User talk:Joie de Vivre

NOTICE!

---

If you are here to reply to a comment I made on your talk page, please DO NOT reply here.

Please reply to my comment on your talk page. I will watch your Talk page and respond.

Likewise, if you initially comment here, I will reply here.

If you want to know when I reply, you can add my Talk page to your Watchlist.

Thank you for helping to centralize the discussion!

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Good work on birth control template

I really liked your expansion of the descriptions at Template:BirthControl. It made the template much more clear and informative without adding bulk. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad you liked it. Thanks for taking the time to tell me! Joie de Vivre 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle ground on consistent ethic of life

Greetings. I happened to notice the situation in Consistent life ethic (best title?) and have tried to provide sourcing for much of the material that you had deleted. I also added some info based on my own knowledge of the subject (as a person who has studied ethics, though I am not a Catholic ethicist). Please let me know what you think. I'd like to avoid back and forth reverts, etc. Thanks HG 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding references. I would like to request that you review Wikipedia:Citing sources if you have interest in changing the references from Harvard referencing to the more uniform WP:Footnotes style. I believe that this style would be especially appropriate for an article which describes an abstract concept. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the style is better now, due mainly to another editor at the same time. I'm a novice. The sources are in and the "citation needed" requests have been met. Can the category at top now be deleted? (i.e., needs sources) BTW, in polite editing, who decides when "unreferenced" can be removed? HG 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits on self-surgery page

I reverted to an earlier version of the self-surgery page, in order to retain the "self-trepanation" section. In my opinion, there is no reason to move this to the Trepanation main page, any more than a section on self-castration should be moved to a Castration main page. The article is about self-surgery; trepanation can be performed by others, or by oneself. It's the category that is performed by oneself that makes it germane to this article.

If you strongly disagree, I'd be willing to listen to your point of view. Jimhutchins 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jim: I am concerned that here, you refer to what I did as "moving" the section, whereas in your edit summary, you referred to my action as "wholesale removal". That isn't really accurate; as you stated yourself, I in fact moved the section to the Trepanation article. The reason I did this is that the section in the main Trepanation article was scanty compared to the section at the self-surgery article. I have moved the section as I feel this information is more germane to the surgery itself rather than a broader category of various self-surgeries. I have also created italicized links at the top of each section. I feel that a summary would be better for the self-surgery article. Joie de Vivre 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my strong language in the comments section. I still think the self-trepanation material belongs in both the self-surgery article and the trepanation article; that's all I was trying to say. However, I'm not interested in edit wars, and I'll defer to your judgment. Jimhutchins 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NARTH editing changes

I just noticed the discussion on your site about my concerns over your edits of content on the NARTH web site.

I would appreciate it if you would not revert my changes to the NARTH site since I am tasked with the job of providing accurate information about NARTH to Wikipedia readers.

I was unfamiliar with how the dispute resolution system operated on Wikipedia when I published the article on the NARTH web site about your edits.

The dispute can easily be resolved by permitting an officially-designated NARTH representative to correct misinformation on the site about NARTH and its mission. Reverting our changes simply maintains inaccurate information on the site.

If you are not a lesbian activist, please tell me so and I'll remove that reference from the NARTH article.

Sincerely,

Mike Hatfield NARTH Editorial Director —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Hatfield (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

License tagging for Image:SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive (small image).PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive (small image).PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous link

Thank you for your recent edit to Male oral contraceptive. Your edit included one or more links to the page Chinese, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Male oral contraceptive to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vachss

Thanks very much for your reformatting on the Vachss article! I am aiming for a steeper learning curve for myself. ZeroZ 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! The embedded HTML tags that you used are actually perfectly permissible; see Wikipedia:Embedded citations. The reason that I changed them is that most Wikipedians use the footnotes referencing style; you can learn how at Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you are interested to learn more in general about how to cite sources on Wikipedia, you can visit Wikipedia:References#How to cite sources. Another method that I have not learned to use yet is Wikipedia:Citation_templates; which are particularly good for citing quotations. If you're looking for steep, that's the one. Thanks for the friendly note! Joie de Vivre 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to concerns about oppositional edits

