Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:26, 3 August 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Talkback

04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Karen Armstrong

Do an edit like this again on Armstrong's page and make another ad hominem attack on me to go with it and you can find yourself reported to AN/I.Sleetman (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, I've raised the issue of the legitimacy of edits to Armstrong's page here. You're welcomed to join the discussion (if you wish to do so).Sleetman (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read Ad hominem. You may find it enlightening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is probably a little closer to an ad hom. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really an ad hominem either, though it's certainly rude. To provide an editing-related example (because the examples in the article are fine, but not about editing), "Your edit is wrong and you're a n00b" is rude, but "Your edit is wrong because you're a n00b" is ad hominem. The characteristic of ad hominem is that it attacks an argument based not on its merits but on the person making it. The More You Know! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but doesn't the statement "your views are unimportant" imply that they're unimportant because you are ? Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. Perhaps I have an overly formal view of the fallacy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All I can see is Sleetman being unreasonable and rude. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ad hominem" Ah yes, Remember it well from Latin Class "against the man" one of the rare uses of the Latin adverb "ad" to mean "against" as it usually means towards (directionally) as in "ad nauseam!" Roscelese - At least YOU are ONE person who can express herself perfectly in the Lingua Franca of the English-speaking people - English! SimonATL (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Wiegand Article

OK - so where are we on this article? I have added additional information to the article, expanded external links into the article as well as links out of the article. I do NOT work for the guy but I have seen him, myself, and he does an excellent job and has portrayed TR in all 50 states. He's also, as you know, portrayed TR at the White House and commercials and has been widely recieved everywhere. Q

Question. So HOW is this guy insignificant or why are you still proposing the article be deleted? What else do you need to remove the "candidate for deletion" tag. What are your primary remaining objections. How many people do YOU know who have portrayed one of the top 5 US presidents in all 50 States and the White House. How is THAT track-record insignificant or unexceptional to you? Do you have something against Theodore Roosevelt, the White House, Bush II (I'm NO fan of his, believe me - astonishingly incompetent). Please let me know your remaining issues/questions. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's wonderful that you're so enthusiastic about him, and I agree that he sounds like he'd be interesting to watch. However, in order to have an article on Misplaced Pages, a person generally needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If you wish to object to the deletion nomination, you can vote here. Please bear in mind that, unlike a proposed deletion where an objection by any user can halt the deletion, the article may still be deleted even if you vote to keep it unless better sources are added. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I put these comments on the wrong page as you pointed out. I can see from your user page that people like George W. Bush (whom I think was the least qualified person for the Presidency in the 20th Century) and the proverbial quintessence of macho jingoism, Theodore Roosevelt would have little appeal to you. I personally admire about TR is NOT all that Macho BS (it was par for the times and he was NOT all "hot air" (wading into the middle of a pack of hunting dogs and stabbing a mountain lion thru the heart to keep the dogs from tearing the mountain lion to pieces is not some mere hot air excercise) BUT - for the fact that he was prepared for the job. Why this seeming war on Wiegand and, perhaps, by extension, TR? I do not work for Wiegand nor am I affiliated with him, but I have seen him and he does TR very well and he's portrayed TR in all 50 states. Compared to tens of thousands of totally un-sourced and outright factually incorrect articles on Misplaced Pages, this article on Wiegand covers the the subject material. I've been on Misplaced Pages for years, myself, we both know one can use Misplaced Pages to make war on any article or editor a person pleases. These "wars" can be direct or indirect or can be wars of attrition, too. I do not want disputes on the Wiegand article to escalate. I think we've pretty much put to rest the "non-notable" candidate for deletion topic. Come on, this guys notable by wikipedia standards and there are 3rd party news papers that discuss him. When that "not notable" tag was challenged, why would you feel compelled to resort to additional tags - primary sources, etc. Can't we keep things on the up-and-up. Perhaps you don't "like" TR or this Wiegand character or anything that they represent - fine. This is also not 1904 either and thankfully, the World has turned. The era of "only" so-called "strong men" and "weak compliant women" has ended. My daughter is 18 times undefeated in Tae-kwon-doh, in WA and OR state, 2d in the State of WA in women's wrestling and wants to go to the US Naval Academy and become a fighter pilot. She's a perfect e example of how doors have opened up and a woman can be whatsoever she strives to be. Yes, the world has changed but TR remains a product of his era and Wiegand portrays that man and his era very well and a Misplaced Pages article on him is totaly appropriate. Your thoughts - here or elsewhere? I've opened this up on the Wiegand article discussion page, also. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, okay, cool story bro, it's great to see women doing martial arts (I have a purple belt in jujitsu myself)...anyway, I've got no particular beef with Teddy Roosevelt, and I'm not sure why that of all things is the explanation anyone would leap to. (Racism/jingoism a bad thing, but trustbusting a good thing - like many admired historical figures, he wasn't a saint, but nor was he a devil.) Thanks for your efforts to remove more padding from the Wiegand article. What would also be good would be to begin integrating the newly found references (the ones mentioned at AfD) into the article, since, as I said, it still has only a) coverage of his performance at the WH and b) self-published and otherwise non-independent promotional material. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove as much padding as possible. There's just way too much on a re-read. Good suggestion about incorporating more of the 3rd party materials. My time is very limited right now, but I'll get at it ASAP. TR WAS a product of his times, to be sure, an amazing bundle of contradictions, trust-busting Republican! The guy is proof, for me, at least, that the Party of Lincoln did NOT have to descend into the Right Wing "stand-pat" reactionary ultra-conservative thing it morphed into. The Party was NOT founded as the "Conservative Party" but as an anti-slavery party uniting Whigs and Democrats and signaling the end of the Whig era. Anyways, I'll get on with the Wiegand thing as time allows. Please consider removing the "not significant" flag because I think we've pretty much established that. Check out a video on him some time - the guys really amazing. Maybe he's beginning to "think" he's TR! Haha. By the way, I'm a member and a trustee of the Theodore Roosevelt Association and sure enough, we have members who were named by their own parents after TR, such as Theodore "Ted" Roosevelt Kramer, a retired Navy Pilot, and a couple others like that. Too weird! Finally, there are like 4 people who reprise TR and I've met 3 out of 4 of them. This Wiegand guy, by far, is the best. Clay Jenkinson who's a Rhode's Scholar at Dickinson State and who also reprises Thomas Jefferson and Merriwether Lewis also does TR quite well. He's runner up. SimonATL (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't currently a notability tag on the article. There's a tag requesting more citations in general (because BLP articles need to be very well cited, and this one conversely has very, very few citations) and one requesting more third-party sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Quran miracle

