Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 17 September 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

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

Gatestone Institute

I agree with your assessment regarding the "Muslim Immigrants" reference links. I will leave as is and research better links. When a more accurate description is found I will reword and advise, welcome your thoughts and input. I Will be expanding the page over time and will be grateful for any and all contributions. Hawkswin —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Instaurare topic ban. Thank you.

CWFA help

Hi again ! I'd love if you could give me a hand with editing the CWFA page. Can you help me add more sections/info and rewrite the tone to be more cold, encyclopedic ?Scatach (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's begin at the beginning - before writing more, we should first find reliable sources. Since it's a somewhat longstanding big-name group, we should be able to find even scholarly work on it - why don't you check out Google Books, JSTOR/other journal databases, and that sort of thing for books and papers that talk about CWFA? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism and Sexuality.

Sorry, Roscelese, for responding so late to your question. I have been away on holidays and some commitments abroad. I agree with you that the version "the study . . .showed that dissent from the Holy See's teachings on sexuality was common among United States theologians" is correct. -- which is the present version online. So: all is well! Elsa Beek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsa Beek (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OR accusation

It may be useful when warning others to be more specific about what you are criticizing. I figured out easily enough that it's about this, but it isn't always clear. Also I disagree with what you have said, I was not doing any original research or analysis, I was accurately representing what was in the sources, something that the preceding text was not doing. Ranze (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For all the disagreement, this is an edit I admire. Wanted to do something similar but I was worried about the whole "n-word in section title" thing. That and I guess if it might cause potential difficulties with hashtag section-linking if beginning with a slash. Ranze (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you an admin here or something? I don't see my editing as disruptive. What you are calling OR/personal analysis/synthesis simply isn't. Your use of 'clarify' is personal analysis. My use of 'claim' is simply being NPOV. Not everyone is going to get scared off by the misapplication of these buzz terms. Ranze (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I've tried to explain to you why you can't analyze the sources to fabricate your own conclusions. I'm not sure I can be much clearer about it than I've been. If there's something specific you're having trouble with, I can try to help you, but if you're going to simply ignore basic facts about how our reliable sourcing and no original research policies work, your educational journey is out of my hands and all I can do is revert you if you edit disruptively. Don't take it to that point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me

I posted answers to those two Arabic questions you asked. Always glad to help out. I think Ḥiṣṣah Hilāl is so cool and it's great you're writing her article. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out later and incorporate it into the draft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

Your edit summary, in reverting my edit of the lede, says, "That's what the sources say." That is a false statement. Only one of the cited sources (Village Voice) alleges that more than one or two cases have been "covered up." And that source indicates that the community is now in transition, if you would please read the online version of the story all the way through to the last page. Rabbis are now telling their congregation members to go ahead and call the police. So accusing these leaders of "covering up" these crimes (A) on the basis of a single source, which itself attributes the charge to one activist for sexual abuse victims (your version fails to do that), and (B) at a time when even that one source acknowledges that any such problem was more in the past than the present, may be a BLP violation.

Furthermore, failing to inform police is not the same thing as actively concealing a crime. The term "cover up" indicates active concealment, such as destruction of evidence and intimidating witnesses. Merely failing to inform police is not a "cover up" in the usual sense of that term.

Accordingly, I am reverting until we get this sorted out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		Just because I thought you could use one. Cheers, GregJackP Boomer! 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MRM

Roscelese, just so it's clear to you, the probation sanctions apply to edit warring, not just to violating WP:1RR. I decided that your conduct at Controversial Reddit communities did not merit a block, but I did think about it. Please keep this in mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As a followup...

you can't analyze the sources to fabricate your own conclusions.

I realize now I did this in the one statement I removed, initially I think it seemed an obvious assumption. Though it's less obvious with you guys reverting the excerpts from the report. Why is it you want to only present quotes from Potok's late-March interview and the SPLC's May followup, but not quotes from the report itself? Shouldn't what the report actually says be more reflective of its content than later claims of what it says?

if you're going to simply ignore basic facts about how our reliable sourcing and no original research policies work

What I'm trying to understand here was, besides the thing I managed to recognize on my own, is there anything left in my previous version which you take issue with as thinking to be original research? Is this the claim/clarify issue, or some other issue? I'm not ignoring the policies but it is possible for people to accidentally OR in the process of translating a reference to encyclopedic speech. If I am doing so, I'd prefer if you could point out where and why so that could be discussed more specifically.

all I can do is revert you if you edit disruptively

You have options besides reverting, such as conversation. It's something I hope everyone can do more of here. I don't understand how my edits are disrupting anything. How does adding direct quotes (related to hatred, the issue of contention) disrupt things?

