User talk:Jeffpw/archive 1

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jeffpw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

The Lifespring edits
Thanks for restoring that paragraph, and for your work to make the article a little cleaner. I started working on this article last week (it was a real mess when I found it, and completely POV).

The Lifespring people keep editing out all info they don't want shown to the public, which is not the point of Wiki at all. I am trying to make it as neutral as possible, but haven't had time to find a source for all of it yet. All the sourced statements you see are what I have found so far.

Is this page on your watchlist, too? Jeffpw 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (I moved this discussion to your talk page here).
 * No problem. Yeah, unless you thouroughly backup virtually every single statement with a source, it's going to be hotly contested on controversial articles like these.  However, it is appropriate to leave the information up there with a "citation needed", whilst looking for sources.  I have experienced the POV editing style of those directly biased towards certain articles, with a vested interest in the subject of said articles (employees, etc.) myself.  As to the particular article topic, just beginning to learn, research it myself, so that's why I started with more organizational type edits.  It's on the watchlist.  Yours, Smeelgova 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

Lifespring page
Amazing what a little work by 2 committed editors can accomplish:)

The page is looking a lot better. The lead now needs some improvement, to summarize the article, and we still need some for the pro-Lifespring stuff. I'm going to try to find enough sources today to get all of the s off of the page. Jeffpw 10:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there certainly are a lot more referenced citations now in a simple format. Hard to argue with facts when they're backed up by citations.  Smeelgova 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

LOL
We reverted at exactly the same time! The page looks good now, eh?Jeffpw 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting there. Probably could use some more interspersed citations in that particular section in question, just to backup the facts.  Smeelgova 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

New Lifespring groups section
If that's the section you mean, the only solution I can think of is to give each group a citation number--they are all covered by one or the other citation. If you want to do that, go ahead. If you don't have the time, let me know and I will do it tomorrow. Jeffpw 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of other citations. Smeelgova 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

No
Don't give up yet! The vandalism from anons comes and goes, but good editors are so hard to find! If you're feeling stressed, let me suggest Esperanza, or their coffee lounge. They're a good group of folks who make it suddenly easier to remember not to take this Wikipedia thing too seriously. Unfortunately the controversial articles (Lifespring is definitely controversial) are the hardest to work on and remain unfrustrated, and I commend you for undertaking that task. Deep breath, relax, take a few days off, etc., but don't leave!

I've got Lifespring watchlisted now too, and I'm sure we can get a few others to watch over it and keep it from total degeneracy.

The community on Wikipedia (i.e. people like me) DO really appreciate your efforts. And it IS important to try to present NPOV articles on these tough topics and not let the Crazy Crowd take over. Write me a message any time to ask for back-up, support, copy-edits, ruminations, or commiserations; you name it.--Will.i.am 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the encouragement. I suppose you are no stranger to frustration.--Clyde Miller 03:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I suspect so. What are you thinking? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are thinking what I am thinking - though I'm going to keep assuming good faith for as long as possible. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not advise accusing someone of homophobia with concrete evidence - which we do not have. By all means, point out the double standards, but don't claim you know the reason behind it. Regarding homophobia, yes, I think it's around on Wikipedia - look at my archive for a reply from Boris Johnson VC on gay marriage. But I think that its muted because of a) the natural habit of Wikipedians to not inquire or care about another Wikipedian's personal information, b) the naturally liberal inclinations of most Wikipedians(demographic wise, I believe we have far more lefties than righties), c) the way above average proportion of Wikipedians who are LGBT, and their representation amongst the upper echelons of our community and d) the immediate punishment/blocking of users who display homophobia and/or any kind of bigotry or personal attacks. I have seen far, far more anti-Semitism than homophobia - again, see my archive for my discussion with Bhaisaab about Jews. I wouldn't worry about homophobia, or indeed any prejudice on Wikipedia - due process will take care of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A good idea. it would be good though if we could get the support of a few more people at WP:LGBT Studies. Do you know why so few seem to actually work there?
 * Also, I did come across Baker, while I was creating and compiling the table at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E, and was impressed then. I have supported the FAC. Well done Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a good idea. As long as we ask for people's views rather than their definite support, it'll be good to get some more opinions in. I think the Wikiproject needs a bit of a kick up the backside - I think I would even suggest MfDing the noticeboard, as it draws attention away from the main Wikiproject. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a noticeboard, which I feel draws slightly away from the wikiproject itself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thinking about it, I suppose the noticeboard does have some use. I'm somewhat busy with the LGBT people list and all these reform of esperanza rigth now, but I'll try to kickstart the LGBT wikiproject again. One thing I discovered that really, REALLY needs dealing with is that many of the people in the LGBT category do not have any sources or mention of the sexuality in the article. Worse, there are LGBT people whose articles do nto mention their sexuality at all, even when it is integral to their life's work!