Are you sure this page was deleted via AFD in the past? I can't find any proof of that. JDDJS (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It was titled Quran miracle, see WP:Articles for deletion/Quran miracle. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I see now. JDDJS (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDs

Hi Roscelese, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Misplaced Pages and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the admin or non-admin status of an AfD participant does not matter to me. (Unless by "referee" you mean the person who closes the discussion? I think the non-admin closure process is pretty sound, too.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, the "referee" I mentioned refers to the person who closes the discussion. Intuitively, it seems that admin referee is more persuasive than non-admin. But your point is also worth taking into consideration. Bluesum (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures work because non-admins can't delete anything and are instructed not to close any discussions that don't show a clear consensus. For any contested decisions, there's also the deletion review process. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Roscelese,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 11:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Speedy deletion declined: Quran numeric miracle

Hello Roscelese. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Quran numeric miracle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 is only for an article recreated after being deleted at AfD. This one is now at AfD, but I see no record of any previous AfD or deletion. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossed paths

We seem to have crossed paths with the sock puppet investigations. I opened one with Quran Information (talk · contribs) as the master, as that account was created first. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh. I've never done an SPI before and I just went after the first one I remembered encountering, but I think you're right. *facepalm* If you add to your SPI the users on mine that you're missing, I'll speedy delete mine. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

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

Request reason:

As I explained at the noticeboard, the first revert of which I was accused was not a revert but rather the implementation of a compromise between myself and the user with whom I was disputing, in which we agreed that neither of us would get the version of the text we'd been trying to insert (see User talk:JorgePeixoto#1RR, where JP says "Maybe we should say simply 'ex-priest'."). Blocking a user for trying to resolve a dispute through compromise, instead of just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting again - for discussing the issue with the other user, finding a solution on which we can both agree, and implementing it - sends a poor message about the purpose of 1RR, suggesting that users should simply wait for the time to run out and make their edit again, rather than trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, as I did. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As explained in unblock request, this was not a 1RR violation. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with this block, and am somewhat inclined to grant the unblock request. Even if you call the edit of 0401 UTC a revert, which is rather a tenuous label to apply, the block was still placed 15 hours after the last edit. What, exactly, is being prevented here? Roscelese was reverted again, had plenty of time to continue this edit war, and chose not to do so. I was a lot more inclined to grant this request before seeing the note below, though, where, Roscelese, I agree your conduct was sub-optimal. Courcelles 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an unrelated article, but as I said, I've agreed not to do it again. I'll just stay away from that user's talk page, and hopefully he won't bring his personal opinions to the article talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: If you think I should be blocked for that comment, that's fine, but declining an appeal for an edit-warring block because of civility issues on a totally unrelated article doesn't solve the problem I mentioned in my appeal, viz. that it endorses long-term edit warring and punishes attempts to compromise. If that's how you feel, and if you don't think that my word that I won't make such a comment again is sufficient, unblock me and block me again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As a comparison, take this edit by JorgePeixoto. Is it technically the second removal of the word "rights" in 24 hours? Yes. Would I ever, ever file a 1RR report on it? No, because we discussed the wording in talk and mutually decided that that phrasing was good. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock as well, as this was not a 1RR violation. Courcelles, are you still thinking about this (in which case I'll hold off)? Other issue (below) can be dealt with thru discussion rather than blocks at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• As you explained in your unblock request, this was not a 1RR violation, and I've unblocked. However, the page is certainly being heavily reverted, and it might be wise to voluntarily switch to a 0RR policy for a couple of days and focus more on talk page. However, this is not a condition for the unblock, just a suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

I was just asked to review a recent talk page post of yours. This is highly inappropriate and very immature. Don't do it again. -FASTILY 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well. May I also ask that the user with whom I was speaking be warned against the comments he made in that same discussion? Absurd sexist claims like "women lie all the time about being raped" being treated as acceptable discourse here are not exactly helping Misplaced Pages with its girl problem, and describing another user as having a "closed mind and weak intellect" is obviously a personal attack. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize after making my statement towards you just how rude it was and I apologize that you saw it before I removed it. On the other matter, I don’t apologize for any of my other statements as they were not directed at you specifically and are entirely true by the most objective definition. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they are false and misogynistic. Do not bring them to my talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps disengaging for a while would be helpful for both of you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying. ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. Thethree-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. You are currently in violation of this rule, having made four reverts in under twenty-four hours at Jamie Lee Jones. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked foredit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Hoping To Help (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I share some of your concerns about agenda-driven editing at false accusation of rape, and I agree that comments like this and this are clearly and needlessly inflammatory. That said, I think you should go back to your comment here and strike the first sentence and the later parenthetical. They don't add anything to the conversation, and they obscure whatever valid points you have about the article content. Just my 2 cents. MastCell  20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I, Kaldari, hereby award Roscelese the Barnstar of Diligence for tirelessly protecting Misplaced Pages from the endless onslaught of agendas. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning

Does this mean that individuals (e.g. Salvador Abascal) should be removed from category:antisemitism and its child categories? Wheatsing (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure - the decision say "remove individuals and organizations" but it also said "per BLP" and Abascal is deceased. Perhaps you should ask Timrollpickering, the admin who closed the discussion, to clarify? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing my ANI post

Huh? Was that the famous ANI bug ? Bishonen | talk 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Oh, sorry, that was an accident. Should I put it back, or did you already? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, never mind; it was singularly unimportant. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for what you do

Hello Roscelese, I know that you sometimes edit in highly contentious areas, and I realize that, perhaps, you might occasionally make an error and get blocked. Based on what I've seen of your work, though, I believe that your foremost goal here is the improvement of the encyclopedia. That is also my goal.