Is my defining misogyny in the parenthesis the issue you are calling OR? All I did there was transfer the definition from the opening sentence of our article about it, so that's hardly OR. Basically I want to narrow down what you keep calling OR. Is it:

1. claim/clarify
2. misogyny definition
3. something else

The edit summaries haven't been informative about the particular details. Ranze (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to including additional material from the report; I just don't consider it my job to restore your acceptable edits if they were mixed in with a bunch of unacceptable ones. Next time, try not including material that violates policy. I've already explained to you why your insistence that "Misogyny: The Sites" is secretly the hate group list is not acceptable and that edits working under that assumption aren't going to be policy-compliant, and you've ignored me to make the edits again, so this bleating about how we could just talk about it while leaving policy-violating material in the article is wasting your time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that's one way to trim the drama at ANI

. Not quite sure how that happened, but next time, just delete the whole thing, mkay? It'd probably make all of our lives easier! Resolute 22:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh goddammit. I'm on a really shitty internet connection right now and that's the sort of thing that happens when I try to edit. Thanks for handling it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You are reverting my edits without any explanation. "Unconstructive" is not an explanation.

I provided edit summaries, you should too. List your reasons for the reverts, or I will simply revert you back with the same explanation you provided me, none.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your personal feelings about the word "Islamophobia" aren't an excuse for disruptive editing. The edits you've made have made the articles in question worse, for reasons including the removal of sourced information, the introduction of unsourced and false information, the removal of necessary specificity (eg. substituting "abuse" in an article on Muslim footballers as though they are committing abuse - or "reports of acts" - ah yes, act I went well, act II there were a bunch of line flubs!), or the insertion of scare quotes. Do not continue this pattern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which edits you are referring to unless you list them one by one.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific reversion, you should ask me about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

All of them.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I explained most of them in edit summaries. You're the one trying to make changes here, not me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't. You can keep reverting more of my edits without an edit summary, but I will just revert them back.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit war, especially not to make articles worse. Instead, try to gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what the last 4 edits to this page are attempting, yet you won't respond fully.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said: You have to try to gain consensus for changes. This means you have to explain why you think your edits changed the article for the better, preferably on a page that other people will see. Complaining on my talk page about how I need to justify retaining the status quo is not seeking consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also stop abusing rollback button.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Roscelese hasn't used rollback here. She has only used the undo button. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've used rollback on a couple of especially disruptive edits, eg. introducing scare quotes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, just noticed that. Anyway User:Loomspicker, rollback may be used when the reason is quite clear why the edit was reverted. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I can just delete entire sentences instead as they are not backed up with reliable sources.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

JCPA stubbing

Hi, what exactly was wrong with the JCPA article that you considered it advertising? The article was in line with other think tank entries. Can you link me to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.145.2 (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If other think tank articles are as blatantly promotional as JCPA's - sourced only to their self-published promotional material, formatted as a brochure of the services they offer - those need to be fixed too! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Can you point me to a think tank page you consider neutrally-written,so I can bring this one up to snuff? I don't ask to be argumentative, merely to be able to have a well-written entry that meets Misplaced Pages standards. As you may have guessed, I'm new to editing Misplaced Pages. Thanks! 188.64.200.25 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I figured. I'm glad I could be helpful! I think it's pretty common for new users to see an article they think isn't very good and leap to the conclusion that "Misplaced Pages endorses attack pages" or "Misplaced Pages endorses advertisements" when really all that's happened is that no one has fixed it yet. Hm, an example - well, not saying it's perfect, but something like Family Research Council is based primarily on reliable secondary sources (not publications by the organization itself, but rather sources like newspapers and scholarly books). This helps us not only to know that the organization is notable, but also to know what information about it is considered important enough to include. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I've edited the JCPA article. If you have some spare time, can you take a look at it and see if I'm on the right track? I tried to clearly show what was JCPA's own statements about their work, but I'm not sure I cited that perfectly. Thanks again, 82.166.145.2 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I noticed that you're extremely vigilant at deleting Misplaced Pages articles. I was curious if you select these articles based on your personal views regarding abortion and homosexuality or if you have a genuine concern for the quality of articles on Misplaced Pages? In other words, if you're content neutral then it shouldn't matter to you if the article is in favor or against your personally held beliefs.

