Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 29 May 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

Talkback

Portal

Your move request

I agree with your sentiment at Talk:Pro-life#Requested move, again, but I'm not sure you got the proposal right. Right now it looks like you want to move Abortion-rights movement back to Pro-choice and Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement? If you want the titles to be parallel that would just flip the bias. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it would work to say "Move Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement and Pro-choice to Abortion-rights movement," given the pages' current locations. I did try to make my intention clear in the move rationale - hopefully people will get it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand it that way when examining the move suggestion. I, too, thought you were proposing to flip the bias. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'll go back and see if I can make it more clear. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. This may be more of a comment for the move discussion than here but if you want the titles to be parallel, wouldn't Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement be the best option? It seems to me to be a major bias if one article is called the "anti" movement and the other the "rights" movement. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not even going to vote in this discussion - I don't have strong feelings about what the articles should be called. I just think they should be parallel. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on DYK nom for Spelling of Shakespeare's name

Hook and article length OK. But 2 issues must be resolved: no citation specifically for "most importantly Samuel Taylor Coleridge" in the article; and many uncited paras. Please respond at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Spelling_of_Shakespeare.27s_name. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

resolved and passed. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation dispute

Hi Roscelese. I'm analyzing the issue surrounding the quotation from Palestine Media Watch. I know things have been happening pretty fast at that article ( a problem, imo ) and I don't know what to expect next, but I went ahead and asked an editor who I understand speaks Arabic, Nableezy, if he could take a look at the video clip to determine the fidelity of PMW's translation. If anyone restores the disputed passage you might want to just let that be, until we get a reply from him. I agree that the sources provided so far are not reliable for the purpose, however.

Even if Nableezy says the translation of the segment on the PMW web site is correct, I'd still be extremely skeptical about whether it can or should be used. Specifically, we only see what the advocacy group Palwatch wants us to see; the 77-second segment is obviously clipped from a longer interview, and it even has a discontinuity in the middle, a cutout. After seeing what amazing gymnastics with the truth James O'Keefe was able to "accomplish" with his selective editing of the NPR and ACORN videos, I'd say we shouldn't trust any video clip at all where we're given only what the one who releases it wants us to see. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree - that makes sense. (I hadn't previously watched the video all the way through.) The fact that it's a talk show/interview as opposed to an official statement should also give us pause. However, that's presently irrelevant because we have no reliable source that says it's what he said. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gianna Galli

Would you mind taking a look at the DYK review again. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Grossman

For some reason I'm having a difficult time constructing an interesting DYK hook for Herbert Grossman. I'd appriciate some help if you have the time. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

...that conductor Herbert Grossman also collaborated on a popular translation of Puccini's Gianni Schicchi? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"...that Herbert Grossman was horny as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II?"

(talk page stalker) Sorry, just couldn't resist three double-meanings in one sentence. Delete if it offends.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you. Both hooks are now at the suggestions page. I know your hook may not have been meant seriously OhioStandard, but Ithought it was funny and could make a good April Fools DYK. Thanks again.4meter4 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your move

I fixed your move to "List of U.S. state constitutional bans on same-sex unions by type" - there is no constitutional amendment banning a same-sex union, but their legal recognition. The vague nonsense name that is now the parent article title should not extend to a featured list. Do you intend to clean up the currently unclear title in the parent article (same reason) and the issue about whether the article should be about the U.S. or not? Hekerui (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be absurd - you lost your bid to keep the POV title, and making the title longer and more unwieldy isn't going to help you get it back. No one's going to understand "ban on same-sex union" to mean anything other than "ban on legal recognition of same-sex union." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please consider that we all want to improve the encyclopedia and are not in it for "winning". You fail to assume good faith when I attempt to improve the page ("I'm reverting your disruptive move"), you make ill-considered accusations of impropriety ("you lost your bid to keep the POV title, and making the title longer and more unwieldy isn't going to help you get it back", "you're not going to get 'defense of marriage amendment' back by sabotaging the new title") and belittling language ("this 'but they only ban legal recognition of same-sex unions!' is a silly argument", "Oh please, no one interprets it that way"). I don't appreciate these personal comments and I don't think I made any statement coming close, except for saying "nonsense" above, which is not personal but may have not been a good word choice. Hekerui (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped you would remove these personal attacks so that more constructive discussion can take place again. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see those as personal attacks, and I hope that if you consider them to be so, you'll still be able to rise above them and perhaps even begin making constructive contributions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with your tone because it does nothing to resolve any issue. In addition to the stuff I mentioned above you derisively write "Next!" as a reply when I try to have a factual discussion, and make a personal comment in an edit summary ("i see what you did there"), which is not good etiquette. I intend to move forward constructively, but I find that difficult when these disrespectful comments continue after I asked you not to concentrate on personality but argument. Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that anyone could look at my comments and see a focus on personality rather than argument. Again, I'm sorry you're irritated by my comments, but I trust that we can still have productive discussion of the topic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Roscelese!

