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. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, Joie de Vivre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
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!
--
Ci
e
lomobile
minor7
♭5
01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in
Raw foods diet.
Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the
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."
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)
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)
You could try NPOV postings at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality -- Samuel Wantman 02:52, 8 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:ANI. There is also 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)
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.
Thanks.— Chidom talk 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've already started. -- Briancua 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is a palm-down straight-wrist action while making a little swoosh noise. =) Joebobsamfrank
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)
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)
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)
Hi, Joie de Vivre, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! 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:
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)
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)
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)
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 NoticeThis 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) |
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 Flammingo Parliament 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! The "S" is for "Society Topics", I don't know if this will get you to the delsort page Category:AfD debates (Society topics), if not, then go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and the 3rd section down is a list of the categories. We try not to put too many in the "Indiscernible" category, and this seems to be the one that fit the topic the best. Of course, anyone is able to change these categorizations... They're there to get the attention of people who are interested in one area, but perhaps not in another. I'll get both of them sorted, but I think since they were combined, there's no problem with that... but I'll double check for you. SkierRMH 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The steps are described in Template:AfD in 3 steps. The bot noticed that you haven't done the last one, which was that of including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife to the log of the day Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 13. This step is required to make more people aware of the deletion proposal. As for the other page, generally one use a single AfD if they are related, as you actually did. The procedure is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, and it essentially tells to do the regular procedure for the first page, and then just link the other pages to delete to the same discussion page. Tizio 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I replied at User talk:Flammingo. Reach me at my talk page if the problem continues. — coelacan talk — 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Marriage, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VltavaHF ( talk • contribs) February 14, 2007, 07:20(UTC).
Hey, Joie. I liked your copy-edit to " Jesus did not come to die" here. You made it clear that the church isn't "teaching a fact" but "giving its viewpoint". -- Uncle Ed 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
He is a vandal with a Nazi agenda. What do you propose to stop him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.191.166 ( talk • contribs) 03:14, February 15, 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Joie de Vivre. I've seen you around abortion-related articles a lot recently, so, I just thought I'd take a moment to inform you about the WikiProject Abortion Watchlist and Noticeboard (if you weren't already aware of them!). You might find them useful in keeping up-to-date on articles related to this topic. Regards. - Severa ( !!!) 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joie de Vivre,
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
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? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
At this point, they don't want to be a part. I would suggest full protection for disputes, warning templates on the user's talk, or bring this up at WP:ANI. Don't aggravate the situation by starting a revert war. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
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)
Hi,
Can you please voice your opinion on the talk page of Dilation and curettage?
Thank you and happy editing,
Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Joie de Vivre. As a prominent contributor to Girl-girl, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in 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)
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 just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where Girl-girl should redirect: as "girl-girl" is a term used only to refer to a certain genre of pornography, Girl-girl should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Girl-girl. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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.
Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Circumcision#Problematic changes to lead. Thanks, Jakew 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Joie de Vivre. Please see Category talk:Methods of abortion for a new proposal for a hierarchy to the "Forms of abortion/Methods of abortion/etc." categories which I think will address both of our concerns. Thanks! - Severa ( !!!) 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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. - Roy Boy 800 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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. Lyrl Talk C 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
I'll take a look, thanks for the heads-up. >Radiant< 09:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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
MrASingh 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Removed 18 banner tags placed by MrASingh. Joie de Vivre 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moving one comment by MrASingh about content of Race and crime to Talk:Race and crime -- Joie de Vivre 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
... this? - NYC JD (interrogatories) 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie: your response was very appropriate and articulate. Fireplace 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
How would you feel about listing a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion in relation to our dispute on the birth control page? Lyrl Talk C 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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 have violated the WP:3RR so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You are currently listed as one of the parties in a dispute at the Mediation Cabal. I have offered to mediate this dispute. Please see the Page for the dispute to continue mediation. -- CaveatLector Talk 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am having trouble with another editor in a content dispute at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Joie de Vivre 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Jim Bob Duggar, you will be blocked from editing.
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)
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)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SatyrBot 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mammary intercourse, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Amos Han Talk 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mammary intercourse. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not 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)
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)
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! mcr616 Speak! 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! mcr616 Speak! 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. mcr616 Speak! 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry! I misunderstood. I respect your decision to use gender neutral pronouns, though. mcr616 Speak! 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. mcr616 Speak! 20:44, 14 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)
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)
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? Lyrl Talk C 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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. |
Archive 1 |
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. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, Joie de Vivre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
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!
