User talk:JoannaSerah: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:50, 10 December 2012 edit220.255.2.149 (talk) →POV ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:53, 10 December 2012 edit undo220.255.2.166 (talk) →POV Next edit →
Line 211:		Line 211:
	:::::Blocked sock, and indef blocked Mike the master. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)		:::::Blocked sock, and indef blocked Mike the master. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}
	::::::To Mike whatever, I'm not female/lesbian. I assert that your opinions were added to the ] article, because you did not stick to what the sources say. It is your opinion that the text you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article is "anti male sentiment." That is some pretty flimsy logic, as is your assertion that the studies are biased toward lesbianism. So ] (1953), ], ], Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004) and Diamond (2006) all set out to be biased in reporting this information? That's absurd. It's not a matter of "pick and choose" with these sources. It's a matter of this being research about lesbian sexual activity that is supported by several studies, while you have only cited the discredited Schwartz study, "findings" that have not been replicated. She asserts that lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple and that they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. But, in contrast to her asssertion, the fact is that couples of any sexual orientation generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. The ] is an example of that. If there are studies showing the exact opposite of the information you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article, then you would cite it like you are supposed to do, not maintain that you are right just because you state that you are right. WP:Verifiability is clear that we are supposed to follow what reliable sources state, not our personal opinion(s). That means no adding or removing information based on our personal opinion(s), at least not in the way that you've been going about it. You were indeed removing things because you don't like it. Your edits are not policy or guideline-based, which is why you were reverted by others beside me. You speak of me denying a study simply because I don't agree with it, but I have done no such thing. That has consistently been you. I welcomed opposing studies, but you haven't cited any. The Schwartz study is not an opposing study, and you didn't even attempt to introduce it in the article with or without a reliable source. And in the ] article we do indeed have sections comparing African Americans to white Americans. Is it done in a way that is "only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit "? No, but neither is the case for the Lesbian sexual practices article. An the Lesbianism in erotica article doesn't state that "Men are attracted to lesbians," which actually isn't ridiculous since many men have stated that they are sexually attracted to lesbians. It states "Studies indicate that heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity," which is a summary of the article per ]. This is also research that is supported by several studies. You were/are wrong, that's the point, which is why you are now indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)		::::::To Mike whatever, I'm not female/lesbian. I assert that your opinions were added to the ] article, because you did not stick to what the sources say. It is your opinion that the text you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article is "anti male sentiment." That is some pretty flimsy logic, as is your assertion that the studies are biased toward lesbianism. So ] (1953), ], ], Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004) and Diamond (2006) all set out to be biased in reporting this information? That's absurd. It's not a matter of "pick and choose" with these sources. It's a matter of this being research about lesbian sexual activity that is supported by several studies, while you have only cited the discredited Schwartz study, "findings" that have not been replicated. She asserts that lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple and that they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. But, in contrast to her asssertion, the fact is that couples of any sexual orientation generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. The ] is an example of that. If there are studies showing the exact opposite of the information you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article, then you would cite it like you are supposed to do, not maintain that you are right just because you state that you are right. WP:Verifiability is clear that we are supposed to follow what reliable sources state, not our personal opinion(s). That means no adding or removing information based on our personal opinion(s), at least not in the way that you've been going about it. You were indeed removing things because you don't like it. Your edits are not policy or guideline-based, which is why you were reverted by others beside me. You speak of me denying a study simply because I don't agree with it, but I have done no such thing. That has consistently been you. I welcomed opposing studies, but you haven't cited any. The Schwartz study is not an opposing study, and you didn't even attempt to introduce it in the article with or without a reliable source. And in the ] article we do indeed have sections comparing African Americans to white Americans. Is it done in a way that is "only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit "? No, but neither is the case for the Lesbian sexual practices article. And the Lesbianism in erotica article doesn't state that "Men are attracted to lesbians," which actually isn't ridiculous since many men have stated that they are sexually attracted to lesbians. It states "Studies indicate that heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity," which is a summary of the article per ]. This is also research that is supported by several studies. You were/are wrong, that's the point, which is why you are now indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Leith Links multiple referencing page display ==		== Leith Links multiple referencing page display ==

Revision as of 20:53, 10 December 2012

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 (2011)

Archive 2 (Jan–Jun 2012)

Archive 3 (Jul–Dec 2012)

