to do it anymore.There are some situations, where the users should go their separate ways, and this situation is one of those. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was moved to a different name after Roscolese's removal of great portions of it. The move sought to validate the assorted contents as a single topic. You were forced to consider that the article title was not an accurate representation of article contents, that the article itself is about all the places named Dickshooter but not specifically about the community of Dickshooter, Idaho. You changed the title to just "Dickshooter" which leaves a gap in the encyclopedia. This gap will eventually be filled with an article very much like Roscolese's version, one which describes only the small community of Dickshooter, Idaho; one which carries an infobox settlement (or similar) template, one with only one set of geographic coordinates. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaking. I moved the article only because I got tired of User:Roscelese removing an absolutely valid information against consensus. If Dickshooter community is 15.7 miles from Dickshooter creek and they both bear the same name there is no need to create a separate subs for those places. The only editor, who complained about including in the article Silver City and some other places, stated that they are satisfied with the article as it is now at my talk page. They did it before user:Roscelese removed half of the article. This editor was really trying to improve the article. User:Roscelese was trying to create more drama. If user:Roscelese ware really interested in improving the article, she could have started a discussion at the article's talk page and wait for the responses. I hope you'd agree that removal of great portions of the article is not the right way to "force" an editor "to consider" something. There are articles talk pages to discuss such kind of things. "Forcing" is not the right word. And, no, there is no gap in encyclopedia that is going to be filled because everything about Dickshooter community is covered in the current article as it is now.

I have to thank to user:Roscelese for her patience in allowing to use her talk page to communicate with another user.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue Labour

Thanks for your invaluable work on the Blue Labour article. Riversider (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

BigMattyO

He's still at it, and he's removed our notices from his talk page twice now. I think ANI is the best course of action, although I've never done it before, so not sure how to go about it. Jonchapple (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've filed one once, but I was a n00b and new to content disputes, so I did it wrong. Perhaps we should ask an uninvolved admin for advice? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WQA

If I might interject...I just saw your WQA at the top of my watchlist, so I had to find out who you were. Our article interests overlap on abortion, though I have other battles to fight around here. Here's my opinion: screw the AN/I's and crap. The admins that troll those boards support the Polite POV pushing crowd. Just do what you need to do with the articles. Eventually certain admins who find the POV crowd annoying will do something about it. Anyways, that's my humble (well, not so humble) opinion. I'm dealing with a rather immature editor who thinks his life's goal is to purify Wikipedia for good Xtians, and remove all pornography. Like the pregnant woman in pregnancy. If I wasted time on an ANI every time I run into these people, I'd chop off an arm. I let them embarrass themselves. Anyways, if you need help on the science behind abortion, just call on me. I keep the crap out of articles like abortion, Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, and Abortion and mental health. Besides, my favorite science articles aren't attracting the nutjobs lately, so I'm bored. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't in the context of a noticeboard post, I probably wouldn't have bothered, but the editor's using ad hominem attacks and groundless accusations to discredit a legitimate request for outside opinions, in order to preserve a false statement cited to an unreliable source - so it's a content issue, not just a conduct issue. Thanks for the work you do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian eunuch

Thanks for the note. You're pretty quick. Anyway, I'll be working on it for the next couple of hours. I'm just about to look at Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. StAnselm (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I can do the nomination for DYK. I've added in one McNeil quote, but there's a lot more than can be put in. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gerd Kühr

This is a gentle reminder start you started reviewing the composer for DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean it as a review - I didn't mean to put a hold on the article or anything, I thought someone else would review. Is there a problem? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

..., pray?

Hi, you ended a question to me like this and I wondered what this means. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Roscolese but I know the answer: It is short for "pray tell" which is English idiom for "isn't that right?", "is that true?" or "please explain."

Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what Binksternet said. Sorry, I'm a dork. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of statement I was hoping to find, perhaps it can help your list

"'While several watchdog organizations (e.g., the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League) estimate the number and impact of white racial extremists and their organizations, there is no scholarly accounting for the number of members of white racial extremists in the United States." [3] Jnast1 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a reliable source as it's only a draft rather than a published book (although at least one of the authors seems reliable? still). However, I'm not clear on what you intended to use it for. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a draft in 2007 but then published later that same year in Popular Music and Society (see [4]). 30(4):513-531. I was seeking definitive answers as to why ADL and SPLC were considered authorities on hate groups, as the FBI only responded to actual crimes and then only sometimes made public their findings with open cases not even commented on. It was a start at least. Jnast1 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An explanation and a question

Hello Roscelese. I hope that you won't take offense at my post on the navbox for discussion that you started today about the Dr Who navbox. I agree with some parts of your objection to the content that is currently in there. I just don't want complete removal of it at this time. I do want to offer my apologies if the way that I have put my case does cause you any offense.

My question comes about from your post about the Dr Who actors category that you also commented on. You mention OCAT as one of the reasons for its removal. I'm not sure what that is but I am wondering of it came about when the numerous "Actor in" cats were deleted a few years ago. I am also wondering if it might apply to this Category:Rumpole of the Bailey that was created last month. While the cat has a few listings from the show that are behind the camera people it seems to be mostly populated by actors who appeared in the series. Thank you for your time in reading this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. (Behind-the-camera people aren't supposed to be included either, I don't think.) The category should probably be deleted as there seem to be only two articles in it that belong (the main article + Rumpole and the Primrose Path) - if you nominate it, I'll vote for a delete. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the removal of the RotB cat and I have to apologize for not getting to your suggestion. Life has been a little hectic offline and I kept putting off acting on your suggestion. I appreciate your putting in the time and effort to act on this. Cheers and happy editing in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Have a sweet Passover. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deep Blue Sea

Hi, just to let you know I undid your edit at Deep Blue Sea. Although it's entirely possible (likely?) that it's a case of reverse infringement, the article has been listed at WP:CP and unless we can be sure that it was copied from Wikipedia, the tag should be left in place until the issue has been resolved. Either that, or the plot could be re-written, but that's probably a lot of work which may well be unnecessary. :) --BelovedFreak 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The link doesn't even work anymore though - I can't find the page it's supposed to be copied from. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... still works for me. It's a definitely a copy-paste but to be honest, it's more likely that it's copied from Wikipedia. It has a link to IMDb, which I misread/assumed was saying it was taken from there, so I was concerned that the WP article had been copied from IMDb. I don't think that's what it means now, and I probably wouldn't have reported it at WP:CP if I'd not misread that, but now I think it's better just to leave it for the folks at WP:CP to decide if it's ok or not. It should be looked at within the next couple of days. --BelovedFreak 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enoughism.
Message added 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

American Family Association

I've been wheel warred into a 3RR warning by individuals whitewashing the "hate group" moniker.

And have a nice passover. I'm such a secular Jew, that if I didn't have these things on my iPhone, I wouldn't even know. Now I know why all my friends have been leaving me messages as to what I am doing this week. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, same here. I went to something Monday evening and was so confused at why no-one was there... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to write it as I did then try to find a way to word it more clearly but forgot and submitted it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your move request

I agree with your sentiment at Talk:Pro-life#Requested move, again, but I'm not sure you got the proposal right. Right now it looks like you want to move Abortion-rights movement back to Pro-choice and Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement? If you want the titles to be parallel that would just flip the bias. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it would work to say "Move Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement and Pro-choice to Abortion-rights movement," given the pages' current locations. I did try to make my intention clear in the move rationale - hopefully people will get it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand it that way when examining the move suggestion. I, too, thought you were proposing to flip the bias. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'll go back and see if I can make it more clear. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. This may be more of a comment for the move discussion than here but if you want the titles to be parallel, wouldn't Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement be the best option? It seems to me to be a major bias if one article is called the "anti" movement and the other the "rights" movement. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not even going to vote in this discussion - I don't have strong feelings about what the articles should be called. I just think they should be parallel. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)