I wanted to use a reference I remembered putting in the IntraUterine System article, didn't want to type out that long title, remembered that IUS is a disambiguation page, and figured "Mirena" would get me to the article I wanted without extra typing or clicking. I then found a page with the assertion that "IUS" was not used in the United States (it is used in the United States - here, the IUS is a type of IUD), and not only had that extra click I'd been trying to avoid by not going to the IUS disambiguation page, but had to read through unfamiliar text to find the link I wanted. My reaction of turning the page into what I wanted it to be was hasty - I apologize, I should have put my reasoning on the Talk page and waited for discussion rather than making the change immediately. But I stand by my belief that IUS is a perfectly U.S.-friendly term, and refers to the same device, it is just classified slightly differently (as a type of IUD rather than its own class of contraceptive). Due to this, I believe the Mirena page is more useful as a redirect than a disambiguation page.

We are interested in editing the same group of articles. Your recent edits on articles I have been heavily involved with in the past turned up on my watchlist, not through any form of Wikistalking. I knew you were involved in both pages the SILCS picture is used on, and put notices on those articles. I also saw that you had already been notified of the copyright problem with the image (#License tagging for Image:SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive (small image).PNG), and did not feel there was any danger of you going unaware of my tag addition.

I disagree with the changes I started talk page discussion on and expressed that with the question mark. I had not realized that usage was offensive, and will refrain from using question marks in such a way in the future. I expressed my opposition to the section in the birth control article that contained only SILCS poorly, and I apologize for that. I hope my recent posts to that discussion have clarified my position.

I have to go to a meeting now, I'll try to explain further later. Lyrl ^Talk _C 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Toby Meltzer

... aren't you supposed to inform the article creator that you've speedy-tagged it? - Alison ☺ 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (that'd be me :) )

And I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to speedy an article that's recently been through an AFD. Either you were not paying attention (a crime of which I, too, am frequently guilty!) or it was a bad faith nomination. --ElKevbo 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see it until afterwards. That should be pretty obvious because failed AfDs are not overturned by speedies (so if I had seen it I wouldn't have bothered). Apologies. Joie de Vivre 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - we all make mistakes! For what it's worth, I probably would have recommended the article be deleted if I had seen the AfD while it was still open. I think the subject just barely falls on the side of non-notability and the article reads like an advertisement for a doctor now in private practice. --ElKevbo 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. FWIW, I like what you've done to the article today. It had suffered terribly from POV and bloat as a result of a certain editor overloaded it after the first AfD. Good job :) - Alison ☺ 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the friendly comments. :) I was wondering if you folks could take a look in on the article at this point. An editor has taken a congratulatory attitude towards Meltzer and is using what I consider to be unverifiable claims. They haven't responded to my concerns on the talk page and they are reverting a good deal. (Their grammar is pretty bad too.) I have to go out now, but could you take a look in when you get a chance? Thanks! Joie de Vivre 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for disambiguation pages

Hello, regarding your recent page moves of Packing and Pack: disambiguation pages should only have the parenthetical clarifier (disambiguation) in their name if the term has a primary topic. In all other cases, disambiguation pages should be located at the generic term. See WP:D#Page naming conventions for further info. --Muchness 07:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

Hi there!

Your recent creation of this page Voice training is a disambiguation page. As you have already known that it is a disambiguation page, there is no need for it to be tagged with a {{stub}} template. If you, however, do create articles that are short and are stubs, see the page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types for the appropriate category to categorize your stub in. Apart from that, keep up the great work! :)

P.S.: You may want to archive this page, it is now 98KB, which is pretty huge. See How to archive a talk page for more details. FirefoxRocks 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the compliment! You know, I realized not more than an hour ago that it's archive time. Thanks for the reminder! Joie de Vivre 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Miss Martindale

I used my university's library LexisNexis search to confirm that the claimed articles in the Guardian/Independent/etc. exist. They did, I found a bunch of articles from circa 1995; thus, I am satisfied that this woman is notable per WP:BIO. I would have withdrawn my nomination; however, I noticed that the article was actually a copy of the article from that wiki you linked to. That wiki licenses its content under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license; "NoDerivs" means all content must be copied verbatim, and derivative works (such as a GFDL Wikipedia article) are strictly disallowed. (It seems pretty unusual for a wiki to use NoDerivs; there must be a specific reason why they chose not to allow any derivative work, and we need to respect that choice and their copyright.) Thus, we are required to delete this version of the article as a copyright violation under CSD G12. However, a new article written from scratch would be OK.

