This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions
, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
-- Cielomobileminor7♭5 01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk
18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "Please join me on the
Talk page
for discussion of your recent deletion of the external links."
You're on. I have to tell you, though-- I've done little else but fight spam for several months now, and I've never seen links as commercial as these are stay on as External links. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Close Move poll (Oral contraceptive -> combined oral contraceptive pill)
Hi, Mets501. I'm writing in regards to the fact that you closed the above-mentioned Move poll. When I proposed the move, another user (Lyrl) went ahead and made the move only a day and a half after I officially proposed it. Of course I am in support of my own proposal, but I think that that person's action was a bit hasty, especially since at the time it was two days before Christmas and many people are busy. I opted at that point to leave the change intact, with a note stating that the debate was still open, since I didn't think it should have been done so hastily. Then you closed the move poll, so now there is no official place for people to voice their opinions. My questions: Why did you close the poll? What can we do to make sure everyone has time and a place to be heard? Thank you. Joie de Vivre 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joie: thanks for your concerns. Requested moves really have no minimum participation; your proposal was passing at 3-0 when I came in, so I decided to close it. If anyone strongly objects to the recent move, they can feel free to leave a message on the talk page of the article and discussion can be reopened. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Magick
Honsetly, I have read the article, and I see nothing about how many many discourage using the word magick. In most online communities I have been to, it was discouraged. I can control my temper fine, thank you. And it still stands that the man who created Wicca did not use 'magick'. There is simply no reason to distinguish between 'stage magic' and other types as well. It's just a way, the way I see it and probably others as well, to make someone feel 'special'. Magic is magic, and its easy to use common sense to tell between stage magic and ceremonial magic. Disinclination 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sex
You could try NPOV postings at
Samuel Wantman
02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Articulate editor at your service. What's up? Nina Odell 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a moment, I'm actually editing a number of articles right now; can you tell me how you got here? Joie de Vivre 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Samuel was on my watchlist, and I saw your post there. NinaOdell | Talk 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your post there is not entirely appropriate, but I will give you advice on how to proceed.
1. For the conflict at the article, consider posting it to
WP:RFC
. If that doesn't help (bear in mind that that process can take time), follow up with the dispute resolution process- information for this can be found on the RFC page (the box on the right).
2. If you feel that you are suffering personal attacks, post it to
WP:PAIN
, but that is being considered for deletion so the first may be a better option. Also, these may require some time too- I'd assume that admins are very busy.
Hope that helps, --DarthBinky 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a pretty new editor, so DarthBinky's advice is probably better than anything I could tell you. The one thing I'll add is that before using
WP:PAIN, the offender must have been previously warned (e.g. by using the npa2 or npa3 template). PubliusFL
01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thank you. I hope you realize that I was only trying to make it easier to follow the discussion and for others to chime in on whether or not to rename the page.
To avoid any confusion, why don't you move your "Well, since the U.S. Constitution" comment below Exploding Boy's (which is where you should have put it chronologically, anyway) so that Exploding Boy's comment is directly below mine. Just change the indentation so that his comment is indented one level more than mine and yours is indented one level more than his. That should make it easier to follow the discussion.
