Incest in the popular imagination

Paul et Virginie
Caverne
Lodoiska
Melidore et Phrosine

Fratricide

Timoleon
Le mort d'Abel

articles

Pierre-Alexandre_Monsigny

Luigi Cherubini

• Lodoïska
• Médée (Cherubini)
• Les deux journées

Nicolas Dalayrac

Ludwig van Beethoven

• Fidelio
• (Eroica Symphony)

Gaspare Spontini

• La vestale (see Fr. page)

Daniel Auber

• La muette de Portici

Giacomo Meyerbeer

Étienne Méhul

• Ariodant
• Stratonice (opera)
• Chant du départ

François Joseph Gossec

André Ernest Modeste Grétry

Le Devin du Village (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

Jean François Lesueur

• Ossian

French_Opera#From_the_Revolution_to_Rossini

François Adrien Boieldieu

Mozart

• Le nozze di Figaro
• Die Zauberflote

Cimarosa

• Gli Orazi ed i Curiazi

Angelo Tarchi

• La congiura pisoniana

books

Pierre Constant, "Musique des fetes et ceremonies de la Revolution francaise," (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1899)

Lindenberger, Opera in history.

Operatic migrations : transforming works and crossing boundaries / edited by Roberta Montemorra Marvin and Downing A. Thomas

Early Opera in America By Oscar George Theodore Sonneck - Published 1915 The Boston Music Co -French compoesrs, performers, musicians, singers pour into W. Indies and U.S. - introduced Italian and French styles (only English before)

History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815 - by Archibald Alison, Edward Sherman Gould, Published 1850 by A.S. Barnes, New York -Napoleon was on his way to the opera when the Jacobins attempted on his life

Hello, Roscelese. You have new messages at Talk:Ma Rainey.
Message added 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BelovedFreak 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, very much agreed! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"guys, can't you try a little harder"

I tried... really I did :)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly correct bibliographically - it's just that Wikipedia has citation templates for all this. Roscelese (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions on the page Nazism in Arab Palestine.

1) For example what's wrong with "midrash.org"? of course it's reliable, historians and writers on the Farhud rely very much on it, especially as it is fair, that it shows the (few) Arabs that have helped the Jews during that massacre.

2) Why did you just remove the Der Spiegel article???

Der Spiegel reported that research shows "Hitler provided the Mufti, who later sponsored Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, with a budget of 750,000 Reichsmark per month to foment Jihad in Palestine."^[1] --User:Trendsies

Sorry - I had to add everything back in manually since there were intermediate changes, and I must have missed that one. I'll add it back in. As for midrash.org, it certainly doesn't look like a repository of historical information, and since Googling doesn't prove that "historians and writers on the Farhud rely very much on it," I'll ask you to show me a few sources.

The page does say it was a synopsis of a lecture - if information about that lecture could be found (such as the date), I think it could be cited in that format, with the link to the transcript. Roscelese (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thanks very much to you for expanding it initially, and bringing the article's existence to our attention by linking it in Richard Strauss and Leon Jessel, etc. As one might expect, there's a fair amount of info in the German Wikipedia article, which is why I posted the box at the top. If one clicks "Translate via Google" at the bottom of that box, one gets a rough translation of the article. A lot of the info I added was via that route; plus I expanded that with some personal knowledge. There is still more to be gleaned from that German Wiki article and via a Google search, etc., but I don't have the time. Meanwhile, additional thanks, because your efforts indirectly helped point up an error in chronology in Strauss's article and also in the article that lists his compositions, and a complete omission(!) in the Wilhelm Furtwängler article. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be an atheist while practicing Judaism. Full stop. It may not be contradictory ethnically, but is clearly contradictory religiously Purplebackpack89 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}

Please remove or change my personal info in your posts to me Abortion discussion threads.

You can change it to "Chuz Life" if you like,... or delete it.

