User talk:Roscelese

ANI

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

John F. Harvey

Whoa. Next time, check your aggression short of supporting an AFD to get the upper hand in an edit war. As here: [[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What? The original creator nominated it to get the upper hand, as should be very clear to you. What did I do to you to get you recommending a topic ban on the basis of spam cleanup and then coming to my talk page to yell this nonsense? What's your problem, dude? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Your claim of an "obvious BLP violation" on the Planned Parenthood page, isn't a BLP issue. I will give you the courtesy to revert yourself or I will report you for violation of 1RR. There are several sources listed within that section including ones that fit RS.Marauder40 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there is totally no BLP issue in accusing someone of selling organs for money. Geez. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

you mean someone caught on video doing just that. Marauder40 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact (Personal attack removed) does not, in fact, mean that poorly sourced attack pieces suddenly are BLP-compliant. --JBL (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marauder40, normally I'd respond to your "I'll report you for removing the unsourced claim that living, named individuals are selling organs on the black market" with a "come at me, bro", but I'm pretty busy IRL right now. Come at me next week, maybe? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

I am filing WP:AE#Roscelese with regard to your recent editing of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA request

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

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Wandering Stars

That was exactly what I was looking for. It definitely should be kept, but not the link to the main yiddishbookcenter.org . --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Before I get too into it...

Which Dr. Miracle do you prefer?

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52505178x/f1.zoom.r=contes%20d%27hoffmann.langEN

oder

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55003564w.r=contes+d%27hoffmann.langEN

oder

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274984/f9.zoom.r=Les%20contes%20d%27Hoffmann%20Offenbach

?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The first one, where he looks the creepiest. :D –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood David Daleiden

Dear Roscelese,

Given your removal of oversighted additions on 15 July 2015, you may want to see this change using rollback. The article David Daleiden has details which could be condensed.

-- Callinus (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"'Scare quotes'"

Please reconsider your revert on Orson Scott Card. Crazy person though he may be, he is entitled to a fair shake in our readers eyes. The practice of adding quotes around a single word to highlight your distaste for said word is a time honored tradition in newspaper editorials where I began writing; but it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Here if evenly presented facts are not enough to convince a reader of something they should generally remain unconvinced.

I like what you did placing "Scare quotes" within scare quotes, btw. Chrononem ☎ 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Bible

This is my first time editing a Wikipedia article and I have read the policies and guidelines. I write as a minister who has written nine articles on this topic since 2003.

I have made the following addition: "Some passages in the Bible which prohibit homosexuality have traditionally been interpreted literally—apart from their historical context of pervasive temple prostitution. (Wink and Pope refs) Some interpreters maintain that the condemnation of homosexuality in these texts is determinative for gays today, while others state that the 'abomination' of homosexuality was based on the ancient understanding that semen was the sacred giver of life (the woman serving only as an incubator). Moreover, many ancient sexual prohibitions—including intercourse during menstruation, masturbation and birth control—are no longer followed by Christians. Thus, Jesus' love ethic—used to critique and reject these ancient sexual practices of the Bible—may also be used to critique and reject ancient prohibitions against homosexuality. (Wink ref)"

My reasons for this addition:

1. While I left in place the first sentence stating the traditional position, I indicated these scriptures have a historical context which is pertinent: Temple prostitution is one significant example.

2. Another pertinent context is the prescientific understanding of the biblical author which explains the reason why one verse each for homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and masturbation (Gen. 38:10) prescribed the death penalty.

3. As sexual practices have radically changed from ancient times, scholar Walter Wink's advocacy for Jesus' love ethic to critique all sexual (and other) behavior is noteworthy.

The deleted passage is: "Today too some interpreters uphold that understanding of these passages, while other interpreters maintain that they do not condemn homosexuality,[weasel words] saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality."

My reasons for this deletion:

1. The first third of the sentence is similar to the addition. It could give a reason for traditional interpretation.

2. The remaining two-thirds of the sentence is vague regarding the reasons for the understanding of "other interpreters." More specificity, as the edit above, helps the reader's understanding.

The above edit provides needed information. Should resolution be needed, I am open to discussion.

Quoflector (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LGBT parenting article

Hi, can you please look at my talk points in the LGBT parenting article. I see you deleted my work and I want to dialog about this. Hope to hear from you soon.24.92.249.215 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, it concerns me to find that you have been told in July not to remove someone's edits without discussing it in the talk page, but this is exactly what you did to me on my edit with Mark Regnerus. I am very new to wiki pedia but find it to be a wonderful resource. However there are things that I'm experiencing from your editing practices that seem to break the rules of Wikipedia. I don't want to message bomb you with too many accusations, but I can give you specifics if you'd like to dialog about this, I think it would be best. I can see from looking at various posts from you that you are passionate about Wikipedia and you think it's important. But I have to say, you seem like a bully to me. I'm not just talking about the Regnerus edit, but also some unfair behavior toward my edits while I was just an ip address under LGBT Parenting. - that's me as the one trying to appropriately cite the controversy with LGBT parenting. I do agree with you as you say, we need not "teach the controversy"

Partly because of my desire to work this out, (and partly because I plan to get more active in lots of other articles, too), I signed up formally and became a registered user, otherwise I sense that just ip addresses are considered somewhat second class citizens around here. Plus there would be no way that you could contact me if you wished to. So here I have offered an olive branch. But as you can tell, I have views that are different than yours, but I don't think you should use your longevity of tenure here to push me around and marginalize and delete my properly cited additions, even in those articles that you are obviously very passionate about.

Would you like to work this out, somehow? It might be better for us to come to consensus and work collaboratively on some un-related project so that we can use our relative strengths to help each other make Wikipedia a better place. Who knows, we might even become online friends. But I think we have to resolve what I think is a conflict. So I will leave this note for you here and I warmly invite you to a discussion with me.

I have to be honest... I am a white, male, republican, conservative, heterosexual, roman catholic. But I still deserve dignity and respect, right?

I do hope to talk to you soon.Cityside189 (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)