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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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
TParis (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.
A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".
LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.
can you please provide specific reasons why you redirected this page on article talk page Sehmeet singh Talk 07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit clearly contravenes the interaction ban between you and Haymaker. Any further violation will result in a short block, per the wording. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rose, I have reviewed your nomination of The Problem We All Live With at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With and there are a couple of concerns I have with the nomination. Could you please see my comments on the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy notice, I have removed the Prod from List of killings of Muhammad. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. You're welcome to take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is sufficient. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I think you're in violation of 1RR at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. NYyankees51 ( talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ros, you know better than to do this edit summary. If I did something like that you'd be all over me. NYyankees51 ( talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south.... .. eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering how many editors have filed complaints about you I was surprised to see this. – Lionel ( talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that you removed some of the ext links to pro-life and pre-choice advocacy groups from the Abortion in New Zealand article. It made me think (ouch!). Such links are common on WP. Not sure what policy is about it but considering that we have complete articles on such groups the links may be ok. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
To answer your edit summary question, it was an error on my part. I meant to remove only the other part - I must've thought I was just removing the intro sentence to the block quote. Glad you caught it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
On 4 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Problem We All Live With, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Norman Rockwell's The Problem We All Live With could not be displayed in a public area of the White House because of the racial slur painted behind Ruby Bridges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With.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. |
Orlady ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's the article about the notable person now. Well done! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
For the love of God can you please stop paraphrasing what I have said or done to suit your reason for reverting. Then accusing me of being disingenuous (big word - know what it means?) DMSBel ( talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese. I am trying to figure out what parts of my edits are inappropriate.
Thanks for the help Geremia ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese! Things are getting a little heated at Tamil Tigress and its talkpage. Noticed you've had some input in cooling things down there before. I might have inflamed things again, and would most appreciate your thoughts and guidance. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
...nominated CitizenLink (Formerly Focus on the Family Action) for AfD instead of blanking it? NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
(I was sure I posted this on your page yesterday... must have forgot to save!)
Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Wikipedia, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between you and Haymaker.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, feel up to drafting an Rfc? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese made a personal attack on me with an edit summary ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") - which implies that I am "crazy." It was a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and against personal attacks, but she has not been cautioned for it at all. If Roscelese continues this kind of confrontational personal behavior, then we may yet have to start an RfC/U on her. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know who you think you are, but I have been working 3 days on the list, and I don't know what re the hidden motives you have, but I will fight you on this, and WILL REPORT ON YOU if you delete any of the items with the official references again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123o ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You recently voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga AfD. Since your vote, considerable changes have been made to the article and I request that you examine them and alter your vote accordingly, if necessary. Thank you. Silver seren C 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese … to answer the question you posed at WP:AfD, one cannot simply revert/restore a {{ PROD}}, even if it is dePRODed by the author … that is why I created {{ Old prod full}} (please read the documentation for it) because a previous PROD can often be hard to locate just from the edit history … if it is contested, then AfD is the only available option for deletion of an article. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please respect this: "This is still preferably addressed by user talk notification that they please talk on the article talk rather than further revert." as found at the bottom of the "closed" ANI discussion. Noloop ( talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you mentioned the incident on your userpage. As for outing, it appeared to me that you outed yourself multiple times during that incident. And yes, I was annoyed at you because you made an improper accusation of canvassing against me. In any case, if you're sensitive about that link, I'm happy to see what I can do about removing or hiding the revisions on my talk page that reveal it. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 13:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I have stepped in something..... I was sent a private, canvassing email trying to foment opposition to Roscelese and that also mentions Amatulic. Since you are both participating in this thread, and the thread is about canvassing, I'll leave a note and a link here. [1]. Noloop ( talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese! I do not in any way object the fact that you have reported the article Fatima de Madrid for deletion, nor your reasons for doing so. You are fully entitled to do so. I do, however, object to the accusation that I have intentionally created a hoax article. To me, this is an insult. And may I say that it is hardly constructive to ignore my arguments in the discussion in the way that you do. I would strongly suggest that you report me to Wikipedia for investigation, so that it may be determined whether I have indeed created the article as a hoax or not. I suggest that you moderate your tone to a less arrogant one. Regards -- Aciram ( talk) 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. While it notes that two robberies in which the perpetrators signed their letters "Army of God - Virginia Dare Cell" as acts of domestic terrorism. It does not state that the FBI has designated the organization as terrorist. What I would prefer is something along the lines of this in which it is listed. Truthsort ( talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You smartened up a DYK hook of mine before today, so I want to throw another one at you: Template:Did you know nominations/San Francisco Sentinel. Can my hook be livelier? Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
Please click
HERE to take part. 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) |
What are your thoughts on the rampant anti-Semitism from occupy Wall Street? NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Or maybe when Carl Cameron, a newsman, fabricates quotes attributed to John Kerry to play up his supposed lack of manliness ( [6]). 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 ( [7]). 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 ( [8], [9]).
Or when their news division can't seem to stop overrepresenting turnout at conservative gatherings ( [10]), nor tell the difference between various African-American politicians ( [11]), or seem to consistently mislabel Republican politicians as Democrats once they're caught up in a scandal ( [12])... 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)
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)
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)
You want several sources. I will give them to you.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Now leave the article alone. I shouldn't have to prove myself to you. Samesexmarriage101 ( talk) 15:39, 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)
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)
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)
You have been mentioned here.– Lionel ( talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this satisfy your concerns? NYyankees51 ( talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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
TParis (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.