Let me rephrase it. If presented with evidence that articles are in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines, irrespective of their content, would you support their deletion?

I'm trying to figure out if you're primarily targeting articles that disagree with homosexuality and abortion to vindicate a POV or if you're instead simply trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Rather than making assumptions I wanted to seek some clarification from you directly before proceeding further.

Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been stalking my edit history all that diligently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lordvolton - I think that the question itself is a bit on the attackish and you might want to support your question with diffs demonstrating your perception or retract the question. This can lead no where productive.--v/r - TP 17:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis, Roscelese recently nominated One by One for deletion (organization for ex gays), Concerned Women for America (they're against homosexuality), Rachels Vineyard (pro life group), and many others. I'm simply asking for some clarification rather than assuming she has a vendetta against pro life articles and articles related to groups that disagree with the homosexual lifestyle choice. And that's why I'm asking if she is content neutral and would be in favor of deleting articles irrespective of their content. That's not a personal attack. I think it's a pretty straight forward question. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the term "cherry picking." Essentially what you have is a small sample of her edits and you've deduced a perception based on that. When we say in WP:NPA that serious accusations require serious evidence, we mean that you'll actually have to spend a significant amount of time reviewing her AFD nominations to find a trend. Then you'll have to go through each pro-LGBT article she's touched and determine if she deliberately ignored some of those articles that fell afoul of the same criteria she has nominated others for. Unless you are willing to put in that sort of effort, you're question is on a very thin line. You'd do yourself a favor by retracting it for now and saving your concern for when you're willing to put in the investigative effort, if ever.--v/r - TP 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis, I think you're protesting a bit too much. This isn't an inquisition. I'm simply asking her if she is content neutral when it comes to deleting articles rather than assuming something negative. This is her talk page -- not an admin board. You wanted to know why I asked this question -- so I supplied you with my reasons. And now you're implying that I'm being unreasonable for asking her a simple question? You're suggesting that I review her edit history to see if she has nominated for deletion or voted to delete pro-LGBT articles to determine if she deliberately ignored pro-LGBT articles that "fell afoul of the same criteria she nominated others for."

I didn't realize asking this question would be so controversial, but per your request I will review her edit history and see if she has applied the same criteria to pro-LGBT articles and I will also supply a list of pro-LGBT articles that meet the same criteria for deletion. I assume she will be given every opportunity to apply the same criteria to those articles? Lordvolton (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't as simple as you think. I'm going to assume good faith that you believe it's a simple question. However, if Roscelese is on one side of a POV fence, as you believe she is, then you're clearly on the other side. As a neutral party, I think you need to take another look at your question and determine what your question implies, rather bluntly, and then redact it. Either way, had Roscelese said the same thing I did, it would've been seen as an attempt to deny. It took a third and uninvolved party to say "Hey, you're crossing a line."--v/r - TP 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I was fully convinced that she was on one side of a POV fence then I wouldn't need to ask the question. You're making a lot of assumptions. In fact, you're also assuming that you're a neutral third party. If I am asking about "intent" and asking for "clarification" and you interpret that as "crossing a line" then we'll just have to disagree about your ability to be an unbiased third party. I appreciate that you think you're being helpful and perhaps something good will come out of this when I'm done with my analysis of the LGBT articles and Roscelese's edit history. That was a useful suggestion. Lordvolton (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're presenting yourself honestly here. A month ago, you opened an AN/I thread entitled "POV editing by Roscelese", in which you made it unequivocally clear that you consider Roscelese a "militant POV editor". Now you're pretending that you've got an open mind about her and are simply seeking innocent "clarifications". It's a transparently dishonest pose, and one which doesn't do you much credit. Separately, it appears your accusations were dismissed as "thinly supported" by the closing admin here, yet you don't seem to have taken the hint that you need to support your claims with actual evidence.

