User talk:Roscelese

Talkback

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at RAN1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Post-cooling off

Please tell me as clearly and civilly as you can what you want from me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As ever, I'd like you to identify sources, and/or content with reference to sources, that you feel are being underrepresented or overrepresented in the article. If the article focuses too much on the politics and not enough on the organization's other activities, where are the sources on their other activities? Basically - propose actionable changes, don't expect anyone to read your mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found such sources (yet). But I also don't believe I have any obligation to do so -- and please note that neutrality is not just about underrepresentation or overrepresentation of sources. I could be mistaken, but haven't we already covered this territory? Where is our disagreement? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You don't need to use talkback, as I'm watching this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then do you think there's a tone issue? Where does the lack of neutrality lie if it's not in language and not in weight/structure? Declining to identify specific things that you feel could be fixed by other users, while simultaneously declining to make any effort to fix them yourself, is effectively leaving the tag up as a badge of shame indefinitely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a tone issue, but primarily it's a "balancing aspects" issue. I see the tag as as a signal that there's a problem, no more, no less. There's no shame in that; every article is a work in progress. One of the ways editors often contribute is to identify problems. Even without offering a specific action plan to fix the problems, this provides real benefit to the community.

Regardless, I'm still at a loss as to what we're fighting about. I described my POV concerns in some depth and then further clarified them. I don't see any disagreement from you on the validity of my concern, just on the presence of the tag. Are you saying you don't understand my POV concern? Then keep asking clarifying questions on article talk, and I'll answer them. Are you upset with my tagging practices? I don't think I've done anything violative of community guidelines, or even out of the ordinary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to your vague statement that there is a balance problem, I have repeatedly asked you why you think this and you have consistently been unable to offer anything other than a vague feeling. Again: Where are the sources talking about the aspects you believe are underrepresented in the article - protest sizes, in-depth exploration of Geller's feelings about mosques, ? Which sources currently present do you believe are being given undue weight? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Still confused. Why do you keep asking me for sources? Am I required to find these sources for my concern to be legitimate? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've re-reviewed the our prior discussion in detail, and if I'm not mistaken I believe this comes down to disagreement about tagging practices. {{pov}} says the tag can be removed if the tagger does not discuss their concerns and identify actionable issues. You seem to be suggesting that "identifying actionable issues" means actually taking action, e.g. doing some independent research and finding uncited sources. I don't think the template or any policy or guideline supports this view. The reason drive-by tagging is discouraged is because it's unhelpful; it doesn't lead to the improvement of the article in any way. That's not at all what I've done. I've described the issues and provided examples. Anyone should be armed with sufficient information to dig in, do the research, fix the problems (or explain why my concerns are unfounded). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Actionable" in the usual sense of "enabling an edit to the article." If you don't provide other users with ways in which your concern can be addressed, there's no way for the tag to allow improvement. Again, "I just feel like it's unbalanced" is not enough. Why do you feel like it's unbalanced? What is being given undue weight? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're getting somewhere, albeit in baby steps. At least I think I understand your position better. An issue can be "actionable" without proposing a specific edit. The concern merely has to be understandable enough that the community can address it. In this case, "addressing it" probably means doing some research and finding uncited sources, as well as digging through the cited sources and seeing how can better represent them. As for your questions, I'll answer them on article talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

Copied from one user talk page on Lankiveil's behalf. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

1. User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
2. User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
3. User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Copied from one user talk page on Lankiveil's behalf. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

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

A little know fact about Wikipedia dispute resolution is you're not actually required to reply, especially when your position is the correct one. NE Ent 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it appears the IP doesn't know what the words "per page" means, and the report will be dismissed shortly. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Family Research Council

Please cite sources on Wikipedia, in accordance with WP:RS. You made this edit, which was unsourced.