Hello, I saw your edits to Horace Griffin and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We'd love you to join us! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject is basically a group of editors that get together to improve articles on a particular topic. It acts a center for editors to ask for help with their articles (like requesting
naming conventions or discuss suitable categorisation). You can get involved with as much or as little of this as you want - if you just want to edit articles, we can help with that, through peer reviewing or general suggestions, if you are a wikignome than we have plenty of opportunities for you to do that as well. A WikiProject doesn't have control of the articles it oversees, but it can organise things so that it is much easier to improve them. I hope I've answered your question, please feel free ask me any questions you have! Dev920
(Have a nice day!) 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still interested? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my tardy reply, it's been somewhat hectic on-wiki. :). Basically go
talkpage, and vote on XfDs. If you're into other processes, we have a peer review you can use, or a Jumpaclass department where you can compete to improve stubs for points! Just check it all out! Dev920
(Have a nice day!) 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive Comments
I would like to let you know now, since you are new to wikipedia, that you are not supposed to delete comments from your talk page. You should archive everything that is on your talk page. 75.3.55.12 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I find your sudden courtesy, a direct departure from your previous rudeness and persistence in harassing me, to be a bit unsettling. Joie de Vivre 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Missionary position image
Look, you made this into a 'popularity contest' all by yourself. Barely anyone agrees with you. Give it a rest. Whoop whoop 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
DFLA Redirects
I've already started. --Briancua 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Reparative therapy
Thanks for your definitive and neutral contributions. As a recent example, you provided ref's for the major scientific bodies which condemn RT [1], and pointed out that there are religious/moral objections. [2]
I'm also looking into the "minority" viewpoints of Nicolosi, Moberly, etc. Please help me to avoid any accidental appearance of advocacy in the article text. The minority viewpoint must be indicated clearly as such, right? --Uncle Ed 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Text must be readable, template or not. It is barely visible on dark background. Common sense is your basic policy. I see you changed it into gray again. Please make it lighter, for better contrast. `'mikka 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the Talk page for the template would be a better place to talk if you still have concerns. Joie de Vivre 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
you need to back off on reverts.
you are violating
WP:3RR at the article Marriage. consider this a warning, i'll be reporting it next violation and it's likely (unless the admin is in a forgiving mood) that you'll be blocked. r b-j
22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to inform me of the three-revert-rule policy. I have been an editor for a little over four months, which may be why your mention, above, was the first I had heard of it. As a newer editor who does not have a history of such interactions, I believe that in this instance, lenience would be appropriate. We shall see. Joie de Vivre 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Corporal punishment
Thanks for calling my attention to the matter at Talk:Corporal punishment. (I'm actually just back from a long wikibreak, coincidentally a few days after your message, and your compliment was a nice welcome back, so thank you.) I'll be posting at Talk:Corporal punishment presently. Happy editing! –Sommers(Talk) 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, and a project-wide article collaboration, both of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.
And once again - Welcome!
Good to see you. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Poster
The things you have mentioned are either because I used British spelling or did it for a specific reason. Needs has not been captalised in order to bring focus to the word You. "And we need people who can help us write them" adds a psychological impetus to someone looking at the poster "Oh, they need people. I wonder if I can help." is the response we're looking for. Want is less urgent, less rallying. Sanitized is a dreadful word, we've been erased for considerably longer than years, and I can't get the rest to fit. :) I have changed Globe to globe and added a that, though. So, gonna put it up somewhere? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Female bodybuilding page moves
First of all, regarding your moving of female bodybuilding to "women's bodybuilding" - the reason that you gave for the move may seem legitimate to you, but the page has been around for quite a while under the "female bodybuilding" title. Since numerous editors have been happy with the existing title, you really should discuss it before just boldly jumping in and taking action. Also, for what it's worth - a Google search for "women in bodybuilding" turned up 859 matches; a search for "female bodybuilding" returned approximately 480,000. This suggest to me that the term "female bodybuilding" is in fact much more common, and thus is more likely what a user would tend to search for.
