User talk:Roscelese/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Roscelese. 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.

Hello Roscelese,

You have recently reverted an edit on the Pro-life feminism article. You have claimed that I have confused the term feminist with woman. In an earlier reversion, you have claimed that the sources were all blogs. For your benefit, I have copied an pasted my March 30th post on the talk page:

1) Barbara Kay, a prominent journalist from the National Post writes, "Rona Ambrose, minister for the status of women, dared to vote her conscience on Motion 312 — a private member’s bill endorsing the creation of a committee that would define when human life begins... Rona Ambrose is a better feminist than the women who criticize her."Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

2) Naomi Lakritz, a columnist from the Calgary Herald writes, "Ambrose hasn’t stopped upholding Canadian women’s rights. Her support for a bill that is concerned with fetal life does not mean she doesn’t support equal pay for equal work, or the right of working moms to quality daycare, or the upcoming International Day of the Girl on Oct. 11, or Ottawa’s National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, or any other initiative to make women’s lives better. It simply means she has serious concerns about the life of the unborn... Unafraid, Ambrose spoke for herself. That, to me, is the most basic definition of a feminist."Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

3) Fulcrum contributor Malika Bourboun writes, "In an article published by the Calgary Herald, REAL Women of Canada (RWC)—a pro-life women’s group that lobbies in support of anti-abortion legislation—commended Ambrose for her “courageous stand in support of life”. Others, like ProwomanProlife blog founder Andrea Mrozek, contend Ambrose’s stance signals a more inclusive type of feminist discourse that encourages Canadian women to be both supportive of women’s rights and willing to discuss abortion or its opposition. According to Mrozek, there are “many women, [Mrozek] included, who do not see so-called abortion rights as part and parcel of women’s rights”." Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

4) There is an article published by WeNeedaLAW.ca, which states: "Ms. Ambrose has endured a barrage of ad hominem attacks over the past 48 hours. Her crime? Voting in favour of Motion 312, a motion calling for a Parliamentary committee to study the definition of a human being. The resulting backlash has exploited a deep divide among this country’s feminists. “It’s quite telling to observe the likes of Libby Davies and Joyce Arthur throw a fellow feminist under the bus because of their ideological bias,” said WeNeedaLAW.ca director, Mike Schouten." Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

As you can see, the sources include prominent Canadian newspapers, and they specifically use the term 'feminist', not woman. I trust this clears up any confusion. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring #3 and #4 completely because they're a student newspaper and a right-wing anti-abortion company respectively, this still doesn't support your contention. Both of these are opinion pieces from people who appear to be confused about the definition of "feminist." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Roscelese,

At least we are in agreement that A. the sources are not blogs, and B. the sources describe Ambrose as a pro-life feminist.

There is no one definition of "feminism". Feminists disagree on many topics, especially abortion. Many feminists disagree on abortion just as feminists disagree on whether or not Prostitution should be legal. It appears you believe that all feminists must support abortion in order to fulfill your litmus test. Is this the case? In other words, you believe that only pro-abortion advocates can be considered feminists.

Moreover, just because you disagree with a journalist's position does not mean the source is unreliable. Major newspapers are considered reliable sources, as are University publications and political advocacy websites on both sides of an issue. In fact, secondary sources, which include "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" are preferred. Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be neutral. Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources .

In any event, we can continue this discussion on the talk pageOntario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to Susan B. Anthony List. Allow me to explain why I made it: Charlotte Lozier Institute currently redirects to the Susan B. Anthony List page, but the latter page contained no mention of the former institute before I added some info about it to the Susan B. Anthony List article. I think that if Charlotte Lozier Institute is going to redirect to the SBA List page then the latter page should contain some info about the Institute. If you still don't think my edit to the SBA List page was inappropriate, please let me know. I don't think there's anything wrong with using a primary source for this either. Everymorning (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, fair point about the redirect (which I see was me, haha). I think one sentence should be enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source and definition that states that among the different forms of antisemitism there is the "hate", then provides this and change the lead. But a definition in "simple English" is not a reliable source, even less when the word "hate" is replaced in the same source by more nuanced and accepted words that are used in English but not in "simple English". Pluto2012 (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Category:Nonprofit organizations is sufficiently defining to be useful. If any of these organisations were profitmaking it wouldn't take them out of the category.Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, maybe just keeping it in "pro-life orgs" is sufficient? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

