User talk:Roscelese/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Roscelese, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thank yo for fixing my mistake

Thank you for this undo of my edit, which indeed was a mistake. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Hope you had a happy Chanukah! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Breivik

Re that article, I'm not bothered about the descriptions of Breivik, it's describing groups like ETA and the IRA as terrorist that is the problem. Longstanding consensus on Wikipedia is that we don't label groups as terrorist without attribution. Also, in the case of the prison move, the source doesn't say anything about him being "polite but fanatic" so I've reworded that to manipulative, exactly as the source says. Valenciano (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for acting fast against the inclusion of vested sources in this sensitive issue! Iñaki LL (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Two editors have accused you of inconsideration for the article's quality and of advocacy, discouraged by WP:NOT. I don't know what is going on, but several disputes have led to several protections. I don't want this article to head the same direction as mass killings under Communist regimes, a fully-protected article with indefinite time. I wonder if you can request for mediation. WP:Arbitration/Requests is a last resort, so I recommend doing other resolutions first, like more discussions as you have been doing and requesting a third party to mediate. I may seem a random person to talk to you, but I have been interested in similar topics... well, some that definitely relate to me. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has been plagued by a steady and a rotating cast of POV-pushers for literally years; the attempts by the current chief culprit and an obvious sockpuppet who's stalking me around to edit-war their opinions into the article are nothing new. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I added "controversial" tags. I hope you sort things out with other editors before you would risk facing sanctions. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you are fully concerned with the article's balance. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Esoglou; he showed me this diff. I don't know why an info of denying one person's own sexuality is removed. This would violate WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, which cannot be tolerated. Sexuality is considered complex nowadays, but sources matter the most. Well, you did swell on balancing the article, but advocate elsewhere, not in Wikipedia. I am waiting for your viewpoint on this. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops... I was referring to this link, discussed in Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure what you're referring to, but I've repeatedly explained on the talk page why I don't think Esoglou's proposed change for Pastoral care is a positive one, as well as my disbelief that he was accurately reporting the content of inaccessible sources when he's had problems with lying about sources in both the recent and further past and, in that very edit, was engaging in original research. The latter issue is now moot, as you can see from the talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What about Jeanine Deckers, the Singing Nun? Can you tell me what is wrong with the below passage as shown in diff?

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she is reported to have begun a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher. She herself never admitted being a homosexual, and she was said to be maintaining a chaste life.

--George Ho (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I've already explained this on the talk page, but the Dictionnaire des provocateurs is not accessible to me and, given Esoglou's historical tendency to misrepresent sources, I doubted that it said what he claimed; I also wasn't sure it was reliable. (As it turns out, it does contain the statement that Jeanine remained closeted, but also states that Annie was the love of her life, so it's clear that Esoglou was taking advantage of the source's inaccessibility to push a POV in using it to undermine other sources' statements about their relationship.) The Vindicator source doesn't say anything about Annie and shouldn't be used to make statements about Annie one way or another - that is original research. But as I said, we went through this on the talk page already. I suggest that you begin there rather than dragging me through endless repetition on behalf of this creepy user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that mediation will resolve this and arbitration will be avoided. The more I understand the whole situation, the less chance mediation will be effective. Either this is a user misconduct or something. The dictionary is French, so he might have taken advantage of it. I'll ask him about this. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing here. I speak French. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain clearly: I have seen the article fully protected several times. I was worried about its stability, so I have to investigate. As I learned, editors are accusing of pushing your agenda, so I want to make sure you are not doing so. I was speculating there might be miscommunication between you and other editors, but I couldn't grasp the complex situation. One accuses you; you accuse other. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting I do here, other than continuing to encourage Esoglou to gain consensus before trying to push through these new proposed changes, as is policy. I'm not sure this rises to the level of needing mediation, he just needs to learn to lay off when he hasn't succeeded in obtaining consensus for his edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked his block log. Esoglou was blocked as a sockpuppeteer, but it was considered a mistake, so s/he was unblocked. I don't know what would happen to The Singing Nun if the dispute extends to there. There are ways mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm unsure whether negotiating with Esoglou is effective. What about requesting at Wikipedia:Editor assistance? --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou has taken up too much of my time already (and I'm frankly disinclined to give him more as he's admitted that he's trying to get my attention). He needs to learn to build consensus and to stop edit-warring his content in if consensus for it is not achieved, just like any other user. The idea that a user can gain a wider platform for his personal views and agendas by behaving particularly badly is not one we should encourage. Again, if you are interested in mediating this dispute, I suggest reading through the discussion history first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I read past discussions. I see one agenda; I see another. Neither are willing to make compromises. Also, the messages are too long for me to read, but I read no progress or agreement yet. Also, there have been disagreements about reliability and interpretations of sources. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Various at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is helpful. Seems to me that most options have been exhausted. If you think mediation won't work, and you refuse to talk to him, perhaps WP:arbitration/Requests should help the article return back to normal with sanctions or something like that. I want the article unprotected or semi-protected as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou

I think my initial approach was flawed, as I attempted to foster discussion centered on the article in question. I've since realized the core problem lies with your past with Esoglou.
I know it's likely been rehashed many times, but, in the interest of clarity and in no uncertain terms, can you tell me what needs to happen so that you can discuss this matter openly with Esoglou? Assess this question in a vacuum, regardless of your previous encounters. What do I, Esoglou, or any other party need to bring to the table for discussion to happen?
P.S. - and this is actually a pretty important detail - accusing an editor of being an 'obvious sockpuppet' is not acceptable. Please don't do so again unless you're prepared to open a case at SOCK. m.o.p 02:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing this with Esoglou, but remain happy to discuss this with other people and have, I think, successfully been doing so.

A number of other users, including admins, have pointed out that the user is displaying classic sock behavior. I personally think that existing solely to stalk another user is blockable behavior on its own, even if the sockmaster isn't identified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So there's absolutely no way to change that?

Right, but an investigation concluded that this was not the case. All I'm asking is for you to keep your speculation to yourself in the future. I'm sure you're already aware that such accusations fall under the scope of our civility policy, and continuing to make them can be grounds for a civility block.

Maybe we should spend more time on the stalking claim. Can you provide me with a few instances where you believe Esoglou edited articles solely because you had previously done the same? m.o.p 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If Esoglou ceased his creepy behavior and started editing in good faith, possibly, but it would take a while to establish that given the history of his behavior toward me.

As far as I know, an investigation did not in fact conclude that this was not the case. Re the stalking, I'm (still) referring to Padresfan, whose edits Black Kite has already analyzed on that user's talk page and concluded that they resemble the edits of a sockpuppet. MastCell has made the same observation and indicated willingness to block on the basis of behavior. Literally all Padresfan does is follow me around and edit-war. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you be able to define 'creepy behaviour' and demonstrate bad-faith edits by supplying me with one or two diffs? That would definitely help.