I also see that you moved
list of female bodybuilders to "list of female professional bodybuilders". I guess you like the parallelism with the list of male bodybuilders, but the list of female bodybuilders includes some amateurs as well. Therefore, including "professional" in the page name is not accurate. As above, this is a page that many editors have worked on without taking action to move the page, so perhaps you should ask why nobody has moved it before just going ahead and doing it. fbb_fan
01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I just popped by the request exactly what Fbb fan has done above. The page names are to be the most frequently used term - I've been a bodybuilder for 12 years and would have never thought to look up Women in bodybuilding (not even sure that it makes sense either). As above I seriously urge you to discuss such sweeping changes on the article's talk page before enacting. Thanks Glen 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Many editors have accepted the current definition. Please take any concerns you have about the text to the article's talk page before making changes. On the talk page, perhaps we can talk about your stated concerns that readers may think the article refers not only to humans but to animals. Gwen Gale 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:LGBT
Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk·contribs)
there has never been, and will never be, a husband or a wife in a marriage
apart from being a bit ironical up there, i would like to know why neither husband nor wife must be mentioned in the headline of marriage. There are no reasons mentioned, and you didnt choose to, either FlammingoParliament 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I answered that on the Talk page. I think the word you're looking for is "ironic". Joie de Vivre 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! But no. I wasnt. And you didnt.FlammingoParliament 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Before you made the above comment, I had already responded at the Talk page. Check the time stamps if you don't believe me. Joie de Vivre 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Husband/Wife AfD
Hi! The "S" is for "Society Topics", I don't know if this will get you to the delsort page
I replied at User talk:Flammingo. Reach me at my talk page if the problem continues. — coelacantalk — 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You're fine. You probably only needed to tag the most disputed sentences but there's nothing wrong with asking for citations. — coelacantalk — 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Joie de Vivre 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Anon blocked. This is sock of indefinitely blocked LevKamensky (talk·contribs) who cannot abandon the idea of glorifying his father without proper references. `'mikka 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee. I looked at the links you gave me, is there a way to put them on my watchlist, for instance? Is the Wikiproject: Abortion a pit of barking pro-choice and pro-life snakes, or would you recommend joining? Joie de Vivre 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is a pit of barking snakes, all the more reason you should join, if you feel you can add calmness and reasonableness to the mix! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The noticeboard can be placed on a watchlist. However, because the "watchlist" operates off the "Related changes" function (see the left sidebar of any Wikipedia page), it cannot be placed on your personal watchlist. The page the WPAbortion watchlist draws from is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abortion/Watchlist, to which I manually add articles, images, and templates. Then, using the "Related changes" function, a sort of specialized Watchlist of recent changes to articles listed on that page is automatically built.
Contentiousness comes with the territory on abortion-related articles. Definitely second KC on the
I am the author of the D&C tutorial (posted at www.kuro5hin.org) that you de-linked here and I see your explanation as to why you made that edit, but that explanation doesn't appear to be listed in the External Links guidelines.
Bear in mind, I wasn't the person who added my tutorial to the Wikipedia D&C topic, but I am curious as to why you believe my topical and accurate explanation of the procedure (with multiple safety disclaimers therein) isn't germane to this topic.
I would appreciate a salient rationalisation of your motive to my e-mail address; ti.dave[AT]gmail.com
Thanks,
Dave
Sorry, I don't email off-wiki without my own reason to do so. To answer as to why I deleted the description: it shouldn't be there for the same reason that there shouldn't be instructions on how to build a bomb linked to the Bomb article. Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Joie de Vivre 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The conclusion I'm going to draw here is that just like some people have a need to know how to build a bomb, some people have a need to know how to perform a D&C. Your edit is simply an unwarranted case of censorship and it's not clear who made you the arbiter of this matter. The U.S. Army Medical Command has deemed it appropriate that non-physicians have access to the information that I presented. In fact, they expect their non-degreed medics to be able to use that information in the field and have released this information into the Public Domain. If you find this information to be so troublesome, then I suggest you contact your representatives and ask them to modify the distribution of the Army's Field Manual, otherwise, try to un-clench and revert your edit. —The preceding
You're terribly verbose, and I don't appreciate your tone. If you wish to discuss this further, bring it up at the appropriate article's Talk page. You might want to brush up on
From your link; "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" and you complain of my verbosity? I'd be happy to brush up at
Why, thank you, Joie de Vivre! I had seen it and didn't relate the 'commerical' to 'child sexual abuse', although I considered changing it to look like (Commercial) child sexual abuse. Any thoughts on that version too? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It would make the template too wide. That's why I used the ellipsis. Joie de Vivre 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply for 3O
At this point, they don't want to be a part. I would suggest full
WP:ANI. Don't aggravate the situation by starting a revert war. bibliomaniac15
23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuals and gays
It doesn't really matter whether one's a noun and another's an adjective or whatever. Why do we have a biological term (homosexual) redirecting to a social term (gay)? –
Steel
18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A good point. This is somewhat trivial, but I believe that terms with a biological basis should have precedent over terms with a merely social (and somewhat stigmatic) basis. Edmund Lake 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
With such rapid development of the project, it was decided that a Coordinator was needed to ensure all the fiddly maintenence was kept up. Elections were held and Dev920 (talk·contribs) has been elected Coordinator for the next three months. She said "I am honoured and proud to be at the helm of such a fantastic WikiProject and look forward to our future". Congratulations Dev!
