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.

You've got mail!

Hello, Roscelese. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:32, 27 September 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.

Thats not a personal attack

Saying I do not encourage nor dicourage is not a personal attack, but rather me saying that it has nothing to do with my defense of the articles, and yes, my stance was in defense of the articles on Islamic and LGBT subject, I appologize if I offended you, I will try and keep from disclosing any opinions in the future. I thank you for your constructive critisism, please have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here was my defence of the article Muhammad in the Bible.

• Keep I am not a fan of Islam, probobaly neither are the people who nominated this page for deletion, but thats not a reason to delete, This artical desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. This isn't well sourced with internet references, but that is because because the quran is most likely there source, It is a notable subject in the Middle East and North Africa, salvage what can be proven, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

What I ment by That statment was I am not pro nor anti islam, the person who nominated the article for deletion was prejudiced about the religion denying its place on wikipedia, the article could be rewritten and improved, it only lacks internet sources because they have a one up the Koran a direct source, Notable subject, keep what can be backed up by evidence, what is wrong with all that?– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm glad that you're not letting your biases so rule you that you vote in AfDs based solely on them (though that doesn't seem to be the case here), which is why the votes are not the issue here. What are your comments about how you and other users don't like Islam and how LGBT people shouldn't flaunt their sexual orientation (by, you know, dating or talking about people they find attractive, like heterosexuals do?) adding to the discussion? What do they do other than create an unwelcome environment for editors belonging to the groups in question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I'm sorry about my vote on the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, its just I have many jewish relatives, my grandmothers always talking of how we should never forget the holocaust, and to see a name like that. I was pedjudiced on it, I will restate my, and my statments hould not be based on anger, so I will strike my statment, and say what matters, that the organization is notable, and has adequate references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, my relatives are the same way (grandfather was in concentration camps, enormous extended family in Poland nearly all killed), but anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism aren't the same - there is certainly overlap, but this doesn't seem to be an instance of such. I hope my comment was helpful, and I appreciate that you re-thought yours. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten my statment on Muhammad in the Bible

Here is my rewrite, that has now taken the place of my old statement, I hope that it sounds less opinionated, and more of a defence.

• Keep I have no affiliation with islam, I am saying that to clarify it is not my reasoning for defending this article. I know at least 450 million people who would find this topic useful. I will admit This article desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. The only reason this isn't well sourced with internet references is because because the Koran (a source more accurate than any website could possibly provide) is most likely there source. This is an extreemly notable subject not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but for muslims around the world, this is deffinatly salvagible, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your rewriting. :) [As a side note, we wouldn't be able to use the Koran as our main or only source - we would need secondary sources that interpret it - but I think that all together we seem to have found some good references that do interpret those Koran verses.] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play

Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium

Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Operas based on Shakespeare

Category:Operas based on Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Another don't-have-to-answer question

What are your thoughts on the rampant anti-Semitism from occupy Wall Street? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly that you're begging the question! (According to the actual meaning of "begging the question," not what everyone thinks it means.) Next time, try not to do that.

Secondly, that there's absolutely no evidence that it's a feature of the movement, rather than a couple of kooks who are a. a hell of a lot less mainstream than the right-wing protesters - and politicians - that say murdering six million Jews is only as bad as giving Americans affordable healthcare, and b. in some cases not even part of the movement at all. What there is evidence of is that right-wing groups are taking advantage of it to discredit the movement. Because when you assemble in a public space, you can't kick someone out because you disagree with him. All you can do is condemn him and counterprotest, but when your political opponents have got a video camera and an agenda, they can choose to film the one guy who will make you look bad and not the ten of you who are standing opposite and telling him he's wrong. So obviously I and everyone else condemn said kooks, but it has no bearing on the movement. Or rather, I shouldn't say "everyone else" - I'm sure the Emergency Committee for Israel loves them.

And thirdly, OWS is largely organized and attended by Jews, which is completely unsurprising given centuries of Jewish anti-corporate and other social justice activism. So nice try, but no. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like there's been a strong push in right-wing media to link Occupy Wall Street to anti-Semitism, but it doesn't seem to be taking (not for lack of effort). Has anyone outside the partisan right-wing media expressed serious concerns about this? The reputable non-partisan media seem to be treating this rather skeptically, as more of a political ploy than a serious issue (e.g. Reuters). Even the Anti-Defamation League, which expressed concern about individuals at the protests carrying anti-Semitic signs, was careful to note that "there is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants."

Can I ask a counter-question? Why is the right so utterly terrified by Occupy Wall Street? The attempts to discredit the protests seem to get more transparently desperate by the day. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that was addressed to me as a political watcher or to NYY as a right-winger, but in my perhaps-not-very-well-informed opinion (ie. because my interest in politics is comparatively recent, so I don't know what the response to the last round of anti-war protests or to the WTO protests was like) - my guess, however, would be that the lack at this point of specific leaders or goals that can be targeted means that we get generalized hysteria and mud-flinging instead, and perhaps that the protesters' lack of adherence to the party system, by and large, is troubling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the better question would be what are your thoughts on the anti-Semitism at OWS in comparison to the tea party. One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties. And there are a lot more than one. I just asked the question because you aren't a fan of the tea party and seem to be a fan of OWS. Perhaps it's a loaded question, but I thought you'd like to discuss it.

