![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Give me a sec, I'll fix up that citation nice.
Done--me and the IP-numbered editor are stepping on each other but there is a good cite (even two?:) there now. (This is at Queer theory -- Joe Decker ( talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So, is it the same quote in two places, two quotes merged from two places, or what? A quotes usually has a single source, not two... Mish ( talk) 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Same author, so it's not impossible, but I was only able to personally confirm (and I only added) the second reference. (the one with the Google Books link.) The first of the two references doesn't give a precise page number, and the while the paper it refers to [1] is available in full on-line, it's not available on-line in a searchable form. A quick scan of it's 30-some pages didn't make the quote apparent to me, but I certainly haven't looked hard enough to be sure it's not in there somewhere. On the other hand, I have no doubt it's in the second reference, clicking on the title will take you to the Google Books scan of the appropriate part of the appropriate page. Maybe just dump the first reference and call it done? (I'd look further in the first reference but I need to run, back this evening PDT.) -- Joe Decker ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Back--looks like you have it covered. Thank you! -- Joe Decker ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, MishMich. I noticed that you have also had to deal with Masculinity's tendency to significantly change sourced leads and other portions of articles without consensus (often with unsourced weasel-wording about "the West's bias," as on the Homosexuality article). I was just wondering if you would not mind helping me keep an eye on the Gender article, especially in regards to Masculinity. Talk:Gender#Recent changes to the lead shows what he did to the Gender article's lead, and why I reverted it. If you would like to weigh in on the talk page there, I encourage it. I have already addressed Masculinity on his talk page about this, and have asked another editor ( Darkfrog24) who helped format the lead to weigh in as well. The article is not heavy with vandalism, but every now and then we get unhelpful changes to its lead or other parts of it (such as with Masculinity's edits). Flyer22 ( talk) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mish, I apologize for being difficult to work with. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm on Central European Time, so this is it for me this evening. Panthera germanicus ( talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If you look at PG's talk page, you'll see that he has been blocked on the admin's view that PG's post was a violation of BLP. I'm not saying I endorse that position, but if an admin has already taken the view that it was a violation of BLP, it might be worth reconsidering the reversion of the deletion. I hope it's clear this isn't meant to be antagonistic towards you -- quite the contrary, in fact. cheers, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([ [2]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you discuss this on the iPad talk page? I don't think it should be included in the article. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Terrillja talk 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I hit the revert button because the skype highlighting you added showed up in my anti-vandal tool. It seems that you added some, deleted some other, and my revert reverted both. I'd ask you to read WP:KETTLE, but we're both acting in good faith here.
In the circumstances, I'm happy to let you sort it out. Cheers. Philip Trueman ( talk) 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Hi,
I would like to form a group for the revision of the article on Homosexuality as discussed in Talk:Homosexuality#Splitting_and_revision_of_article. I would appreciate your participation.