yes. Rathfelder (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You recently reverted an edit of mine in this category. On my talk page you mentioned neutrality. Can you expand on this please? What part of my edit involved a violation of NPOV? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You recently reverted my edits on this. Please expand on your reasons for so doing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it was pretty clear from my edit summary. "The violence was committed by an individual, therefore it has nothing to do with Christianity" makes no sense, and we don't need to "impute a motive" when reliable sources have done that for us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit comment here [1], where does the reference itself, as opposed to people quoted in the reference, call the Geller ads either "Islamophobic" or "anti-Islamic"? Motsebboh (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Female foeticide and infanticide, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. PanchoS (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

82.7.110.210 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Hi there, not sure how to use this resource. Please help with explanations for newbies! 82.7.110.210 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@82.7.110.210: Can you clarify what resource you need help with? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen Weiwensg (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Weiwensg: No thank you, but good luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I, George Ho, am the person who initiated the ArbCom case in January 2015. I wonder whether you can request clarification or amendment to one of the Remedies on you. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Clarification or amendment how? Sorry, I don't see any open tickets, is there something I should be checking out and commenting on? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Click "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment". Alternatively, there's a sidebox at the top of that Arb case page. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh... When you said "commenting on", I meant ArbCom's restrictions on you. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: You're saying I should open a request for c/a? I don't see why, things seem fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh... just asking, that's all. The remedy says that you can have the ArbCom reconsider the restrictions on you after at least one year, i.e. 12 months. If things "seem fine", then ask for easing or removal of sanctions. Or shall I say that you can ask for the removal of 1RR or something else? --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Or... Asking for ease isn't necessary. Your decision, not mine. I'll respect that. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. For the record, I did not intend any disparagement whatever by placing the word transman within quotes. It's simply that the term isn't necessarily a universally understood one and for most people still probably has something of the character of a neologism. Commenting here because the point is too trivial for ANI. Feel free to ignore or delete this comment, if you like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: in that case it seems to me that a more appropriate course of action would have been to wikilink the relevant article –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was an article - but I take your point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Referring to a fellow editor is as "Dude," is extremely unprofessional. That's my friendly opinion, Mr. or Ms. Roscelese, and I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If I were editing Wikipedia professionally, I would be getting paid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azarbarzin (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the second time I am asking you this question - why do you revert the comments of Aslan regarding Ahmadinejad - Do you consider Foreign policy as a poor source? if so. why? Azarbarzin (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the article I referenced: ^[1] if you continue to delete it you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.Azarbarzin (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's resolve this please. Kindly explain what part of this is poorly sourced:

In an article published on January 13th, 2011 in The_Atlantic, Aslan claimed that those who oppose the Mullahs' rule, yearn for greater social and political freedoms for the Iranian people, and envision an Iran that draws inspiration from the glories of its Persian past, have more in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "^[2] Two years later, in another article published in Foreign Policy, he added that no president in the history of the Islamic Republic has so openly challenged the ruling religious hierarchy. Aslan wrote that once President Ahmadinejad is gone, there’ll be no one left to stand up to Iran's mullahs. "^[3]

@Azarbarzin: He's written a hell of a lot. Of his entire oeuvre, why did you believe that these articles, and some tweets, were what was worth excerpting? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I am going to cordially ask you to reply to the question I had asked you. You had deleted/reverted my edit because you deemed it poor sourcing. Let us resolve the issue of 'poor source' first, then we could move on as to what article or articles meet your taste on Reza Aslan's page. I'll be grateful for your response pertaining poor sourcing. In the history of the page you have left this reasoning for your revert: « this gets more and more ridiculous »