The assessment system continues to be a great success, we have tagged over 5200 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
Jumpaclass is proving to be quite successful! The winner at the end of the year gets to pick the January collaboration, so sign up and get going! Or challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
A new Community department has been set up to foster community amongst our members. It mostly acts as other WikiProjects' Outreach department, but also has a Quilt to which every member is entitled to add a square containing anything of their choice.
The peer review is not getting much custom - please notice you can cross-list other peer reviews from different projects that also fall within our scope.
Many people still seem to be unaware that the Deletion sorting subpage exists for XfDs to be listed: please use and watch that page instead of issuing "alerts" for ordinary AfDs on the project talkpage.
WP:LGBT
successfully gave all 105 LGBT infoboxless films infoboxes, so a big thank you to everyone who participated.
A new template, LGBT, has been created for articles which are becoming to cluttered with infoboxes. Thanks to WJBscribe and SatyrTN for creating it.
A very basic resources page has been started. Please add to it as you come across useful sites.
A promotional poster for the project has been created: http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). Please distribute anywhere and everywhere you desire, such as gay libraries, cybercafes, community centres and so on. Also, please let Dev920 know where you have put it up, so she can keep track of our coverage.
An LGBT Publications Taskforce has been proposed. Please sign up here if you are interested in being involved.
An LGBT WikiProject has been set up on the Spanish Wikipedia! Set up by Raystorm, it has already gained six members and is developing an assessment system. If you speak any Spanish, please consider going up and lending a hand if you can!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Methods of abortion
The categorization system of WikiProject Abortion is long-established. It was designed to increase navigation between abortion-related articles by helping to sort articles into more specific subcategories and to keep everything from getting lumped together in Category:Abortion (which, before WPAbortion came around, was more of a junk drawer than a category). In the future, it would be appreciated if you would propose any changes you wish to see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. More of my reasoning is available on the CfD page. I'm perfectly happy to accept your new category into the fold, because it is a helpful distinction, but I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw the CfD, given that it is unnecessary. Thanks! -17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to work with you, Joie de Vivre, and I would appreciate it if you would work with me, rather than against me. There is an established order to the system of categorization in WPabortion, and I'm willing to work with you to accommodate your suggestions. It's bad enough that I've had to deal with harassment from two users (neither of them you) in the last 24 hours, I don't need a simple misunderstanding getting blown out of proportion, too. -
I've seen your suspected sockpuppet report: a bit of AGF? ;-) Anyway, it doesn't matter. I've already replied you there, please take a look at it. I hope that
COI
- 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
About the army manual stuff: I think he/she simply wanted to mean that the informations are from the Army's Manual. Nothing more. Happy editing,
this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Girl-girl, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Iamcuriousblue
05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Joie.
I just noticed the
RfC
participants will -- and I am concerned that your position cannot be considered fairly represented as entered by curiousblue.
Could you please enter a statement? If User:Iamcuriousblue is misrepresenting you, we really need to hear it. / edgarde 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating argument - it has dragged me out into an area that I normally don't venture into. However, is this argument going to come down to defining erotica, then defining pornography, then defining what the sub-set is that is actually both? A semantics or English dictionary definition is hardly something to get too excited over, so I suspect that the emotions attached to these topics have feelings attached... I am watching this to see how it can be diffused, as I think it is probably one of the most delicate ones I have seen. On a different topic, you have dedicated a considerable amount of term to language fixes. Is there some sort of guideline you are looking to use?