So, perhaps, from time to time, we might find ourselves on the opposite side of a deletion debate or some such matter. So be it. Please remember that I respect and appreciate your work here. Thank you for what you do. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I seem to remember your making a similar comment a little while back - you know, I really don't resent people who disagree with me in deletion discussions. :) Thanks for the encouragement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that you would resent it, but sometimes a tiny thing motivates a person to reach out and let someone else know that their work is appreciated. That's all. Cullen328 (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I echo Cullen's sentiment. I think you do a pretty good job around here. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the appreciation, but you really don't have to say this just because you disagreed with me in a deletion discussion! :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as it turns out, you remind me a lot of an old best friend of mine. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

Hey,

FYI, some previous edits you made to Michele Bachmann have become the subject of a conversation here. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being uncivil

Read Misplaced Pages:Civility. Also Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community (look for "abortion"). You have been clearly uncivil; that includes harsh words (such as "lol your source", "don't waste our time" and "n00b"), constant cynicism and assumption of bad faith, pushing political polemics (such as saying that people who disagree with you are part of the "Catholic right" and use "far-right sources"), and deleting large amounts of text without agreement in the talk page, in what seems like an incitement to make the other user violate 1RR. The next such incident will be reported Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very amused that you are linking me to the general sanctions after I've had to make you aware of them three times in an attempt to avoid reporting you. If you aren't aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sources after so long here, there's nothing I can do to help you, and complaining that I don't like your sources because I am biased will not magically make them reliable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You talked about 1RR. Don't change the subject. I am making you aware of the incivility policy, which is specially patrolled on abortion pages.

And can you point me to the Misplaced Pages policy that allows you to push political POV in the sources? That is, you can say "this source is unacceptable because it is far-right". I find it amusing that you even attempt to defend this attitude. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the idea that I'm the one pushing a political POV by adhering to WP:RS and its sub-policy WP:QS. I'm surprised you haven't heard of them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please stop using teenager texting language such as "LOL". Not that it violates any policy, but it is simply ridiculous (I assume you are an adult). Second, it is chutzpah to say that pro-life is extremism. That would classify half the USA as extremists. That would also classify Mother Theresa as extremist. In what sense can you classify the Catholic News Agency as "questionable" then? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you dislike my mode of online writing, you are welcome to stop posting on my talkpage. And yes, I would describe CNA as extremist, but even if you disagree, they still fall under the "promotional" criterion in that guideline, existing as they do to "increase the visibility of the Catholic Church in the public square and help in its mission." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we would have to remove the New York Times, whose executive director describes pro-life people as "zealots", and where one of their editors has said "Anybody who reads The New York Times who doesn’t think the New York Times is pro-choice, they are out of their minds" http://www.getreligion.org/2011/07/the-times-grinds-its-ax/ http://www.usasurvival.org/ck01.20.2010.html http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/1998/sr19980722.asp http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/27/nat-2602/ Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Michele_Bachmann#conversion_therapy

Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"How did that happen"

Sorry, my thumb slipped and hit the mousepad. Thought I undid everything, but I obviously missed some of it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I have the touchpad on my laptop disabled, and use a USB mouse or the eraserhead. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Welfare trap

If you're gonna say there are sources, add them; don't leave them for someone else because "someone else" never comes. I see this all the time in AFDs. WP:SEP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice

Can you please explain your "known for making things up" statement? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Insight on the News, to which most of that paragraph is sourced, has a really poor reputation for factual accuracy, particularly when it conflicts with their political views. See Misplaced Pages's article on them for a few examples. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought you were talking about the Catholic News Agency. As for the talkback templates, please feel free to use them - I tend to forget to check for a response! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only CNA source in that paragraph is reporting the Catholic League's claim that George Soros is funding CFC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, I guess I was too lazy last night to look what the findarticles.com sources were. As I said somewhere else, it was 104 degrees here in the DC area yesterday with a heat index of 121 degrees - I was not in the right state of mind! NYyankees51 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Joe407 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 26, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about accidentally editing your user page! It's 2:00 in the morning here, and I'm well into the drink, so I didn't even notice I wasn't on the talk page. :-O TDiNardo (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Child Dreams (opera)

On 26 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Child Dreams (opera), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that composer Gil Shohat denies that his opera The Child Dreams is about the Holocaust? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Stop this in-line stuff now, please

This can't just be done one a lark because one admin in one comment thinks it is a good idea. It is not your place to color or characterize other editors' comments. If you truly wish to pursue this, then bring it up at some formal, centralized discussion location. You have been reverted twice now. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

People say overturn or endorse based on keep or delete desires!

This is rather funny. Almost everyone in the deletion review was in the AFD, and they just state their same opinions as before. If they agreed with you, endorse their closure, and if not, then overturn it. I hadn't realized it was that bad. Dream Focus 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Hi Roscelese, just letting you know that I mentioned you in my Wikiquette alert of this comment. There's no need for you to get involved (unless you want to), just wanted to let you know that I am not implicating you in any way, I'm just showing what happened. Thanks, NYyankees51 (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hand is hovering over the block button, here...

