User talk:Roscelese

Tituba and Witchcraft

I have explained my position a little more candidly on the disscussion page on the Tituba article.

Thank you,-- User: Wolfpeaceful

Hello, Roscelese. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:26, 20 August 2011. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missouri#St._Louis_Post-Dispatch

Hi Roscelese, I just noticed your (rather old) request there, and if you're still interested in Growing American Youth (hasn't been deleted yet!), relevant sources have been archived at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll take a look and see if I can expand the article at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I don't have consistent access to most databases, but if you need any more articles, I can grab them for you pretty quickly. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have...actually just realized that the Post-Dispatch is on LexisNexis, so I went and rustled up a few more myself. Sorry to put you to the trouble. *facepalm* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, happy writing :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!
Regards,
Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscelene reverting items without explanation or discussion

Roscelene hereyou've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts.

• From this sentence: The prosecution also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. You removed the dubious tag without comment or explanation. Why???? That part of the sentence is clearly a mistake. This is a civil trial and so there is no "prosecution" -- and the side that brought this out was clearly the defense. Could you please explain yourself?

• And you completely deleted this sentence without any explination: The defense attacked Jones's credibility because she had signed a movie deal to promote the story of her lawsuit.[[6]] Why??

• You also deleted several very short quotes (that were fully cited) with the insulting comment: "how hard is it to paraphrase or at least attribute?" Since it is so easy why didn't you work cooperatively with the other editors and paraphrase or attribute the quotes instead of just deleting them?

• You also completely deleted all references to KBR filing a motion to be reimbursed by Jones for fees and costs for the civil suit she lost -- even though it was supported with a citation from The Wall Street Journal.[7] How can you support deleting all reference to this clearly relevant and Reliably Sourced piece of information? Please explain.

Please, I would like to work with you in a cooperative manner to improve the article -- but it would involve you stopping the insults and being willing to work cooperatively.Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of those were accidental (I edited from an old version of the page and apparently didn't catch everything), but some of what you're saying I did is also just wrong. Look at the edit again. You could also drop the hysterical act - being asked to paraphrase something is not a grave personal attack. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the bit about the film deal appears nowhere in the cited source, so though the removal was accidental, I am not restoring it. They sought access to the manuscript of the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscelene is again is making claims about the sources -- but hasn't read them

Roscelene, once again you are making bold assertions -- that are completely and provably wrong. You've once again made an absolute pronouncement about what is contained in the source -- which you appear not bothered to have read. And you've justified your high-handed reverts based on these falsehoods.

You state above: The removal of the film deal bit was accidental, but fortuitous, since it is not supported by the cited source and, per BLP, needs to go immediately

But the cited Mother Jones article spends the last three paragraphs talking about her book and movie deals. For your convenience I've include the relevant paragraphs below.[8]

“ One thing Jones has working in her favor is that her story seems so incredible, her pursuit of justice so sincere, that it's almost unimaginable that she would make it up. After all, why would anyone put themselves through that kind of torture? But KBR and Bortz also have a ready answer to that question. It's The Jamie Leigh Story: How my Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice, the working title of her book.

For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.

When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction.

”

Hoping To Help (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And does this support the claim that KBR's lawyers used the film deal to discredit Jones at the trial? No, it does not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The West Wing — Drought Conditions

Hi there! You are correct, Drought Conditions is the only episode missing from the The West Wing episode guide. Unfortunately, the article has been deleted twice as it was deemed irrelevant.--DVD-junkie | talk | 06:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? One episode out of all the other episodes? Hm. Maybe there's potential for a DRV there - it's by no means clear from the AfD discussion whether or not this is meant to be a test case for the hundred-plus articles on West Wing episodes, and the fact that the others are uncontested suggests that the community has no real problem with individual episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

