Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 8 April 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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

Talkback

I responded to your post on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.34 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthony's views

The reason I did not remake BS24's article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute into one describing more 19th century feminists is that Anthony is the clearest case, the most easily debunked. Stanton and Gage and others are on record about their anti-abortion stance whereas Anthony never said anything concrete. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. "19th-century feminist views on abortion" would be a rather silly article anyway - the important thing is the "dispute," not their views. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-silly article could be Abortion in the 19th century United States, calved off of History of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Talkback

Thanks!

Thanks for your diligent work on so many entries. I'm glad you're participating in WikiProject Women's History. If you have any questions, concerns, or bright ideas about the project, please don't hesitate to contact me on mytalk page. Since you've been active on Misplaced Pages for a long time, I'd be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might recruit more editors and get people excited about contributing. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

request for review

Hi, I'm asking you because, after seeing some of your messages, I believe I can trust you. Would you review an article I wrote, and if appropriate, remove the "unreviewed" template? Thanks! Affirming Pentecostal Church Bill BroWCarey (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll edit it and see if it's better!BroWCarey (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did reword the article, updated a few things. I am working on sources, so I'm not done. But if you get a chance, would you read the article again, and see if it sounds better? Thanks!BroWCarey (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

It is poor form, when an editor criticizes you at the wiktiquette noticeboard, as I just did, to accuse them baselessly of a failure of witiquette. I've of course not made any personal attacks. I think that, as a person, you a fine specimen of humanity. Your edits, however, as I have pointed out, are disruptive and inappropriate. One does not contribute to the project by tag-bombing articles with wholly unfounded tags, as you did, and then doing the same to editors' talk pages. Kindly desist. Please take this as a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, unfounded accusations fall under Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Your repeated claims that I've been tag-bombing are inappropriate, as it's quite plain that I did nothing of the kind. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this "criticism at the Wikiquette noticeboard"; do you feel that it's okay to make personal attacks as long as you do so at WQA? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gendergap

Hi Roscelese, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this mailing list, which all can join -- https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- to discuss women on Misplaced Pages, and how to increase participation. If you already know about it, sorry to bother you, I just wanted to be sure. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you clarify (it's hard to tell from the linked page) - does it only require an e-mail for confirmation, or do messages arrive via e-mail as well? Or is it like The Bugle, which arrives on talk pages, or is it an old-fashioned newsgroup? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, yes, it's a mailing list where the messages arrives by email. I'm really glad you're interested, so I'll drop you an e-mail with more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin 16:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning for censoring by using the collapse feature

Please do not use the collapse feature to censor comments of others that you may disagree with, or otherwise dislike, as you have now done twice here at a noticeboard discussion. It is censorship, disruptive, and edit warring. Kindly take this as a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution

I almost blocked you for 1RR on The Silent Scream, but in my opinion, you just barely stayed on the right side, and another admin might have made the call the other way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful in future. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

72.156.248.10

72.156.248.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As that you logged out, or is someone impersonating you? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't me. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a floating IP, so we'll just have to wait until it gets bored and decides to go play with some alligators or something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be doing or have done much. Not sure how it might have come across that page, but I assume it's a n00b who doesn't know that you can do what you like with your own talkpage. Epeefleche and I seem to have reached an agreement where neither will write on the other's page, and I'm cool with that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I started a thread at WP:ANI about an admin. You're not the subject of the thread, but you were involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

could you please revert yourself?