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reza_Aslan&action=history

Let us resolve this without responding to questions with questions. I do not wish to report you again. I wanna learn why you perceive articles authored by Aslan (or others) in reputable publications such as Foreign Policy and/or the Atlantic as poorly sourced.Azarbarzin (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Azarbarzin: I'm not sure you understand that my asking you this question is an attempt to guide you to the answer to your question. Aslan has written a great many things, published by reliable publishers. Should we simply reprint his entire body of work on Wikipedia? If not, why are these the things you chose? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Thank you for your response and guidance. As others could attest, I have made several attempts to resolve this issue. Deleting an well sourced article authored by an Iranian born professor about the President of Iran, may appear as guidance or poorly sourced or even ridiculous to you. At this point, I suspect you have no intention to resolve this. Foreign Policy along with The Atlantic are reliable sources. I did not reprint the entire body of Aslan work. I simply referenced an Iranian born author's view about an Iranian President. You may continue to delete them. I am certain you know the consequences. Best wishes and cheers. Azarbarzin (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a declaration that you intend to continue violating our policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Are you stating that references to reliable publications such as Foreign Policy & The Atlantic are a violation of your policies? Azarbarzin (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

i have noticed that you have removed this statement below i believe you are doing the best you can but also i recognize that this is a controversial statement i have added it here because like you i also try to improve wikipedia.

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

some pro-choice advocates support abortion of newborn infants from a philosophical view stating that there is no magical process at birth that transforms a fetus to a person stating that they are not a person before birth and then all the sudden a person after birth as magical thinking^[4][5]

Your scaremongering is not reflected in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your hard work on the abortion pages if i did horrible conduct i apologize Jonnymoon96 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Please do not delete corroborated and well sourced material. Reza Aslan is on the advisory board of NIAC. Let us resolve this in a professional manner.

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

https://www.niacouncil.org/message-reza-aslan/

Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've doubled the article's length and added a more spirited defense of retention. If thousands of high schools in the US and around the world are notable, SO is Joe Wiegand. The attacks on the article are political in nature, NOT content-based. Thanks again!!! SimonATL 19:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is highly biased. There are a lot of good publicity items about this case but Halliburton has published only the items in their favor. I also do not have historionic personality disorder. Furthermore the EEOC found in Jamie Leigh Jones favor. Halliburton lied about the EEOC finding. How can I change it to be accurate? Two laws were also changed and those are not included. Please see the talk page Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwillsetyoufree123: Wikipedia bases its coverage on reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source attesting that the outcome of the trial was different from what the existing sources say? It would be especially helpful if the source in question noted that other sources had published things incorrectly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see all evidence presented on Jamie Leigh Jones page. This is highly slander to say the EEOC ruled in KBR's favor when it in fact did not. I even included the actual EEOC determination letter. Furthermore, Victor Scarano was affiliated with KBR and Jamie Leigh Jones does not have the disorder he diagnosed her with and never has. This must be removed. I included several articles on the talk page to prove his bias. He did this to sway the jury and is not a real diagnosis. Please revert the changes back to what I had edited them to. This is highly swayed in KBR/Halliburton favor. Jamie Leigh Jones changed two laws and that must stay. Also, the EEOC determination needs to be stated accurately not with the lies that were post about the letter. I placed the original letter on the talk page. This page is laden with libel. If this is not corrected please take the entire page down and delete it. What Bob23 is doing is wrong. A Wikipedia page must be unbiased. He removed all the laws Jamie Leigh Jones helped make, and everything that was in her favor at the time of trial. This is not good journalism and is his bias. If he is going to continue to be biased he does not need to be a Wikipedia reporter. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwillsetyoufree123: Our source says "A 2006 investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) backs up KBR’s story that the company placed Jones in a secure location before getting her home to Texas." Is the part you're contesting the "not locked in a trailer" part? It's true that I don't see that in the source, but I also don't see anything about that in the EEOC letter. Can we continue this discussion on the article talk page? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please look at my sources I included on the other talk page? Thank you. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi user:Roscelese, you may be interested in the ongoing RfC at talk:Abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.