The only caveat though: please do not re-add sections to Blond, Brunette, etc. about how they are considered "genders" in this woman's micronation project. These are encyclopedic articles about hair; information about how a small group somewhere considers hair color to be a gender is undue weight, and only tangentially related to the topic at hand, the hair color. Krimpet (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am certain of my ability to appropriately forge an article that does not violate copyright, and I would like to refer to my previous work on the article in order to do so. Please furnish a copy of the last version of the Miss Martindale article per your inclusion in the category "Administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles". Joie de Vivre 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've sent you a copy via e-mail. Krimpet (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Joie de Vivre 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages - I appreciate the notification and support. However, I did not copy the article on Miss Martindale from the Aristasia Wiki - I gave them permission to use my article, which I asked them to check for inaccuracies before I posted it on Wikipedia. I made a note to this effect on the Miss Martindale talk page, and I asked the Aristasia Wiki to mention it on their pages too. Isn't that sufficient? I haven't been contributing very long, so I'm not sure of the procedures. Robina Fox 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see the difference now. There is indeed a link on the Aristasia Wiki page stating that one Robina Fox authored the article "for inclusion in Wikipedia"link. I think that should be sufficient. I did make some improvements and included many references and links so I would like to reinstate the version I've worked on. Take a look and see what you think. Joie de Vivre 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

204.184.250.115 blocked for three months

Thanks for the heads up Joie, I have checked with all three computer labs but didn't get anywhere. There are also a dozen workstations in our library that the kids can access as well. I've asked the teachers to keep a look out, as vandalism falls under our computer user agreement the kids must sign, and if he/she is caught they will lose their computer privileges all together. MrDenton 13:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My main goal was to let you know so that in case others at that IP found they could not edit, they would know the reason. If this this troublesome for other well-behaved individuals, they may create usernames, which allows them to circumvent the IP block. Joie de Vivre 13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Hi there; no, anyone can mark an article for prod (WP:PROD) just by adding the template {{prod}} at the top of the page, not forgetting to prefix with "subst" and adding a free-text reason after, as I did in the article you note. The reason I changed your tag is not because the article should survive; clearly it should not. But for speedy deletion an article has to be specifically within a {{speedy}} category. You can find the complete list in WP:CSD. An article not falling into one of these categories cannot be speedy-deleted under Wiki rules, and to do so can cause complaint from the author, re-instatement of the article and a slapped wrist for the deleting admin. A "prodded" article remains posted for five days, and if it is not edited to remove the problem causing it to be tagged, it is then deleted. Cumbersome, but ultimately effective; and these are the rules we have to work to. I will look at the other articles you list. Please keep patrolling; you are doing a good job for the project. But do learn the speedy categories. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We can only make decisions on the basis of what the article says. If David Berg advocated pedophilic or incestuous practices, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, these things are not mentioned in the articles and hence can play no part in deletion decisions. It is also true that articles relating to offensive people or practices are not thereby un-encyclopedic. Look at some of the articles detailing the Holocaust.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you in principle, but am constrained by the rules of wikipedia. Why do you not mark the articles, either with {{prod}} or at WP:AfD?

As you sent that message, I had just completed doing just that. Thank you for educating me on the topic of the prod template. As it turns out they are near-exact duplicates of material in the COG article. Is this a sufficient reason for their deletion? Thank you for your time. Joie de Vivre 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I never said that thers no male hormonal controceptives. I said that there better never actually be such in use in real life. Such could ruin the male reproductive system, somehow, and it is much easier and better for females to take the pills... after all, they are the ones who care about not getting pregnant because if you knock up someone, thats their problem. But what the hell, keep it your way.All.ya.little.triksters 02:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs regarding whether males should be responsible for birth control are entirely irrelevant when it comes to whether a link to Male oral contraceptive should exist in the Oral contraceptive article.