In accordance with this and with this? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found mention of it in a Foward blurb, so I will. (Note that the first link you provided doesn't support the statement.) In future, keep in mind that refs should support the statement for which they're cited! "A bill was introduced" does not support "A law was passed." I hope that helps. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe the section's name should also be changed?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The bill was never passed in its complete form, and the source describes the use of some of its provisions as "provisions from this were incorporated" rather than "the bill was passed with some of its provisions taken out." But that could just be a semantic thing. Maybe we should discuss on the talk page and see what other people think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language

I consider this to be a personal attack, and recommend you revert yourself.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but "Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" and "It must be Palestinians because a totally different Palestinian did this" are pretty racist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said I hate terrorists of all nationalities, and racists of all nationalities. For example with antisemitism I despise self-hating Jews much more than antisemites of all other nationalities. So as you see it has nothing to do with racism.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you refused to revert your absolutely unwarranted PA against me I request you stay off my talk page. I am not interested in any communications with you whatsoever.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I found Librarians Weigh in on a Book Dealing with Same-Sex Marriage which may help the book discussion. Trekhippie (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll add it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of women who sparked a revolution

Shalom, Bonjour, your question in the discussion is Can you help suggest ways of improving it ?

I cannot help you about this page. I don't know in the historic questions, my speciality is the sports by the women (specially the women hockey). I wrote several pages on the women hockey but nothing page on historic women and political question. Bonne chance. , מזל טוב --Geneviève (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SBA abortion dispute

See here. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Russell self-revert

Thanks for self-reverting there -- as the sanctions are "broadly construed", they would have applied in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that...

"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Jayjg 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, insulting someone's book isn't a BLP violation. Have a nice day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but saying they lied in their book is. Cheers! Jayjg 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If arguments on talk pages about whether living people are telling the truth are BLP violations, then most of what occurs on talk pages are BLP violations. (Editors are living people.) Please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Scrivens DYK

Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed the issues you raised with a proposed alternate hook, and editing the article. Canada Hky (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state

Hi Roscelese, I just wanted to get your help on the Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state article. I'm working on a replacement article in my sandbox here - User:NYyankees51/marriage/new. The current article is not very helpful and I'm trying to make a comprehensive state-by-state list. I made a table listing all the states prohibiting gay marriage by voter referendum. I'm not very good at tables so if you know how to work with them to make it look better, that would be great, and any help you can provide to the sandbox article would be great as well. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, you're right that the current layout of the article is difficult and also largely redundant to the articles on the referenda. (Or if it isn't redundant, it should be, because the article on each referendum should contain that information.) However, I'm not sure that your new layout is optimal either. The way I would do it would be one unified table for all the states, which would indicate:

1. whether SSM is legal
2. how this legal status (whether legal or illegal) was implemented (ie. court decision, referendum, legislature, constitutional or only statute, etc.)
3. when it was implemented
4. probably notes

And of course the lead would summarize, ie. X number of states permit it, Y number of states prohibit, Z of which by constitutional amendment or something like that.

I don't think the margins by which the referenda passed are something that it is necessary to include in an overview article. They belong in the articles on the referenda - the only important thing in the overview is whether the measure passed.

What do you think? I'm good with tables, so I can help you out.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, you and NatGertler are right about the table. I don't have time to work on it in depth quite yet, but I have a proposal started at the sandbox page. As for the margins, I think it is helpful to include because it shows the differences in public opinion between the states. I would be fine with just referring to the referenda articles, but the margin isn't always to find in them. Anyway, once we establish what to include in the table, I would appreciate some formatting help to make it easy to read and navigate. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, feel free to edit the sandbox page and work with it as you want. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe give this another thought next time

• If the IP user claims that "new land was stolen from the Palestinian village" without providing any source whatsoever,
• If the IP user is complaining about "collective punishment of 8000 people" without providing any source whatsoever,
• If the IP user is complaining that "15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged" with no noticing that the info is in the article already.
• If the IP user came here to justify something that cannot be justified by saying "Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land."
• And if according to all those bogus claims the IP user tags the article that is at the Main page at the moment, guess what, it is vandalism!