My old name is an invitation to harassment that I would rather not have.--Chuz Life (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, and I appreciate the effort to contact me rather than editing my comments. Roscelese (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, normally the process is to mark dead links, except in the case of BLP: WP:GRAPEVINE. Assertions about sexuality e.g. "In 1991 Duff, then fourteen, came out publicly as lesbian," or contentious claims e.g. "Duff was homeless, living on the streets" must be cited with inline citations. The remedy is to find a source, not restore the material in violation of BLP. The 3RR does not apply in this case, and if I don't delete it someone else will... Lionel (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information was present in articles that were already cited, and The Advocate is not grapevine. If you have a problem with the sources, bring it to talk, but don't pretend the sources don't exist. Roscelese (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated accusations that I am deleting sourced content on Lyn Duff ostensibly because I think conversion therapy is "super" are outrageous and unacceptable. Accusing me of pretending sources don't exist is unacceptable. It is tantamount to vandalism and I will not tolerate it. My justifications relying on WP:BLP were clear. I have attempted to WP:AGF. Now that you have added inline citations, as if they were there all along, leaving this is ludicrous: "stop reverting extremely well-sourced info." At this point I feel compelled to issue this warning: please stop your WP:UNCIVIL behavior. Lionel (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol "accusing you of pretending sources don't exist" = "vandalism" Roscelese (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Political positions of Ron Paul. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This edit should not be used about an editor who is taking a minor part in discussion and who is demonstrating a nascent consensus against you; nor is the accusation of inserting biased perspective appropriate for a well-managed userpage-revealed COI; nor is this one word worth your committing a WP:3RR (which you did, though not the electric-wire 4RR). JJB 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nascent consensus." Uh-huh. Of people who have contributed to this discussion (I invited ClovisPt to contribute but s/he hasn't said anything yet, despite your misrepresentation of hir edits), two agree with me, and the one who agrees with you is the same one who insists that Wikipedia can only use a neutral descriptor for "pro-life" people if we adopt his inflammatory and biased descriptor for "pro-choice" people. You're not in good company, much less consensus. Roscelese (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some content you added to Lyn Duff was plagiarized and/or closely paraphrased (in ital): "Although the treatment center was not officially affiliated with the Mormon Church, Duff later said that she was visited by LDS missionaries during her six months at the Utah facility and that the treatment she received had strong religious overtones."

From NYS Museum: "She says that although the center was not officially affiliated with the Mormon church, it had strong religious overtones, and missionaries from the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) visited her while she was there." Lionel (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not added by me (whoever originally added it obviously used that source and didn't cite), but I fixed it. Roscelese (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or restoring [1] carries the same responsibility for the content, as in WP:BURDEN. Lionel (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I fixed it. Roscelese (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lionel (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing me to some community consensus that allows you to mark your textual changes and your reversions as minor? JJB 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by the guidelines (a few sections are relevant). People are generally allowed to politically self-identify (which is why you're not allowed to describe Strom Thurmond as racist, and people who do keep getting reverted), and current consensus is for describing the "pro-life" movement and "pro-life" people, and conversely "pro-choice" people, as such in encyclopedic prose; but non-people subjects aren't sapient and don't self-identify, and they have to be described from either a balanced or a neutral point of view. (Alternately, I could go to town labeling legislation as sexist and homophobic. But I'm pretty sure consensus frowns upon that, because all we have to go on is how people describe the legislation.)

You could say "X supports the Sanctity of Life Act, which he describes as pro-life. [If applicable: Critics such as Senator Y and Organization Z have called it anti-choice]" or "X supports the anti-abortion Sanctity of Life Act." I personally think the latter is less awkward, but if you think "which he describes as" would be a better standard, I don't have an objection.

However, I see that my marking the edits as minor was based on a misunderstanding of the specific rules for minor edits, so I won't do so in the future. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice: I would stop the rampage before you really stir up some hornets' nests. There is no consensus for such a wide-spread change. Additionally, marking your edits as "minor" is an abuse of the feature. The "minor" designation is for non-controversial, trivial changes—something your edits certainly are not. Please stop. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely, plus: the comments in Roscelese's reversions that "pro-life" is not properly descriptive of laws are contradictory to dictionary guidance; she has continued to edit without responding to my request for clarification; and continued stiff-neckedness combined with her userpage admissions would suggest a more serious review of the whole set of her other "minor" contributions. I would recommend starting a discussion at Talk:Pro-life, which I'll watchlist now if you want to start it. JJB 03:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary guidance? Pray, which? In OED, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage it is used only for people and groups (and by extension their positions), not laws.

I also apologize for not having my entire day free to respond to you. God forbid that I allow anything else to distract from my composition of a reply to you.