Jacketed 07:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope this isn't overstepping, but I've rearranged[4] the Talk:Girl-girl RfC so it will be more readable to editors new to the discussion. If I've left out something important to your reasoning please restore it, but the Statement isn't intended to document your interaction with the other editor, so it's important to keep it on-topic.
I've had previous interaction with User:Iamcuriousblue and find him as having a "competitive" mindset, but I think given time he can develop a more cooperative approach.
In the instance it becomes "apparent that curiousblue does not value (or perhaps understand) the concept of a fair discussion", my suggestion would be to err on the side of understand.
Thanks for coming to the RfC. / edgarde 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that didn't work out. Sorry for the trouble. / edgarde 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Notice
I just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where
I like the new proposal much better, and have commented so on Talk:Girl-girl. Thanks for giving this so much consideration. I hope curiousblue will choose to be similarly cooperative. / edgarde 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Typo on Your User Page
On your user page, you typed "the term for the unexplained of a fetus"... I assume you meant "the term for the unexplained death of a fetus"! =D PaladinWhite 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"You have new msg box"
You are using IE, aren't you?
My bot has the same problem, but I don't know how to solve it. Switch to Firefox ;-) It's safer, more secure and well, you shouldn't get that box when it's not needed.
COI
- 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope! I have used Firefox exclusively for years now (for all the reasons you mentioned... and for the widgets :-P). Do you know what I can do to fix this problem? Joie de Vivre 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Try a Ctrl+F5, to clean the cache, but I really don't know how to solve it. BTW, I'm still waiting your comment at D&C medcab page ;-)
I am absolutely tired of trying to hold down the fort when we've got it coming from almost every single conceivable side in WikiProject Abortion. The abortion-related articles will never be perfectly neutral, perfectly written, perfectly sourced to everyone's standards — I concede that — but with the WikiProject Abortion categorization system, I thought I'd at least managed to wrest a little bit of order from an overwhelming amount of chaos. I was wrong. You can't please everyone, so why even bother? I'm sick of fighting a losing battle. I've tried to work with you to address your concerns, but you insist that it be all-or-nothing, so do what you will. I can't play mediator when no one is even willing to sit down and work collaboratively. -
Having that as the only category is prejudicial; being one level away is irrelevant. Where are the concerns of too many articles in the main cat? Seventeen/eighteen articles isn't many; as most main categories have far more. I encourage sub-cating and I'd have suggestions for new sub-cats that could alleviate perceived main cat congestion. - RoyBoy800 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Response from birth control page
We have often disagreed on issues. However, unlike other editors I have conflicted with, you have never personally attacked me. I have much respect for your focus on the issues, and great appreciation for your respect of me as a person.
In a recent post on the birth control page, you pointed me toward Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I sincerely apologize for anything I've said that was seen as attacking you. LyrlTalkC 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Duggar
Please do not add unreferenced
biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jim Bob Duggar. Thank you. Joie de Vivre
20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at past versions. I looked at the links and referenes. The bio info that the diff people added is from teh quiverfull interview. The 17t baby jim confirmed via email; it even says so on the cite. Also, you seem to dominate the page edit-wise. Its great that you want the page accurate, but others have provided accuarate information.Lilkunta
You have made an edit to Jim Bob Duggar that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.
YOU JOIE have made an edit to Jim Bob Duggar that disregards numerous contributions, sources, and references. You are not considering the information various users have added. Unless you are able to verify that you are michelle or jim, you need to pause.Lilkunta 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how does removing poorly sourced info constitute "defamation"? Joie de Vivre 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I said you are disregarding not defaming.
Removal of content
If an editor wants to add content, stating it's from "teh quiverfull interview" isn't good enough. I have made multiple attempts to politely explain this, but people such as yourself keep ignoring it. Please review
WP:CITE. A quotation from WP:BLP:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." -- Jimmy Wales Please review the provided links and please stop reverting. Joie de Vivre
20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You stop reverting. Tell Jimmy Wales to look at the page content and decide. You are dominating the page. You are disregarding numerous edits because you feel/think you are correct. It DOES NOT just say from quiverfull, it it linked and <r e f> to the actual interview.