Also, I do not think evrik is homophobic. The talkpage of Bosco simply confirms that, once he has made up his mind on an issue, he is very dogmatic about it. Which is not a sin in itself.

Regarding the ArbCom case, Bill has threatened to open one on me now. For someone who has 22,000 edits, he seems surprisingly unaware of process - ArbCom will only accept cases that have already gone through every other form of dispute resolution. Bill has not filed an RfC, filed for mediation, or even reported me to AN/I. We'll see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's just filed for mediation. Looks like I was right. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi, Jeffpw. I saw your comment on LGBT project. I didn´t rewrite the Civil Unions in Brazil article yet, I´m just starting to do it. I´d like the article to be very good and to have a lot of references, but I will go slowly on this since I don´t have a lot of time. Your help with the English language would be really great. I just started collecting references and facts about the subject, and I will continue doing this for some time. You can see how it´s going on my talk page. I´d like to know all your opinions on this. A.Z. 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I Did It
Sorry about the edit summary, I actually regreted it the moment that I saved that page. What I wrote was somewhat uncivil. I'd imagine that the publisher accidently uploaded the page with a placeholder, and quickly fixed it. --Descendall 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thank you very much for my first barnstar! Btw, we have a 70% consensu for a Barnstar, not an Award - if no-one comments in a few days we can declare a consensus has been found. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and calculated there is consensus for a barnstar. I have added it to the page and archived the debate. YAY! Incidentally, I was looking through all the previous proposals, and as I had suspected, evrik has opposed virtually every barnstar and tried to make them a wikiproject award, so he was just being true to form. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tillie K. Fowler
I noticed you reverted my recent edit to the Tillie K. Fowler article. The purpose of my recent edit was to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's external links policy. Under that policy, since some of the links in the "External links" section were used to write the article, they should be counted as "References". --TommyBoy 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lifespring-book.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lifespring-book.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"If I Did It"
Thank you for explaining your disagreement about If I Did It. I explained my rationale on the article's talk page and you are welcome to read and respond. Cheers. --Liberlogos 08:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Award general
I'm relatively new to this area of Wikipedia, with the exception of seeing so many users with barnstars and reading the awards page. Simply south 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Boys in the Band
I definitely agree with your rv. However, the section still seems rather speculative in asserting that Kael "disliked Friedkin" and that she was "alone in finding absolutely nothing redeeming about" the film. This second assertion is also unverifiable, since we can hardly account for the opinion of every film critic. Both assertions are supported by the link, but the link is itself a personal editorial written by someone who seems to dislike Kael strongly. I'm no expert in this area, but I think it would be sufficient and appropriate to state simply that "Pauline Kael was one of few major critics to dislike the film." I don't think it's our job as Wikipedians to neutralize her opinion by labeling her a homophobe or asserting that she had a bias against Friedkin. Both may be true, but as the maxim goes: show, don't tell. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion award queries
Do you think this should be also be for discussions on user talk pages as well, pref about articles? or not? Or should that even be a seperate award? Also, should i raise this on the proposal page?

Simply south 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(wonder why i took so long to reply?)

Yeah, thats good and so i agree with you. Simply south 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstart unsupport
Ah, it's hard to care about folks who just pop in and say no, without reason. Not too worried. I think the initiator's idea is sound, and would like this award publicized. KP Botany 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Help?
Hello Jeff, sorry to bother you but I was hoping you could provide me with some information. I'm working on the Parakramabahu article right now and am expanding it considerably. However when I 'save page' nearly half of the text just does not appear on screen! The missing text appears in the sandbox but not on the screen. Do you know why? DocSubster 11:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thou art wise indeed, O Jeffpw! Many thanks.