Thanks,
Pdorion ( talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? - MishMich - Talk - 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume you're going to let Noloop ( talk · contribs) know that you've removed a comment of theirs? ;-) TFOWR 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello MishMich, in the article about Magnus Hirschfeld you added to the introduction that he was actively homosexual. Do you mean with 'actively' that he had a homosexual sex life? Why do you put that in the introduction, or in the article at all? Glatisant ( talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit edit summary came across my watchlist and was totally legit. Just wanted to let you know ex-communication is the Church letting a Catholic know that they have committed a sin so grave that the have, for now, separated them selves from the Church. If you were never part of the Church you can't be separated from it (non-Catholics, are not considered to be in a state of ex-communication). Likewise with that sentence about Heresy is off. One is allowed to question whether or not a policy of the Church is wise and lobby for a chance, but as far as I know it is only when one has proclaimed the Church is wrong, that they are smarter than the Church and that they will now disobey the Church that they're in theological trouble. - Schrandit ( talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen these: [3] and [4] Noloop ( talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
[5] Noloop ( talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I also stated this to Legitimus: A certain IP/editor keeps changing the age range in the Ephebophilia article, insisting on my talk page that adolescence ends at age 14. I am not sure where he got his information, but he cannot keeping changing the definition simply because he disagrees with it. I explained at User talk:Flyer22#Adolescent age, but this may not be the end of it. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
I appreciate you deflecting me from having to argue with Noloop as you are a lot more stimulating to argue with. Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you wonderfully for your edit of the 31st at 6:04p. Nick Levinson ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This requires a "second". Maybe you support it...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein Noloop ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding a statement you made in Talk:circumcision: "From what I can tell, there was no obvious mention of female circumcision in the OED 40 years ago. That suggests such usage emerged since then, and unless somebody can provide a more accurate source that contradicts this, I have to accept that." You can have a look at 187 online journal articles and other scholarly sources that discuss the circumcision of females before the year 1971 here. Also note the following sources:
Of course, one should also base arguments on current accepted usage and meaning:
It's unfortunate that you were not aware of this, but it doesn't really matter. The proposed move has similarly resulted in no consensus before, with many editors opposing the change arguing on the basis that the term "female circumcision" is a neologism, in direct contradiction to all those sources. No one bat an eyelash, and those arguments were considered valid. It seems that non-neutral POV is so pervasive in this instance that debunked, disproved nonsense is given weight and respect in assessing disputed content. Blackworm ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 ( talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As one of the designers of the previous lead, your take on this matter is needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Move to main page? CTJF83 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. I haven't worked on it for a while, and think it will need sources.
Thank you for your comment. I have replied on my talk page. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MishMich. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. D B D 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have popped in and made minor additions where necessary, mainly trying to avoid conflict. But, following a heart attack three weeks ago, I don't expect to returning to actively editing for some time. - MishMich - Talk - 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Genderqueer, has been proposed for a
merge with the article
Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --
April Arcus (
talk)
07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi MM. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
RachelWex 16:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
RachelWex 16:58, 10 June 2017 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Give me a sec, I'll fix up that citation nice.
Done--me and the IP-numbered editor are stepping on each other but there is a good cite (even two?:) there now. (This is at Queer theory -- Joe Decker ( talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So, is it the same quote in two places, two quotes merged from two places, or what? A quotes usually has a single source, not two... Mish ( talk) 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Same author, so it's not impossible, but I was only able to personally confirm (and I only added) the second reference. (the one with the Google Books link.) The first of the two references doesn't give a precise page number, and the while the paper it refers to [1] is available in full on-line, it's not available on-line in a searchable form. A quick scan of it's 30-some pages didn't make the quote apparent to me, but I certainly haven't looked hard enough to be sure it's not in there somewhere. On the other hand, I have no doubt it's in the second reference, clicking on the title will take you to the Google Books scan of the appropriate part of the appropriate page. Maybe just dump the first reference and call it done? (I'd look further in the first reference but I need to run, back this evening PDT.) -- Joe Decker ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Back--looks like you have it covered. Thank you! -- Joe Decker ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, MishMich. I noticed that you have also had to deal with Masculinity's tendency to significantly change sourced leads and other portions of articles without consensus (often with unsourced weasel-wording about "the West's bias," as on the Homosexuality article). I was just wondering if you would not mind helping me keep an eye on the Gender article, especially in regards to Masculinity. Talk:Gender#Recent changes to the lead shows what he did to the Gender article's lead, and why I reverted it. If you would like to weigh in on the talk page there, I encourage it. I have already addressed Masculinity on his talk page about this, and have asked another editor ( Darkfrog24) who helped format the lead to weigh in as well. The article is not heavy with vandalism, but every now and then we get unhelpful changes to its lead or other parts of it (such as with Masculinity's edits). Flyer22 ( talk) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mish, I apologize for being difficult to work with. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm on Central European Time, so this is it for me this evening. Panthera germanicus ( talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If you look at PG's talk page, you'll see that he has been blocked on the admin's view that PG's post was a violation of BLP. I'm not saying I endorse that position, but if an admin has already taken the view that it was a violation of BLP, it might be worth reconsidering the reversion of the deletion. I hope it's clear this isn't meant to be antagonistic towards you -- quite the contrary, in fact. cheers, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([ [2]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you discuss this on the iPad talk page? I don't think it should be included in the article. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Terrillja talk 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I hit the revert button because the skype highlighting you added showed up in my anti-vandal tool. It seems that you added some, deleted some other, and my revert reverted both. I'd ask you to read WP:KETTLE, but we're both acting in good faith here.