Only after multiple reverts from you did you include the ref. Joie de Vivre 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No the refs were always there.Compare & see for yourself.Lilkunta 03:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Including a URL at the bottom of the page in the wrong section does not constitute proper citation. Joie de Vivre 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Severa
I'll take a look, thanks for the heads-up. >Radiant< 09:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Race and Crime
OK. Let's go through a *tag* by *tag* discussion. There are some tags that you deemed were not worthy of mention at the top of the article. Also, look to the discussion for race and crime
I think you will see that Glamour photography more accurately describes the term, as the article seems mostly devoted to Playboy-style photos, which is where I got the redirect from. Pornography in the contemporary meaning includes more explicit content than is usually meant by Adult model. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this. User:Mike Hatfield is NARTH's editorial director -- they are unhappy about your revert. I think you can discuss the matter with Mike and easily sort out the issues. utcursch | talk 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie: your response was very appropriate and articulate. Fireplace 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
John Money
I'd just like to explain here why I've reverted your changes to John Money. Most biographical articles I've ever seen on wikipedia have a broadly chronological section sequence. That is, if you look at Angela Merkel or George W. Bush, their early life precedes their political career, despite the later's undoubted relevance. The Money article mentions the Reimer case in the lead section, and then has a full section on it further down. Further, from a sequencing point of view, the Reimer case is founded in Money's previous work, which if it runs chronologically, has already been explained. --Limegreen 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem unable to see eye-to-eye, and it sure would be nice to agree to have a third person's input be binding. However it turned out, at least the dispute would be over and the birth control page could be unprotected. LyrlTalkC 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jim Bob Duggar... again
I noticed that you reverted my edit. I find that it doesn't work out when editors revert content without any discussion. I would really prefer it if you would come to Talk:Jim_Bob_Duggar#Biography and discuss your concerns so we can reach a consensus about what the article should say. I have already stated my piece on the Talk page, and I would appreciate it if you would join me there to talk about the article. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie, you have numerous on the Duggar wiki page.You are dominating the Duggar wiki page.
You act like you own this wiki page. Alot of ppl have added info but you always revert.Lilkunta 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
U violated the 3RR rule
U have violated the
WP:3RR so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! Lilkunta
12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It does not violate
WP:3RR to remove unsourced biographical information in biographies about living people, which is what I was doing. Joie de Vivre
20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
You are currently listed as one of the parties in a dispute at the
Please read WP:Attribution. It will explain the difference between a verifiable source and an unverifiable source. I have tried to explain it many times. Bloggingbaby.com is UNVERIFIABLE and thus IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SOURCE. Joie de Vivre 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What specifically? Thats a long page.Lilkunta 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I already answered this. The section on reliable sources explains that self-published sources are unverifiable and thus prohibited. Joie de Vivre 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No u didnt. U just repost 'readwp:attr' . What part/rule of the page, bc it is very long page.Lilkunta 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I just told you. Joie de Vivre 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If u want me to heed wiki directions, say which. U post wiki directions, & then arent specfic. Just forget it.Lilkunta 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
U put all those tages ({Totallydisputed},{tone},{cleanup},{story},{fiction} ) on, y? I made changes ( which of course still were not good enought 4 u ). Also, When I put the {story} tag on u took it awway. So y did u put it back now? Lilkunta 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
That question is about the Jim Bob Duggar page. Please ask at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Please try to keep the discussion about the article where it belongs, and the discussion about personal disputes on the personal talk pages. Joie de Vivre 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
Hello, thanks for your contact regarding the further issues on this case. I have attempted to draw Lilkunta into the conversation by inviting them to the case page or to my talk page to state their side of the issue as a first step towards opening a dialog. I had hoped that I would receive a response by posting as I did on the article talk page but to date you are the only one to respond. Hopefully we will hear something shortly.--Ulysses411 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. This is what I referenced. --Morenooso 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that Lilkunta has since been temporarily blocked for disruption? Apparently the mods agreed with my assessment of that person (which was why I called the Cabal in the first place.) Joie de Vivre 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed that too. --Morenooso 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
U r bias. If another wikipedian says something I will listen. I did not vandalise, I restored my comments that u took out. I asked u 2 leave my posts but of course, u dont listen 2 me.Lilkunta 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
And I asked you no less than three times to stop sprinkling your comments inside other people's comments. you have reverted three times to a version with those edits. Your complaints that the policy pages are "too long" do not absolve you from the responsibility to follow Wikipedia Talk page guidelines. Refactoring talk pages is permitted. Removing disruptive edits is permitted. Much of what you are doing is prohibited. You are probably going to get in trouble if you keep it up. Joie de Vivre 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I too have asked you numerous times. Y am I supposed to heed u when u ignore me? R we not = ?