Here's some completely unsolicited and probably unwanted advice: do the legwork before you accuse other editors. Present actual diffs up front, rather than waiting for others to request them. Say what you mean, and don't pretend to be on some sort of innocent fact-finding mission when you're obviously trying to build a case. Remember that people can actually see the difference between what you said last month and what you're saying this month and call you on it. MastCell  06:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell, there is a difference between making a POV edit and deleting articles based on a POV. I'm not shy when it comes to making those statements as you've seen. If the two of you are going to protect editors then you need to go beyond talk pages and the pretense of being disinterested third parties and put in the legwork to determine the truth. The minute another editor starts "defending" third parties the assumption is that they've paid careful attention to the editor they're defending. Don't fall into the trap of being "tolerant" to defend "intolerance". When abusive editors are defended by the Misplaced Pages community those editors never correct their ways. What I want is editors with differing viewpoints to work together ... and that's what I've been trying to do with Roscelese. If you follow my edits you'll see that's the case.

Perhaps your concept of justice and fair dealing is spot on. In the due course of time all of our prejudices become apparent -- even on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I've completed my analysis of Roscelese's edits and posted the results on my talk page. I've also included a proposed solution in the "conclusion" section. Let's try to work together. Lordvolton (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being cherry-picked, those claims are also false. Only one of those is an article I nominated for deletion. Lordvolton, do not ever use the phrase "homosexual lifestyle choice" on my talkpage again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior to TParis intervening into the conversation and asking me to review your entire edit history and compile a list of pro-LGBT articles to determine if there is a double standard, I was just trying to get clarification on your intent rather than assuming something negative. Lordvolton (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also like to make it clear, for the unusually dense, that my first response was not an invitation to continue stalking me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not being stalked. Misplaced Pages keeps public records of editing activity to hold editors accountable. You have a very strong POV and a history of not playing well with others. It makes sense that you would dislike scrutiny.Intermittentgardener (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Points of view aside, to the best of my knowledge no editor has the single-handed power to delete "inconvenient" Misplaced Pages articles on a political basis— articles may be proposed for deletion, and an argument for that deletion can then be given and either supported or opposed by other editors based on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. If Roscelese decides to "cherry pick" (I am using the term anew here) articles with particular themes that she maybe finds personally objectionable and target them for deletion, she may only do so with regard to set policy— and if her argument for deletion does not meet the requirements of that policy (policy that I think everyone can agree is carefully written to be devoid of political agendas) then the article will not be deleted. Is she picking and choosing what articles to nominate for deletion? I certainly hope so! No one can assess every article on Misplaced Pages, and everyone who decides to get into the deletion nomination business must decide to which articles to give their scrutiny. Some of that initial sorting and decision-making is undoubtedly political, but the ultimate decision to keep or delete an article is not. You cannot argue to the community that an article is politically objectionable and hope to see it successfully deleted. But you can pick politically objectionable articles for closer scrutiny, and then nominate them for deletion based on their shoddy references and lack of notability. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Neutrality of point of view is a policy that relates to article content, not to the decision about whether or not to propose a given article for deletion. I realize, Lordvolton, that you are making an effort to maintain civility here and this after you have strayed into some rather hostile territory. For that I commend you. But your initial question, despite its neutral phrasing, is actually heavily loaded and politically charged, making its façade seem duplicitous and your intentions deeply suspect. Do you have objections to deletion decisions made about articles that Roscelese has nominated? Great! Bring them up in the deletion discussions! Make the case that she is wrong! Show the world why her arguments cannot be substantiated! Tell everyone about the evidence you have found which she did not! But if you cannot do those things, then you have no business asking polite-but-loaded questions to other editors. Truly, there is no forum for that, however civil the presentation. {And as an aside to Roscelese: if there is any merit to any of these "articles" you have nominated for deletion, consider this: sometimes keeping an article around on an "objectionable" topic can be VERY convenient! It allows you as an editor to control the presentation of that topic (like the MOMS article I just put together), including its perhaps not-so-flattering side that its supporters might not wish were on Misplaced Pages after all but to which they cannot object without losing neutrality of their own. Anyhow, that's just a thought I had, nothing more!) KDS4444 04:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"allows you as an editor to control the presentation of that topic" - Umm, no, it does not. See WP:OWN. "they cannot object without losing neutrality of their own" Actually I object to the neutrality of that article, you'll see my changes, and I've been sufficiently neutral. Have you?--v/r - TP 13:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are understanding each other. I did not mean to suggest article ownership, I meant to suggest the completeness of article content. Your last two sentences don't make sense to me and seem to suggest my lack of neutrality with regard to something vague which I do not understand. And I do not know what "--v/r" means. If you have intended to confuse, you have succeeded. But I do not know that this matters. KDS4444 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article was not neutral. You left out important specifics from the sources preferring to choose vaguer descriptions that depict all Christians in a certain manner and you included some negative information that was not in the cited source. You also presented something as "no controversy" when the source says "with little controversy." Little is not none. "v/r" means "Very Respectfully" similar to "Sincerely".--v/r - TP 17:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that KDS's text suggested that all Christians had certain politics, but regardless, I'm not sure this is a discussion for my talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Society for Human Life