In response to your question, MastCell, the right isn't terrified but angered by OWS, or more accurately the reception of it. The media used one instance of a racial slur, one instance of a man carrying a gun, and one unconfirmed and highly disputed instance of another racial slur to paint the tea party as racist, violent, crazy, hateful, etc. Yet there are numerous cases of anti-Semitism, violence against business owners on Wall Street, and even riots for OWS, yet the media refuses to report on it and instead they embrace it. So the right is not afraid but indignant at the treatment of OWS in comparison to the tea party. You can dispute whether these cases are inseparable from OWS, but you can't deny that the treatment of each has been unfair. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties." Very funny. Even if you do, as you seem to be saying, believe that murdering six million Jews isn't all that bad and thus that Tea Party protesters who say so are not antisemitic, it's kind of difficult to ignore a party leader calling for the replacement of the Speaker of the Texas House because he is Jewish, among other examples that it would be easy to list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"One instance of anti-Semitism at OWS is more than at any tea parties." I laughed. You're going to get nutters at any big rally, it's simply a fact of life. Here are a few examples: [1], [2], [3]. Painting any group with a broad brush like that is foolish. NW (Talk) 18:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you want to compare media coverage, you have to start by acknowledging that the Tea Party has had explicit, unyielding, vocal backing from the country's major cable news network since the movement's inception. Maybe we're reading different coverage of OWS; the stuff I've read describes confrontations with police, arrests, protesters who look ridiculous and can't string together a coherent sentence much less articulate their grievances, declining sanitary conditions, along with various other angles. It seems to be warts-and-all. Anyhow, I'll be in Manhattan in a week or two, so I'll bring back some fair-and-balanced personal reportage. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to Ros, but any anti-Semitism or racism at tea parties is from isolated incidents. At OWS it is not. You're right that you can't avoid them, NW, but in proportion to the general population there is much more anti-Semitism at OWS than there should be. And MastCell, you're right the tea party has gotten vocal support from Fox News's opinion hosts, not the journalists. Looking forward to your reportage!!! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And you presumably know this because you've been to a large number of OWS events, is that right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that Fox's separation of opinion from news is not universally perceived as successful. :P You know, like when a news executive instructs his news department to "be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress." And then, that night, Fox's news department reports that there are "some reports of [insurgents] cheering in the streets" at the 2006 Congressional election results ([4]).

Or maybe when Carl Cameron, a newsman, fabricates quotes attributed to John Kerry to play up his supposed lack of manliness ([5]). Or maybe it's the steady stream of Fox's news employees explaining how the news division fixes its coverage around a political ideology set out in a daily memo ([6]). Or the effect of reading those memos from the head of the news division, or those in which the VP of news instructs his on-air journalists to use focus-group-tested Republican phraseology whenever possible ([7], [8]).

Or when their news division can't seem to stop overrepresenting turnout at conservative gatherings ([9]), nor tell the difference between various African-American politicians ([10]), or seem to consistently mislabel Republican politicians as Democrats once they're caught up in a scandal ([11])... but then again, maybe I'm just being cynical. Maybe they do have a firewall between their news and opinion operations. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pwned. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll remind you that Shepard Smith is the face of Fox's news operation and he is not popular with conservatives [12] and probably a liberal. Is the liberal media much better? Regardless of whether there is a conscious conspiracy at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. as you allege there is at Fox, any bias passed off by Fox's news hosts doesn't hold a candle to that of liberal outlets. For example, compare Carl Cameron, a reporter, to Dan Rather, an anchor. I wish we had some outlet that was fair. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The biggest difference between FoxNews and, say, the New York Times is that the Times corrects its errors. If the Times makes a factual error, it publishes a correction. If FoxNews makes a factual error, nine times out of ten they don't even acknowledge it, and in the tenth instance they make a brief excuse and then reiterate their talking points. Others have made this point more eloquently than I; for example, see Friedersdorf 2011: "Fox personalities are willing to participate in arguments about its fairness relative to other media sources. But Fox is unwilling to defend its content against the objective standard of accuracy."