PS: u rnt using Scare quotes r u?Lilkunta 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
No, they aren't scare quotes. The quotes around "too long" are a summary of your complaint here that I should point out which specific section of WP:Attribution you had violated, when it is your responsibility to learn the local rules and customs. You should "heed" because my reasoning is based in a knowledge of and a respect for those customs. Joie de Vivre 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, r u following all the rules u tell me to read/learn/follow?Lilkunta 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Time for a break
I would like to recommend that both of you take a break from editing the Jim Bob Duggar page and its associated talk page for 5 days as a cooling off period. Both of you seem emotionally invested in the article at the moment and I think a break will help calm things down. While this break is going on I will post a request for review both with the Mediation Cabal members as well as to members of the Wikipedia Biography group. Hopefully these impartial editors will be able to offer insights into the article and perhaps another editor will make changes to the article during the break that will satisfy both of you. If during this break you feel the need to address your concerns further please post them on the case page. So for clarity since people from different time zones are involved please refrain from further edits, reversions and comments until Sunday, April 8th.--Ulysses411 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot
will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
If you see any
deletion discussions related to LGBT topics, please remember to add them to the deletion sorting board
. Thanks!
Member News
Our membership continues to expand. 22 new users have joined the WikiProject:
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Hello, I have been requested by lilkunta to ask you to refrain from posting on their talk page during the break. While the requested moratorium was on posting to the disputed article and its related talk page, please honor this request. While I did not find the nature of your comments particularly offensive apparently Lilkunta is feeling picked on at the moment. Thanks in advance.--Ulysses411 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor edits
Hi Joie. Thanks for all your edits on the RT-related articles -- much appreciated. It looks like you have your preferences set to mark your edits "minor" by default. This feature is most useful to users who are doing massive disambiguation, spelling, etc., projects across many articles. Per
WP:Minor most of your edits don't count as minor, so you might think about turning off this default setting. Fireplace
21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Vandalism"
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Mammary intercourse. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please see discussion on talkpage. Discuss fully there your intent to delete and develop consensus. Ronbo76 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Ronbo76
21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Joie de Vivre 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fetal pain
Your presence is requested at
Talk:Fetal pain to try and clear up some outstanding issues. Some editors are becoming impatient, so I'm making this request to make sure you haven't forgot about us. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c
16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
Just to let you know, I'm the mediator for the John Money case. I'll be adding comments soon. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions! mcr616Speak! 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the troll remark. The comment that you made did come off as a bit snobbish though. I reviewed everything and found that Alteripse's paragraph wasn't poorly written. I hope you guys can reach a common ground on the John Money article and work together. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments though! mcr616Speak! 18:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about using gender specific pronouns, but I'm pretty sure you would have gotten pissed off if I called you It. I'm not assuming that I have a higher position then you; You requested the Mediation Cabal's help, I picked the page. I was just stating my solution and what I thought should be done. I in no way binded you or anyone else to do anything. mcr616Speak! 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand, those comments were directed to alteripse. Did you not see they were directly under their comment? Joie de Vivre 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding pronoun usage, see Singular they for one solution! Joie de Vivre 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry! I misunderstood. I respect your decision to use gender neutral pronouns, though. mcr616Speak! 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see what you mean. It just said that David Reimer reassumed a male gender role at age 14. It didn't say he wasn't male to begin with. mcr616Speak! 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Mammary intercourse