Hi, Roscelese. Just thought I'd mention a couple of things. First, I added some refs to the talk page for Coming-of-age film that might interest you, the first, especially, as it seems to focus primarily on the how women have been portrayed in that process by Hollywood. I also (sorry) opposed your "delete" at the AfD, but thought I'd mention that although it is odd on the face of it that the two films you mentioned there should be thought illustrative of the genre, it occurs to me that with a subtle shift of definition re "Coming-of-age" one could reasonably include them. If one thinks of the genre as something like "growing up into what your are at your core", transitioning, even late in life, to what you need to be and have always needed to be, then I think the case is more arguable for their inclusion. I've not seen Brokeback Mountain, however, so perhaps I'm talking through my hat on that one. Second, you have mail re the earlier question re the possible identity of a drive-by sock.

Third, I presume the AfD for the Nazi turned Jew fellow came from comments I made on my talk? If so, it's nice to know that you look in there from time to time. But I wanted to apologize for evidently (?) having missed the Miami source for the thing in my earlier search. I may have actually seen it; I can't recall now, since I came across the R.A. article when I was looking through a certain editor's article-creation list to see if her statements at an AE a month or so ago were correct when she said, as I now recall, that only six or seven of her articles were about arbpia matters. The subject of the article, if he ever existed, which I take liberty to doubt, is still not notable since a book of "anecdotes" doesn't make it as a wp:rs. Anyway, thanks for AfDing the article, however you came across it. It certainly needs to go. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not your fault - I looked up the name, and the hits I found were about a Stasi agent. I'm certainly responsible for my own searches before AfDing anything. Anyway, he appears to have existed, at least going by the Miami News which quotes him directly, in spite of the IP's contention that we only have this story via Reb Kahane; however, notability is still lacking. (Also, got your e-mail; will reply soon.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply, Roscelese. I don't see that the Miami News article quotes him, though. The sentence near the end of the article that's in quotation marks is a translation of the name Reuel Abraham from Hebrew, if I understand correctly. It seems the name means, "I saw the God of Abraham"; the paper isn't saying that they interviewed anyone by that name or that the sentence is a quote from him.

I'm still very skeptical as to Reuel Abraham's existence. If this story were true, surely the man would be famous worldwide, and we wouldn't have to scrape for sources for him. We'd have interviews with him, photographs, biographies, an autobiography. He'd have been on Oprah, or at least on television talk shows the focus on Jewish issues; the History Channel would have done a piece on him. He'd be a poster boy, asked to speak at every Jewish conference or AIPAC convention or whatever that its organizers wanted to attract attention to. But no reporter appears to have ever talked to him. I'm not certain of it, of course, but this smells very much like another WP:OTTO, just not one that was high-profile enough to have ever been refuted... Speaking of AIPAC, I added some more info about Dan Senor's involvement with the group to Talk:Start-up Nation. I need to research a bit further, but it looks like Senor's book tour was supported by AIPAC chapters in a great many U.S. states. So far I've seen announcements of that all up and down the Eastern Seaboard, as well as on the West Coast. Anyway, will probably research a bit further, and then add that back to the article. The disclosure belongs there, imo. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the indirect quote "From then on, he says, he feigned illness..." I agree that it seems like there should be more coverage than there is, but I don't think there's really solid grounds for disbelieving his existence - it's just that he's not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Spelling of Shakespeare's name

On 10 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spelling of Shakespeare's name, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Samuel Taylor Coleridge spelled William Shakespeare's last name as "Shakspere"? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

SBA dispute

Hi Roscelese, please see Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#FFL political classification. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lara_Logan#Comments Some serious sexism going on there.

Best regards, OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Giles Muhame

Hi Roscelese, I noticed your work on both David Kato and Rolling Stone (Uganda). I just started an article on Giles Muhame, the editor behind the outings, as I think he's gotten enough coverage now to be notable in his own right. Would you like to swing by and take a look if you get a chance? I'm aiming for the front page with this one via DYK, and as a current and potentially controversial topic I want to make sure it's as solid as possible first. Thanks! Khazar (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've really done substantial work on either of those, but I'll definitely take a look. Thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Khazar (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but hope to continue tomorrow. Thanks for the assist and keen eye! -- Khazar (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of sources on lidos

Hi there. I've not been on-wiki for 6 weeks and I see that List of sources on lidos has been deleted. This page was not created by me, but as part of a collaboration on new lido articles. There was a discussion on my user page last year on its creation User_talk:Lidos#Sources_list which you might like to read. Rather suprised that an article could be deleted so quickly, but then I'm a comparative newbie when I comes to Misplaced Pages.--Lidos (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

An admin has restored it and moved it to my userspace User:Lidos/List of sources on lidos.--Lidos (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest having it userfied. The problem was that it was a bibliography rather than an encyclopedic list, and so it didn't belong in article namespace. However, it's definitely a good resource for editors - the books and articles etc. on the list could be used to improve the article on Lido. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello how are you

Hi i am Millanmane, just wondering how do you become an administrator?