On a related note, I noticed that your edits are skewed towards some sort of amalgamated anti-estrogen/anti-gay/anti-woman ethos. Almost all of your edits are immediately reverted. I suggest you consider trying to check your POV at the door when editing, rather than using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your views.

If men are in as much danger of feminization as you seem to think, wouldn't it be better if they could do something under their control to make sure they don't impregnate those estrogen-laden women? Don't worry, though, there are plenty of places to escape. Joie de Vivre 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

List of words removed from the English Dictionary

Why was the page marked for speedy deletion minutes after it's seed was created? The page is just geting off to a start and hasn't yet time to show it's meaning.--Root Beers 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about speedy deletions.

Please please please please please please please consider your remarkable ability to both do it righ the first time and make mistakes. Note well that by interfering with legitimate verifications you are prejudiced and discriminatory. If you take this as criticism, do not respond. Don't act out of anger. Don't be intimidated: support verification and discussion. Religion is never discussed. Meditation IS discussed. Mediation is not absurd. Meditation is not politics. Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you

wtf, you be gitin al up in ma shit wid dem dang dicdef articles. wik'PEEDyuh ain't no damn dictionary, foo'. Joie de Vivre 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against meditation. The article you wrote does not meet any of the requirements of a new Wikipedia article. It doesn't seem to be written about any particular topic. It cites no external sources. It's just a few sentences of original research. Unfortunately it is unlikely to remain. You can try the Meditation article if you want to read about meditation. Joie de Vivre 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Duggars clarification

A few notes, in point form:

• Jim Bob Duggar really is much more notable for his family, including a short reality series, than for his short political career. I was the one who originally changed the page to reflect that, though someone disagreed some time later and reverted it. In terms of widespread knowledge, the family is very well-known as a unit, but Jim Bob is not well known outside of his former constituents.
• Regarding his house, it was also largely featured on television to international audiences...both the building of it and the daily life inside it. There was a documentary created on this subject that was played a number of times on national TV last year.
• Further, the external links (and 9 of the 11 references) all reflect this point, and that tells a lot about where the notability lies.

In summary, we need to work with the area of greatest notability for pages such as this, not just one aspect of one person. In reality, Michelle Duggar has had more public-view time in the eyes of American and international audiences than Jim Bob has...and yet there is no page for her. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I tried to move Jim Bob Duggar to Duggar family sometime in December, before I realized that the family article had already been deleted.

Unfortunately it's not appropriate to shoehorn a lot of info about the family in the article. It was decided that Jim Bob Duggar was (barely) notable for his political career and that the family was not notable enough for an article. I didn't take part in that decision but I will uphold it. Joie de Vivre 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log

The deletion log for Duggar family is here. Joie de Vivre 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TW message

I have replied here. ffm ✎talk 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Periodic abstinence recreation

In reply to your question on Xdamr's talk page: If I had put the articles back before the end of the deletion nomination, it would have ended as no consensus, and the articles would have stayed where they were. The same place we are now. I don't believe my allowing the discussion period to close before moving the articles back had any effect on the end result. Lyrl ^Talk _C 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also in reply to your question at Xdamr's talk page. I specifically said it is out of process to blank a category, create a new one, and then propose the one you blanked for deletion. The proper process to to start a CfD where you propose to rename the old category to the new category name. Hope this helps. Perhaps that is what we need to do at this point. Start a new CfR where we propose Category:Periodic abstinence be renamed (we'll need find a new name that everyone agrees on) or upmerged to the behavioral methods parent category.-Andrew c 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated in discussions with you in the past, I do not believe that Catholics who worked on fertility awareness methods, or the methods they created, are somehow not fertility awareness. I find the creation of two separate categories for the same type of article to be needlessly confusing, the opposite of what categories are supposed to do. I agree it is nice to categorize natural family planning with Humanae Vitae - but that's already done at Category:Theology of the Body, making the NFP category not only confusing but redundant. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Questioning