Archive 4 (Jan–Jun 2013)

Welcome to my user talk page! Feel free to add comments at the bottom of the page (easier for me to find). Generally, I'll respond underneath your comment whether on my talk page or yours unless you request otherwise. -- JoannaSerah (talk)

State Legislative Leadership and Membership Templates

I created 2 sets of templates: {{Chamber officers box}} and {{Chamber members box}}. Posted comments about new chamber leadership/membership templates at this talk page. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For your copy-editing and other minor edits, and your work on literature-related lists. INeverCry 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! My first Barnstar. Just glad to help. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant idea

	'Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm'
	I award you the Egg of Columbus for your creation of the Lunar sample display Navbox. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you. It is appreciated. Any other template you need, just let me know. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Now that you've asked, we need a template for Call of the Wild, including the book and the seven different movies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Will look into that. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually almost got into (more or less) an edit war over that. And my opposing editor came up with that brilliant idea. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking and found that TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) recently created one already: {{The Call of the Wild}} Is that what you need or something else/more? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind, although it is clearly incomplete. But I'll work on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

You have e-mail.--Doug Coldwell 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina

At one time we lived in Ashville, North Carolina. Here are some NC articles I created:

Folk Art Center
Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels
Julian Price Memorial Park
Julian Price
Moses H. Cone Memorial Park
Moses H. Cone
Cone sisters - The Cone sisters, Claribel and Etta, were two of Moses' younger sisters.
Flat Top Manor
This is my list of 200 DYKs on various subjects.--Doug Coldwell 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, neat! I had heard of Moses Cone, of course, but hadn't known anything about the Cone sisters. Interesting article. Some of those others were already in my watchlist. Will have to check out more of your work. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

yet another North Carolinian

Greetings JoannaSerah. I moved to Charlotte about 18 months ago. I wrote all of the articles in Category:Parks in Charlotte, North Carolina and wrote or contributed to many other Charlotte based articles. My main interests are theatre, parks, Charlotte, and mathematics. I wrote articles on two Charlotte poets and added them to your List of female poets. I plan to do more local poets. If you have any ideas about how to stir up interest in Charlotte articles and especially if you know where I could get more photographs for illustration (e.g. The Green, St. Peter's Catholic Church, Madeleine Ozeray, and many other actors, let me know. There is so much in Charlotte that should be included.--Foobarnix (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen some of your edits and articles around Misplaced Pages. Great to have more interested in NC here. I had been trying to re-kickstart an active WikiProject North Carolina a few months ago, but really have focused more on content creation and general copyediting. Thank you for your contributions. There are so many good (and even great) poets in NC that there definitely should be more articles about. Charlotte (and really NC in general) does have a lot more info that should be included. As far as photos go, it just takes time to go out and take some of our own a lot of the time. Sometimes I'm able to go on picture-taking trips, but, honestly, I'm not a photographer. Just rely on my digital camera and Photoshop to post pics here. Keep up the good work. Next time I go down to Charlotte, I'll see what I can do. You could always post to the WikiProject NC talk page for any specific idea/project you want help on as well. That might get some interest. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Peace College --> William Peace University Move_William_Peace_University_Move-2012-11-07T05:29:00.000Z">

I just wanted to drop a line and see if you wanted to comment on, or had any opinion about my new Peace College move suggestion. As I stated on that Talk page, aGoogle search results show 458,000 results for "William Peace University" and now only 301,000 results for "Peace College". In fact, the only results on the first page of a Google search for "Peace College" are articles from prior to May of 2012, a redirect page for William Peace University's new website, and our Misplaced Pages article. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the lone holdout in a sea of actual, palpable, permanent (for now?) change. All University websites and all North Carolina press now refer to the institution by its new name. See, for instance: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/06/2466778/north-carolinas-congressional.html

Thanks! And let me know if there's anything I can help with that you're working on. I'm trying to get back in the swing of Misplaced Pages editing.Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)_William_Peace_University_Move"> _William_Peace_University_Move">

I'll look into that some more and comment there, but it does appear that they are more consistently using WPU rather than just "Peace College". Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweden lunar sample displays

Apparently by the last Reviewer there is a need for expansion on the Sweden article. I'm at a lost for words. IF you could add 100-200 characters to the History section that would help a lot. Perhaps you, as another editor, can find things I can not. Google search? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia Greenland on Commons