Think about Dan Rather, since you brought it up. Look at the response to "Memogate". CBS appointed an independent panel - chaired by Dick Thornburgh, a Republican - to review their handling of the case. They formally retracted the story. Heads rolled - they fired the producer of the segment, a number of other executives, and, ultimately, Rather himself. Can any serious person imagine FoxNews showing even 1% of that degree of accountability or commitment to accuracy? And Rather's sin was a failure of due diligence. Can you imagine if he had actually fabricated quotes himself with the intent of making Bush look foolish, as Cameron did to Kerry? Did Cameron face any discipline for this breach, which was in fact rather more serious from an ethical standpoint that Rather's? MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Peoples Movement Assembly

Hello Roscelese, would you be interested in revisiting the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article, as it has been further edited and there has been further discussion regarding some of the comments that you wrote? Specifically, the importance of explaining specific meetings has been explained (this gives particular insight into the ways in which the methodology of the "Peoples Movement Assembly" has been enacted). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septima2011 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the article and the discussion, and while I appreciate your effort, notability has not been demonstrated. You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, not reliable sources that give it a passing mention or sources that are affiliated with the movement or otherwise non-reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Roscelese. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed, after which {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close were created. There is a discussion regarding non-admin closures of non-AfDs at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Roscelese! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Hampshire

What is wrong with the sources. I will give you a million sources. The New Hampshire Republicans will attempt to ban Same-Sex Marriage in early 2012. They have at least 50% of the votes, but they could need 2/3 because they would need to override the Governor who will never sign such a bill. It has a great chance of passage considering over 70% of both chambers is controlled by Republicans. Civil Unions would then become legal in the state of New Hampshire. Any Same-Sex Marriage would be void. I don't know how that could be anymore clear. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Telling people they can just Google for sources is not acceptable - you have to cite reliable sources yourself, and the "New Hampshire Liberty Alliance" is not one. It is your job, as the person adding the material, to find reliable sources. In the time you've spent reverting me, you could easily have done this Google search you speak of and added a real source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You want several sources. I will give them to you.

Now leave the article alone. I shouldn't have to prove myself to you. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Except for the second, these sources don't support the statement you're adding, so no luck there. But in any case, if you manage to find reliable sources (since you say it's so easy), you shouldn't be showing them to me, you should be adding them to the article. You could also cut it out with this nonsense about proving yourself to me and asking me to leave the article alone. Instead of whining, follow Wikipedia policies about reliable sourcing. You're answerable to everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you would have left the article alone. We would not be having this problem. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should I have done so? What a ridiculous suggestion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the free world/ Free world.

You were right about your mention of the article Free World and its content. it is terribly written. The article Leader of the free world has been merged to it as we feared. As you said, it would only delay the inevitable. I have nominated the Free world for deletion as clearly we can see it has totally exaggerated claims and superfluous arguments. Please help with the discussion. Thanks Roscelese!!! DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You know better than to post obvious uncivil attacks: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming." – Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You have been mentioned here.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for wrong edit summaries

Roscelese, I am sorry but I was not referring to you when I wrote the edit summaries at Reproductive Health Bill. I realized that you deleted the portions based on SYNTH only after I wrote my edit summaries. So I tried to improve the citations to abide by the policies which you cited.Neutr8 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but I don't see how you can claim to have improved the citations. You literally just restored the same synthy references. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The only one that broke the synth rule is that part of the article that cited aguirre's primer but this did not contain all the data that was afterwards cited. So I replaced aguirre with nidoy's science facts document which contains all the data.

The other para I restored is not a synth but a summary paragraph of previous discussion, plus the idea of deception which is common in Philippine discussion. Just google "reproductive health bill deception deceive" and you will find them. Neutr8 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You cannot add a paragraph saying "Opponents said X because Clinton said Y" and just cite Clinton saying Y, or say "Opponents said A because science says B" and just cite science saying B (particularly if that doesn't represent scientific consensus, but that's a wholly different kettle of fish). You also cannot tell people "just Google it." Cite your sources; it's your job, not anyone else's. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Found two citations and placed them in. Neutr8 (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life/Pro-choice

Does this satisfy your concerns? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll tweak it a bit for further conformity, but more or less yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict in sports

See my comment at RFPP. If the problem is emanating from just one person they should be reasoned with or blocked. Admins will be more likely to take action if you are specific on the article talk page about the items you are concerned about. That way the this editor will have a chance to fix whatever the problem is. The user's talk page has no comments from you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've described the problem on the article talk page, but I'll leave a note at their user talk page too. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to a specific athlete who you think was wrongly included in the list, and link to the source which you think does not establish the point? EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (2nd nomination) should be speedily closed

It was perfectly appropriate to renominate it. Did you even bother to read my rationale? For starters, the guideline you cite applies almost exclusively to articles where the outcome was "keep". It is perfectly acceptable to renominate something that is closed as no consensus; loads of AFDs with no consensus are just automatically relisted for another week. In fact, a close read of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED would note that your Speedy Keep looks surprisingly like the "Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again" that is suggested be avoided in the guideline you cite. This would suggest that it is you who is violating said guideline. Furthermore, most of the reason that the 1st nomination was closed was on procedural grounds that requested that Ashland be decoupled from Eugene, which was also nominated in the first AFD. So this is really a much different AFD than previously. And finally, I left a note to the original closer asking if what I did was right, and he hasn't said that it was wrong yet (though since he responded to the comment below mine I am pretty sure he read it) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-muslim vs Anti-Islam

Since it's basically the same thing, why not change the category's name from one to the other? Or put it all under Islamophobia. G'day --78.53.37.169 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)