Sorry Jeffpw, me again - I can't figure out how to correct the Parakramabahu article. A large amount of text is appearing as a footnote when it should be in the main body of the article. I'm not entirely sure how to correct this - do you have any ideas?DocSubster 12:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, SUCH a PITA. Thanks!DocSubster 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow thanks Jeffpw! There's a lot more work to be done but I'll submit it as soon as I finish! DocSubster 13:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffpw. I've finished the article on Parakramabahu -do you mind checking it out and seeing what rating it deserves/what editing is required? Also, how do I submit it for peer review? Thanks!DocSubster 15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffpw! I've nominated the article for FA, though there appears to be a tiny problem with the FA nominations page. Thank you so much for you help and support with this and my other articlesDocSubster 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Jeffpw, me again. I've asked for a peer review as Sandy thinks this is advisable and the article needs work, but yet again have has issues adding the article to the Peer Review page. Sorry to keep bothering you - I'm not completely cack handed, I just have trouble seeing what mistakes I make with the page specs...thanks in advance for you help and thanks in retrospect for you help...DocSubster 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

reply
thanks. i'm glad you like my information. i may consider joining your group... i hope you have a good day....i have not had one in a few years x.x  RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk''' 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

transgendered template
I did ask Alice to do it, but she hasn't replied. If she hasn't by the weekend, I'll see what I can do.

Also, I want to warn you about your comments towards other users. Yes, the debate over the flag was a dumb one, but it was initiated in good faith by an editor in good standing - calling Matt a dick isn't a good idea. Similarly, "I find it absurd that this has been allowed to escalate to such a degree." on Elaragirl's page is expressing the same view as my own comment, but it does so in a much more aggressive way that riles up otherwise calm users, even those who would agree with you. Do you see what I mean? Your points are generally absolutely valid, and I agree with you in most cases, but you need to be careful that you don't insult other users. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your point is valid, and well taken, Dev. However, perhaps similarly to Elaragirl, I have no patience for fools and bigots. I will try to exercise more tolerance and restraint, though I should say Wiki is not the be all and end all of my existence, so if I ruffle a few feathers I won't lose any sleep over it. And for the sake of clarity, I think if somebody says "I don't want to come across as a WP:Dick, BUT.....", generally speaking they know they are acting like a WP:Dick. Jeffpw 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that, but I wouldn't say it, even though I agree entirely... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tillie Fowler
I do plan to tweak it some more in coming days. The previous version had the distinct flavor of a copyvio, and I tried to find a version that wasn't one. Blueboy96 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT
Thankyou for your kind comments Jeff. I am somewhat pleased by the fact that since I signed up, our numbers have increased by 25%. Obviously though, whatever I can contribute, it's dependent on people like you and SatyrTN to keep us all afloat, and for that I'd like to thank you for your own efforts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User pers inf
Thanks for letting me know. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker
Thanks, Jeffpw - that was very kind of you ! Best, Sandy (Talk) 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a barnstar
Thank you so much for your help. Excelsior! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Signed. God, this is ridiculous. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not formatted the mediation page correctly. Your reason stated is inaccurate and POV and therefore unacceptable. Re-read the Help article associated with the page you are attempting to construct. You should also allow time for a consensus to emerge (or not) on the article talk page. Please sign all contributions to my Talk page. Joel on the SOL 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yeah, I know all about busy days myself! :-)


 * I did not suggest Mediation - I said that if A.N. Other wanted to rate the article (as I recall, you and I were reasonably content not to) then he\she should consider mediation first. So, nice of you, but you saved AN Other the effort.   WP's servers seem to be going up and down every few seconds (possibly in sympathy with the raging storm blowing outside my window!) so I am having trouble getting the Med Page up.  As I recall, the signatories section had an error.  The reason given is incorrect as I have not refused to allow the article to be rated: I dispute the rating, the necsssity of it and the qualification of the original rater.  (Is that a word?!)  Will try to send this to you when the servers are back up and before my house is blown away.  Joel on the SOL 19:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I know you meant well, however Dev920's disgraceful recent Bad Faith edit and comment in the edit summary means that I cannot agree to mediation that involves that editor. I will continue to edit the article to  the best of my ability, along with the many other editors who genuinely seek to improve the article rather than throw their weight about.  kind regards Joel on the SOL 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You only break 3RR if you perform 4 reverts in 24 hours. He's got to do it once more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported Joel to ANI, because he's been so incivil and he's been warned. The admin concerned says I should restore the rating because no-one has explained what's wrong with a B, but I don't want to potentially break 3RR. Can you do it for me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooooscar Wilde
You're right, it sucks. :) But we might be able to use some of it. I'll take a look on the 13th, when I start officially editing at full speed again. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * It's cos I'm not doing my work... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RV
Your RV wiped out Dev920's reply to a comment and my subsequent post. While I apologise for deleting your comment (even though it totally ignores Mr Darcy's firm instruction) your own action has created a mess and needs your attention. 81.159.212.153 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your mess has been cleaned up. Mucky pup. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil Partnerships
Hi Jeffpw, thanks for you message. I've only really looked at the article since seeing the criticism of Dev920 on her talk page and trying to explain the fact that GA status required nomination. I see things have rather escalated. I've tried providing some positive suggestions for improving the article to divert attention for the bickering that is taking place. Hopefully that might work- but the authors do seem rather defensive! -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All quiet on the western front. OK, I think I've managed to calm things a little on that article. We may not yet have a concensus on the direction it should be going in, but at least the discussion is now calmer and on point. The rating seems to have been left alone now and doesn't seem to be being challenged at present. Hopefully it will all stay that way... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Still on Discussion
What do you think it should be called? How do i get other people to query? Simply south 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing seems to have happened since. Maybe there should be a mention of near closure which i will add in a mo. The current title is straight to the point and i have briefly put, as you know, if there is anyone out there to put a name they can, but nobody has. I trhink i will add a message then. Simply south 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just posted a closure notice. Did i use too many titles? Also there are couple of things unresolved, although these are probably minor. Simply south 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to this, i am going to notify the otherusers who have voted. Simply south 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to note i have basically posted the same message with a couple of alterations and additions on i think all who participated (except myself).