RFD

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

help with rollback at Bowie knife

I was hoping that maybe you wouldn't mind rolling back the disruptive edits of User:Reese98 on this page: Bowie knife to here. I'm not sure what the protocol is, and I don't want to mess with 3RR, and these edits clearly need to go, but they don't exactly seem to fall under the exemptions to 3RR. i'm not really involved with this particular page, but the same user was messing with a page i am involved with, so i checked its contribs and found the problems with the bowie knife article. i fixed the problems it created with Natchez, Mississippi and templated the User_talk:Reese98. i'm asking you because you seem sensible, and i'm too new here to understand what the appropriate response is. tia, — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that they wouldn't fall under the exemptions, but I don't see that you've made a lot of other reverts to that page that would cause you to run afoul of 3RR. The Natchez matter is different, that's obviously not intended to be constructive - but substituting phonetic-English for IPA could have been done in good faith. I suggest that you talk to the user on their talk page and explain what's up with pronunciation, and maybe they will self-revert.

(Also, check out WP:CANVASS - while you're right that the edits lowered the quality of the page, you could still get in trouble for soliciting another user to edit in a particular way.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, will do, thanks. i wasn't intending to canvas, but to avoid having to seek rollback powers for myself, as i prefer to have no powers at all. anyway, will talk to user and see where it goes from there. cheers and thanks for good advice! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not seek rollback? Having it doesn't oblige you to use it, and it makes it easier to revert obvious vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

i don't know why not, i just don't feel as if i know enough about the social norms here to get involved in processes that involve asking for powers. maybe later i'll feel more comfortable about it. i left a talk page message about the bowie knife thing, but i just noticed this: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. on the 3rr page. does that mean that if i reverted all those edits, it wouldn't actually be a violation? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert count depends on how many reverts you make, not on how many edits you're reverting. So if someone adds two sentences to an article in a single edit, you remove one, there is an intervening edit, and you remove the other, that is two reverts, while if a whole bunch of different people make a whole bunch of different edits and you restore to a previous version, undoing all those edits, that is one revert. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed interaction ban between you and User:Haymaker

TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has volunteered to be one of the three sysops overseeing the proposed interaction ban. Their only stipulation is that they require strict observance of WP:CIVIL on all pages relating to the adminning of the restrictions; I feel that this should not be an issue in that better conduct by the parties is the purpose for these measures. I should be grateful if you would indicate if this individuals participation is satisfactory to you at the earliest opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, works for me! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker has responded positively, with a suggestion for an initial 6 month period - with the potential for extension. I am happy with that, and recommend that you accept so we may get this iban started. Please let me know your response asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a longer initial period, but 6 months is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall put this in place this evening, UK time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

STEFANO PELINGA ARTICLE

In reference to the article on Stefano Pelinga, I do not understand what was trivial about my article. In addition, I am forced to believe that you did not take any time at all to verify the many reliable sources I had listed in the article. They are easy to be found/verified; you can see these articles yourself by visiting Mr. Pelinga's website directly (http://www.stefanopelinga.com). Also, you can contact those publications directly to verify the information.

It is extremely easy to verify that all of the content in my article on Mr. Pelinga is truthful, the mentioned sources reliable and Mr. Pelinga's sports accomplishments undeniable.

I would very much like to resolve this quickly and have my article reinstated in Wikipedia as Mr. Pelinga has every right to be listed, as he is one of the most popular pool champions in the world. Should you wish to contact Mr. Pelinga directly, simply visit his website, and send him an email, or look him up on Facebook. He is very good about replying to everyone.

Distefwiki (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire or need to contact him directly; if he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources (ie. not the personal website which was the only source cited), he has no "right" to an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Can you make the category renaming proposal for me(read the rules at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion and then make a proposal)? I'm too busy with study. Since you are more experienced with Wikipedia policy, you should do it quickly.
Thank you for your attention,
Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together later. Possibly the best strategy would be to make a subpage with the proposal and then just link to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's what I ended up doing - I made a subpage at WT:Catholicism and then linked to it from CfD. Hopefully this will get enough response for us to start in on the work! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You will see that I took the liberty of making a slight change to the proposal. I think it was a typing error on your part. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I just copied it from the version at WikiProject Religion. I think the previous version was better because it accounts for what is happening to the currently existing category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and yourself

Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese (talk · contribs) and Haymaker (talk · contribs), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.