All of the above clearly demonstrates that you had not a slightest idea what you were doing, when you reinstalled the tag with a pointed edit summary, but you know what I am not even going to remove it, because I do believe that there are lots of POV in the article installed by another side, for example I believe that the information that the murders "dipped their hands into the boys' blood" is supported by a few RS and should have been represented in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd do well to read Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism before accusing people of vandalizing. Disagreeing with you does not constitute vandalism, and the IP provided perfectly reliable news stories about retaliation on Palestinians that was committed in response to the murder and that was not covered in the article. It's not your responsibility to add this information, but nor are you permitted to remove a valid tag because you just don't like it. Here's an idea, though: if you think the tag makes your precious main page article look bad, fix the problems with the article so that there isn't a bad article on the main page! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be so kind and point me out to the links to "perfectly reliable news stories" I pointed out above, and that were provided by IP?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And to help you out with the task I will provide below the IP post with my responses in green:

This article as it is now is completely unbalanced, as it does not mention the consequences for the Palestinian villages in the vicinity.

• As a direct consequence of the murder, the nearby village of Tuqu', a village of 8000 people, were in effect collectively punished, even if collective punishment of this kind is against the Geneva convention.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• There were also reports of stones thrown on the villagers by nearby settlers.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• 15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• And, most importantly: new land was stolen from the Palestinian village of Tuqu' during the "investigation" after the murder.
  • No source--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(Exactly the same thing happened to the villages nearby the Itamar-settlement 2 weeks ago, after the Itamar killings: a whole village was under house-arrest by the Israeli army, while settlers from Itamar simply stole another 20-25 dunum of privately owned Palestinian olive groves. There is a reason why Israelis call the occupied West Bank for the "Wild West Bank"!)

• • No source, unrelated--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land.
  • soapboxing--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes: "Settlers stoned Palestinians on the roads through Gush Etzion." Time Magazine, "settlers threw stones at Palestinian cars and the Israeli army sealed off the nearby Arab village of Tuqu," BBC Report, and this link. This article deserves a {{POV|date=March 2011}} tag.

• The exact quote from Time magazine is "Two Romanian immigrant workers mending a security fence at the Gaza border were blown up by Palestinians. Settlers stoned Palestinians on the roads through Gush Etzion." How this info is related to the murder of two boys, and why it should be in the article?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• In regards to BBC quote, the info was represented in the article before IP added the tag. Here's a quote from the article "They arrested 20 Palestinians from nearby villages and imposed curfews and roadblocks in response to the attack--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to point out the line in the article that said settlers attacked Palestinians in response to the murder, as found in the BBC source, since you claim that it was already there? (It's also funny how, in the same comment, you claim both that the reports of stoning and arrests are unsourced and that they were already in the article. You're a funny one, Mbz!) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming a bad faith, and you are mistaking. I did address the only "valid" point made by IP at the very same day it first came about. I said: "if we are to add what you said should be added then we need to add "On Tuesday, a body of another Israeli settler, who had been shot and stabbed, was found near the settlement of Itamar, south of Nablus." from the very same BBC source, and sadly so on, and so with no end in sight." After this IP demonstrated no interest in adding both info from the same RS. That's why I did not mention it at your talk page. On the other hand exactly as IP did, you also did not mention the killing of the settler.

BTW, if you'd rather me not to post to your page, just say so, and I will be more than happy to stay out.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should the IP do your work for you? Add it yourself if you want. The IP didn't remove a tag while claiming there were no problems; you did. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for King & King

On 4 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article King & King, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that because it depicts a same-sex marriage, the children's picture book King & King was the subject of a question in the 2008 Democratic U.S. presidential primary debates? 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.

Thanks for me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Roscelese

Thank you for helping me create an article . Could you tell me ASAP how you edit semi protected articles if they have some wrong information. Thank you dude. From Millanmane.

Er, I don't think the thanks are warranted, but anyway - if you want to do that, you can comment on the article's talk page and ask the users there to edit it for you.

(Also, sign your posts with four tildes - like this! ~~~~ Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Category:Rape victims

Thank you for the suggestion. I am getting more opinios here. --Minerva97 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks a lot. If I need something, I'll ask you. --Minerva97 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

An explanation and a question

Hello Roscelese. I hope that you won't take offense at my post on the navbox for discussion that you started today about the Dr Who navbox. I agree with some parts of your objection to the content that is currently in there. I just don't want complete removal of it at this time. I do want to offer my apologies if the way that I have put my case does cause you any offense.