Good point. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.

• Category:Feminist films
• Category:Films about narcissism
• Category:Films about bibliophilia
• Category:Witchcraft in film

You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, I wanted to defend my change which you reverted by pointing out that I had not deleted any sources... what I had done was to read them, evaluate the source's stance, realize that they supported the second instead of the first clause of the Wikisentence, and shift them over to the second clause instead of the first. I am a big fan of WP:RS and I wouldn't want anybody deleting RSes either... but I hope you agree with me that my change wasn't to remove RSes. -208.71.156.130 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@208.71.156.30: I checked the source and the text was accurate before you moved the reference. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see... evolution of the term 'false rape' seems to have gone interesting way. And the subject produced some quite detailed study. Rev of my ed. was justified. --J. Sketter (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss that the material from the long main article is now in List of LGBT Catholics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I did indeed, thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for correctly pointing out that I did not adequately source this. Please give me a day to put in more sources (e.g., L.J. Reagan, R. Solinger, F. Taussig, etc.) -- it'll take me a little while to get down the details. And thanks for making a constructive point rather than reverting.NightHeron (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese,

Just wanted to offer a friendly tip, in case you were not aware of the possibility of setting a gender in your user preferences. The template group {{they}} / {{them}} / {{their}} (and others) use this setting to render the correct gender pronouns for a given user. See for example, how these pronouns were coded: 1. his, 2. him, 3. she, 4. hers.

Only mentioning this because you have a female userbox on your user page, so I thought that another method of being referred to in the proper gender might be something you'd want to know about. This came up, when I used the {{their}} template to refer to you at Talk:Transphobia, and noticed that it was rendering as "their edit" in your case instead of "her edit" as I assumed it would, since I was pretty sure I remembered you as female. (But that's the whole point of the templates, of course: you don't have to rely on your memory or go look it up on their user page to see if there's a box; the templates will get it right—assuming the user has set a gender preference in their user preferences.)

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC) @Mathglot: thanks, I can't be bothered tbh :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:People associated with Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. --woodensuperman 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Roscelese. There's a discussion at Talk:Albert Cashier that you might be interested in, a way of hopefully ending the ever-simmering edit war. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article from Dissension to Dissent. That is obviously a better word choice. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uw-1rrAbortion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Isananni (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this talk comment of yours from May 10 about #Data from German police I can probably help if you need translations from German. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I do speak German too, the title of the article on which that recent section is based states that according to the Rostock police 80% of the rape allegations in their jurisdiction were “vorgetauscht”, which means false in the sense of based on fabricated evidence/lies. The basic verb “tauschen” in German means “exchange” with the meaning of the derivative “vortauschen” meaning “to falsify, to fabricate”, based on the idea of exchanging the truth with lies. I hope a little etimology helps convincing that article is perfectly in line with the spirit of the page (and it was not even my add). Isananni (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

[2] Why did you delete the 9½ Weeks example? --ElpJo84 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@ElpJo84: I haven't seen the film myself, but the list text implied that it was an extremely trivial scene (see WP:LISTCRUFT) or possibly that she simply wore masculine women's clothing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. --ElpJo84 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Dau is a Roman Catholic Servant of God. She is on process for sainthood thereforr she deserves an infobox on saints. Grace be with you (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grace be with you: However, your change removed important information from the infobox. WP:WikiProject Catholicism would be able to tell you whether or not it's appropriate to use the saint infobox for people who have not yet been canonized to begin with, but either way, the person infobox contains more information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You made voluminous removals on what was previously a balanced page, supported by sources, on Cordileone.

How is it in the spirit of an encyclopedia to prefer individual options, not backed up by sources, over representing his actual words in speeches?

Surely this is a forum not for political spin and agenda pushing, but representing individuals accurately?