Reditection of julaha article

can you please provide specific reasons why you redirected this page on article talk page  Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

While Ramdasia isn't very well sourced, it's still better sourced and better written than Julaha, and it states they are the same thing. This is not my area of expertise. Can you improve the sourcing in Julaha? Find sources that aren't user-generated (ie. wikis)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only warning

This edit clearly contravenes the interaction ban between you and Haymaker. Any further violation will result in a short block, per the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I directly asked you if it was a violation of the interaction ban if the other user had previously made the same or a similar edit but the edit I was reverting was made by someone else (in this case, Cloonmore, Mamalujo, and an anonymous IP), and you said that while you thought it would be, you'd have to run it past the other admins. Please let me know now if this is or is not part of the interaction ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the report on my talkpage (User talk:LessHeard vanU#Day 1) Haymaker gave this edit as being the one that you reverted. If there were no intervening edits then it is clearly a violation of the ban, and if there were it is still against the spirit of the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If he told you there were no intervening edits, he was wrong. Otherwise - I'll keep it in mind in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for The Problem We All Live With

Hi Rose, I have reviewed your nomination of The Problem We All Live With at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With and there are a couple of concerns I have with the nomination. Could you please see my comments on the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prod on List of killings of Muhammad

As a courtesy notice, I have removed the Prod from List of killings of Muhammad. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. You're welcome to take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is sufficient. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Roscelese, I think you're in violation of 1RR at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've miscounted, but thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert 1, 06:10, 31 August 2011

Revert 2, 05:56, 1 September 2011 NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They were both partial reverts and barely (14 minutes) within the window of violation, so I didn't report it because it looks like an honest mistake, but consider yourself warned about further edit warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first link is broken, but I assume it was intended to go to the edit that was actually a revert - the second, not so much. The text was newly added; I edited it to be more specific/correct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link NYyankees51 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this was a revert of this; this was a revert of this. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ros, you know better than to do this edit summary. If I did something like that you'd be all over me. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No instances of you reverting a problematic edit that you happen to agree with come to mind, so I'm not sure why your choice of edit summary in this long-shot hypothetical should be relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"true, but..." It was inappropriate and you know it. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude. She's a lesbian. Or do you know something we don't? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(preceding was an attempt at humor)

I know, but the jokes about me being romantically and/or sexually involved with other editors are getting old. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

CFD for Dover

I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Be careful

Considering how many editors have filed complaints about you I was surprised to see this. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many of those complaints were frivolous reports intended to stop me standing in the way of some POV-pushing, to the point where you and other editors were warned that you'd be blocked if you continued to harass me, I'm surprised you're thinking of jumping into that fray again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ros, at the risk of raising more conflict between us, you are most certainly not an anti-POV stalwart. To say that you are is laughable at best and maddening at worst. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion in New Zealand

I see that you removed some of the ext links to pro-life and pre-choice advocacy groups from the Abortion in New Zealand article. It made me think (ouch!). Such links are common on WP. Not sure what policy is about it but considering that we have complete articles on such groups the links may be ok. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely if a group has its own article, that article can or should be linked in the text (or perhaps in a see also)? The appropriate place for a link to ALRANZ, for example, is in an article on ALRANZ. A general article on Abortion in New Zealand should present an overview of the subject, its history and current status, rather than linking off-wiki pros and cons. Then again, I do take a rather hard line on external links. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My reading of WP:EL is that links would be ok. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #19 would seem to bar that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all the links in question are mentioned in the article and WP:ELNO #19 has a qualification that allows the links to be considered. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But if they're not, surely the major abortion-related political organizations in NZ should be mentioned? (And the exception to #19 requires neutrality, which these don't have....) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They should be mentioned in the article if they are notable and there are third party sources. I understand the need for neutrality in an article but WP:ELNO #19 makes no mention of links to partisan organisations. The links that you removed, which are pro-choice and pro-life, have a direct bearing on the article and are useful to the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

False accusation of rape

To answer your edit summary question, it was an error on my part. I meant to remove only the other part - I must've thought I was just removing the intro sentence to the block quote. Glad you caught it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Problem We All Live With

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Truly an excellent article. Reading this article, and reading some of the references, brought tears to my eyes. Anyone who mocks Rockwell should read and ponder this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I'll be able to expand it sometime - unfortunately for such a well-known piece the body of critical literature is not enormous, because Rockwell's work is often dismissed as kitsch not worth writing about. (My view: kitsch, yes, often, but certainly worth writing about.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have...