My apologies, I thought the above claim of socking/stalking was directed at Esoglou, who has been previously accused of the behaviour but was cleared. Black Kite did bring my attention to that matter earlier last week. m.o.p 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I presented evidence demonstrating Esoglou's disruption in the abortion topic area, which was under ArbCom sanction. (Evidence of behavior, incidentally, not dissimilar to the behavior he continues to display in the topic area of homosexuality.) He chose to respond to this case by sexually harassing me, and when this was the proximate cause of a six-month topic ban, his second in the topic area and third in any Catholicism-related subject, decided to display the offending image as a banner at the top of his talk page until the beginning of this year and continued at the time to make taunting reference to it and maintain that I should be pleased with it, directly after I had asked him again to stop. He describes his behavior towards me as motivated by "affection", which is presumably what leads him to spam noticeboards and talk pages with posts about me to the point where users who haven't been mired in this thing for ages, including completely uninvolved users, have asked him to drop the fixation ([1] [2]). He's also made numerous snide or derogatory remarks about my sexual orientation, saying that it negatively affects my editing; those remarks alone, and doubling down on them after being advised that this was unacceptable, almost got him topic-banned or blocked. [3][4][5] at ANI; [6][7] (The latter is the remark after which I stated that I had finally become fed up with his behavior and would no longer speak to him. Long overdue.) And then yesterday, he attempted to edit-war his comments onto my talk page after I'd made it clear that I didn't want them there; I had to remove them three times. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you wanted to know about bad faith too. I think deliberately misrepresenting the sources about Deckers in the article (attributing words to a reliable-seeming writer that the writer never said and never was represented as saying; citing an inaccessible source which, it transpired, identified the person's female partner as the love of her life to cast doubts upon the fact that she was gay or bisexual), which happened this month, demonstrates that this behavior is alive and well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets:, @George Ho: Dude never knows when to stop - claiming my refusal to put up with his sleazy behavior is just "playing hard to get." Can you not encourage him to avoid topic areas where he isn't able to control himself around other editors? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice that he has been evasive on his own talk page. Can you request for mediation or arbitration? Master and I can't handle this matter alone. The article need either a mediator or an arbitrator. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, since he's evidently trying to get me to pay attention to him and sees my desire not to speak to him as encouragement rather than a signal to back off, I am disinclined to do this. I think rewarding his bad behavior will only induce him to continue. Are there other solutions for getting him to end his disruptive behavior that do not require my prolonged engagement with him? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Running away from or avoiding him is becoming ineffective. He wants somebody to take his side or to turn against you (which he denies), and this should not be tolerated. If he is your problem, read Wikipedia:Harassment to verify whether he is harassing you. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Catholic Church and abortion in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, I checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Other sanctions. Somehow, your conflicts with Esoglou have gone far enough. To stop him, Esoglou must be disciplined in Arbitration. To be honest, I don't know any solution without your getting directly involved. Perhaps email an administrator, like Master of Puppets? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Since MOP has been pinged, I'll wait and see what he says about the evidence presented here, first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been nearly one week without his response. I wonder what's up with him. --George Ho (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. What do you think is best to do next? @George Ho: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can try WP:Help desk. That's all I can provide. But if he's still the problem, perhaps use WP:requests for arbitration. --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully once the article is unprotected, he won't continue trying to push his non-consensus version through, and will stop obsessively posting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This expectation is futile. I've conversed with Esoglou and found him fanatic to his words. Have you thought of him reading a Bible? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his recent interactions with me show that he hasn't cooled down and is just as obsessed as before. Do you know anyone else that might want to mediate? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think mediation will work. There are user conduct concerns. I think Arbitration suits well. Can you file a request? If not, can you file a request for mediation? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015 full protection

The article is fully protected again. Now is the time to make requests. You can't let this slide, run away, and let things cyclically happen. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Argh, I know, he and his sockpuppet friend are never going to stop trying to push their POV. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to help end their disruption of the encyclopedia without dragging myself into a lengthy interaction with this creep. I've e-mailed Kite for advice, too, and directed them towards the list of diffs up above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How did he respond? If there is nothing that he can do, perhaps I shall file a request myself. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous of you to claim not to want to interact with them and then continue to edit the same articles, which is by definition an interaction. In fact it is the very standard of interaction on Wikipedia, in which you are expected to work constructively and collegially, which you have decidedly not done. The continued personal attack of sockpuppet accusations without proof or investigation are also wearing thin. I think it is high time for you to put up or shut up. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, he could stop editing disruptively and behaving like a sleazeball, and the sockpuppet could stop socking. If Esoglou didn't have this creepy fixation on me and hadn't sexually harassed me and directed homophobic rhetoric at me, it is well possible that we would be having constructive discussions to this day. Although I doubt it, because he's clearly not interested in neutrally editing articles on things he personally disagrees with. I've suggested before, back before I decided not to communicate with him, that he step away from topics he's unable to edit, but he's declined and instead had to be deterred with bans. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no other way for you to do something yourself. I've filed a request for arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality. You can reply to other people's statements in your own section, not anyone else's or mine. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou posted his own statement, partially against you. Deadline on posting your own statement is unknown, but I highly recommend that you do so soon. The committee will decide on whether to take the case. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The case is now accepted. Post all your evidence you can find at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Operas by world premiere location