Please revert your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnolds (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rnolds: I'd suggest bringing this to the article talk page, not mine. The reason for preferring accurate and neutral language to Cordileone's non-neutral and self-promotional language is that we are an encyclopedia, not his personal website, and it is not our job to repeat everything he says as gospel truth. Instead, we use neutral and encyclopedic language supported by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: We have differing opinions on what constitutes neutral language but we need to strive to leave that aside in representing Salvatore Cordileone accurately. Wikipedia strives for NPOV supported by sources. [[3]] Unless your statement by Cordileone can be supported by sources, I propose we remove it entirely. Talk discussion opened as suggested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Cordileone#/talk/15

Hello, Roscelese. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't reply to user e-mail, but it's hard to answer your question in the abstract. Why don't you e-mail me the specific details? I don't promise any action, but I'll at least review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Will do! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence to file a report, but (1) I won't be the one reviewing it and (2) IP socking often gets very little traction at SPI, so you may be wasting your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Right, I didn't expect this to be any sort of advance review; just wanted to know if I should proceed. Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed a source I marked as self-published. In case this could be of interest to you, another instance is at Gay bishops. I recently inherited a number of Catholic related books and The Rite of Sodomy was included; considering its stance I was curious if it was used as a source on Wikipedia. Discovering some, I simply tagged them for now, lacking time to better evaluate the context. If you reply, please ping me. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I've removed it there as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Roscelese, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain me your stance regarding MrSuicideSheep (and it's proposal for deletion), in a more detailed manner? I already responded to you on the article's entry, but still haven't heard back a response. Richarddo1442 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Richarddo1442: The site doesn't seem to be covered by reliable sources in any amount of detail, which is our measure of notability, for the most part. Number of followers on Youtube is not something we consider a notability criterion - if it's worth covering in Wikipedia, someone else will cover it first. Does that help? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Reliable sources do exist though. If you were more informed about the topic you're nominating for deletion, you would know that "Your EDM" is a relevant and reliable source within the EDM community. I did not say his number of followers ALONE made him notable, but also the fact that he is one of the biggest figures in the music scene on YouTube. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the state of sourcing in an article (See: WP:NEXIST). Just because there aren't enough references with reliable sources in the article doesn't make the subject less notable. And on that note, I already told you I was willing to add up more sources in order to clear up that issue. Does that help? Richarddo1442 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Richarddo1442: I didn't see that reliable sourcing to support notability existed, regardless of whether or not it was cited in the article. If there's something I might be missing, please add it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese. I've noticed a distinct change in tone in your edit summaries and talk page comments lately. Things seem to be getting more tense. I've tried not to, but if this has been precipitated by a change in tone on my end then I sincerely apologize. Going forward, I will make a concerted effort to remain positive in both my tone and interactions. I'd also like you to know that my goal here is to always improve the project. I know I am not perfect, but I try. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I'd like to be able to work with you to improve articles of mutual interest. I think this will be easier if we both remain calm and assume good faith on the part of the other. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your tone is irrelevant. It is your editing behavior that is, frankly, verging on trolling by this point. You will be able to improve articles of mutual interest if you start complying with Wikipedia policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I always try to follow Wikipedia policy, but will make an effort to improve. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your comment prodded me to go and look.

This article discusses Perotine's child directly: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004364950/B9789004364950_009.xml

Specifically, it discusses how the priests present at the execution deemed the infant a to have inherited the moral stain of its mother after it was rescued, and thus the judge ordered the boy to be burned. This relates the incident more firmly to the position of the Catholic church than if it was just a judge deciding this all on himself. -- Page 91 of this journal http://quidditas.humwp.byu.edu/files/2018/12/20.pdf discusses Perotine's case and notes several other cases where the "don't execute a pregnant woman" rule during the Counter-Reformation appeared to be ignored.

--- I also found this article, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2173842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents which discusses abortion and infanticide in 19th century Britain. It discusses how the legal system played a lower value on the life of an infant, so punishment for infanticide was less than the punishment for an adulticide.