...nominated CitizenLink (Formerly Focus on the Family Action) for AfD instead of blanking it? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it to Focus on the Family Action, not realizing that Focus on the Family Action was itself a redirect to Focus on the Family. Why should I have nominated it for AfD? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it was an actual article...NYyankees51 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Focus on the Family Action already existed, and there's no need for two articles on the same subject, hence my suggesting that the creator discuss a merge and/or move on the relevant talk page. I just didn't realize that what I thought was a pre-existing article was a redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese - thanks for explaining the process behind the redirect, I've seen the labels on the article and will be working to clean it up. Appreciate your suggestions and the opportunity to gain more wiki experience through this article. Saris718 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Kaufman

It's the article about the notable person now. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by DMSBel on abortion

For the love of God can you please stop paraphrasing what I have said or done to suit your reason for reverting. Then accusing me of being disingenuous (big word - know what it means?)DMSBel (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My wording was awkward but I did not intend it to be disingenuous. Of all the reports I have seen there is a call for more research - demonstrating no definitive causal relationship is yet established. Is the word "yet" a problem also? Sure we can't pre-empt future findings either way, but you can't infer the current consensus is that a definitive conclusion on the matter is now established. What if we are wrong? DMSBel (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How might we better colaborate on the abortion related articles?DMSBel (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost my interest when you asked if I knew what "disingenuous" meant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought you'd just seen me using it and was copying. Losing interest when people ask the meaning of big words is not very collaborative (joke).DMSBel (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't ask the meaning of the word; you insulted Roscelese's intelligence by implying that she couldn't comprehend it. That sort of lead-in rarely results in productive collaboration. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh lighten up MastCell did you not see I added (joke) at the end.DMSBel (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Abortion and mental health

Hello Roscelese. I am trying to figure out what parts of my edits are inappropriate.

1. Is it that you consider Coleman's paper to belong in the Post-Abortion Syndrome section? She does not use this terminology in her paper; that was my justification for moving it to its own section under under the Current and Historical Reviews section.
2. Was it wrong to flesh out the Coleman section and add the statement on Coleman's paper by the president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists?
3. Is it inappropriate to add a tag because it's unclear which organizations makes the claim that "these studies are typically methodologically flawed...etc."? Is it inappropriate to add a "Many" qualifier? Is not "High-quality" is a weasel word? Shouldn't we just be reporting facts? "High-quality" is a judgment on those facts.

Thanks for the help Geremia (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're still giving undue weight to a scientifically discredited position in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, at the same time as you are attempting to discredit or downplay reliable material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please answer my questions one at a time? I'm not sure which edits violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Thanks Geremia (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding disproportionately large amounts of information about a single study from a researcher whose methods have been condemned by several major bodies now, a study that has had no impact on scientific consensus, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help at Tamil Tigress

Hi Roscelese! Things are getting a little heated at Tamil Tigress and its talkpage. Noticed you've had some input in cooling things down there before. I might have inflamed things again, and would most appreciate your thoughts and guidance. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm a little overwhelmed by the very long comments, but I'll see what I can do (in the meantime, I've removed everything which requires immediate removal). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Bye and Thanks