Category:Operas by world premiere location, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Berlin State Opera world premieres

Category:Berlin State Opera world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Burgtheater world premieres

Category:Burgtheater world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Covent Garden world premieres

Category:Covent Garden world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Houston Grand Opera world premieres

Category:Houston Grand Opera world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:La Fenice world premieres

Category:La Fenice world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:La Monnaie world premieres

Category:La Monnaie world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:La Scala world premieres

Category:La Scala world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:New York City Opera world premieres

Category:New York City Opera world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Opéra de Monte-Carlo world premieres

Category:Opéra de Monte-Carlo world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Opéra-Comique world premieres

Category:Opéra-Comique world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Paris Opera world premieres

Category:Paris Opera world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Teatro San Carlo world premieres

Category:Teatro San Carlo world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Théâtre Lyrique world premieres

Category:Théâtre Lyrique world premieres, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Smerus (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hi could please give Murder of Kylie Maybury some work or a once-over in editing? Paul Austin (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, why me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Stop Islamization of America. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Providing evidence for an Arbcom case

Responding to your email here as I think any comments I make to a party in a case should be as public as possible. Basically you post what you wish so long as it's within the boundaries of our polices, eg BLP, Outing, etc. So far as I can tell without seeing it, you are free to post any of the types of material you mentioned to me. Normally evidence about other editors, with diffs, goes in the evidence phase. Then there is the workshop phase. That's where you can respond to evidence/allegations made by other editors, make suggestions about findings of fact, etc. These aren't hard and fast rules and normally if you put something in the wrong place a clerk will come along and correct you. I hope this helps. User:Lankiveil is the clerk - you could ask him if you need more information. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that that's a good idea. OK, so if I can find time I will submit all of that so that it's there to refer to during workshop. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to back up what Doug said above, I'm here to help, so please let me know if there's anything you're not clear on or if I can assist in any way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for putting up with Arbcom issues

@Roscelese:, was going to make a comment in another thread, thank you very much for your longstanding commitment to working on wikipedia - I'd been reading about arbcom before you mentioned me in a thread, and I just wanted to thank you for your edits and persevering, even when the way you've been treated by some editors is disgraceful. I used to attend a church at the time in which the Manhattan Declaration was signed, and I just want to say, personally, that people like you with a commitment to the truth help younger generations to cut though PR spin in a way that some might not immediately appreciate. Thank you -- Aronzak (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's really nice of you, thank you. I suppose I don't really think of it that way, since I've certainly edited against pro-gay sources and edits as well in cases where they were not up to our standards. While part of my contribution in these articles has been in reducing PR language, I hope my other contributions, which focus on information on the topic that isn't just reproducing church documents, haven't gone unnoticed, eg. starting the notable gay and bi Catholics section in the Homosexuality + RCC article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin request by IP user

