User talk:Roscelese

CfA talk

Was your statement "that's plainly false" directed at me, or were you missing an indent and responding to Arzel?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel. I'll fix it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW I hope I didn't sound like I was throwing down the gauntlet, thats part of the reason I asked here.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance with vandalism

Hi Roscelese. I'm trying to tutor a new user (User:BlueStars83) in vandalism but he's struggling and i'm not sure i've explained it properly. Are you any good with this kinda stuff? Thanks and enjoy the rest of your day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I really, really like your "challenge" idea! For vandalism, the "Recent changes" section is definitely the place to start but I recommend using filters - WP has a few tools which identify suspicious edits, so edits caught by a particular filter are more likely to be vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggested hiding logged-in users edits but he's struggling more with identifying vandalism than anything. I'm not sure how to explain it better. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna be a budinski. Tell your new editor to not only hide logged in users, but search for the word "school". Chances are he will see lots of vandalism examples.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits to articles on schools are picked up by the "possible libel or vandalism" filter (other good filters: "possible vandalism," "repeating characters," "nonsense characters," and "blanking"). Interestingly, the list appears to have been compiled in such a way that it also picks up fictional schools. Anyway, vandalistic edits are ones that are made with the intention of disrupting rather than improving the encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for that. He's able to identify vandalism now but i'll have to test him more on this as he may have just lucked out with the last attempt. Thanks again though and you both have a nice day/evening! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Mr. Vernon's talk page.
Message added 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cumin

No apology necessary. I was playing with something similar, but never hit on a satisfying summary. I added Latin American, because it's one of the main spices used at least in Mexico. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Long DYK? Nomination

I think that I formatted my article for this DYK? nomination correctly now. Please look at it whenever you can. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Anderson at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not even remember editing such a page and have no knowledge of MMA, sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies.
Message added 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies.
Message added 01:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies.
Message added 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you don't believe the discussion is worthwhile, I don't have a problem with being bold and restoring the material. GregJackP Boomer! 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I was aware of being at 3RR and was not going to go past that. I might mention that it would pay to be careful for you too, as there have been 4 reverts in just over 24 hrs (which is sometimes viewed poorly by admins). There is nothing in this article that is worth either of us (or anyone else for that matter) being blocked over. Why don't we wait and see how the discussion on AfD and the talkpage go? That is one of the reasons that I listed the refs on the AfD rather than just inserting material. Later today, if I get the time I was planning on placing proposed material on the talkpage, along with the supporting citations. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Zeng Qinghong

The source was a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks. The person who wrote that cable was Kenneth Jarrett, the former U.S. consul general in Shanghai. How does that not qualify as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMurata (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's hearsay, which would be questionable even if it came from a vetted secondary source, but I don't know what the decision of the WP community has been on leaked stuff as sources for BLP. It seems questionable but you could check RSN or BLPN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In what sense is it hearsay and why is that a problem? This isn't a court of law. I guess you could argue that it's hearsay from the standpoint of the cable was written by a U.S. diplomat based on what someone else said. But if that's your criteria for evidence then I would think virtually all the sources on Wikipedia would qualify as hearsay. I would bet that most of the sources on Wikipedia are news sources. If you consider what they publish as testimony then I would bet that pretty much all their evidence is based on what other people tell them and would therefore be hearsay. I would think the only thing that doesn't qualify as hearsay would be opeds written by the people newspapers usually talk to. Now, if you're talking about what Andrew Zhang said as being hearsay, again, I'm not sure why that's a problem as this isn't a court of law. But actually there is nothing in what he said that indicates it was hearsay. From my reading of the cable, it just appears that he flatly says that you can bribe Zeng Qinghong for 500,000 yuan. He doesn't say that he heard that from a third party. He may have heard it from a third party. Or he may have first hand experience with it. He works for JP Morgan China which indicates that he is in China doing business. This indicates he has first hand experience with dealing with government officials such as Zeng. Why would using leaked documents be questionable? The only difference I could see is if people didn't believe the leaked documents were authentic. But if the WikiLeaks documents aren't authentic then why did the New York Times and a bunch of other new outlets write stories based on the leaked cables? Why is Bradley Manning being locked up? As I am new to Wikipedia I don't know who or what RSN or BLPN is. Who are then and how do I contact them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMurata (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN is the reliable sources noticeboard, and BLPN is the biographies of living persons noticeboard. They will help answer your questions! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The link doesn't work unless the TB is on some kind of talk page, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Citizenship Change"

There is no reliable source citing the individual's Slo citizenship. They may cite birth-place, ability to speak language, and the like, but there is no source citing his nationality. In fact, I know he is not Slovenian by his citizenship. Feel free to change this without the explicit RS, but be sure that you will be asserting a wrong info. This is a riskier move than leave this piece of info blank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the cited source explicitly states that he holds Slovenian citizenship. If you believe something has changed, please produce a more recent reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. You are right, there is one old source. Let me try to see what I can do as I know this is not accurate.--Mcsngrca (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Sorry for this mistake. I should have looked more carefully, and seen the colons. Thanks for correcting the mistake, and explaining in your edit summary. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies.
Message added 00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revised definition of censorship. GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Censorship in Islamic societies. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DYK for Jordan Anderson

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NCLR see also link

The reason I added Athlete Ally to NCLR is because they are an advocacy organization, albeit with a different focus. So you know it was not just random or arbitrary, the addition was based on reciprocity in the fact that the NCLR is listed at Athlete Ally's web site. – MrX 12:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios fixed

That should pass muster now. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, explain to me exactly what is wrong with it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Mafia (book)

Gun Powder Ma reverted you, I reverted him as he was replacing scanned pdfs of letters, etc, but he put them back again citing BRD which he didn't cite until I reverted him. I took the scanned letters to RSN, but besides the other problems I note that the article links to a number of copyvio YouTube videos. Anyway, GPM wants a discussion on the talk page... Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Since when?

See talk. - RoyBoy 04:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since for some time you've been the only editor arguing for it with everyone else in opposition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And? I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression Wikipedia is a democracy. More to the point, my points remain unanswered on the talk page, which is fine by you? If they got "fed up" that's their call, but my points aren't salient? Such as ABC clinical research? - RoyBoy 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was so sure you were going to cry "Wikipedia isn't a democracy." I don't know why I decided against responding to that in my first comment. Know what else Wikipedia isn't? An autocracy. You do not get to impose your view over the disagreement of every single other user in the discussion. We decide things based on consensus here; perhaps you've heard of it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, quit the childishness; you're acting as though you presented Oxford University Press and they responded with a Wordpress blog. The sources presented by the users disagreeing with you are equally valid or (because not out-of-date) more valid, and you've already had this explained to you so the claim about your points standing uncontested is just false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes they do, but point taken. Presenting the ABC topic, hard to do well with some sources and redundant phrases. Their sources are better -- that's why they come later / closer to the conclusion. Jasen is an excellent comprehensive source; Mastcell conveyed only what ze wanted. I consider Wikipedia a meritocracy... when it works. Thank you for replying with candor, for the record this isn't about getting my way. - RoyBoy 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for inserting some sanity in the article about Islamophobia.

PerDaniel (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Roscelese! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

A jewish islam supporter?

I find it strange that you defend islam so wholeheartedly, considering you are of Jewish origin. Do you also support the removal of Israel and its replacement by yet another dysfunctional, ungovernable, poverty-stricken, salafist Arab state? Here's a man beheaded by Islamic extremists simply because he was Jewish, just think, it could have just as easily been you. Daniel Pearl. YvelinesFrance (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)