By hanging around making edits for at least a year, and learning about the policies and guidelines we operate under.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, why would I be the person to ask about that? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

LGBT Bot

It's back at this location Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism#Anti-White Section

Can't believe I even bothered responding:) DMacks (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The History of White People

I was confused by your rv of my edits to The History of White People. You write, "The book actually is about the way in which Irish "whiteness," f.ex, was a tool against blacks and Chinese - not just a natural process of assimilation. quotes necessary." I just finished reading this book. Did you read it? It's a far-ranging book about the concept of whiteness and how it has changed over time, beginning with the ancient Greeks. There is hardly any mention of Asians and even Black people are a secondary subject (only the last chapter of the book discusses black race classifications). Only one chapter discusses the Irish in America (viz, 1840s-era prejudice against Irish and how they were not considered white in the pre-Civil War era). And certainly there isn't anything about using whiteness as a "tool." I wish respectfully you would consider rving your rv.

Great book, BTW. I found it completely fascinating. Chisme (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read parts of it, but not having the book on hand at the time I wrote the article, I used reviews: for example, the SF Chronicle source cited which reads "Then, after the Civil War in the United States, the Irish (and some Scandinavians) were slowly but generally allowed to opt in for anti-black political reasons," etc. which is based on p. 211, "No longer stigmatized as inherently different, Irish and Germans entered a second enlargement of American whiteness to become constituent parts of the American. For now there were newcomers to toil at hard labor and be stigmatized as racially inferior..." Is there a way we could incorporate both? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's History

Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.

If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD closures

Just a note to say not to forget to post the AfD result on the talk page of the article in quesion, such as the Old Palace (York) when the result is other than "delete". Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR vio

Would you care to self-revert this?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much 100% certain that the first edit was not a revert - I don't see any previous version of the article in which the text I added was included (other mentions of scholars all appear to be in the long form of the section). Just pointing this out - if you still think it's a revert, I'll self-rv. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean, that's assuming that the second is a revert, too ("scholars" to "certain scholars" to "those scholars who have commented", ...?). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Second one is definitely a revert, no question in my mind. I thought the first one was iffy, but I got a second opinion that agreed it would count. Better safe than sorry, huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, will do. Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, help me to survive this deadly love

Hi. This article is due for deletion again. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since I don't know that anything's been done with it since it came back. :) I'm letting User:BQZip01, who also requested a shot at it, know as well. --Moonriddengirl 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I've been busy. I did what I could and removed the copyvio notice, but let me know if you catch anything else. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you happen to know when and how the photograph was deleted? The file discussion appears to have resulted in a keep. Or did it go down with the page, and it wasn't restored when the page was? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't just repair the observed copyvios. :/ I've put the template back up. The problem is that this guy has demonstrably copied content over and over again, with direct translations from Russian sources as well as from English. We need to replace his content, because we have to presume that everything he wrote is a copyvio unless we know otherwise. It was deleted on 9 May because it was orphaned. It can be restored if a new version of the article is rewritten. (Just to clarify: the rewrite goes here. The template should only be removed by the admin closing the listing or an OTRS agent verifying permission. :)) --Moonriddengirl 10:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad. I'll take another look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, I'm probably not up to rewriting it from scratch. My rephrasing is in the article history if anyone else wants to take a crack at it. :( Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the strong interest in this one, I think I'll stub it. :) I do appreciate your willingness to help out with it, and I completely understand the difficulties of rewriting. Unfortunately, we lose a lot of notable content that way. :/ I rewrite what I can (especially on subjects that I don't think anybody else will tackle or that strike me as just absolutely essential), but it's time intensive and there's just a never-ending stream. :P --Moonriddengirl 13:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR at REAL Women of Canada

By my count you are right at 3RR. I'm a little confused. You were bold, I reverted, and per WP:BRD we're at discuss. But you keep reverting. Why? Lionel (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your counting is off. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You have some awesome section titles here :-)

Thanks, Roscelese, but no thanks. I didn't mind spending time and energy working to make Misplaced Pages the great project it can be, but I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life. I just had to look up the ANI that resulted in her previous block, to try to give context to her latest accusation. Haven't looked at that in a long time; interesting to note it was Boris1 who proposed "A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful." betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)