Hello Roseclese! Someone (an IP user) appear to have made administrational complaints on my talk-page. It's about Italian Fascism. I have made a reply to the IP user, which I hope You will have a look on. It's unclear to me whether the IP user understands figurative speech. There is also a POV accusations which I cannot agree to. The main intention of my contribution in this "mish-mash" article was to point at the differencies between Italian Fascism and German Nazism especially before Mussolini joined Hitler's war. Boeing720 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the edits. When editing, it is imperative to make sure that the statements you're adding are cited to reliable sources and that you are not drawing your own conclusions. Is the idea of fascism being a fraud, for instance, something that a historian has said? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Of cource, In my first reply to the IP-user have I made a quote from "The Concese Encyclopedia of World History" , Hutchinson of London, 1958, 1971 and 1995 edited by John Bowle. Chapter 20, part V, page 485 by John V Plamenatz (M.A. of Oxford). Here is the most essential similarties and differencies between German Nazism and Italian Fascism made clear in ideomatic English. And here is "fraud" mentioned. Also Michael Burleigh in "The Racial State" (1991) makes comparacies which are in line with this. I've also got the TV-documentary "Mussolini-Hitler" edited by Fabianne Alvarez-Giro, Written and Directed by Jean-Christophe Rosé on DVD. It's very clear in stating both Hitler and Mussolini both were dictators, but after the nazi murder on Austrian Italian-friendly dictator Engelbert Dollfuss 1934, Mussolini held an very anti-German speech (also available on You Tube with English subtitles), he make fun of the people on the other side of the Alpes, who didn't knew to wright their own history at the time when Rome had Caesar, Virgil and Augustus etc. So no, I don't make things up.

The IP-user made no new headline, but I suspect he/she also uses an alias. He/she is clearly not new, but may perhaps play unexperienced as a part of being some kind of sock-puppet (or whatever it's called). Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide, on the talk page, quotations from the book that support what you're putting in in order to prove that it is not your original thought. Much of what you've added is not cited to a source at all. Additionally, when adding material that may not reflect a consensus of historians, it may be advisable to WP:SUBSTANTIATE by attributing - for example, even if one reliable source says that Italian fascism was a fraud with no real ideological component, it is clear that other scholars think differently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be this long, but I must reject the accusations. Now a third user has removed everything both I and the IP user has contributed with. But as it has been an administrational question, I feel I must add following to You, since You asked me.

.

Quote "The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel." from Michael Burleigh, from the "Racial State" 1991, page 306

.

Quote "Nazism exploited Socialist sentiments without being genuinely Socialist; it rejected individualism and responsible government , not only in practice, as the Communists did, but also in theory. In whatever it shared with Fascism, it was the more immoderate and reckless, especially against Communism. It differed from Fascism in its furious hatred of the Jew and the Slav and its faith in racial superiority, and also in the intensity of its contempt for the Christian virtue of charity. In Fascism there was a larger degree of fraud, in Nazism a much larger element of fanaticism." from "The Concese Encyklopedia of World History", chapter 20 page 485, which indeed does exist!

.

About how Mussolini was removed by the Great Fascist Council, "2194 Days of war" by Cesare Salmaggi & Alfredo Pallavisini , special article "Mussolini's Fall" page 400-401, this is a Swedish edition (page numbers may differ slightly, and translate the entire article in six columns would take me a close to a week). But briefly I read - It was on the 24 July 1943 at 5 pm. Present were Sforza (party secretary), De Vecchi, De Bono, Suardo, Grandi, Acerbo, Ciano [Mussolini's son in law and foregin minister; later executed by the nazists], Galbiati, Pareschi, Polverelli, Farinacci, Albrini, Frattari, Gottardi, Rossoni, Bastianini, De Masico, Biggini, Federzoni, Bottai, Cianetti, Tringali-Casanova, Alfredi, De Stefani, Balella, Buffarini-Guidi, Bignardi and Marinello. Mussolini began with a long defence speech, (including a claim that he never wanted authority of the armed forces ! etc), But it's the agenda of Grandi that's "everyone is looking forward to". And he makes it clear "that the fascists makes a revolt against its leader"... "Ciano accuses Germany, to not have done what they initially had promised to do" etc. [It would take me very long time to make a good translation of all six columns.] But dispite the author's Italian names, do I believe the book originates from a university in North America.

.

