Jokestress (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
:I have no personal or professional connection to sex or sexuality issues, it is one of many topics that I edit because I see sources lacking, citation templates and citation information missing and I am interested in the topic. |
:I have no personal or professional connection to sex or sexuality issues, it is one of many topics that I edit because I see sources lacking, citation templates and citation information missing and I am interested in the topic. |
||
:If you have any issue with the brief, neutral summary included on the [[Andrea James]] page, I suggest bringing it up at either [[WP:BLPN]] or [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
:If you have any issue with the brief, neutral summary included on the [[Andrea James]] page, I suggest bringing it up at either [[WP:BLPN]] or [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for the reply. I don't believe the timing of your edit is merely coincidental, but I'm hoping we can resolve this without involving others. Your response to the appropriateness of the diffs I provided above will be a good indicator of your intent re NPOV. I'll wait a bit to see what additional edit(s) you make before next steps. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:16, 16 February 2012
Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page. |
If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Should this not be posted to the article talk page as well? —danhash (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For some reason there seems to be an interest in changing the Wiki site for JRI to be almost exclusively about one of our programs, the Trauma Center. There is commentary from Joe Spinazzola the ED of the Trauma Center, requesting that whoever is doing this please stop. I would ask the same. The Trauma Center is a wonderful program, deserving of its own Wiki page, as is Bessel van der Kolk, its founder.
But people searching for other JRI information--residential schools, group homes, home based services, AIDS services, etc, ought to be able to find that information on the JRI Wiki page, too.
I have briefly addressed this in my latest update, adding links to the Trauma Center at JRI--Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)--Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
If I can be helpful, email me at --Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)<e-mail redacted> Thanks new to the Wiki editing game, hope I have not violated protocol.
- Wikipedia is limited in its content by what can be verified in reliable sources. The large blocks of text added to the page were not sourced, and thus could be removed per WP:PROVEIT. Someone removed some sourced information about a sex offender treatment program that was cancelled in 2003, which is inappropriate. In addition, wikipedia has a specific style that must be used, including for the lead. And finally, the large, unsourced list of personnel contained a lot of training titles, which per WP:CREDENTIAL isn't proper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this here and thought I could offer uncontroversial advice but if there's some undercurrent I'm not aware of, I'll leave it to you, or fill me in if you wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Naw, to me it looks the usual - a COI account is writing a press release on wikipedia instead of an article. In this edit I moved the page because it was discussing a non-notable (as far as I could tell - no sources) subsection of the JRI. The JRI overall was the best I could manage. The biggest problem is sources, I couldn't find much on google books. I'm not really interested in updating it more than I already have, I've found enough sources to suggest it's notable but don't really want to dig on the webpage to expand it further. Numerous accounts have kept trying to add more information they thought was important, but without sources and out of compliance with the MOS and other P&G. That's about it as far as undercurrents go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I'm very relaxed about org articles, and happy to have them explain themselves, provided they're not hiding village poisonings and mafia connections, or egregiously tarting themselves up. I emailed Andy about 6 hours ago, emphasising the importance of secondary sources for the stability of the article and trustworthiness of the claims. He, or others in JRI, will have a better idea of where to find them than anyone else. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, if they can point to sources that'd be very helpful. I'm completely uninterested in trolling through their website to find citations but if they/you want to do it, by all means. I don't remember if I looked on google news or just google, so if you want to expand the page you might try there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, have no intention of writing or sourcing the article for them but am very willing to help with advice and suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, if they can point to sources that'd be very helpful. I'm completely uninterested in trolling through their website to find citations but if they/you want to do it, by all means. I don't remember if I looked on google news or just google, so if you want to expand the page you might try there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I'm very relaxed about org articles, and happy to have them explain themselves, provided they're not hiding village poisonings and mafia connections, or egregiously tarting themselves up. I emailed Andy about 6 hours ago, emphasising the importance of secondary sources for the stability of the article and trustworthiness of the claims. He, or others in JRI, will have a better idea of where to find them than anyone else. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Naw, to me it looks the usual - a COI account is writing a press release on wikipedia instead of an article. In this edit I moved the page because it was discussing a non-notable (as far as I could tell - no sources) subsection of the JRI. The JRI overall was the best I could manage. The biggest problem is sources, I couldn't find much on google books. I'm not really interested in updating it more than I already have, I've found enough sources to suggest it's notable but don't really want to dig on the webpage to expand it further. Numerous accounts have kept trying to add more information they thought was important, but without sources and out of compliance with the MOS and other P&G. That's about it as far as undercurrents go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this here and thought I could offer uncontroversial advice but if there's some undercurrent I'm not aware of, I'll leave it to you, or fill me in if you wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Weird edit comment
"I've reviewed every single edit made and all are quite solid in my opinion" ?!?!?