My question comes about from your post about the Dr Who actors category that you also commented on. You mention OCAT as one of the reasons for its removal. I'm not sure what that is but I am wondering of it came about when the numerous "Actor in" cats were deleted a few years ago. I am also wondering if it might apply to this Category:Rumpole of the Bailey that was created last month. While the cat has a few listings from the show that are behind the camera people it seems to be mostly populated by actors who appeared in the series. Thank you for your time in reading this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. (Behind-the-camera people aren't supposed to be included either, I don't think.) The category should probably be deleted as there seem to be only two articles in it that belong (the main article + Rumpole and the Primrose Path) - if you nominate it, I'll vote for a delete. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hate group listings

Hi, I've been working on the SPLC group listing and found a link to your page in process. I think both lists can be useful and maybe even dovetail each other as the first list has subject area's defined whereas your list notes specific for each group which I think is very helpful. I just wanted to say hello. Jnast1 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think both need to exist - they just seem to have slightly different guidelines, and I guess we'd need to decide what was best - ie. the mainspace one is organized by type and includes everything, while mine is organized by name, includes only ones with Misplaced Pages articles, and also provides ADL listings and the rationale for which the group is listed. (I've been working on mine since before the mainspace one was created.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the mainspace one can speak as to why the SPLC generally sees each subject area as meeting their guidelines but yours is focussed on specifics to each organization. Plus you found a way to incorporate the ADF in your list which is fantastic. Also your list is only for articles that exist whereas the mainspace one includes all the SPLC ones. Jnast1 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is not so much to ask for

I'd rather would not see your user name in my watch list in regards to new articles I write. After our past encounters I do not consider your involvement in my new articles to be one of a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia. I believe that it will be better, if from now on we will go our separate ways.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to list every article you create on DYK, it's not bizarre to imagine that someone else who also regularly works at DYK might come across them. Have a nice day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not say you hounded my contributions. I did not ask how you found the article. I only said that counting our past and very unpleasant involvement it will be better if we are to go our separate ways. Please have more trust in other editors. If there are problems with an article others will see it too. Please have a nice day too.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe that your articles deserve special protection because you've disagreed with me in the past. If you don't want problems with your articles to be corrected, don't make bad articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it is not what I said at all. I said I'd rather you avoid editing my new articles because I feel you do no not like me personally to say the least.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand that you're asking me to refrain from editing an article if it's you that's created it. I'm telling you that I will not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After I said that I hate antisemitic Jews much more than antisemitic people of all other nationalities, which is true, your dislike of me personally got to a new high to say the least for unknown to me reason. If you really care about wikipedia it is better to avoid wp:drama, and it is the only thing I'm asking you to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I will not refrain from improving bad articles just because they're your bad articles. The easiest way to avoid drama would be for you to accept the improvements other users are making, instead of repeatedly harassing them on their talkpages with accusations of bad faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again even you repeatedly calling my articles "bad" demonstrate quite well what you are after.

Once again I am not talking about "other users". I am talking about one user, who is involved with me, and dislikes me personally. This user are you,Roscelese.

I did not harass you, it is you who have been harassing me over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you describe edits to your articles as harassment speaks volumes about your work here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be just a little bit more fair? Not only I describe "edits" to my articles as harassment, but I actually include editors, who help me to improve my articles even a little bit in my DYK nominations. I have done it over, and over, and over again. I say "thank you" to many IP users, who edit the articles I wrote. Your "editing" of my articles is a different story. You are doing this to make a point, a point that my articles are bad. Once again I am asking you to have more trust in the community. If an article needs some improvement, it will be improved. Misplaced Pages is a huge place. My areas of interests are very different from yours. It is not necessarily for you continuing making points on the articles I write.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, under the edit window you will have noticed that it says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited... then do not submit it here." New articles included. Your request to go separate ways is a good one in case of poisonous interactions that cannot be otherwise addressed—the encyclopedia is a big place, so avoiding others can be accomplished—but telling an editor which articles to stay away from is not how to go about it. Neither is trying WP:OWN a new article. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)