In the circumstances, I'm happy to let you sort it out. Cheers. Philip Trueman ( talk) 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Hi,
I would like to form a group for the revision of the article on Homosexuality as discussed in Talk:Homosexuality#Splitting_and_revision_of_article. I would appreciate your participation.
Thanks,
Pdorion ( talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? - MishMich - Talk - 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume you're going to let Noloop ( talk · contribs) know that you've removed a comment of theirs? ;-) TFOWR 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello MishMich, in the article about Magnus Hirschfeld you added to the introduction that he was actively homosexual. Do you mean with 'actively' that he had a homosexual sex life? Why do you put that in the introduction, or in the article at all? Glatisant ( talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit edit summary came across my watchlist and was totally legit. Just wanted to let you know ex-communication is the Church letting a Catholic know that they have committed a sin so grave that the have, for now, separated them selves from the Church. If you were never part of the Church you can't be separated from it (non-Catholics, are not considered to be in a state of ex-communication). Likewise with that sentence about Heresy is off. One is allowed to question whether or not a policy of the Church is wise and lobby for a chance, but as far as I know it is only when one has proclaimed the Church is wrong, that they are smarter than the Church and that they will now disobey the Church that they're in theological trouble. - Schrandit ( talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen these: [3] and [4] Noloop ( talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
[5] Noloop ( talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I also stated this to Legitimus: A certain IP/editor keeps changing the age range in the Ephebophilia article, insisting on my talk page that adolescence ends at age 14. I am not sure where he got his information, but he cannot keeping changing the definition simply because he disagrees with it. I explained at User talk:Flyer22#Adolescent age, but this may not be the end of it. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
I appreciate you deflecting me from having to argue with Noloop as you are a lot more stimulating to argue with. Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you wonderfully for your edit of the 31st at 6:04p. Nick Levinson ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This requires a "second". Maybe you support it...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein Noloop ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding a statement you made in Talk:circumcision: "From what I can tell, there was no obvious mention of female circumcision in the OED 40 years ago. That suggests such usage emerged since then, and unless somebody can provide a more accurate source that contradicts this, I have to accept that." You can have a look at 187 online journal articles and other scholarly sources that discuss the circumcision of females before the year 1971 here. Also note the following sources:
Of course, one should also base arguments on current accepted usage and meaning:
It's unfortunate that you were not aware of this, but it doesn't really matter. The proposed move has similarly resulted in no consensus before, with many editors opposing the change arguing on the basis that the term "female circumcision" is a neologism, in direct contradiction to all those sources. No one bat an eyelash, and those arguments were considered valid. It seems that non-neutral POV is so pervasive in this instance that debunked, disproved nonsense is given weight and respect in assessing disputed content. Blackworm ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 ( talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As one of the designers of the previous lead, your take on this matter is needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Move to main page? CTJF83 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. I haven't worked on it for a while, and think it will need sources.
Thank you for your comment. I have replied on my talk page. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MishMich. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. D B D 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have popped in and made minor additions where necessary, mainly trying to avoid conflict. But, following a heart attack three weeks ago, I don't expect to returning to actively editing for some time. - MishMich - Talk - 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Genderqueer, has been proposed for a
merge with the article
Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --
April Arcus (
talk)
07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi MM. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
RachelWex 16:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
RachelWex 16:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)