I also used the French TV documentary "Mussolini-Hitler", Artline Films in association with Doclabs and France Télévisions, produced by Olivier Mille, edited by Fabienne Alvarez-Giro , written & directed by Jean-Christophe Rosé. This covered "the fraud behind the fascist fasade" and Mussolini's speech after the nazi murder on Italian friendly Austrian dictator Engelbert Dollfuss in 1934. (this speech is available on You-Tube with English subtitles. It cover also the question for instance of where Hitler believed in "aryan blood", didn't Mussolini, who insted was crazy about Roman history and the mediterranean sea shores.

.

In all, my contributions aimed to point at differencies between Italian Fascism and Nazism (as similarities are mentioned and there is an NPOV-flag on the article) but without any positive fascistic tone. It was NPOV and nothing else. I think the IP user's criticism is out of order (especially given the poor general standard of the article) and his own supportless changes (f.i. reg. how Mussolini was dismissed; see history file of the article)

.

If any question regarding OR, NPOV (or other matter) in my contribution remains, please return to me. Boeing720 (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for typing this up. As I haven't been involved in the article - I came across the dispute from the IP's posting on an admin noticeboard - I'd suggest posting to Talk:Italian Fascism as well for other users at that article to see!

I will say, though, that I'm not sure what you've provided here supports the statements you added to the article. For instance, although the word "fraud" is used, I don't think the Plamenatz citation supports your statement that fascism was "fraudulent by nature" or lacking in ideology. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Plamenatz statment isn't "fraudulent by nature", correct. But in comparacy with other "-isms" fascistic ideology was louder than what it ought to be. It can also examplified. Describing the defeat of Abyssinia (the only African nation which never had been colonized and where the people already was Christian for generations (I believe) - as "another Triumph of the Fascism !" (and the Itailan attack on France was neither a such , I can look up the page but this isn't put in an article so I hope You can trust me on that one. Or declaring the Renaissance (which undoubtly began in the northern parts of today's Italy, but there was no Empire of any kind in the 15th Century, (it's just to have a look at any 15th Century map, which cover today's Italy) as "a second Roman Empire". And his own as the third. This was mentioned in the TV-documentary, and most certainly not any OR of mine.

I do though take some criticism to mee for the future, and will make inline citations after every phrase and not just once. But last time I did so, another user made complaints.

I actually think I and the IP user together could improve the article, in order to be able to remove the POV-flag - which existed before "my time" there. But only if he/she introduce himself/herself by the users alias. Correct me if I'm wrong , but using IP number and an alias should only be done in articles where edits may become a threath to the user. Like editing "Islamic State", whose members perhaps may return to my counrty with new ideas... But I don't think that's the case in this article. So why the IP, it has been used in two articles only. But the user appears to have made contributions for a rather long time. I pinged the IP with n set to 5000 without any luck. The IP might even be a TOR or similar number. Unless he contacts me under alias, I will do something else instead. You are though welcome if You have more questions. Boeing720 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended

Dear Roscelese/Archive 14, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Link check

Hi - I think the link you included in your post here is probably not the one you intended, so I wanted to let you know so that you can fix it if needed. Also I wanted to check in about how I framed the workshop proposal (which I should have done before posting it), since it directly references your personal identification. If you'd prefer I amend or strike anything, please let me know here or by email and I'll take care of it. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and no amendment/strike is necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations

If Padresfan is a sockpuppet, report him at that page. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why this isn't the right solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, let's wait until final decisions are made. Okay? --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Breast Binding

Hello, since you seem to be interested in the subject, I thought I would gift you a link that confirms the real Brandon Teena bound her breasts. How you could dispute this I have no idea, not just because it's fact (as was portrayed in the film also) but he was known for being able to pass as a boy, which would have been fairly difficult to do if he didn't have his breasts bound.

