Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 27 November 2014

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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

1RR on Frank Pavone

Talk:Orson Scott Card listed @ wp:3O

Just a heads up that I've listed our dispute from Talk:Orson Scott Card at wp:3O LINK. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Roscelese, about the RfC you posted, I was thinking it might be good for you to modify the wording slightly in order to present it more neutrally. I suggest deleting the word "extremely" in "...users opposed argue that it is extremely unusual...". The word seems to give more weight to the opposing view. (Compare to "...Users in favor argue that Card's political views have received notice in the press...". "Received notice" is pretty weak, and it would be problematic on the other side if someone presented it as "...users in favor argue that Card's political views have received very significant notice in the press...". Just a thought. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "received very significant notice" isn't bad - it's basically what proponents are saying. What do you think of leaving the oppose view as it is and modifying the representation of the support view? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. I just wanted them to be balanced. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I published the RFC/U

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Atsme it says that you have 48 hrs to certify this dispute before it's deleted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Atsme has indicated that she no longer wishes to take part in the RFCU. So I guess that is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I had more questions but I don't expect them to be answered since the ones I've asked so far haven't been. I guess I cede the floor to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not in a position to take point on this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take the lead. I'm just telling you that it seems pointless for me to ask anymore questions. She has avoided actually answering any questions asked. Actually she put a warning tag on my talk page for my responses and questions in that RFCU. I'm just saying that if you or Binksternet want any certain questions asked then go ahead. If not then right is just a good time to sit back a wait.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. ReportTalk (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages not a reliable source upon itself?

There are articles in wikipedia suggesting that Female Genital Mutilation is spread by Islam over 90% of Indonesia and Malay, articles in wikipedia suggesting that Eritrea and Ethiopia are not purely Christian states, articles in wikipedia suggesting that Muslim states have not elected more than 4 female heads of state e.t.c. e.t.c., but one CANNOT combine them in an article about Reza Aslan proving that he mislead the public about EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM?

Aren't those articles using original research material? Why does wikipedia use them? Why can't somebody quote wikipedia articles to prove his own point in other wikipedia articles, if the original articles are sufficiently sourced?

Furthermore, the statement that the U.S. of A. is not obliged or supposed to "reason" Saudi Arabia with an embargo is quite obvious: An embargo to any foreign state must either excused by any perceived threat of the offending country towards the country posing the embargo - whether that is the United States putting an embargo upon Cuba because of the missile crisis 4 decades ago or a cumulative embargo by many states over Iran against its' alleged nuclear proliferation. The United States, it's allies and their leaders have refused so far to claim that Islam bares the blame for any physical damage caused by Islamic terrorism, suggesting that Islam is a religion of peace and those terrorists are misrepresenting Islam. If they went on to punish Saudi Arabia for the spread of Islam as such, then they would be committing what Reza Aslan himself defines as Islamophobia. Thus, when Reza Aslan claims that the United States of America (and not the Saudi people or the United Nations) bare the responsibility for curbing the emanation of Islam from Saudi Arabia, he is simply suggesting that the United States of America has to engage in Islamophobia in order to prevent Saudi Arabia from spreading the message of Islam - especially since Saudi Arabia itself has complied many times to the calls of foreign countries to eliminate terrorism, by banishing Osama bin Laden as early as 1992 (as per the relevant wikipedia article) and many others since then.

I request to have my entry reviewed by senior moderators of wikipedia in order to clarify any legal issues, real or perceived.

Sikader (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:No original research in order to understand why you can't do your own analysis of disparate sources. (Also, you cannot cite Misplaced Pages.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic False_accusation_of_rape. Thank you.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic David_Lisak. Thank you.

" The war on women "

Hello, I saw that you rejected my change to this article. But don't you agree that it shouldn't be writen like it is fact? The sources that are used are simply people making assuptions. It is the democrats trying to win elections. On an ecyclopedia we write about facts, not something like this. So I will recomend you to discuss this with me further, or I'll try to speak to someone higher up and tell them what you're doing to their credibility. Olehal09 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, if you think that threatening to report me to the ~authorities~ is going to work you're sadly mistaken. Basically, the article is about Republican policies that are perceived by media and Democrats as part of a campaign to limit women's rights, and the reliable sources say that it's not just reproductive rights. We are accurately conveying facts by pointing out that this term is used in X, Y, and Z instances. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have people on wikipedia who are actually interested in informing people, and not use this page as a propaganda aparatus for some end. If we want to make an good article, we should present opinion as something else than a reference. People opinions aren't facts, and I therefore removed some non factual statements. And I hope you will accept my wish to make this an encyclopedia. You seem very biased. Olehal09 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, since you're a new user I'm trying to help you get started by explaining that we're basing our articles on reliable sources (and I should have linked that earlier - oversight) in order to keep it neutral. But your hostility is rapidly wearing away my patience with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for that, but when I read trough these references they speak about republicans backing down from most of these policies. Except this with abortions, that they seem to hold close to their harts. When they back down from policies (just a single person having an idea, not an actual republican policy), then you should write something else than that "some belive republicans have a war on women because they want to restrict women's rights when it comes to contraception, rape laws and so on". When someone don't want to do anything of this, then you can't write it like that. Because they only are against abortions. You have to write "in the eyes of democrats they want to do this, but the fact is that they in reality don't". I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It seems like propaganda. Olehal09 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ummm....now we know your personal POV on that matter, but you're not a RS. Other editors think otherwise, and they aren't RS either, so we just document what RS say. Obviously Republicans would disagree. That's okay, but it cannot be allowed to influence our duty to report the matter and retain the spirit of the RS. Censorship is not allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