 * The message was "Thank you for voting orginally and the additional comments. I have posted on the proposals page a closing subsection with a couple of minor issues. I would apreciate comment. The issues are title and image. See the Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals."


 * I hope this was okay. Simply south 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Same sex marriage
I'm not exactly sure what the concern is. can you clarify? The source is cited and verifiable; it's from a specific page, of a specific issue, of a major newspaper, with a credible reputation as a source of information. Many sources referenced on Wikipedia do not have web versions of their text, and quite possibly this one doesn't either. Can you explain the sense in which you are concerned that this is not verifiable?

Last, a thought: I agree it would be nice to find the original govt source it must have been based upon though, but I don't know where to look for that. Do you have any ideas? FT2 (Talk 13:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure that knowing a piece was written by Jane Smith, actually helps one look it up. The looking up information is the journal/newspaper, date, page, and title, which is all you need to look it up. A statement that it was written by staff writer X surely doesn't add a thing to that sourcing, in terms of verifiability. FT2 (Talk 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just passing on what I learned whwne an article I wrote was up for FA. They got really picky about the references, and demanded to have authors and titles for newspaper articles. But anyway, it seems that's not the only problem with that reference. The reference supports an assertion that 31,000 Civil Unions have taken place, and according to someone on Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom(see section 9), the number is roughly the half. Either someone read the article incorrectly, or the Telegraph accidentally doubled the number (number of people cited as number of unions. That's another reason I would like to double check the source. Jeffpw 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats sensible. As we discussed above briefly, a govt source would be good from every perspective, and that sort of information should be sourcable from government as well as media, probably with more detail. Leave that with you? But the actual cite was my own reading of the paper, so the citation is faithful to what was published. FT2 (Talk 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Economist article on same-sex marriage
Hi Jeff. The economist article was published on Dec 2nd 2006 (in the UK). The author is not specified. I think it's just cited like a newspaper is.

