![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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 (TALK) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you may be engaged in an
edit war. The
three-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 for
edit 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
I, Kaldari, hereby award Roscelese the Barnstar of Diligence for tirelessly protecting Wikipedia from the endless onslaught of agendas. Kaldari ( talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
Does this [1] 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)
Huh? Was that the famous ANI bug ? Bishonen | talk 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
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)
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)
Read Wikipedia:Civility. Also Wikipedia: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)
Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 00:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 • ( Otters want attention) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain your "known for making things up" statement? NYyankees51 ( talk) 02:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Joe407 ( talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
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 July 12, 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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
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)
This is rather funny. [2] 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)
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)
BLP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, you know. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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".
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)
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)
Comment Miradre was warned about harrassing Itsmejudith and me by Atama. I expect that if Miradre repeated claims of being harrassed on a noticeboard, the result per WP:BOOMERANG would be an indefinite community ban. The circumstances in which Miradre started editing wikipedia, concentrating solely on topics related to WP:ARBR&I following the topic ban of two users, have always pointed to meatpuppetry. Miradre's edits in that area resulted in (a) an ArbCom motion modifying the terms of WP:ARBR&I (b) the current ban of three months from topics connected with WP:ARBR&I (as modified by that motion). There have been continuing problems with Miradre's edits since the topic ban was imposed. Mathsci ( talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 July 12, 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)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese,
In the recent spate of AfD debates about several books critical of Islam, you said that the writings of Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer "inspired" the recent terrorism in Norway. I am uncomfortable with that description. When a murderous fanatic goes on for some 1500 pages rationalizing his planned violence, I think we should be very careful with language that may assign even a tiny part of the blame to those who simply exercised free speech. Let me be clear that I disagree with these writers. But they didn't call for violence against innocents. Perhaps they influenced the killer's world view, but they shouldn't be accused of inspiring terrorism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
no problem with that, he needs to provide more (trusted sources) as much as he could, specially when the article is talking about real person! That's all.. Have a good day my friend. Sean ( Ask Me?) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the greeting. I got sucked into an abortion related dispute via RfC and that is probably where you first saw me and then I just started editing pages at random. Metal lunchbox ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the steer you've given on the talk page. I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to adding sound clips. If I get into a tangle might you be able to come to my rescue? Best wishes. Tim riley ( talk) 11:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not put the heading on Category:Native American military personnel indicating it was limited to those who served in the US military. That heading has been on the category since it was created in 2007. I would appreciate it if you did not falsely accuse me of acting unilaterally when I have merely acted to make a category agree with its previously stated inclusion rules. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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. NYyankees51 ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
20:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
NYyankees51 ( talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I try to fix things, especially when I see that someone enters content not supported by sources. But most of my work is on sr wikipedia. All the best :)-- В и к и в и н д T a L k 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Haymaker ( talk) 20:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
A report which concerns you has been filed at WP:AN/EW. - Haymaker ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, 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. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
Hello Roscelese,
I see that you've been subjected to a barrage of criticism lately that has escalated to what reasonable people might well call "outing" in Wikipedia terms. I've said it before, and I will probably say it again in the future: I appreciate the work you do to improve this encyclopedia and to enforce and defend its policies. Keep your chin up and I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Conservative_Targeting_against_Progressive_Topics 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—
Thanks, Flowingfire ( talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Right.. I guess you didn't see my footnote. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
Hi Roscelese. I have created a summary of the discussion in a follow-up section, linked above. If you thing the summary is wrong, please comment in the previous section. Then I will update the smmary. I don't want the summary section to include back-and-forth comments by you and me. Regards, Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I will preface this by saying I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF and I am not trying to make an equivalence argument. In the discussion on the redirect page for [[Charmaine Yoest], you pointed out that there was a WaPo profile on Marjorie Dannefelser as an example of an article of the type you weren't seeing for Yoest. I just wanted to let you know that the August 15, 2011 edition of the Christian Science Monitor featured a cover story that is a profile [1] of Yoest. I would humbly ask for your opinion of whether notability is met now? Perhaps if I fleshed out the biographical data a bit more it might help as well. Thank you.
Thank you very much for accepting my apologies.
We still have very different POVs and we are likely to debate,
but hopefully I will be more helpful, collaborative and less thin-skinned.
Regards,
Jorge Peixoto (
talk)
20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip on the article I am in the slow ( busy ) process of creating. I fully appreciate the need to adhere to Wikipedia's article format and references policies . I did include at the end of the portion of the article created so far a note indicating that I would cite valid references as I learn more about Wikipedia from an on-the-job training process that I am more comfortable with. I believe the "narrative " appearance of this article will b less as references and links are used. By the way ... I am a gay male and am also currently writing a Wikipedia article on an unusual serial killer known as The French Quarter Stabber ...unusual in that he was a teenager ( 16 ), black, a male hustler lving with a transexual and whose sexual-identity conflict led him to kill four gay men over a two month period in New Orleans' French Quarter. I have noted that newspaper reports and newspaper photos from the time will be cited and reference. If you find this work in progress of interest, use of "advanced search" on Google will provide some limited information on the subject as it was not well covered beyond the local newspapers. Byron LeNajByronLeNaj 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByLeNaj ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
Thank you Trophy |
Please see my response on your talkback page. I appreciate your time and comments . ByronLeNaj 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women's suffrage - Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Women's suffrage - Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!
Regards,
Jorge Peixoto (
talk)
00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
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 [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS / 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Roscelene hereyou've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts.
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)