User talk:Jliberty

About this page

This is the feedback page for Jliberty jesse and Jesse Liberty

How To Leave Feedback

Please add feedback here - just stick in a =={Title}== header immediately after this one (which you may do in the edit window that comes up after you click on the [Edit] button next to this header) - please leave this header, etc, alone, though - thanks - JL

Request for Clarification of Standards

I'm new to Wikipedia; I came on board as a participant in a lengthy dispute about whether to include speculation about Clay Aiken's sexual orientation in his Wikipedia entry. Today I just discovered that you have previously removed a statement containing such speculation from his entry, and, from there, found my way to "talk" on the List of Famous Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people. There I saw what you had posted about Aiken as an example, and also discovered many contributions there by Willmcw, the admin who locked the Aiken entry during the dispute I participated in, and who participated in some small degree in that dispute. Granted, the segment that was finally agreed upon in the resolution of the current dispute is different from the segment you removed; it is based on a segment that was added by a drive-by anon IP, vigorously defended from removal from that point on, locked, disputed, resolved, and disputed again. I came in at that point. I agreed to the current version only after long protest and a series of compromises also involving a link to a Aiken fansite called Openly Clay. One would have to read the entire talk page to follow it all, and I admit that is a daunting proposition, but I am completely confused. There was a lot of talk about NPOV and quantifiable sourcing, but there appear to be differences between your arguments and the arguments made in that dispute. My argument was that speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia entry, an argument I see that you have made as well. I have also written to Willmcw about this on his Usertalk page. Any clarification you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks -Jmh123 05:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ETA: I have had a response from Willmcw, and if I understand him correctly, the difference is that the added material consists of what I'd call instances of engagement with the speculation that are themselves sourced. So as long as you can cite a source of or response to speculation, it's OK? -Jmh123 07:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is. As far as I remember it, when I removed the Aiken reference it was because there was nothing to substantiate it except self-admitted gossip in fanzines. I strongly support listing those of us who are out, and I strongly support outing queer people doing harm to the queer community, but I do not support puffing up the list with people who are assumed, based on no documentation to be queer. It just muddies the waters. Jliberty 18:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clear. My request for clarification is in regards to the Aiken entry, not the list. I don't think gossip and speculation is appropriate to a Wikipedia article. The inclusion of gossip was justified in the debate on the basis that it is pervasive, and within the entry, the "sourcing" is to late night comedians/comedy programs. -Jmh123 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

George Melly edit

(One does not "become bisexual" or "become heterosexual" -- all evidence is that sexuality is life long, though behavior may change)

Hmm, this is disputable - still, I've got no real objection to the change except to note that it is a 'political' change which is largely contradicted by George Melly's own account of his sexuality.

Tomandlu

Holocaust edit

In the article Holocaust, I'm not sure why you did not like the reference to Holocaust Denial. It is peculiar in that it is a very extreme position that few would take, including those accused and tried of participating in the Holocaust. It distinguishes between what most see as legitimate debate and what others would see as anti-Semitic motivated debate. If you dispute the accuracy of the article, then try to edit it to say that the Holocaust did not happen. The very existence of the article implies that Holocaust Denial is exactly that--denial, a motivated attempt to dispute facts that are clearly accurate. You decide, I won't change the article.

Lincoln

Umm, there's policy on both questions; I don't have time to dig it up now, I'll check later tonight and get back to you. Noel (talk) 00:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, as far as the version issue goes, according to Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#Enforcement:

sysops may protect pages on the version disliked by those who have engaged in excessive reverts. This is believed by some to be a recent change to the protection policy. The sysop also has the option to protect the current version, thereby maintaining a sense of neutrality.

I did neither, just left the most recent version there. You could probably find more on this subject at Wikipedia:Protection_policy.

As to the poll, check out Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Conduct_a_survey.