Just checking, but I suppose you know that this new article will need to be expanded considerably, or it will unfortunately share the fate of far too many articles dealing with sexuality. WP NOTCENSORED, but you'd never know it from some of the discussions. I'll defend it if it ever gets to AfD, as I generally do, but It'll need more material. And I'm willing to help any good article on this general theme. DGG 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the heads-up. Here's something promising: the quoted phrase "Queer and questioning" returns 42,000 Google hits. Can you give any suggestions as to how to incorporate them? Joie de Vivre 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's where it can get tedious. You have to go through them and try to pick out the ones that are relevant and more than blogs. I usually scan the first 5 or 10 pages until i get somewhere.The search I just used is +questioning +LGBT +queer. Just from the first 30 I noticed 1/ That it's used in a lot of titles for centers, and you could put external links to 2 or 3 of the most recognizable (I see Duke and Princeton and Stanford, among others, and particularly [1]). I have a feeling they all copy the wording from each other. 2/ There are lots of informal publications- I saw [2], which I'd use as a ref; I think its a well know publication (& you might consider a WP article on it.) 3/ Now the problem is to try to find a really on-point 2 mainstream news sources or the like, which will almost always result in a keep. There are some articles from the Stanford Daily, but it's a student paper and frowned on, & they seem to just mention the term. 4/ (There are some academic journals, but they're harder to get to & they look like they might be using the term in a much more general sense). But some are accessible and I found one with the perfect quote [3] 9/10 of the way down.

I've been doing this sort of scanning for years, and I have experience in what sort of things have worked before--but that's not much help at first. I can say that what I look at on google is not the titles or the headings, but the url links at the bottom. And I know to go at least a few hundred items before giving up. Next step, not today, newspapers and academic journals. Do you have access to an academic or large public library? (If not, I will look & email if critical to an article,--if too many people don't ask me. But in this case I am skeptical about success in using the indexes, because "questioning" is such a common word & used so often in a general sense.)DGG 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Incest

The Support Orgs section looks much better after your work, Joie de Vivre. I have rewritten the Intro section to remove all weasel words and unsourced material. The Intro is now completely sourced to non-encyclopedic texts including studies by Durkheim and Levi-Strauss. What do you think? ZeroZ 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

Hi, Joie de Vivre. I have just started an Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Abortion. Please feel free to nominate an article you believe could use improvement. I think this might be a good way to help motivate and organise work on our project's articles. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Smee, hereby award Joie de Vivre with the The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. For polite and kind talk page demeanor, and good faith structural categorizing and contributions to the project. Thank you. Yours, Smee 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Awww!! My very first barnstar! Thank you, Smee!! Joie de Vivre 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