This is an article from the website of the lawyers who handled the trial proceedings in Lincoln, Nebraska. [8] Please note this section: She began dressing like a boy, cut her hair short, bound her breasts, and even put a sock in her pants to simulate male genitalia. She began posing as a boy and started dating girls. She was repelled at the thought of being touched by a male. Feel free to message me if you would like to further dispute this, and thank you for putting the article up for deletion! HesioneHushabye (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not solely about verifiability, but also about not drawing conclusions that the sources do not. It may be "obvious" to editors that the reason Tisdel believed Teena was born male was because he bound his chest, wore men's clothes, and so on, but the source would have to actually say that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. We can't include breast-binding in the article, even though I have a source stating Brandon Teena bound her breasts, because. well I don't know, but your opinion is what is important. You better remove it from Brandon Teena's page as well. HesioneHushabye (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Roscelese, in the open Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Archaeological mistakes of Arthur Evans should not be cited as "evidence" in wikipedia

Hi Roscelese. The "Tauresium" page in wikipedia is totally bogus. Let me explain why, by citing the very source used by the authors of this page:

"The site of archeological locality “Gradishte” – v. Taor is 20 km southeast from Skopje. First time, it is discovered hundred and more years ago, from English traveler Arthur Evans, who recognized lost city as Justiniana Prima, where ancient Skupi was located, and village Taor as Tauresium, birthplace of king Justinian I."

In reality, Arthur Evans was WRONG, and Justiniana Prima is located over 100 km to the north in Serbian territory, and - ABOVE ALL - it has been IDENTIFIED EPIGRAPHICALLY which means there is no doubt this location is indeed Justiniana Prima.

We know from Prokopius and others that Justiniana Prima was located near the (village) birthplace of Justinian, the village was destroyed by an earthquake and was rebuilt by Justinian, who also built Justiniana Prima nearby.

We know that the original belief of Arthur Evans was WRONG, because Justiniana Prima was located in a DIFFERENT PLACE from here he "Identified" it. Nevertheless, some people keep invoking the silly idea of Evans to "identify" Tauresium based upon the modern name of a village and the modern name of a nearby castle ruins (yes, Evans "identified" Tauresium based upon the similarity of the name Tauresium - the actual name of the village where Justinian was born) with the modern name of the village of Taor, and the nearby location of Bader, as the location of the Baderiana castle mentioned by Prokopius.

Both locations have *not* been positively identified by any epigraph (inscription) naming them as either Tauresium or Baderiana in Latin. Both locations are too far away from the real Justiniana Prima, and - above all - Evans supposedly identified "Justiniana" Prima in those ruins as well, something that we know today that it was WRONG. You cannot have a wikipedia page dedicated to Justiniana Prima which points to a different location more than 100 km away in Serbia, and have this wikipedia page suggesting that Tauresium is "near" Justiniana Prima! Because >100 km away is not a "nearby location" by any stretch of imagination, and NO REAL EVIDENCE, apart from the ramblings of some folks whose ideas about antiquity are not scientific, to say the least...

Sikader (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S.

I have contacted the owners of the website at contact@tauresium.info and asked them to clarify to me whether they have any REAL evidence that the village which they are excavating is indeed Tauresium. I hope they shall respond to me. In case they do, I will inform you.

Sikader (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for improving the page I made! I created it during an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon satellite event.

Jlcolbert (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

my page

	destroying someones creation
	thanks man, for destroying my page, heres a medal. Seasicktugboat (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive editing

If you continue with your abusive edits and accusations, I will report you to the administrators.  EllieTea (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Palestine

Roscelesce, does this meet the standards for RS for the claim that LGBT people face death in the State of Palestine? http://www.law.tau.ac.il/heb/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/NowheretoRun.pdf

? Thanks. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The source looks like it could be reliable, but it doesn't appear to support the claim that the state imposes the death penalty for homosexuality. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't mention state violence against gay people, but that's not actually the same thing. (By the same token, we can't actually write that the United States criminalizes being black.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't add it, but I'll mention it if a content dispute comes up on talk. Cheers Roscelese. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Roscelese, please don't call edits like that vandalism[9] like a newbie. You're an experienced editor, nobody should have to tell you about WP:NOTVAND. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  EllieTea (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese ― Padenton|✉   21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)