Hope this helps. If not, just keep looking around, and using "Search" - that's all I could do if I had to find more. Noel (talk) 18:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is your latest version of the paragraph even close to being neutral? It doesn't even mention that it wasn't uncommon for men to share beds back then. Also, it's impossible for Lincoln to have been homosexual since he had a wife and kids. At most he could be bisexual. --brian0918™ 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. The article does not engage the discussion, by consensus that was moved to the separate article, it simply restores the single fact that was there all along, and then refers to that other page. Second, Tripp believes that Lincoln was "predominantly" homosexual. Today, some folks would call that homosexual and some would call that bisexual. On the Kinsey scale, 0 = exclusively hetero, 3 = bisexual 6 = exclusively homosexual; Tripp puts Lincoln at 5.

3RR

No need to defend your reversion as vandalism fighting in the edit summary, there's better things to spend your time on: I think everybody knows the 3RR doesn't count for vandalism by now. Keep up the good work!

Susan Sontag

I liked your edit on this page, which sets up the Ed Koch 'controversy' paragraph well. (In fact, I don't think Koch's mention of Sontag created anything like a controversy at the time -- I don't remember it, and this seemed to appear on the Wikipedia page after her death simply as a way of attacking Sontag. But no matter. It's a representative sample of the kind of attack often made against her, and as such deserves to be part of the way she is remembered.)

I'm curious -- of whom are you thinking when you mention other American intellectuals who were or are household names or public figures? They weren't in "Annie Hall" playing themselves, were they? Sontag was different, she was apart from the rest. That needs to be said in the entry. Whether it was her shock of white hair, whether it was being a woman in a man's world, whether it was her effort (or her apparently effortless ease) in staring directly into the media glare, she had a certain kind of mojo through a long public career. As for her intellectual trajectory, charted in such a public way, I can find no easy parallel (at least in the U.S.). I don't quite know how to phrase all this on the Wikipedia page, but something about her peculiar public role and her curious glamour needs to be articulated. Any suggestions? San dover 04:23, 6 Feb 2005 (TC)

I can think of a few. Noam Chomsky comes immediately to mind. Others might include Marshall Mcluhan, Robert Nozick, Robert Bork, Charles Murray, Larry Kramer... I'm not sure that Susan Sontag was a household name (depends on your household) but she was certainly not unique. Jliberty 15:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Katherine Mansfield

You removed Katherine Mansfield from "debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation" in February with the comment "lack of evidence" despite there being a biographic reference on the talk page. I'm guessing you know very little about famous New Zealand authors. If you wish to summarily remove information you know nothing about from an article you at least check the talk page first. Ben Arnold 00:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize; I tried very hard to read each article before removing anyone and I must have missed the biographic reference. Thanks for fixing my mistake Jliberty 12:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Strawpoll

After two months, and a previously established deadline, I think that it is time to close the strawpoll and implement the results. Please see my comment at Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Straw poll on proposed standards, in which I invite you, as the proposer, to draft a final version of the policy as informed by the subsequent discussion. If you're not interested then another editor can try. Thanks for making the proposal and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar

Please refer to the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cyrus Farivar, your feedback is valued in this matter. Hall Monitor 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here and will delete it in the next day or so unless I hear from the author (I sent an email). My guess is it is a mistake. Jliberty 11:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

This was no mistake -- I am personally asking you to engage in this current Votes for Deletion discussion regarding the biographical article which was initiated by Cyrus Farivar. Since you were in a similar predicament some months ago when you started your article here on Wikipedia, I thought that could offer some insightful feedback based upon your experiences and cast a vote as you deem fit. Hall Monitor 16:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Jliberty 17:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

==Help A Beginner==

I just purchased "Teach YOurself C++ in 24 Hoursa" and I can't get it installed. The instructions for installing on page 7 do not work for me. The instructions say "Insert the CD and it should run automatically. If not, you can start it manually by running install.exe from the CD." But do you get to the install.exe file? The CD won't open and just puts up a menu that leads to the Internet. I download a 'key' to my desk top. But now what? I am (obviously) a beginner. Thanks 67.185.193.223 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) jkumalo@comcast.net

Hi. I fully support my books on my web site http://www.LibertyAssociates.com where you will find a FAQ, source code and a link to a free support discusion forum. That said, if you are having trouble with the CD, I'd contact SAMS as they are hte ones who added it and who support it. Best of luck. Jliberty 04:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)