As a final note, if you're going to disqualify me from editing Wikipedia because I am a feminist, I suggest you apply the same standard to yourself, since we know self-described Ron Paul supporters are all out to inject that politician's bias into articles rather than making them encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I referred to on your userpage was solely the clause "the attempt to remove non-NPOV political buzzwords from articles where they do not belong": if that's what you think you're doing and you think it's minor, I think you are not appreciating the process, and your contributions may need more thorough review. I skimmed the discussion below and also don't find your position trending in a wide-consensus direction. And, yes, those are the very dictionaries you appear to misrepresent. But I'll hold off on explaining the details until I'm ready to deal with the potential ramifications of doing so. JJB 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to copy and paste the relevant dictionary entries for you? Roscelese (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by the guidelines (a few sections are relevant). People are generally allowed to politically self-identify (which is why you're not allowed to describe Strom Thurmond as racist, and people who do keep getting reverted), and current consensus is for describing the "pro-life" movement and "pro-life" people, and conversely "pro-choice" people, as such in encyclopedic prose; but non-people subjects aren't sapient and don't self-identify, and they have to be described from either a balanced or a neutral point of view. (Alternately, I could go to town labeling legislation as sexist and homophobic. But I'm pretty sure consensus frowns upon that, because all we have to go on is how people describe the legislation.)

You could say "X supports the Sanctity of Life Act, which he describes as pro-life. [If applicable: Critics such as Senator Y and Organization Z have called it anti-choice]" or "X supports the anti-abortion Sanctity of Life Act." I personally think the latter is less awkward, but if you think "which he describes as" would be a better standard, I don't have an objection.

However, I see that my marking the edits as minor was based on a misunderstanding of the specific rules for minor edits, so I won't do so in the future. Roscelese (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roscelese. I'm not interested in starting a semantic holy war here, but I think the strategy of respecting self-identification for individuals is a good one. For non-people, we should either quote what reliable sources write, or write around it and avoid using the terms altogether. The solution at Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments is a workable one. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problem with "which he describes as" is that it necessitates a source where he actually does so (as opposed to taking it on faith that "this law restricts abortion" = "he must have described it as pro-life somewhere"). I mean, it probably won't be a huge barrier, but what do you suggest for cases where no such source can be found? Do we go to other supporters? (And, as in the Ron Paul page, what about section headers where that kind of construction is impossible? I think there we really must go with "anti-abortion" as the only neutral framing.)

On a related note, I generally let sleeping dogs lie on the issue of people self-identifying as pro-life - if I'm writing a section from scratch, I go with neutral terminology, but I won't go through Wikipedia to change things - but do you have an opinion on such campaigns to change things from "anti-abortion" to "pro-life"? One user I run into occasionally is doing so, and I wonder if it isn't worth opening up a discussion on Talk:Pro-life even if this particular issue is resolved. Roscelese (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too, in a lot of these cases the wording looks like an excuse to shove "pro-life" in there; better wording would describe what the law does/would do, without a descriptive. Roscelese (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on your sourcing question. If a source can't be found for something, than it can be challenged and removed completely. I'm against any large-scale changes like you're describing, unless an RFC has gathered community consensus. Any time something like that occurs, it seems to cause more problems than it solves. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, we seem to have established that you can't describe something in the text as "pro-life legislation"; — Roscelese — continues after insertion below

I disagree strongly. JJB 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain your position with respect to current consensus and Wikipedia editing guidelines, so that you might be able to effect the result you want? Or do you just want it on record that you disagree strongly? Roscelese (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now isn't it funny that you accuse me of ignoring ongoing discussion. Apparently your position is so very strong that you're justified in making biased statements without consensus, yet simultaneously so very weak that it can't stand up to discussion. At least I haven't lied about other editors' positions. Roscelese (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you could either say "X supports the law, which he describes as pro-life," for which you'd need a source on the description, "X supports anti-abortion legislation such as..." or "X supports [law], which would [restrict abortion access in this way]."