--
Ci
e
lomobile
minor7
♭5
01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in
Raw foods diet.
Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the
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."
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)
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)
You could try NPOV postings at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality -- Samuel Wantman 02:52, 8 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:ANI. There is also 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)
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.
Thanks.— Chidom talk 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've already started. -- Briancua 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is a palm-down straight-wrist action while making a little swoosh noise. =) Joebobsamfrank
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)
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)
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)
Hi, Joie de Vivre, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! 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:
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)
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)
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)
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 NoticeThis 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) |
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 Flammingo Parliament 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! The "S" is for "Society Topics", I don't know if this will get you to the delsort page Category:AfD debates (Society topics), if not, then go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and the 3rd section down is a list of the categories. We try not to put too many in the "Indiscernible" category, and this seems to be the one that fit the topic the best. Of course, anyone is able to change these categorizations... They're there to get the attention of people who are interested in one area, but perhaps not in another. I'll get both of them sorted, but I think since they were combined, there's no problem with that... but I'll double check for you. SkierRMH 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The steps are described in Template:AfD in 3 steps. The bot noticed that you haven't done the last one, which was that of including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife to the log of the day Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 13. This step is required to make more people aware of the deletion proposal. As for the other page, generally one use a single AfD if they are related, as you actually did. The procedure is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, and it essentially tells to do the regular procedure for the first page, and then just link the other pages to delete to the same discussion page. Tizio 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I replied at User talk:Flammingo. Reach me at my talk page if the problem continues. — coelacan talk — 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Marriage, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VltavaHF ( talk • contribs) February 14, 2007, 07:20(UTC).
Hey, Joie. I liked your copy-edit to " Jesus did not come to die" here. You made it clear that the church isn't "teaching a fact" but "giving its viewpoint". -- Uncle Ed 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
He is a vandal with a Nazi agenda. What do you propose to stop him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.191.166 ( talk • contribs) 03:14, February 15, 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Joie de Vivre. I've seen you around abortion-related articles a lot recently, so, I just thought I'd take a moment to inform you about the WikiProject Abortion Watchlist and Noticeboard (if you weren't already aware of them!). You might find them useful in keeping up-to-date on articles related to this topic. Regards. - Severa ( !!!) 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joie de Vivre,
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
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? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
At this point, they don't want to be a part. I would suggest full protection for disputes, warning templates on the user's talk, or bring this up at WP:ANI. Don't aggravate the situation by starting a revert war. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
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)
Hi,
Can you please voice your opinion on the talk page of Dilation and curettage?
Thank you and happy editing,
Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Joie de Vivre. As a prominent contributor to Girl-girl, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in 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)
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 just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where Girl-girl should redirect: as "girl-girl" is a term used only to refer to a certain genre of pornography, Girl-girl should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Girl-girl. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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.
Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Circumcision#Problematic changes to lead. Thanks, Jakew 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Joie de Vivre. Please see Category talk:Methods of abortion for a new proposal for a hierarchy to the "Forms of abortion/Methods of abortion/etc." categories which I think will address both of our concerns. Thanks! - Severa ( !!!) 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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. - Roy Boy 800 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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. Lyrl Talk C 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
I'll take a look, thanks for the heads-up. >Radiant< 09:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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
MrASingh 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Removed 18 banner tags placed by MrASingh. Joie de Vivre 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moving one comment by MrASingh about content of Race and crime to Talk:Race and crime -- Joie de Vivre 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
... this? - NYC JD (interrogatories) 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie: your response was very appropriate and articulate. Fireplace 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
How would you feel about listing a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion in relation to our dispute on the birth control page? Lyrl Talk C 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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 have violated the WP:3RR so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You are currently listed as one of the parties in a dispute at the Mediation Cabal. I have offered to mediate this dispute. Please see the Page for the dispute to continue mediation. -- CaveatLector Talk 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am having trouble with another editor in a content dispute at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Joie de Vivre 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Jim Bob Duggar, you will be blocked from editing.
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)
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)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SatyrBot 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mammary intercourse, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Amos Han Talk 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mammary intercourse. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not 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)
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)
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! mcr616 Speak! 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! mcr616 Speak! 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. mcr616 Speak! 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry! I misunderstood. I respect your decision to use gender neutral pronouns, though. mcr616 Speak! 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. mcr616 Speak! 20:44, 14 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)
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)
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? Lyrl Talk C 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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. |
Archive 1 |