Are you kidding? You do understand that you aren't the ultimate judge of what consensus is, right? Just because you present yourself as some sort of middle ground it doesn't mean whatever you decide goes should automatically immediately happen to the article. If I think we need to discuss these changes, and I bring up on the talk page reasons why I think the version you reverted to had problems, do you not think it's worth discussing first?
Apply some common sense here and show some basic respect. Now that the problem editors are banned we should have a more fruitful conversation. Certainly some of the changes will be approved if they get a fair hearing. Certain other ones I oppose quite strongly, and just ignoring me isn't any better than what Tylas and TomCloyd were doing. DreamGuy (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring you, I just left a note on your talk page - should have done so earlier. I'd prefer to do this in one location, and talk:DID seems a good place. Agreed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
You've helped me learn really fast, and I really look forward to continued collaboration on the DID article. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
At a loose end?
I notice this uni course hasn't appointed an online ambassador (whatever that is) for this semester. Interested? March 5 to June 1, 20 students--Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I somehow feel either I or the course are being gently mocked. Now you're on my ENEMIES LIST!!!!
- Naw, seriously, I don't even know what that is. If they just ask you for coding help, I could do that. If they're asking you for subject-help, I'm too far from an expert to suggest anything but "read both sides". Sage wisdom from Harriet A. Hall - always read the sources, then read who disagrees with your sources, then decide who you agree with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's run by this guy. If you're at all interested he could probably fill you in on what's expected. Or there's this one. Jan. 18 - May 2, 15 students.. But there doesn't seem to be much happening there. I just thought if they're going to be dealing with someone here it might as well be someone who is smart, knows his way around the place and has a passing acquaintance with the topic. But it could be crap, of course. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks be to ye, noble knight!
![]()
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Think you could probably do with one of these for your efforts in the ongoing User:Dickmojo business. Keep your chin up. Famousdog (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Editing biographies during content disputes
Hi there-- I have some concerns that you began negatively editing the biography about me here during a content dispute at the paraphilia article.[2] The negative content you added has also been added by an editor with whom you often collaborate and agree [3][4][5], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. The same editor removed my academic credentials using a different account [6] and removed my primary occupation, among other negative changes,[7] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [8]). In the interest of transparency, can you elaborate on that edit, its timing, and how that material came to your attention? My bio has been edited in a manner I consider punitive by other editors who have disagreed with me here or elsewhere. Many have been blocked. In the interest of NPOV, I have published a couple of responses I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe merit inclusion if we are to have such a one-sided attack included:
- James, Andrea (2008) Fair comment, foul play. National Women's Studies Association conference. (the author of the paper you added unsuccessfully appealed to the NWSA president to suppress this entire panel.)
- James, Andrea (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine, 3:56 ISSN 15508579
Also in the interest of transparency, would you be willing to discuss your personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues? While you are under no obligation to do so, I find that most people who share your point of view have connections to the topic, and that some have a significant conflict of interest, like the WP:SPA editor with whom you have been working. I agree with your statements about transparency in general and back-channel communication in particular, especially if there is a professional connection to a topic. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I added a very brief, neutral summary of an extremely lengthy article discussing a significant controversy of which Andrea James was a part. My actual text included no analysis, only noting that an article existed and addressed her role in the publication and criticism of the TMWWBQ. It was not done at the behest or request of James Cantor; I believe I added Drege's article to several wikipedia pages on the same day because it was unarguably reliable, unarguably relevant, and had the added advantage of being free and full-access. I don't consider it "negative editing" to point out a significant, reliable source that discusses a topic. I was unaware of James Cantor's earlier addition of the information, I merely saw a gap that seemed to require filling. I don't consider this single sentence fragment to be undue weight. Though I do not have time to read James' responses to the Drege article, I will attempt to do so in the near future; based on how I normally handle issues like this, I will probably include a similarly brief and neutral statement indicating Andrea James has replied on her website without significantly summarizing any content.
- I am deliberately separating the article's subject (Andrea James) from you as an editor (Jokestress (talk · contribs)) as editors are not reliable sources.
- I have no personal or professional connection to sex or sexuality issues, it is one of many topics that I edit because I see sources lacking, citation templates and citation information missing and I am interested in the topic.
- If you have any issue with the brief, neutral summary included on the Andrea James page, I suggest bringing it up at either WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I don't believe the timing of your edit is merely coincidental, but I'm hoping we can resolve this without involving others. Your response to the appropriateness of the diffs I provided above will be a good indicator of your intent re NPOV. I'll wait a bit to see what additional edit(s) you make before next steps. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)