Which large-scale changes are you referring to? - my semi-related question about changing descriptions of people from "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" (not me; and while I disagree with it, I haven't been changing anything back), or changing instances of "pro-life legislation" to any of several neutral options (me)? Roscelese (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, I prefer the third option, as it avoids the terms altogether. "Pro-life" is a loaded term IMO, because it suggests any opposition is "pro-death" by contrast. However, eyebrows are raised whether you change something from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or vice-versa. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'll direct your attention to the comment below, which graciously allows "pro-life" people to be described in neutral, encyclopedic language only if "pro-choice" people can be described in inaccurate, propagandic language. If you had any doubts about the agenda here, behold. Roscelese (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously contending that "pro-choice" isn't a loaded term? - Schrandit (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's loaded. So is "pro-life," but that's current consensus, where "pro-abortion" is neither consensus nor neutral. Roscelese (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be dandy with "anti-abortion" if reciprocally pro-choice politicians and laws were described as "pro-abortion". Alas, we (as an encyclopedia) have chosen to allow groups and individuals to self-identify (pro-gun control, rather than anti-gun spring to mind). I see no particular reason to make an exception on this issue. - Schrandit (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you missed everything I've said? People self-identify. Laws are not people and cannot self-identify.

Also, "pro-abortion" is patent nonsense. Roscelese (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We take the same approach with laws (a gun-control measure, for instance, rather than an anti-gun measure or affirmative action rather than racism). I don't see "pro-abortion" as being any more nonsensical than "pro-choice". - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I, on the other hand, find it just as nonsensical as "pro-life," but because one is a self-identification, consensus lets it stand even though it's not at all neutral. Do you need me to make you a chart?

Not that this addresses the actual issue, of course.

1. Dictionary usage is against the application of "pro-life" to non-people/organizations. (Interestingly, the OED accepts "pro-choice" as a word one can use to describe a law, but I think it's best to keep the policy equal.)

2. If you look at it as an actual word instead of a pretty political euphemism devoid of real substance, it doesn't even make grammatical sense. "This piece of legislation believes that abortion is wrong." What? It's a law, it doesn't have a brain. (See, on the other hand, "gun control law" - "This law controls guns.")

3. Finally, as #2 implies, self-identification is not at issue when describing a law, and your repeated attempts to bring it up are a strawman by which you hope to inject biased text in encyclopedic prose. Once you claim that you can use biased language outside of self-identification (the closest thing to balance we have), NPOV is gutted.

(Obviously, per #2, "anti-abortion" isn't ideal either. The best solution would be to actually describe the policies instead of throwing in political buzzwords and signing off, but until y'all stop doing that, I've got to meet you halfway. At least it actually approximates the sense of what the law does, rather than using a biased euphemism.)

- Roscelese (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What? It's a law, it doesn't have a brain. (See, on the other hand, "gun control law" - "This law controls guns.")" The law controls guns by banning them. It would not be inaccurate to describe several pieces of legislation as "banning guns". It would also not be inaccurate to describe a piece of legislation that upholds the legality of abortion as being "pro-abortion". You claim to be hitting at dictionary usage. There are plenty of dictionary descriptors with POV overtones. We use self-description for legislation on every other topic I can think of, I don't see why abortion should be any different. - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the law actually does ban guns, I've absolutely no objection to saying that it bans guns (or using the phrases "the gun ban"; "restricts gun ownership" where it does not actually ban them, etc.) This would actually be the solution I suggest above - describe the legislation rather than being lazy and using buzzwords. Would you be content with "Ron Paul supports legislation that would define a fertilized egg as a legal person"? Because I got the impression that you're hell-bent on throwing the phrase "pro-life" in there whether it belongs or not. (This still doesn't address the header issue, though, which would need a neutral description.)

On the other hand, describing a piece of legislation, outside of countries like the PRC, as "pro-abortion" is at best (and that's a real AGF) inaccurate. A law that does not force or incentivize one choice over another is obviously not "pro-abortion."

We use self-description for legislation on every other topic I can think of - Of course. That's why the article on the dechristianization of Revolutionary France contains the phrase "protecting the French people from reactionary Catholics who were trying to take over the government" and why the Nuremberg Laws can only be described as "pro-racial-purity." Oh, wait.