category: Children of God

Joie de Vivre,

Please take some care in adding this category to articles that are not related to Children of God. For example, you would be hard pressed to convince me that Third Culture Kids and Missionary Kids warrant the Children of God category. Thanks...Balloonman 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Missionary Kids and Third Culture Kids are two specific terms used with a specific context as defined by sociologist. Please provide sources that indicate that COG's are by definition MK/TCK's. PS I will revert it again as I will deem this as vandalism... right now I believe it is a good faith edits, but you are stretching a definition that you apparently do not understand to make it fit your definition.Balloonman 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't give me time to finish responding. It's too bad that you've made up your mind so completely. Are you very familiar with the Children of God group? The backgrounds of the people raised as children in the Children of God bear striking similarity to the descriptions given in the articles Third Culture Kids and Missionary Kids. Please consider visiting JYNXT and reading the biography of the members, or the interviews by Rose McGowan. (JYNXT 1, JYNXT 2, McGowan 1, McGowan 2.) Many of these individuals lived in several different countries during their youth and are multilingual. Many and spent much of their time proselytizing for their religious group and working to bring in converts. I think the labels TCK and MK are entirely appropriate. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this over to the Missionary Kids discussion page---I may have over reacted, but I don't believe the label is appropriate.Balloonman 06:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "I'm going to copy this". As I am not sure of your meaning, I want to be clear that I do not want you to reproduce my comments or move them elsewhere. Joie de Vivre 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nod, you do have an argument to make... and rather than leaving it here where it will disappear and be unconnected to the articles in question, I'm moving the discussion to the Talk:Missionary Kids talk page... lets make it part of the permanent record on those articles. Balloonman 06:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried to delete your comments on the Talk:Missionary Kids page, but was edit conflicted...will remove them per your request, but I think that page is where this discussion should occurBalloonman 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more annoyed with the fact that you just announced "I'm doing this!", and that you proceeded despite my protest. Joie de Vivre 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for that, but I made the edit that you are annoyed about before reading your protest. I didn't think it would be a problem because you are making an argument (which I completely disagree with.) I have deleted your comments from the Talk:Missionary Kids talk page... but that is still the best place to discuss whether or not the category belongs on that page. But I do apologize for not noticing your request quicker or asking for your permission to copy it. I didn't think it would matter.Balloonman 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am generally in the mode of thinking that it is better to ask permission if what one is doing is going to affect what someone else said. The reason in this instance is that I do not know you; you could have easily changed little things about what I wrote and then copied the erroneous version. I am working on a response at Talk:Missionary Kids; please hold.  :) Joie de Vivre 06:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... you are making an interesting argument... which I disagree with ;-) But when I saw your post here, I thought it would be a good case study.Balloonman 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: Natural family planning

As our discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence has become inactive, I've taken the step of nominating Category:Natural family planning for deletion. Having a discussion open to the community will hopefully resolve the stalemate that has developed with just you and I participating in the discussion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are unbelievable, Lyrl. I ask you to please clarify what you want, you refuse to answer for 48 hours, and suddenly the "conversation is inactive". How did you come to that conclusion? Joie de Vivre 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Fellatio

While I appreciate the intent behind this, and have little doubt that anything I say would sway the mind of the person who made those comments, I do ask that you put them back. I should have been more even-handed in my previous comment, but more importantly, the other person's remarks included an honest argument after the personal attack against me. While warnings for conduct are clearly warranted, one of the issues raised is that the article is POV. While I agree that your reversion was NPOV in motivation, I feel that NPOV would be better served by leaving the hateful remarks and reminding everyone that the issue has little to do with homosexuality as opposed to linguistics. After all, if 80% of the people who write romance novels are women, it doesn't follow that we should assume that an entry on romance novelists should refer to them exclusively in the feminine.

Thanks. San Diablo 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this without doing a little research, but apparently the word he used is an overtly pejorative epithet that is roughly equivalent to calling someone a "fucking faggot". I don't think that non-English epithets should be allowed to stand any more than English ones. I will revert the rest of the comment but that word has no place on an article discussion page. Thanks for coming to me to talk about it. Joie de Vivre 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I had to look it up, too. I don't know that I'd say it should be "allowed", regardless of language, so much as it is that I'm somewhat partial to the idea that people sometimes need to remember what POV really is, and why Wikipedia has standards. I suspect the person's other remark to me, over on Talk:Homophobia, is at least as inflammatory and inaccurate, but also pointedly ignored the substance of what I'd written. Both of the people who'd written before my plea for good faith had illustrated a degree of POV, and this person continued the trend. Had it not been for the flame, ignorant and hateful as it was, I'd not have realized that I'd also arguably been POV, and should have explained myself better initially. That said, your new reversion fits well. Thanks again! San Diablo 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey! I notice you updated all the archives for Talk:Pro-pedophile activism. Thanks for getting 'em all moved. However, the reason I had the "atnhead" header on the pages was because it does the same thing as "talkheader" and "atn" combined. Just seemed a lot simpler. Either way works, though. :) -- Kesh 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there. Regarding atn/atnheader: Really? The formatting of that template looked all screwed up on my computer. I am still waiting at WP:Requested moves for an administrator to move one of the pages that was numbered incorrectly; but then everything should be good. Joie de Vivre 15:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Something may have happened during the move. Ah well. Everything seems to be working this way, so no point in messing with it. -- Kesh 12:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