All set
Thanks for finding the authentic Reuters ref, BTW. I was looking all over for it. -- Kendrick7talk 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean too. I think the sentence lisiting the countries in the lead got completely deleted at one point and I tried restoring it. -- Kendrick7talk 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (BTW, by all means reinstate it.) -- Kendrick7talk 09:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust comference
Hi Jeff. I saw you sourced my deletions in the article and I think it's cool. I just wanted to drop a word to say I'm not actually an islamist-negationist nazi, but as this is definitely a hot topic, I'd like it to be as neutral as possible (yes I know, some might question how neutral that can be). I think it would be better for now to stick to "accordingth the NY times...", "The BBC says...", etc where we cannot source direct quotations of participants. My personnal feeling is that the whole article is pretty much POV'd against the comference, as the opinion section goes from 25.000 persons offended (fine with me, normal) to several dozens of studentsprotesting (still probably noteworthy) to "a student said" (....) without a single word about the support the comference probably has in Iran. I won't tag the article because I won't bother to find sources, but I wanted to discuss that with someone. What's your opinion?--SidiLemine 13:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I see your point, mostly. It's true the article is balanced, in the way they are attacking their own credibility. However, there still are two sections illustrating domestic and international condamnation, without a single trace of support. Surely there must be bad guys in and out of Iran who rejoice at the idea of this conference.--SidiLemine 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I mean, anyone supporting this debacle would most probably be identified as anti-Semitic by several sources already, and that would be put next to their names." See, that's what bothers me. I believe this is some kind of bias. Yes, it might be a very wide, half-the-world bias, but still. I'll go and see what I can find in arab networks.--SidiLemine 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn you're good. What's "Kook"? Actually, I was more looking for someone like Pinochet, but I guess it's too late now :). Only in a non-totally-pro-jewish media. Maybe in hateful one, even. You know, I don't really hold an opinion on the issue. It's just that it bugs me to see one-sided opinion. Always has. Whatever the opinion might be. Specially here. Now what you've added is far enough for me. I'll try to find someone in Iran, and then I'll de-watch the page. I've had enough politics for a few months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks!
Wow, my first Barnstar! Thank you!!!Wandering Star 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I Need a link
I can't find the link which lets me create a new page, can you give me it? Monbro 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, Jeffpw
Do not accuse me of vandalism on the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust article. The source used was from the Brunei Times, which was a dead link. Removing statements that are "sourced" to a non-existent source is hardly vandalism! Though I do admit to making a mistake about the "Many Iranians" part, as that was indeed in ref 10. I am not sure how reliable this particular set of articles is (how did they find out the opinion of "many Iranians"? Did they take a poll, or is just "many" by their definition and whim?), but in retrospect, I should have put more attention into that particular reference.

The current version properly sources both of the ideas, so it makes more sense to include them. Part of what I did was right, and in any case, this was not deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia. However, you should take back for unjust accusation against me. The Behnam 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz
Hi there; I was deeply moved by your message. Thank you.

I was at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau earlier this year. I knew a great deal about the Holocaust in advance of my pilgrimage, but was still shaken to the depths of my soul by the overpowering miasma of despair which still blankets the whole area.

You may care to look at the talk page of the article Auschwitz concentration camp, where I have been conducting a brisk and now lengthy conversation with a Holocaust denier. I know that I wil not convince him/her, but refuse to let him/her have the last word.--Anthony.bradbury 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now sixteen opinions for keep, only four for delete and a small number for merge. That will come back as "no consensus, so keep".--Anthony.bradbury 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Yes hopefully it will be protected i don't know why people dislike this its just a discussion the crimes have been recognized and payed there dues and thats whats important right? Nareklm 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My request should be approved since its been vandalized numerous times and ill try to revert as much as spam as possible. Nareklm 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

GA standards
Good grief Jeff- please never rate an article I put up for GA. Jacques Damala is pretty thoroughly referenced for a topic on someone who has been dead for over 100 years. 28 references for an article of that size would have satisfied me. In any event a narrow fail on one of the GA criteria does not proclude a GA award if the rest are solidly met. Anyway we shall see what a third party makes of the article :). I'm optimistic... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was refering to your comment on Talk:Jacques Damala that It needs many more citations to even reach "GA" class. I meant that if you demanded such a high standard of references, I was not confident articles I might nominate in future would meet it. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take off the message- we're all entitled to our opinions. My comment was only meant as friendly jibe at your high standards (which are no bad thing). I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did have a tough time with that article's nomination. Given that any user can assess GA as opposed to the vote for FA, there is quite a bit of variation in standards. For example the gap between GA and FA is not entirely clear. You are right that if put to that high a standard of review, Jacques Damala will have a reasonable chance of failing. I hope someone with a less stringent view of the criteria reviews it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to start an argument and I'm sorry my comment didn't come across as I intended. Peace. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow up question
Thanks for the smile. Who ever came up with them did a good job :). I have a question... As far as I can see the only reason Jacques Damala is within the scope of the project is the sentence, "Besides his passion for women, he was also said to enjoy the company of young men, as well" with a reference to Extracts from The Divine Sarah: A Life of Sarah Bernhardt (1991). The article deals only with notorious womanising outside his marriage as far as his personal life is concerned. Is this really an LGBT topic? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the unacceptable reference is a citation from a book. So I suppose one could refer to the book directly to overcome that problem. But even if the book is the ref, the comment is totally hearsay. I myself would be uncomfortable with him staying in the list of bisexuals and LGB people, let alone his article being annexed to the project. My view is that for inclusion in the project the sexuality of the person must be more than just a passing comment. This is no Abraham Lincoln. So I would recommend removing our tag completely. Do you think we should canvas the views of the rest of the project? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've untagged it. Will also remove him from the relevant lists. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Scary- though on the LGB list, he wasn't on the list of bisexuals, even under NerriTunn's inclusive criteria! - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merits of article on Gay stereotyping
I've had a look at this article since it came up in the Gay lisp AfD (where I seem to have expressed myself rather strongly on reflection). At the very least this article needs an overhaul pretty soon, but I have reservations about the purpose served by it. There are no articles of Wikipedia about: and I think that is rightly so. Why is it that a specific article is needed to cover gay stereotyping? Can you think of any good reason why this article should not be deleted or merged into a section at the Homophobia article? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * black stereotyping
 * jewish stereotyping
 * stereotypes of women etc.