It's on the talkpage - you are deleting like crazy. I can ask for a Cabral if you like? Morenooso 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I await your answer on this talkpage. Morenooso 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any comments by you on the talk page. I explained each of my edits. For instance, why does info about the male parasympathetic nervous system (referenced with what looks like college lecture notes) belong here? It would be pretty redundant to include it in every article about a sex act. Joie de Vivre 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You are on an edit war. Do you wish a Cabral? --Morenooso 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have clearly stated my concerns about the content. I await your response. Joie de Vivre 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You are approaching 3RR on this with your deletions. You appear to want to dismantle this article. I expect a Yes or No to the Cabral. --Morenooso 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Good editors do not just revert without comment and then cry "edit war" after they do. I made some changes, I clearly stated my case for the edits, and then you reverted them with no comment on the Talk page. You have not even made an appearance on Talk:Mammary intercourse.
Oh, pardon me, now you have. "I disagree" is not a good enough reason for wholesale reverts. Joie de Vivre 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the talkpage prior to my revert. I also reviewed your talkpage comments and referenced it in my revert. Need I say more? --Morenooso 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "another"? Joie de Vivre 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(Hell, what do you mean by "Cabral"?) Joie de Vivre 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*I* called the Jim Bob Duggar mediation. Are you aware that the other person in that dispute has since been blocked for disruption? I don't think your actions are fair or reasonable. of course I have no way of knowing what the reasons are because you never stated them. Joie de Vivre 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Connections
Thanks for making contact! I feel very strongly about the plasticsurgery4u links, but I felt at the time like User:alteripse (who at the time presented himself as a "neutral" party even while being terribly critical of me for following standard Wikipedia practices - i.e. once I left a message, trying to make peace, with User:Plastic Surgeon on his talk page, and User:Plastic Surgeon characterized it as shockingly rude, and User:alteripse characterized it as "obnoxious". Very unprofessional, if you ask me.
I wish you very good luck with both User:alteripse and User:Plastic Surgeon. If you like, please drop me notes if/when these two go on the attack for your having removed plasticsurgery4u links. I'm happy to help argue the point and draw fire. I'm also comfortable escalating the issue and even filing RfCs on both of them if need be (though I recognize the need to try to resolve conflicts if at all possible before going to that stage). At the very least, I am very certain that User:alteripse is not at all ethical in presenting himself as a neutral party vis a vis User:Plastic Surgeon's editing behavior, and am perfectly comfortable calling him on that. --MalcolmGin 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S.
Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome). At this point I find that behavior disturbing and abhorrent. I wish User:Plastic Surgeon had turned out to be more amenable to actually learning how to go about being here without ruffling quite so many feathers. --MalcolmGin
08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. According to
Wikipedia:Right to vanish. Thus his Talk page is "deleted" but the history remains. --MalcolmGin
14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Unprotecting birth control page
I think the correct procedure for requesting unprotection of a page is to ask the admin who protected it in the first page. I have left a note at User talk:Malcolm#Unprotecting birth control page asking for unprotection. Would you please drop a line there? LyrlTalkC 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Linkspam and Talk:Fertility awareness
Could you please come and weigh in at Talk:Fertility awareness regarding a link that I feel strongly is linkspam.-Andrew c 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not put speedy deletion tags on Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin. If you really want it deleted, please, try the CfD. I have created the category, and I believe I know the policies and philosophies of Wikipedia enough to discuss in favor of the category. You may be surprised to find how the rationale goes way beyond the simple ghettoization claim you've put there. But, first you must provide the community an an opportunity to discuss the matter, and speedy deletion may not be an ideal way of providing that opportunity. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 10:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