America

Hey thanks for supporting my attempt to get America to redirect to the United States. Unfortunately it just closed, with no consensus found. I guess this is site is slowly turning into the "Please-The-World" Wikipedia as opposed to the English Langage one. BH (Talk) 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think there are a lot of people here who want to make sure the English Wikipedia doesn't favor the US too much, which is well and good, we want to be fair, but I think they get carried away sometimes. Joie de Vivre 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed template at Pro-pedophile activism

And someone else revetred you. Reasons have been given but you are choosing to ignore them. Please dont, SqueakBox 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is a response to a comment I made at Squeakbox's page. When I moved Squeakbox's response back to their page, they deleted it. However I had already responded, and they responded, and now they won't let their comment be a part of their conversation... so I'm keeping it here as a duplicate. Joie de Vivre 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a duplicate. That's how most conversations get conducted here. Cheers, SqueakBox 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not "most". Lots of editors have little banners at the top of their talk pages that say "If I made a comment on your talk page, please reply there. If you make a comment on my talk page, I will reply here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion." I am sorry if I offended you but no one has ever had a problem with it before, I didn't think it would be an issue. Joie de Vivre 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt an issue until you reverted me on my user talk page. As I said once was fine but twice wasnt. Anyway no offence taken, SqueakBox 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reverted because when you deleted the link it made it look like I had made two comments in a row. However if you leave the link to the diff that shows your above comment in the context of the conversation on your page, I can drop it now. Thanks for communicating. Joie de Vivre 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entry after your final comment. Learn how to spell people's names properly would be a courtesy, criticising others for fixing your poor spelling is an imprertinence and incredibly rude, SqueakBox 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it's generally bad form to criticize someone's spelling, then manage to misspell "impertinence." -- Kesh 12:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I never put that comment there. Your doing so once was fine, as was your removing my comment from your user talk page, twice was unacceptable and 3 times is trolling. Now please go away, SqueakBox 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, you did not put it there. However, my reply was to that comment and never before in my history of chatting on talk pages has anyone had a problem with moving a comment so that the conversation would exist in one place. I have no interest in bothering you, I just don't want it to look like I was making a reply to a nonexistent comment of yours. Joie de Vivre 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldnt worry about it, SqueakBox 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to know...

Here is my explanation of what happened at Squeakbox's Talk page:

This discussion at Squeakbox's talk page ensued recently; Squeakbox has since removed it. It details my attempts to ask Squeakbox to clarify why he placed the template on this page. I had removed the template because there was no relevant discussion on the Talk page; and when Squeakbox added it again, I asked Squeakbox to explain, by commenting on his Talk page. A misunderstanding ensued when Squeakbox replied at my talk page instead of on his. I tried to move Squeakbox's comment to his page, which he reverted several times, accusing me of "trolling" and calling it a "harrassment campaign". I thought this was not fair for Squeakbox to exclude the comment he made on my Talk page from the discussion, for two reasons: 1) Squeakbox's comment (the one he tried to exclude) was rude in tone, and 2) if he removed it, it looked like I had made two comments in a row (not true), which would lend credence to the idea that I was "harrassing". He allowed me to leave a a link to the diff, which I explained. I though that all was settled; then Squeakbox then chose to edit my comments for capitalization. I expressed displeasure that Squeakbox would take great offense at someone else merely moving a comment of theirs, but that he had no qualms about actually editing the comments of another person. Squeakbox then chose to engage in name calling and removed the section entirely.