Jeffpw, for what it's worth I agree with both you and WJBscribe on merging both articles into homophobia. If people meeting WP:RS were seriously suggesting that there is some real basis for these stereotypes and Wikipedia merely reporting this in an NPOV way that would be one thing, but the sources being cited on AFD for keeping gay lisp don't even support such a thing - the links I've followed all admit that most gays don't fit the stereotype. Eugenics writers were trying to make scientific cases for stereotypes about Africans 100 years ago too but most today would rightly recognize it as racism. This isn't any different. I'd support merging both into homophobia since that is what these stereotypes are. Dragomiloff 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems my briliant argument is slightly undermined by the discovery of this gem of an article- Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, which has been up for AfD since the 9th but I had missed. Doesn't look like it'll get the concensus to be deleted- damn. Still once the dust from this AfD settles, I intend to seriously tackle the Gay stereotyping page. It might be able to be reworked into something a little more acceptable... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One Barnstar deserves another...
Hahaa... yeah, that was a good one.

re that confrence
sorry, doing too many things at once, my reasoning is there now. like i said, not sure what else to do, also not sure it even needs to be anywhere as its just the official iranian line again. maybe? ⇒ bsnowball  09:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) oh, yeah, putting it there follows more or less directly from my reasoning... more coffee needed... sorry, fr inconveniece of not explaining mine quick enough. ⇒ bsnowball  09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay stereotyping Afd
I see the article has been dominated at AfD. I'm in two minds about this. Tempted as I am to try and blow it out of the water outright, I respect Koweja's comment on the fact that a sizeable gay group play up to this stereotype to establish self-identity. Still not sure I want to defend it (esp. as I'd look a bit silly after my comments in the Gay slang AfD). So I think I'll stay out of it for now and see what happens... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you don't share my reservations. You did say yesterday: "Gracious, Koweja, that article is a shambles. I would nominate it for Afd, myself, but if you think it can be helped, I am certainly willing to assist." Voting to delete it may be seen as an odd form of assistance... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Cheers for that... Good grief, an account whose sole purpose seems to have been to vandalise my talk page. I am honoured! - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
Err...probably, yes, and next time I will. Thanks very much for assuming good faith. To be honest, it didn't really have anything to do with you, but Elara recently got blocked for personal attacks and I did not want that to happen again. Not that it really was a PA - just not terribly diplomatic. Also IMO, a barnstar that says "BRAVO FOR PUTTING X IN THEIR PLACE" is not a clever thing to have on your userpage. It's bound to cause endless wikidrama etc. Unless X happens to be an indefblocked troll, of course, when it's different:) Next time, however, I will talk first. If I really wanted to be objectionable I'd cite this, but that's not clever either, so I won't. Thanks again for remarkable civility and AGF - not enough of that around sometimes. Cheers, Moreschi 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pic
Thanks for the heads-up. -- Kendrick7talk 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you, Jeff. There have been similar edits elsewhere, that's the problem. Still, I'll bear what you say in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Sorry; it wouldn't be the first edit warring between Slim Virgin and I. I don't mean to impune Nederlanders either, but once SV gets me riled up I'm rather implacatable. -- Kendrick7talk 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

they are already in the parent category
Hi Jeffpw, I've replied to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Economist article
Hi Jeff,

I've left details of the economist issue number and a correction to the table which was printed in the subsequent issue on the Same-sex talk page. Thanks Andeggs 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New form for ISBNs?

 * Hi Jeff, the hyphens in ISBNs are not in a fixed pattern, but vary according to the way greater or smaller parts of the range are assigned to different publishers, and indeed different "lanuguage areas". See the ISBN article for more deatils or http://www.isbn-international.org/en/identifiers/List-of-Ranges.pdf for the full hyphenation rules. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 09:58 18  December 2006 (GMT).