A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".
LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.
can you please provide specific reasons why you redirected this page on article talk page Sehmeet singh Talk 07:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit clearly contravenes the interaction ban between you and Haymaker. Any further violation will result in a short block, per the wording. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rose, I have reviewed your nomination of The Problem We All Live With at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With and there are a couple of concerns I have with the nomination. Could you please see my comments on the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy notice, I have removed the Prod from List of killings of Muhammad. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. You're welcome to take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is sufficient. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I think you're in violation of 1RR at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. NYyankees51 ( talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ros, you know better than to do this edit summary. If I did something like that you'd be all over me. NYyankees51 ( talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south.... .. eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering how many editors have filed complaints about you I was surprised to see this. – Lionel ( talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that you removed some of the ext links to pro-life and pre-choice advocacy groups from the Abortion in New Zealand article. It made me think (ouch!). Such links are common on WP. Not sure what policy is about it but considering that we have complete articles on such groups the links may be ok. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
To answer your edit summary question, it was an error on my part. I meant to remove only the other part - I must've thought I was just removing the intro sentence to the block quote. Glad you caught it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
On 4 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Problem We All Live With, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Norman Rockwell's The Problem We All Live With could not be displayed in a public area of the White House because of the racial slur painted behind Ruby Bridges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem We All Live With.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. |
Orlady ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's the article about the notable person now. Well done! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
For the love of God can you please stop paraphrasing what I have said or done to suit your reason for reverting. Then accusing me of being disingenuous (big word - know what it means?) DMSBel ( talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese. I am trying to figure out what parts of my edits are inappropriate.
Thanks for the help Geremia ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese! Things are getting a little heated at Tamil Tigress and its talkpage. Noticed you've had some input in cooling things down there before. I might have inflamed things again, and would most appreciate your thoughts and guidance. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
...nominated CitizenLink (Formerly Focus on the Family Action) for AfD instead of blanking it? NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
(I was sure I posted this on your page yesterday... must have forgot to save!)
Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Wikipedia, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between you and Haymaker.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, feel up to drafting an Rfc? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese made a personal attack on me with an edit summary ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") - which implies that I am "crazy." It was a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and against personal attacks, but she has not been cautioned for it at all. If Roscelese continues this kind of confrontational personal behavior, then we may yet have to start an RfC/U on her. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know who you think you are, but I have been working 3 days on the list, and I don't know what re the hidden motives you have, but I will fight you on this, and WILL REPORT ON YOU if you delete any of the items with the official references again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123o ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You recently voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga AfD. Since your vote, considerable changes have been made to the article and I request that you examine them and alter your vote accordingly, if necessary. Thank you. Silver seren C 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese … to answer the question you posed at WP:AfD, one cannot simply revert/restore a {{ PROD}}, even if it is dePRODed by the author … that is why I created {{ Old prod full}} (please read the documentation for it) because a previous PROD can often be hard to locate just from the edit history … if it is contested, then AfD is the only available option for deletion of an article. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please respect this: "This is still preferably addressed by user talk notification that they please talk on the article talk rather than further revert." as found at the bottom of the "closed" ANI discussion. Noloop ( talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you mentioned the incident on your userpage. As for outing, it appeared to me that you outed yourself multiple times during that incident. And yes, I was annoyed at you because you made an improper accusation of canvassing against me. In any case, if you're sensitive about that link, I'm happy to see what I can do about removing or hiding the revisions on my talk page that reveal it. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 13:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I have stepped in something..... I was sent a private, canvassing email trying to foment opposition to Roscelese and that also mentions Amatulic. Since you are both participating in this thread, and the thread is about canvassing, I'll leave a note and a link here. [1]. Noloop ( talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese! I do not in any way object the fact that you have reported the article Fatima de Madrid for deletion, nor your reasons for doing so. You are fully entitled to do so. I do, however, object to the accusation that I have intentionally created a hoax article. To me, this is an insult. And may I say that it is hardly constructive to ignore my arguments in the discussion in the way that you do. I would strongly suggest that you report me to Wikipedia for investigation, so that it may be determined whether I have indeed created the article as a hoax or not. I suggest that you moderate your tone to a less arrogant one. Regards -- Aciram ( talk) 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. While it notes that two robberies in which the perpetrators signed their letters "Army of God - Virginia Dare Cell" as acts of domestic terrorism. It does not state that the FBI has designated the organization as terrorist. What I would prefer is something along the lines of this in which it is listed. Truthsort ( talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You smartened up a DYK hook of mine before today, so I want to throw another one at you: Template:Did you know nominations/San Francisco Sentinel. Can my hook be livelier? Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
Please click
HERE to take part. 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) |
What are your thoughts on the rampant anti-Semitism from occupy Wall Street? NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Or maybe when Carl Cameron, a newsman, fabricates quotes attributed to John Kerry to play up his supposed lack of manliness ( [6]). 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 ( [7]). 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 ( [8], [9]).
Or when their news division can't seem to stop overrepresenting turnout at conservative gatherings ( [10]), nor tell the difference between various African-American politicians ( [11]), or seem to consistently mislabel Republican politicians as Democrats once they're caught up in a scandal ( [12])... 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)
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)
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)
You want several sources. I will give them to you.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Now leave the article alone. I shouldn't have to prove myself to you. Samesexmarriage101 ( talk) 15:39, 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)
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)
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)
You have been mentioned here.– Lionel ( talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this satisfy your concerns? NYyankees51 ( talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
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)