It looks like you have a pal trying to canvass another user into what ever the dispute is going on between you two.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It can't be long before he is blocked, though. Users whose editing is only agenda-pushing and harassment usually get what's coming to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specific discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_by_Djcheburashka.2C_proposed_ban.28s.3F.29. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Bad day?

You having a bad day? Computer issues? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I accidentally hit rollback while my watchlist was loading, but put it back straight away, sorry about that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. Figured you were having an issue with something. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

C-FAM

I think that the Disquis commenter "Austin Ruse" is the actual Austin Ruse, and therefore, what he says in his comments ought to be submittable as evidence of his beliefs. Rather like using someone's tweets as evidence of their views. What is the problem?TRLangham (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even realize you were attempting to cite web comments. (I thought you were trying to cite bad sources in which he was quoted, since I hadn't followed the links.) That's even worse - we have no way of proving it's him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I also cite columns he actually wrote for the daily caller and the catholic thing. Follow the links and you will see the articles are authored by him.TRLangham (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But these are not good sources. Can you provide a reason for including them other than "it's verifiably him"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why they aren't good sources. They are him, stating his opinion? The opinions are relevant to informing of Ruse's opinion as President of C-FAM. Why aren't they good sources?TRLangham (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I think that they are reliable published sources of Ruse's opinion, by Ruse. What reason do you think that they are unreliable? Do you doubt he wrote them? I state that he has stated etc, what is the problem?TRLangham (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The question isn't only whether he actually wrote them, but also whether or not they are appropriate for inclusion. Why do you think they should be included? Are there any reliable secondary sources that talk about these views of his? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think they are as appropriate for inclusion as details on his education and degrees. After all, it isn't an article about Ruse, but C-FAM. Indeed, since part of C-FAM's mission is to oppose pro-gay legislation, I would think that Ruse's views on the matter would be more relevant than who gave him an honourary doctorate! And why do I need secondary sources, when we have the opinions from the horse's mouth? Again, do you doubt that the sources I have cited are genuinely written by Ruse? If not, what need I am there of secondary sources?TRLangham (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that if you have the aim of shining a light on Ruse's beliefs in a non-neutral way, rather than documenting the mission and coverage of C-FAM in a way which upholds Misplaced Pages policies, you will not find much support from other editors. See WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV for relevant policy. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But I am just showing Ruse's stated opinions on the matter, using articles he has written! I have not tried interpreting them, or judging them, just stating them and pointing at the sources of the information. As President of C-FAM such views are relevant, or as relevant as details as his education and doctorates (or controversy over his "shoot them" comment. Based on your reasoning, it is impossible to record someone's stated views on a topic without being "non-neutral"!TRLangham (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You currently lack some discussion or form of proof that Ruse's beliefs and values are relevant and worthy of inclusion on an article that is not about him, but about C-FAM. This is where WP:COATRACK comes into play. In a biographical article about Ruse, all these things might be perfectly fine. In an article about C-FAM, some kind of relevance argument needs to be made by reliable secondary sources before you can balloon the article into a big referendum on Ruse's beliefs. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have given an argument why his views and stated opinions are relevant. I would also point out that currently there is a great deal of irrelevant biographical information in the article that isn't relevant, which you are not criticising. Why, for instance, does an article on C-FAM discuss Ruse's honourary doctorate, or his and his wife's award from JP2, or the controversy over the shoot you comment, which occurred in an entirely different forum? Lol, the old article read like a coatrack of praise to Ruse and his achievements. My, relevant and accurate, contribution restores some balance. Give me a good defence of why Ruse's many achievements are relevant in an article about an organisation he is President of, and you may have a strong case. As it is, you appear to be unjustly focussing in on my edits.TRLangham (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think removing the awards was good. It's all very promotional. I'm on the fence about restoring the mention of Groundswell - on the one hand, there's literally no text about Ruse/CFAM in the source, it's just an entry on a list, but on the other hand, it's one of the only R.S.S. that demonstrate that this person or group is significant. What do you think, Elizium? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I was sort of reluctant to remove it, myself. So it could be worthwhile to restore it. Seems relevant enough. As long as it doesn't dip into WP:UNDUE coverage or extensive curriculum vitae of Ruse himself. Elizium23 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are definitely WEIGHT issues (the article was heavily edited by a person or people who appear/s to be affiliated with Ruse or CFAM, and while some of that has been corrected, it still shows). Maybe we can avoid having that statement look promotional (like "oooh, they're so influential!") by reducing some of the SPS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback usage

Hello! Please note that using rollback to edit war like this will result in your rollback rights being removed. Let me know if you have any questions, m.o.p 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)