It also discusses abortion in the same time period. Abortion was also punished less, as it was dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Courts, which had more discretion. However, in the 19th century, it was made a state offense and was punishable by life "transportation (could mean imprisonment proper it seems or more likely penal colony placement) or capital punishment. --- With relevance to the modern abortion debates, it seems that one position advocates "After birth abortion": https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/257 , https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/better-dead-disabled , and https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html

Although in the U.S. after-birth abortion is illegal and after-birth abortion is considered a fringe position, it was legalized in the Netherlands and is considered part of the parent's freedom of choice, much like abortion in the U.S. today. --- This is a blog http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2016/03/barney-heart-and-soul-of-st-sampsons.html from an animal rights activist, who notes:

"Quite obviously, the Vatican's outrage over abortions is not only a fairly recent contrivance but it historically did not even apply to the unborn children of those that it considered to be heretics. Furthermore, even though "Bloody Mary's" father, King Henry VIII, had taken the Church of England out from underneath the yoke of the Vatican in 1534, that made absolutely no difference as far as the fate of these three women and one unborn child were concerned."

That is all I found so far. This justifies inclusion on two grounds:

1. Connection between current life debates (e.g. post-birth abortion as practiced in the Netherlands) 2. The last link is not good enough to justify inclusion, but it demonstrates the basic relation. The position of the Catholic Church on abortion today does not occur in a vacuum, but is part of an "unbroken garment of life" approach. As a result the position of the Catholic Church today on infanticide is its position on abortion, and vice-versa. As a result the first two links I provided which directly link the clergy and overall Marian-era pattern practice are sufficient to justify inclusion. After all, the existing argument on the page argues the relative novelty of the current position of the Catholic Church, just like the blogger in the lone unreliable source listed above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I have limited access to some of these journals during times of the day when I'm not at work, but from what I can tell right now, none of these sources make the relevant connections. Crossing Borders and Quidditas don't appear to discuss abortion and possibly touch on Catholicism fairly tangentially, and the Sauer article in Population Studies obviously concerns abortion but doesn't discuss Catholicism or the Counter-Reformation. The JME, Slate, and Commonweal sources very clearly don't touch on anything that you added. If these are the best sources you have, it is clear that your content is not relevant to Catholicism and abortion. BTW, "after-birth abortion is legal in the Netherlands because of freedom of choice" is garbage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The rule in the Netherlands is that only the parents can chose infanticide, and it has to be agreed to by certain relevant professionals. I see you still disagree about the other things, but I encourage you to read the three links discussing post-birth abortion--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Even your own sources note that the Netherlands protocols call for "hopeless and unbearable suffering." Your attempt to frame the situation as "the parents initiate the request = it's about their right to free themselves from their baby" is in error - what it means is that doctors have less ability to pressure the parents into making this choice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The page already discussed the practice of infanticide well before I got to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I regret that it has come to this, but I have notified the ArbCom that I believe you are in violation of the sanctions placed against you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making bad and/or irrelevant changes to the page operation market garden. I know this isn't a valid excuse but figured I could be helpful by making some grammar changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siredthea (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: Hey, no need to apologize! Welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because it inserted some "===Header text===" that seemed like testing, and not all the vocabulary changes were synonyms or aided readability (like "obtain a foothold" vs. "form a foothold"). But it doesn't mean you should be discouraged! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Thank you, I,m new to Wikipedia and I don't really know the "language." so sorry to ask you but what do you mean by testing?Siredthea (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: Because most articles can be edited by anyone, sometimes people will use an article to either practice adding material/formatting, or to check if they "really" can make it say whatever they want. Because you added the sample heading without changing it to what you wanted it to say, it seemed like it could be the former kind of test. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: thanks for clarifying. I thought it was something like that but wanted to make sure. also I kinda wanted to see if it worked while trying to help. oops.Siredthea (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: No worries! If you want to practice wiki markup and style, there's Wikipedia:Sandbox! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)