Just to tell u someone had a question about that pic--Sanandros (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome, and actually someone else also asked a similar request for a pic NZ and GER on your talk page on commons.--Sanandros (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that now. I was having trouble creating that one and got sidetracked. Will have to revisit now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your first DYK :)

<-- Looks like you will need one of those here in a few days when your first DYK hits the front page . They will put a template here on your talk page once it has made its run. Good job, no corrections were needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

HI

I HAVE JUST LEFT A COMMENT ON THE SUMMERY ,BUT THANKS ALOT ON THE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Talmage Abernethy

On 13 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Talmage Abernethy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Arthur Talmage Abernethy was named as the first North Carolina Poet Laureate in 1948 even though he never published a book of poetry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Talmage Abernethy. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to update your user page :) Hopefully, this will be the first of many. Congrats again, you did a great job on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just updated my userpage :) Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit warring.

{{help me}} Have not posted to WP:ANEW before and wasn't sure if this rises to that level, yet. 24.238.92.20 (talk · contribs) keeps adding info into a couple of articles (Peter Hedges and Ahmet Zappa) about some non-notable book/authors which seems to try to imply that those article subjects weren't original in their idea and possibly infringed copyright. The paragraph is uncited and appears to be WP:OR at best. Their edits were reverted with explanation. They do not use edit summaries ever and simply re-reverted the info back in. I took the info back out citing the reasons and referencing WP:BRD. I started a discussion on the articles' talk pages and left a note to the IP. Even after that, they chose to simply re-revert back in the info. Is this type of thing enough for WP:ANEW or if anyone else could help in this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to simply revert his/her edit again and possibly be accused of edit warring myself. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I took off the help me tag for now. Another user reverted the IP user's edits. Will wait to see if anything becomes of this. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing came of it is the answer. IP editor 24.238.92.20 just went ahead and reinserted the material, without any response on the talk page. Maybe you'd better put that help sign back up. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold and posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.238.92.20 reported by User:Bejnar (Result: ), even though the 3RR rule was not technically broken. I don't know how automated or how fast that process is. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

24.238.92.20 has been blocked for 48 hours and warned not to add the material back in without a reliable source confirming that the idea was stolen. --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I had taken off the help me earlier because I wasn't sure if I was going to be online the next few days, but was able to for a little while today. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for North Carolina lunar sample displays

On 17 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article North Carolina lunar sample displays, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that samples of moon rock and lunar dust soil from the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 missions, mounted on wooden plaque displays especially for Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Honduras, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, plus the states of Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii (pictured), Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and West Virginia, were later reported missing by many of the recipients? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

30-in-1 record

Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Hall of Fame#DYK hooks with 5 or more articles ----Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, amazing. Just went away for the weekend and then my inbox gets filled with messages. :) Glad I could help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library	Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Misplaced Pages articles with Misplaced Pages tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Misplaced Pages articles with Misplaced Pages tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-assess?

I'd be much obliged if you could (re-)run your ruler over articles I have an active hand in. Principally Bantayan Island which I have spent a lot of time on. And some others within its ambit, such as Bantayan, Cebu.

Thanks

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 22:09, wikitime= 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

You wouldn't know how I could speed-up the process of article creation for my new article at AFC: Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) would you? Thanks! Also -- I don't know how to link to an AFC request, so sorry if what I did there was too cumbersome. Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You can disregard this. I figured out how to add it without going through AFC -- it's been a while since I've written an article! Take a look over at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). Do you think leaving up the blank AFC request will hurt?Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I see. Good job on the article. It is well written. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying right now to get a DYK out of it.Cdtew (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		This is just a simple token of my gratitude for your help with Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) and Hugh Waddell (general). Thanks in no small part to your cleaning-up of my inexpert writing, I'm on my way to DYK #'s 3 & 4! And thank you also for the expanded info re: the historic site! Cdtew (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You are amazing and the glue that holds Project North Carolina together. The momentum you are creating is inspiring. Thank you so much for all you do there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah now, Dennis, you make a girl blush. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You deserve more than a barnstart, that is for sure. I have so many projects but I am hoping to focus more on NC articles soon. What is so helpful is the organization you are adding to the project. That is often the weakest link. Good organization helps us remember what we need to work on, and what we are working toward. And it isn't easy. This is why I appreciate the efforts so much, and I know that many benefit from your efforts, including those that don't know it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian football

Hello Joanna. Thanks for doing some fixing on George Pape – (your diff). When I created the article I doubted anyone would even look at it, much less be interested in improving it!