Removed PROD from this article. I'm not at all sure that it's a valid article, but it's very obviously not an uncontroversial deletion, so you will need to take it to AfD. Tigerboy1966  19:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you've been name-dropped by an IP on Jimbo's talk page about this topic. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy... That guy doesn't learn from his blocks. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

		The Half Barnstar
		I award you The Half Barnstar which is given for excellence in Cooperation. Productive editing can be difficult on such contentious articles and I thank you for taking the time to discuss the issues in a professional way and work with me to improve the article. It's an example of how Misplaced Pages should work when we're civil and focus on content. Morphh 01:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

On TOP

Wow, you are on TOP of this stuff! I forget about the whole "Raw Sex in the Schools" thing for a few years, come back, put together an overdue article on one of the upity religious groups, and within minutes you have created a link to it! I am impressed. Within minutes! KDS4444 03:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, I created the article on "Raw Sex" so it's still on my watchlist - figured I could help out a bit. Glad you appreciated it! :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Roscelese.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hi there Roscelese, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test". I have read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know. I left the following edit on the article talk page:

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well.

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Society for Human Life

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Thank you.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.10.73 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the your removal of the canvasing tags at the above AfD discussion. The IP has, in fact, expressed a concern on this. The template does not require a diff be listed (it is shown as optional). The IP has also explained his or her concern on the page itself. If you disagree with it, you can say so, but it is not appropriate to delete or refactor another editor's comments at AfD. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to a diff is optional in the template, but there's obviously no evidence of canvassing; it seems like the user (who, to all appearances, is either the same person as one or more users who have already commented, or who has come here from off-wiki as a meatpuppet) is looking for a tit-for-tat for being called an SPA due to being, you know, an SPA. That sort of personal attack is not acceptable. I haven't refactored the actual comment, but the template was used abusively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but disagree on removing the tag. I would support an SPI based on the various IP's behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Help, I need help to change the name of an article

Hello Roscelese, do not know if this is the right way to talk to you. But I understand some Misplaced Pages. I need help to change the name of an article (Hypothetical Names for Planets). I can not. Because I do not have the option to "move". I want to do this to increase the product and make it better and more serious reasons.

Thanks, AdAstra2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, moving the article will not help. The article appears to be your own personal ideas for the planet names, and that's not the sort of content that Misplaced Pages hosts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Actually the ideas are not mine, They are scattered astrology forums. But I can not put links to pages of bibliography forums. That does not help anything. I want to change the name of the article, raise it. I want to modify the information, adding bibliography of books. I'll make it more consistent. But for that I need to change his name, to be able to also modify the content. Please help me. Do not want to miss the article is my first experience in Misplaced Pages. In addition, if the item does not look good, just delete it.

Thanks for answering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Even so, it's not enough that the names are discussed in forums. If they were discussed in reliable sources - for instance, if newspapers reported that the IAU were considering some of the names, even if they were not official yet - we might be able to write about that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I explained very well. I'm saying that I can not really use forums as sources. What I want to do is change the name of the article and put the article published literature and books. Do you understand me now?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article isn't really a huge issue. If there is published literature out there that talks about those names as good names for the planets, you should add it now; we can always figure out the title later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Ex-gay movement. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You !voted to delete the content here, and then, once consensus had it merged to Ex-gay movement, you deleted almost all the content here. Your disruptive editing has been noted, and any future attempt to unilaterally circumvent a consensus process in which you participated will result in a block. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)