Levity aside, you're begging the question. Does the legislation contain a phrase stating that it is "pro-life"? No? Then it's not self-description. Someone else has described it as pro-life, and you want to privilege their position over people who have described the law with other terms. Roscelese (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section on the article's talk page here Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion_stance_wording in an attempt to allow more editors to have the chance to discuss this (and, also without having to blow up Roscelese's talk page in the process). Kansan (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your edit of Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines). Thanks for the good work. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish I could do more - it's such a mess - but alas, my time and energy are finite. Glad you appreciated. Roscelese (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with the first part of what you wrote at Ruddigore, but I reverted it in the interests of brevity. Plot summaries need to be kept as short as possible - we don't need to describe every joke. You are right that the Basingstoke joke is a significant joke in Act II, but I don't think that describing it adds anything to the plot summary or gives a really good idea of why the joke is funny: people really have to see the show to appreciate this joke. Would you please "be so kind" as to help us keep the length of the summary down? As for the extension of the finale, I think you are mixing up the versions. I don't think that "When a man has been a naughty baronet" was added in the time frame you state. What reference are you using for this assertion? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I wasn't sure if the Basingstoke joke would be worth mentioning, since other jokes are (like the "it's expected of you" for the income tax return). And as for the finale, I was just going by my score (Schirmer) which has "When a man has been a naughty baronet" and the common-time "Oh happy the lily" as one version and the straight reprise as another, but on re-reading the article more closely, I see that's been addressed under 1920s revisions. Sorry. Roscelese (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reuben, Reuben (opera), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.vocalistonline.com/tag/musical.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Crisis Pregnancy Center. Please do not label other editors edits as vandalism without any basis in fact. Cloonmore (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually explained my rationale at the administrators' noticeboard where I reported Schrandit - I initially tried to assume good faith, which was why I suggested Schrandit re-phrase the lead in a way that suited hir (without changing the nature of the information presented), why I asked hir for sources, why I repeatedly asked hir to stop making unsourced changes, etc. However, s/he has steadfastly refused either to provide sources or to explain what's wrong with mine, which shows rather a lack of good faith - so, per the definition of "a deliberate [bad-faith] attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," I'm calling it vandalism. Roscelese (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about this edit. You didn't provide any rationale and, more to the point, did not assume good faith. Cloonmore (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going over this for days in the article's talk page, and that is where I asked for sources, asked Schrandit to stop reverting my well-sourced edits, etc. If you'll read it, you'll see that I began by assuming full good faith, and that I didn't begin to call it vandalism until Schrandit had reverted my text five or six times without providing any sources, any contradictory interpretations of my sources, or anything to question the reliability of my sources. Roscelese (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that you reverted my edit as "vandalism," or are you alleging that I am Schrandit? Cloonmore (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh I see. I didn't mean to call your edit vandalism at all. I guess it wasn't clear in my edit summary which parts were referring to which edits. The "vandalism" was only in reference to my reversion of Schrandit's repeated edits that misrepresent the sources I cited; the only comment that referred to your removal of the section was "we have entire pages on other bills that never made it out of committee, that's not a reason to remove the section." I think your edit was made in complete good faith. I'm so sorry for the confusion! Roscelese (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User Hentzer reverted your edits again without explanation. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I think his account should be block. Regards. Ron 1987 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. We don't know he's acting in bad faith, so a block would be totally inappropriate at this stage. I'll leave a message on his talkpage. Roscelese (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He removed previous warns from talk page. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Ron 1987 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, if he removes the templates again, maybe we can do something. Roscelese (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He removed tags again from two articles. Ron 1987 15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a formal warning template on his talk page. Roscelese (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure - happy to be of help. Excellent article - keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you very much *blush*. Though I'm more of a Gherardo than a Ser Amantio, really. (Never a Rinuccio - not even in my wildest dreams...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, but you've hit 3RR, so please discuss this on the talk page where I've raised the issue. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Crisis pregnancy center. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You re-inserted cites that had been removed by another editor as not supporting the statement in question. Please read and only cite sources that support the matter being asserted. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is why it would be a good idea if you and Schrandit were better behaved about removing information from the article. How was I supposed to know that you didn't feel the sources reflected the statement (a legitimate reason), when over the past couple of days you've been removing information willy-nilly because it doesn't suit your personal beliefs? Roscelese (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were you supposed to know that the sources didn't support the assertion because my comment so stated. You, however, falsely claimed that the references were removed for "no reason." Further, you falsely state above that I've removed information "because it doesn't suit my personal beliefs." You can't cite a single instance of such. You're way over the line. Cloonmore (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I must have missed that (I didn't review individual changes as there was a large block of them when I had the leisure to check). Sorry.

As for your personal beliefs, though - like I said in talk, there's more than enough evidence. That means you're either ignorant or malicious; I personally think ignorant is the kinder option, but you seemed to take exception. It's not like you have any actual policy reasons for suppressing this information, so I kind of have to conclude that it's a bias thing. Roscelese (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]