BLP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, you know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware of that, but it is listed as an exemption from 3RR for the purpose of removal of contentious material with no source, for example any claim about George Soros from an organization that calls him a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" and uses him to feed their fantasies of Jews running the world. Should I self-rv? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:GS#Abortion is the restriction you need to worry about here, not 3RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously (but I sort of assumed that the same exemptions would apply to 1RR as 3RR - is that not the case?) Should I self-rv? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Up to you -- I'm not going to block if you don't. Any more edit warring _anywhere_ today will probably get an immediate block, and I believe your last one was 3 days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was 24 hours - the one you're thinking of was lifted within a little over an hour, since it wasn't actually a violation. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed merge

• Causes of sexual violence (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Motivation for rape (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Miradre (talk · contribs) has merged the above two articles (the latter into the former). She made a posting on Talk:Causes of sexual violence proposing such a merge and directed the discussion on both articles there. After 10 days and no reponses, Miradre closed the discussion herself and made the merge. Motivation for rape was formerly covered by several wikiprojects, but those headers have now been lost. In making the merge Miradre has assumed that "sexual violence" means "rape", even though it has a much broader scope. This does not seem to be the normal way WP:CONSENSUS works. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, okay, I'm not sure why I'm the only one you've approached about this, and the way you phrased your message also creates a WP:CANVASSing issue which could undermine any support you might have got from me. Please consider asking Miradre to undo the merge and seek broader input at the relevant WikiProjects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not edited the article but, noting that you have edited it, was seeking your opinion. Canvassing would involve making a proposal somewhere else and then seeking support. That is not what is happening here. What I note is that the lead of Motivation for rape has been incorporated into the first part of the current lead with "rape" changed to "sexual violence". "Sexual violence" covers far more than "rape". Anyway you have more experience of these articles, which is why I asked you. At the moment it seems as if a huge mess has been created. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a lot of other editors have edited it as well, and done more than I did. Anyway, I've asked Miradre to build consensus by getting editors in from the WikiProjects that handle those articles. Note that I have not looked over the changes made and am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the merge was a good thing or a bad thing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is fair enough. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction restrictions

Please find below the proposed wording of the interaction ban between you and User:Haymaker. I am copying Haymaker and Courcelles for their comments, asking Haymaker for their nomination for an involved administrator. While admitting my own tardiness, I should be grateful for your prompt observations so this can be put in place in short order.

++ Restrictions on interactions between Roscelese (talk · contribs), and Haymaker (talk · contribs) ++
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 and Haymaker, as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages, 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 1 year - 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 - (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.

++

Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a mix between "involved" and "uninvolved" admins above -- is it supposed to be the same all the way through? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it immediately... after I had copied out much the same message to the third individual! Now amended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC) ps. SoV, you win the prize! (You get to stalk my edits for spelling and grammar mistakes - I doubt you will last the month!)

Yeah, I'm slightly puzzled - we may comment on each other on the talk pages of uninvolved administrators, but not on the talk pages of the three-admin moderation team? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I meant to say "involved administrators" in each case - my mistake, since corrected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey Ros, not to put myself where I don't belong, but is it possible that Haymaker is simply using a watchlist and watches all the articles you edit? Considering you and him come from two different viewpoints, it doesn't seem to me like stalking, it seems to me like close watch of a watchlist. The interaction ban seems a bit extreme, but I suppose if you both agree...Just my two cents. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's definitely not what's happening. Check out the report I filed a couple of months back - there is absolutely no reason to assume he would have had most of those watchlisted. Indeed, there were other articles to which he probably also stalked me, but I didn't name any article in my report where he had made the tiniest minor edit before. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a better grip on it than I do. But seeing as myself, you, and him (apologies if that's horrible grammar) edit the same topics/topic areas, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it might just be a watchlist thing. But, I'm not trying to get involved, I was just trying to make sure the interaction ban is not set up under a misunderstanding. With that I'll stay out of it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he has every article in the topic area watchlisted, any more than I do - it's a very large topic area - and a number of the articles in question were also outside it. Thank you for your concern, but this is more than warranted. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 26, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)