User talk:Joie de Vivre/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Ci e lomobile minor7♭5 01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Please join me on the Talk page for discussion of your recent deletion of the external links."
 * You're on. I have to tell you, though-- I've done little else but fight spam for several months now, and I've never seen links as commercial as these are stay on as External links. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Close Move poll (Oral contraceptive -> combined oral contraceptive pill)
Hi, Mets501. I'm writing in regards to the fact that you closed the above-mentioned Move poll. When I proposed the move, another user (Lyrl) went ahead and made the move only a day and a half after I officially proposed it. Of course I am in support of my own proposal, but I think that that person's action was a bit hasty, especially since at the time it was two days before Christmas and many people are busy. I opted at that point to leave the change intact, with a note stating that the debate was still open, since I didn't think it should have been done so hastily. Then you closed the move poll, so now there is no official place for people to voice their opinions. My questions: Why did you close the poll? What can we do to make sure everyone has time and a place to be heard? Thank you. Joie de Vivre 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Joie: thanks for your concerns. Requested moves really have no minimum participation; your proposal was passing at 3-0 when I came in, so I decided to close it.  If anyone strongly objects to the recent move, they can feel free to leave a message on the talk page of the article and discussion can be reopened.  Thanks. — Mets501 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Magick
Honsetly, I have read the article, and I see nothing about how many many discourage using the word magick. In most online communities I have been to, it was discouraged. I can control my temper fine, thank you. And it still stands that the man who created Wicca did not use 'magick'. There is simply no reason to distinguish between 'stage magic' and other types as well. It's just a way, the way I see it and probably others as well, to make someone feel 'special'. Magic is magic, and its easy to use common sense to tell between stage magic and ceremonial magic. Disinclination 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex
You could try NPOV postings at Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex and WikiProject Sexology and sexuality -- Samuel Wantman 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Articulate editor at your service. What's up? Nina Odell 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a moment, I'm actually editing a number of articles right now; can you tell me how you got here? Joie de Vivre 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Samuel was on my watchlist, and I saw your post there. NinaOdell | Talk 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being watched! :) --Samuel Wantman 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're also famous:).NinaOdell | Talk 16:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your post to WP:3O
Your post there is not entirely appropriate, but I will give you advice on how to proceed.

1. For the conflict at the article, consider posting it to WP:RFC. If that doesn't help (bear in mind that that process can take time), follow up with the dispute resolution process- information for this can be found on the RFC page (the box on the right).

2. If you feel that you are suffering personal attacks, post it to WP:ANI. There is also WP:PAIN, but that is being considered for deletion so the first may be a better option. Also, these may require some time too- I'd assume that admins are very busy.

Hope that helps, --DarthBinky 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a pretty new editor, so DarthBinky's advice is probably better than anything I could tell you. The one thing I'll add is that before using WP:PAIN, the offender must have been previously warned (e.g. by using the npa2 or npa3 template). PubliusFL 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you. I hope you realize that I was only trying to make it easier to follow the discussion and for others to chime in on whether or not to rename the page.

To avoid any confusion, why don't you move your "Well, since the U.S. Constitution" comment below Exploding Boy's (which is where you should have put it chronologically, anyway) so that Exploding Boy's comment is directly below mine. Just change the indentation so that his comment is indented one level more than mine and yours is indented one level more than his. That should make it easier to follow the discussion.

Thanks. &mdash; Chidom  talk   23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation.
Hello, I saw your edits to Horace Griffin and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We'd love you to join us! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A WikiProject is basically a group of editors that get together to improve articles on a particular topic. It acts a center for editors to ask for help with their articles (like requesting peer reviews, to discuss issues related to that topic (such as if there are article disputes or edit wars that could do with an outside view), or to gather discussion about issues to do with that topic but aren't directly related to articles (such as to develop naming conventions or discuss suitable categorisation). You can get involved with as much or as little of this as you want - if you just want to edit articles, we can help with that, through peer reviewing or general suggestions, if you are a wikignome than we have plenty of opportunities for you to do that as well. A WikiProject doesn't have control of the articles it oversees, but it can organise things so that it is much easier to improve them. I hope I've answered your question, please feel free ask me any questions you have! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still interested? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my tardy reply, it's been somewhat hectic on-wiki. :). Basically go here, add your name to the list and you're a member! You can edit the collaboration, or contribute to discussions on the talkpage, and vote on XfDs. If you're into other processes, we have a peer review you can use, or a Jumpaclass department where you can compete to improve stubs for points! Just check it all out! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive Comments
I would like to let you know now, since you are new to wikipedia, that you are not supposed to delete comments from your talk page. You should archive everything that is on your talk page. 75.3.55.12 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your sudden courtesy, a direct departure from your previous rudeness and persistence in harassing me, to be a bit unsettling. Joie de Vivre 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Missionary position image
Look, you made this into a 'popularity contest' all by yourself. Barely anyone agrees with you. Give it a rest. Whoop whoop 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DFLA Redirects
I've already started. --Briancua 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reparative therapy
Thanks for your definitive and neutral contributions. As a recent example, you provided ref's for the major scientific bodies which condemn RT, and pointed out that there are religious/moral objections. 