We haven’t met before so I browsed through your list of interests. I was surprised to see you are a fan of the West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football team in Perth, Western Australia, my home town. At first I was delighted by the possibility that enthusiasm for the Australian football code might have reached North Carolina, but then I realised it might just be a Wikierror. I did a little exploring and found the sporting teams associated with Winthrop University in Rock Hill SC are called the Eagles. No! Please tell me you are fan of Australian football! Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a Wikierror. I am a WCE fan! :) There's lots of college teams around that are called the Eagles, yes, but being on the East Coast here in the US, most of the time that I say that I'm an Eagles football fan, they think I mean the Philadelphia Eagles. I have enjoyed watching the best Eagles for several years now. Have had to only catch them play online since can't find it on TV around here often. Sometimes Fox Soccer Channel covers it. I just usually forgo trying to find it on TV and watch online. I have been focused more on North Carolina articles lately, but did do more with WCE articles before. Will have to look into more of those again. Don't really know why I picked them to root for. I had been a fan of Aussie Rules for years and around 2000/2001 started cheering for them. Maybe it's the colors, the song, Rick the Rock...who knows? Anyway, great to meet you, Dolphin. Any other wikiediting help you need, just let me know. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! That's the best news I've had all week. Many years ago I went to Mojave CA for a training course. When the class learned that I was from Australia one of them said "Tell us about the Flying Doormat!" They were talking about Bruce Doull who had very little hair on top but what was left around the perimeter was long enough to reach his shoulders. At top speed his hair flowed behind him like Superman's cape. I didn't know much about Doull but it immediately established something to talk about. When I enquired how people in California might have heard about the Flying Doormat the answer was that Aussie Rules featured on some pay TV channels late at night in the US. So I'm not surprised you have heard of Perth and the West Coast Eagles, just delighted. Dolphin (t) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Funny how you can claim I'm inserting POV when the whole intro of the article was based on POV that isn't accurate, and was extremely bothersome. Why should one study outweigh findings of others? I'm keeping out annoying, offensive, generalizations whether you like it or not. You can keep your hasty generalizations, but don't bring it to the articles to be read as fact. Thank you. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Mike, you should take your concerns to the article talk page, that is what they are there for. This way others can offer their perspectives as well. I think you will find if you take a slightly less aggressive attitude, Joanna and others will be more than willing to consider your perspective. I know it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, lord knows I've had 100s of mine reverted, but the key to finding a solution is through calm dialog. The same as you would in the real world. Sometimes, you just haven't explained your edits so that others understand, other times you learn why you were mistaken. And yet other times you will just disagree, but that is what consensus building is about. There is an essay worth reading WP:BRD, which covers the best ways to handle situations like this. You both care about the content, the best solution is dialog to first find common ground, then work towards a resolution through peaceful discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for pointing out WP:BRD, Dennis. I might avoid the pages for a while, though. I should have known better than to venture into the sexuality-based articles. I usually avoid them. From what I read of them, they have some editors who are good at trying to keep things more appropriate, cited correctly, etc., but so much of them are focused on luridness and are battlegrounds for POV editing. Often sections and whole articles sound like they are written by middle/high school boys (especially those relating to female sexuality). As a female Wikipedian, I know I should probably care about those articles more and make a fuss, but, to me, there are so many more interesting things to work on, really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I know someone who is very familiar with LGBT content, Jenova20. he is also a member of WP:WER, very fair and likable, and a great editor overall. he is a good contact if you need a second opinion or simply want to point out a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe you should stay away from points addressing male sexuality then? Because all I did was correct blatantly false information on males and you seemed to have a problem with that! As I said, for a general rule, one finding by a shady study does not make their claim fact, and does not discredit all prior ones done. Honestly I would have deleted the whole point that I edited if it was up to me, because it's selective, not needed, etc, but I only modified in order to make whoever made that bizarre contribution happy. Hey, if I was messing around and putting false and offensive information into articles revolving around how females act, desire, etc, you might feel differently. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Again, unnecessary WP:POINTiness. Saying some of the points are blatantly false is your opinion. Please just stick to discussing the articles on their talk pages. You characterizing that as a shady study might be disingenuous, I'm not certain. I'll let others weigh in on the real scientific nature of whatever evidence you actually provide to the articles. Please make sure to back up your edits with citations. While you might be right about the gender of Jenova20, it is really improper to edit someone else's talk page comments. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Don't know what you mean by pointiness. And no, it's not my opinion, it's fact. You're confusing opinion with reality. If you can prove me otherwise then you're welcome to, but you can't because there is no evidence that says most X are of trait Y, so you certainly can't declare all X are of trait Y as fact. For the last time, one statistical outlier does not mean the outlier is correct and all the others are wrong. And I have no need to insert citations, because I wasn't adding anything new. I was simply correcting what was stated (OPINION), which wasn't true. Also you have no credibility. And I simply changed she to he so calm down. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Mike, I've left a warning on your talk page. Between POV editing, edit warring and this harassment, you are quickly working towards a block. I suggest you disengage and learn how to contribute in a neutral fashion, or find another hobby. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying it's POV editing to remove POV edits and opinions from articles? I genuinely want to know. Honestly it's pretty amusing how I'm getting attacked for removing false information from articles; that just shows what a joke an encyclopedia is when everyone can edit and insert their own opinions to be read as fact. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC) You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by WP:Verifiability instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what reliable sources are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages based on your personal opinions! That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Misplaced Pages. You seriously need to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Misplaced Pages could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about reliably sourced material, and other policies and guidelines. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the Lesbian sexual practices article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the Pepper Schwartz study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. Hate that your page turned into a battlezone, Joanna. Hopefully this won't discourage you from participating in the articles of your choice. We have to give people the opportunity to conform before blocking them, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Some just fritter it away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I understand. I go to bed and wake up with several more comments here! :) It's not nearly as bad a battleground as I've seen on some other talk pages before. It won't really discourage me. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Wrong again proxy IP vandal. opinions were removed, not added. In fact, I didn't add one opinion or point that was my own. And no one likes bad edits, so by your logic, every edit done in existence is a "I don't like". Where's the rationale? Also, if you could actually read, you would get an idea that only anti male sentiments were removed, I don't care about lesbianism, and I don't care if you personally identify as a lesbian, I have no qualms with that, or you for your identification. But to tell me the points you're arguing in favour of, are factual, is idiotic. Point is, I set out to find and remove opinionated sexism, such as "lesbian women make better lovers than men" (the whole point in that article was biased, as some studies are in favour of this point, some are against, Schwartz among others, but only the ones in favour listed), (nice of you to deny a study simply because you don't agree with it). Not to mention it's an unnecessary contribution. On an article about african americans, do we have a section comparing them to white americans, only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit your opinion? No. So the comparison fueled by bias isn't needed either. and an even bizarre one yet, "Men are attracted to lesbians" (Seriously? I can't be the only one that finds this ridiculous). When I first joined wikipedia, I knew the first place to find opinionated views attacking against males would be articles related to feminism (Which actually has been kept fair! I was wrong) and lesbianism (Not so fair. What I found was typical). Now, I know I'm right here. And if[REDACTED] lists itself as a beacon for information, then It must include information. Not opinions. Encyclopaedias do not entail user opinions. So those user points must be removed. You can block all you like, I have incredibly good faith intentions, and I know I'm right about this. Make all the edits you want, I'm going to revert the anti male sentiments with selective "pick and choose" sources, and your opinionated views, if you like or not. Again, I have no problems with your identity. Just with the way men are degraded in articles on the topic, and that's what I'm fighting against. This is an encyclopaedia, not to be used as your opinion page to support lesbian propaganda opinion, and present it as fact.Mike21234 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC) More ranting and hyperbole. Your edits may really be good faith intentions, I think some users just disagree with your running commentary and editing style, perhaps. I have no agenda, really, and usually avoid those articles. And I agree with you about some of the articles on Misplaced Pages. My last edit to those pages was the revert that you re-reverted on that one page. That's all. If others have changed your edits as well, that probably means others disagree with you also. I've not edited there any more. If the information that is cited offends or is incorrect, find reliable sources that show otherwise and put that in or, better yet, discuss on the articles' talk pages. Please just make sure to use citations when backing up your arguments and discuss them on the article talk pages. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock, and indef blocked Mike the master. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Funny how you can claim I'm inserting POV when the whole intro of the article was based on POV that isn't accurate, and was extremely bothersome. Why should one study outweigh findings of others? I'm keeping out annoying, offensive, generalizations whether you like it or not. You can keep your hasty generalizations, but don't bring it to the articles to be read as fact. Thank you. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike, you should take your concerns to the article talk page, that is what they are there for. This way others can offer their perspectives as well. I think you will find if you take a slightly less aggressive attitude, Joanna and others will be more than willing to consider your perspective. I know it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, lord knows I've had 100s of mine reverted, but the key to finding a solution is through calm dialog. The same as you would in the real world. Sometimes, you just haven't explained your edits so that others understand, other times you learn why you were mistaken. And yet other times you will just disagree, but that is what consensus building is about. There is an essay worth reading WP:BRD, which covers the best ways to handle situations like this. You both care about the content, the best solution is dialog to first find common ground, then work towards a resolution through peaceful discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out WP:BRD, Dennis. I might avoid the pages for a while, though. I should have known better than to venture into the sexuality-based articles. I usually avoid them. From what I read of them, they have some editors who are good at trying to keep things more appropriate, cited correctly, etc., but so much of them are focused on luridness and are battlegrounds for POV editing. Often sections and whole articles sound like they are written by middle/high school boys (especially those relating to female sexuality). As a female Wikipedian, I know I should probably care about those articles more and make a fuss, but, to me, there are so many more interesting things to work on, really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I know someone who is very familiar with LGBT content, Jenova20. he is also a member of WP:WER, very fair and likable, and a great editor overall. he is a good contact if you need a second opinion or simply want to point out a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should stay away from points addressing male sexuality then? Because all I did was correct blatantly false information on males and you seemed to have a problem with that! As I said, for a general rule, one finding by a shady study does not make their claim fact, and does not discredit all prior ones done. Honestly I would have deleted the whole point that I edited if it was up to me, because it's selective, not needed, etc, but I only modified in order to make whoever made that bizarre contribution happy. Hey, if I was messing around and putting false and offensive information into articles revolving around how females act, desire, etc, you might feel differently.

MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, unnecessary WP:POINTiness. Saying some of the points are blatantly false is your opinion. Please just stick to discussing the articles on their talk pages. You characterizing that as a shady study might be disingenuous, I'm not certain. I'll let others weigh in on the real scientific nature of whatever evidence you actually provide to the articles. Please make sure to back up your edits with citations. While you might be right about the gender of Jenova20, it is really improper to edit someone else's talk page comments. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by pointiness. And no, it's not my opinion, it's fact. You're confusing opinion with reality. If you can prove me otherwise then you're welcome to, but you can't because there is no evidence that says most X are of trait Y, so you certainly can't declare all X are of trait Y as fact. For the last time, one statistical outlier does not mean the outlier is correct and all the others are wrong. And I have no need to insert citations, because I wasn't adding anything new. I was simply correcting what was stated (OPINION), which wasn't true. Also you have no credibility. And I simply changed she to he so calm down.

MikeFromCanmore (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I've left a warning on your talk page. Between POV editing, edit warring and this harassment, you are quickly working towards a block. I suggest you disengage and learn how to contribute in a neutral fashion, or find another hobby. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying it's POV editing to remove POV edits and opinions from articles? I genuinely want to know. Honestly it's pretty amusing how I'm getting attacked for removing false information from articles; that just shows what a joke an encyclopedia is when everyone can edit and insert their own opinions to be read as fact. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by WP:Verifiability instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what reliable sources are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages based on your personal opinions! That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Misplaced Pages. You seriously need to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Misplaced Pages could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about reliably sourced material, and other policies and guidelines. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the Lesbian sexual practices article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the Pepper Schwartz study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. Hate that your page turned into a battlezone, Joanna. Hopefully this won't discourage you from participating in the articles of your choice. We have to give people the opportunity to conform before blocking them, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Some just fritter it away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I go to bed and wake up with several more comments here! :) It's not nearly as bad a battleground as I've seen on some other talk pages before. It won't really discourage me. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again proxy IP vandal. opinions were removed, not added. In fact, I didn't add one opinion or point that was my own. And no one likes bad edits, so by your logic, every edit done in existence is a "I don't like". Where's the rationale? Also, if you could actually read, you would get an idea that only anti male sentiments were removed, I don't care about lesbianism, and I don't care if you personally identify as a lesbian, I have no qualms with that, or you for your identification. But to tell me the points you're arguing in favour of, are factual, is idiotic. Point is, I set out to find and remove opinionated sexism, such as "lesbian women make better lovers than men" (the whole point in that article was biased, as some studies are in favour of this point, some are against, Schwartz among others, but only the ones in favour listed), (nice of you to deny a study simply because you don't agree with it). Not to mention it's an unnecessary contribution. On an article about african americans, do we have a section comparing them to white americans, only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit your opinion? No. So the comparison fueled by bias isn't needed either. and an even bizarre one yet, "Men are attracted to lesbians" (Seriously? I can't be the only one that finds this ridiculous). When I first joined wikipedia, I knew the first place to find opinionated views attacking against males would be articles related to feminism (Which actually has been kept fair! I was wrong) and lesbianism (Not so fair. What I found was typical). Now, I know I'm right here. And if[REDACTED] lists itself as a beacon for information, then It must include information. Not opinions. Encyclopaedias do not entail user opinions. So those user points must be removed. You