Civility

Just found your ' goodbye , good wishes ' message and it's appreciated. I withdrew from Wiki contributing because I did not want to get involved in the sniping and vitriol I saw (with surprise ) existing in a project I thought was of a more positive spirit. I tried to close my account, but it seems to be a complicated process, so other than this note to you, I will let it become dormant. As to " The European Brigade ", in brief, it was created in November 1861 in New Orleans as a compromise between the need for foreign nationals living in the city to contribute to the new Confederacy's manpower needs..and the neutrality that the various European consulates representing these nationals were ordered by their home governments to maintain between the US and Confederate adversaries. When the Confederate authorities in New Orleans insisted these nationals give military support to the new nation they were now residents of, a compromise was struck that would allow these foreigners to provide a police ( militia ) service to the city rather than be sent as actual Confederate soldiers to the Virginia battlefields. This Brigade was composed into battallions of French, English, Italian, Spanish and various other nationalities under the command of Belgian general Paul Juge. Their value as peacekeepers was most critical during the period from April 24, 1862 to May 1, 1862. On the earlier date, Federal gunboats under Admiral Farragut were able to bypass the two Confederate forts at the mouth of the Mississippi River and make the 5-day ascent up the river to New Orleans. During these 5 days, the city's Confederate land forces withdrew from what would be a useless defense against warship mounted -cannons. Soon panic, uncontrolled fleeing, and lawlessness engulfed the populace. The police actions of the Brigade during these frightening days and nights of looting, burning, revenge-venting, etc. kept a degree of order that was sorely needed. Their value was acknowledged when Federal General Benjamin Butler, in charge of the city's occupation, asked that the Brigade remain intact to serve longer as a police presence until martial law rules could be put in place. The Brigade declined this involvement in further civilian interaction and was disbanded in May, 1862. Two books.."the Night the War Was Lost ", Charles Dufour, 1960... and " Foreigners in the Confederacy ", Ella Lamm, 1940 ... cover the Brigade if you are further interested in the subject. I though since 2011 being the 150th anniverasy of the beginning of the Civil War, this article would be of interest, but I am frankly glad to be uninvolved in this less-than-friendly-to- newbies ( as well as many other contributors ) website. Best Wishes... ByronLeNaj 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have slightly retired

(I was sure I posted this on your page yesterday... must have forgot to save!)
Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Wikipedia, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between you and Haymaker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck in your semi-retirement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc

Hi, feel up to drafting an Rfc? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On what? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unclear. On whom - I was thinking of a user Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what problems you would be seeking to correct? The RfC/U guidelines state that at least two editors must have tried to resolve the same dispute, and I'm not sure that's the case here. If you wanted to go to WQA, I'd comment there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see multiple problems; my main concern is not the etiquette or civility, which I simply ignore - although his stalking of you (and possibly me) is problematic and indicative of a battlefield mentality - my concern is primarily that of POV; IDHT; EW; failure to work with others. I will not participate in any WQA action, as I don't consider that a problem worth addressing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd be able to help with an RfC/U at the moment, as I've known this user for something like two days. I'll keep it in mind, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese made a personal attack on me with an edit summary ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") - which implies that I am "crazy." It was a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and against personal attacks, but she has not been cautioned for it at all. If Roscelese continues this kind of confrontational personal behavior, then we may yet have to start an RfC/U on her. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that would reflect well on you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, why? Because you think that you have the right to violate Wiki policy and make personal attacks against me? Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Because your harassment of me would necessarily come up, and that's rather a graver issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your harassment accusation was, and is, ridiculous. Apparently, you just can't stand it when someone reverts you; too bad, it happens to us all at times. You were edit warring at the article and your "hounding" argument is just an excuse for your bad behavior. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you don't take Wikipedia's policies against harassment seriously. That's unlikely to work out well for you in the long run, so I'd advise you to begin behaving like an upright citizen rather than stalking people you disagree with and attacking them on article talk pages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you continue to falsely accuse me of harassment as a weapon against me. I will be following your edit history carefully from now on, and if I find you edit warring, or making other kinds of destructive edits, rest assured, I will revert you. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict in sports

Ok, I don't know who you think you are, but I have been working 3 days on the list, and I don't know what re the hidden motives you have, but I will fight you on this, and WILL REPORT ON YOU if you delete any of the items with the official references again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123o (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're a new user, so you may not yet be aware of Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. These policies mean that all material, and particularly contentious material about living persons, must be cited to reliable sources. How about giving these policies a read? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dvorak American quartet

Thanks, much better. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)