I just wanted it to be clear that I tried to reason with this person. Joie de Vivre 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox is a user with 2 contribs, neither connected to you, Joie. Is this more trolling on your part? as it appears to be. Your claim that Squeakbox has ever edited your user page is so much trolling rubbish, and givent hat this has been pointed out to you already leaves me to think you are not acting in good faith, hence my changes to your bad spelling, SqueakBox 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you continue making deliberate false claims against user Squeakbox I will be forced to take action as your trolling is well out of control and is nothing other than personal attacks against me, SqueakBox 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting that you stop accusing me of things I did not do, and you just leave me alone as I have done. I have left your talk page alone but you have come back to haunt me. Anyone can check the diffs for themselves, there is nothing misleading about the record that I have provided above. It is plain to see where the source of the problem is. If you continue threatening me I will be forced to take action against you. Please stop. Joie de Vivre 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie, if someone writes you a note on your talk page, the typical Wikipedia thing is to answer on their page, just as SqueakBox did. It's standard practice to reply to someone's note on your talk page at their talk page, even though there is no continuity without looking at both pages. SqueakBox, I think you're making way too much of this. It was a misunderstanding that escalated. I wish y'all could let this go for my own selfish reasons. My life here would be a lot easier without this rift between two editors who could be working together on projects that are meaningful to me. Thanks, and sorry for intruding. -Jmh123 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. Actually, I appreciate your attempts to mediate. And I understand that many editors split the conversations between two pages. However, I must disagree that spreading the conversation between two talk pages is universal or the "typical Wikipedia thing". I can't tell you how many banners I have seen at the top of user Talk pages which say something like this: "If you comment here (on my Talk page), I will reply here. If I commented on your talk page, please reply there, not here."

The way Squeakbox has been behaving goes way beyond an etiquette dispute. They came out making attacks and threats almost from the beginning. They also have a seeming inability to apply their same standards of Talk page etiquette to themself. I am dismayed by Squeakbox's threats, name-calling and attacks. I have done nothing of the sort to Squeakbox, and I just want them to stop. Joie de Vivre 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "typical" or "standard" either but, yes, many Wikipedians will bounce back and forth between both talk pages with their replies. I personally find it maddening, and will often copy their replies to my own Talk page just to keep it all in some semblance of order. -- Kesh 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way! Please feel free to copy and edit the handy (read:obnoxious) template that I made, above, at the top of my Talk page. I think it blends stark minimalism with just the right oeuvre of odious bureaucracy, don't you? Joie de Vivre 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed wonderfully bureaucratic looking and dull - LOL! Not universal, just the default. Hence the banners. I do like your way. -Jmh123 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

America talk page

You were so handy about archiving the America talk page to make room for the proposed move. Would you mind archiving that discussion as well. I couldn't figure out all of the required steps. I really appreciate it. -16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acjelen (talk • contribs) 12:02, June 5, 2007.

Shoot. One tilda too few. -Acjelen 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I will do it myself if you want, but I would be happy to teach you if you like! It really is a very simple procedure.  :) Please let me know. Joie de Vivre 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if I have it right. I'll cut the content I want to archive in edit. In the normal view, I'll click on Archives, then on the red-color Archive 2 link. Then I'll paste the contents in the resulting empty edit box. Then I'll put in a good edit summary and save. But then what? -Acjelen 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, wait! That will cause the edit history to be lost! Do not do it that way. Hang on. Joie de Vivre 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Um. I don't think that revert worked out the way you intended. It just swapped one template for another. Anyway, the requested move was already closed and editors asked not to make any changes to the discussion. Some editors did not get a chance to respond to earlier comments, especially to personal comments. -Acjelen 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation question

An editor recently added articles on individuals who have committed acts of abortion-related violence, such as Michael F. Griffin, to Category:American pro-life activists. I would be interested to know if other editors who have been involved in establishing the current WikiProject Abortion categorisation system think that these articles fit within the scope of this category. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion happening? Joie de Vivre 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just writing up a summary of my thoughts on Category talk:American pro-life activists. Sorry if I kind of put the cart before the horse there. -Severa (!!!) 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just posted my thoughts at the page linked to above. Feel free to comment, if you would like. Thanks again. -Severa (!!!) 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article on "wife" is a bit heterosexist...

...and I wouldn't know how to politely tell someone that it is. Sigh.

I've made the arguement that a wife could be married to another woman, and one shouldn't assume that a wife is a wife to a man. Is this faulty logic?