can block all you like, I have incredibly good faith intentions, and I know I'm right about this. Make all the edits you want, I'm going to revert the anti male sentiments with selective "pick and choose" sources, and your opinionated views, if you like or not. Again, I have no problems with your identity. Just with the way men are degraded in articles on the topic, and that's what I'm fighting against. This is an encyclopaedia, not to be used as your opinion page to support lesbian propaganda opinion, and present it as fact.Mike21234 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More ranting and hyperbole. Your edits may really be good faith intentions, I think some users just disagree with your running commentary and editing style, perhaps. I have no agenda, really, and usually avoid those articles. And I agree with you about some of the articles on Misplaced Pages. My last edit to those pages was the revert that you re-reverted on that one page. That's all. If others have changed your edits as well, that probably means others disagree with you also. I've not edited there any more. If the information that is cited offends or is incorrect, find reliable sources that show otherwise and put that in or, better yet, discuss on the articles' talk pages. Please just make sure to use citations when backing up your arguments and discuss them on the article talk pages. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To Mike whatever, I'm not female/lesbian. I assert that your opinions were added to the Lesbianism in erotica article, because you did not stick to what the sources say. It is your opinion that the text you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article is "anti male sentiment." That is some pretty flimsy logic, as is your assertion that the studies are biased toward lesbianism. So Alfred Kinsey (1953), Masters and Johnson, Marilyn Frye, Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004) and Diamond (2006) all set out to be biased in reporting this information? That's absurd. It's not a matter of "pick and choose" with these sources. It's a matter of this being research about lesbian sexual activity that is supported by several studies, while you have only cited the discredited Schwartz study, "findings" that have not been replicated. She asserts that lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple and that they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. But, in contrast to her asssertion, the fact is that couples of any sexual orientation generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. The Coolidge effect is an example of that. If there are studies showing the exact opposite of the information you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article, then you would cite it like you are supposed to do, not maintain that you are right just because you state that you are right. WP:Verifiability is clear that we are supposed to follow what reliable sources state, not our personal opinion(s). That means no adding or removing information based on our personal opinion(s), at least not in the way that you've been going about it. You were indeed removing things because you don't like it. Your edits are not policy or guideline-based, which is why you were reverted by others beside me. You speak of me denying a study simply because I don't agree with it, but I have done no such thing. That has consistently been you. I welcomed opposing studies, but you haven't cited any. The Schwartz study is not an opposing study, and you didn't even attempt to introduce it in the article with or without a reliable source. And in the African American article we do indeed have sections comparing African Americans to white Americans. Is it done in a way that is "only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit "? No, but neither is the case for the Lesbian sexual practices article. And the Lesbianism in erotica article doesn't state that "Men are attracted to lesbians," which actually isn't ridiculous since many men have stated that they are sexually attracted to lesbians. It states "Studies indicate that heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity," which is a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. This is also research that is supported by several studies. You were/are wrong, that's the point, which is why you are now indefinitely blocked. 220.255.2.150 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Leith Links multiple referencing page display

Many thanks for your useful comment. I think I prefer the template that produces the page number in brackets. I'll hold off a bit until I see if I can get used to the other style, which I don't particularly like (since to me it looks like two footnote numerals are being given). I appreciate your help. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whatever style you choose, the main thing is to keep it consistent throughout the article. Glad to help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)