I'm also looking into the "minority" viewpoints of Nicolosi, Moberly, etc. Please help me to avoid any accidental appearance of advocacy in the article text. The minority viewpoint must be indicated clearly as such, right? --Uncle Ed 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

International symbol for chill
Is a palm-down straight-wrist action while making a little swoosh noise. =) Joebobsamfrank


 * Elevator? Joie de Vivre 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yah. Didn't catch your full name, but remembered the batty-boy. User:Joebobsamfrank:Joebobsamfrank 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

template color
Text must be readable, template or not. It is barely visible on dark background. Common sense is your basic policy. I see you changed it into gray again. Please make it lighter, for better contrast. `'mikka 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Talk page for the template would be a better place to talk if you still have concerns. Joie de Vivre 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

you need to back off on reverts.
you are violating WP:3RR at the article Marriage. consider this a warning, i'll be reporting it next violation and it's likely (unless the admin is in a forgiving mood) that you'll be blocked. r b-j 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to inform me of the three-revert-rule policy. I have been an editor for a little over four months, which may be why your mention, above, was the first I had heard of it.  As a newer editor who does not have a history of such interactions, I believe that in this instance, lenience would be appropriate.  We shall see.  Joie de Vivre 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporal punishment
Thanks for calling my attention to the matter at Talk:Corporal punishment. (I'm actually just back from a long wikibreak, coincidentally a few days after your message, and your compliment was a nice welcome back, so thank you.) I'll be posting at Talk:Corporal punishment presently. Happy editing! –Sommers (Talk) 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Poster
The things you have mentioned are either because I used British spelling or did it for a specific reason. Needs has not been captalised in order to bring focus to the word You. "And we need people who can help us write them" adds a psychological impetus to someone looking at the poster "Oh, they need people. I wonder if I can help." is the response we're looking for. Want is less urgent, less rallying. Sanitized is a dreadful word, we've been erased for considerably longer than years, and I can't get the rest to fit. :) I have changed Globe to globe and added a that, though. So, gonna put it up somewhere? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Female bodybuilding page moves
First of all, regarding your moving of female bodybuilding to "women's bodybuilding" - the reason that you gave for the move may seem legitimate to you, but the page has been around for quite a while under the "female bodybuilding" title. Since numerous editors have been happy with the existing title, you really should discuss it before just boldly jumping in and taking action. Also, for what it's worth - a Google search for "women in bodybuilding" turned up 859 matches; a search for "female bodybuilding" returned approximately 480,000. This suggest to me that the term "female bodybuilding" is in fact much more common, and thus is more likely what a user would tend to search for.

I also see that you moved list of female bodybuilders to "list of female professional bodybuilders". I guess you like the parallelism with the list of male bodybuilders, but the list of female bodybuilders includes some amateurs as well. Therefore, including "professional" in the page name is not accurate. As above, this is a page that many editors have worked on without taking action to move the page, so perhaps you should ask why nobody has moved it before just going ahead and doing it. fbb_fan 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just popped by the request exactly what Fbb fan has done above. The page names are to be the most frequently used term - I've been a bodybuilder for 12 years and would have never thought to look up Women in bodybuilding (not even sure that it makes sense either). As above I seriously urge you to discuss such sweeping changes on the article's talk page before enacting. Thanks Glen 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Lesbian
Many editors have accepted the current definition. Please take any concerns you have about the text to the article's talk page before making changes. On the talk page, perhaps we can talk about your stated concerns that readers may think the article refers not only to humans but to animals. Gwen Gale 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC) {| width=100% cellpadding=10px 10px 5px 5px;
 * style='border: 2px solid #9B75AD; background-color: #EED8EE;' |

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of &quot;Coordinator&quot; for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. --
 * }

there has never been, and will never be, a husband or a wife in a marriage
apart from being a bit ironical up there, i would like to know why neither husband nor wife must be mentioned in the headline of marriage. There are no reasons mentioned, and you didnt choose to, either FlammingoParliament 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered that on the Talk page. I think the word you're looking for is "ironic".  Joie de Vivre 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! But no. I wasnt. And you didnt.FlammingoParliament 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you made the above comment, I had already responded at the Talk page. Check the time stamps if you don't believe me.  Joie de Vivre 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Husband/Wife AfD
Hi! The "S" is for "Society Topics", I don't know if this will get you to the delsort page Category:AfD debates (Society topics), if not, then go to Articles for deletion, and the 3rd section down is a list of the categories. We try not to put too many in the "Indiscernible" category, and this seems to be the one that fit the topic the best. Of course, anyone is able to change these categorizations... They're there to get the attention of people who are interested in one area, but perhaps not in another. I'll get both of them sorted, but I think since they were combined, there's no problem with that... but I'll double check for you. SkierRMH 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD technicalities
The steps are described in Template:AfD in 3 steps. The bot noticed that you haven't done the last one, which was that of including Articles for deletion/Wife to the log of the day Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 13. This step is required to make more people aware of the deletion proposal. As for the other page, generally one use a single AfD if they are related, as you actually did. The procedure is Articles_for_deletion, and it essentially tells to do the regular procedure for the first page, and then just link the other pages to delete to the same discussion page. Tizio 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

fact tags
I replied at User talk:Flammingo. Reach me at my talk page if the problem continues. — coe l acan t a lk  — 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're fine. You probably only needed to tag the most disputed sentences but there's nothing wrong with asking for citations. — coe l acan t a lk  — 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Joie de Vivre 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VltavaHF (talk • contribs).

Nice choice of words
Hey, Joie. I liked your copy-edit to "Jesus did not come to die" here. You made it clear that the church isn't "teaching a fact" but "giving its viewpoint". --Uncle Ed 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

mikka
He is a vandal with a Nazi agenda. What do you propose to stop him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.191.166 (talk • contribs).
 * Anon blocked. This is sock of indefinitely blocked who cannot abandon the idea of glorifying his father without proper references. `'mikka 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? Joie de Vivre 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion articles
Hi, Joie de Vivre. I've seen you around abortion-related articles a lot recently, so, I just thought I'd take a moment to inform you about the WikiProject Abortion Watchlist and Noticeboard (if you weren't already aware of them!). You might find them useful in keeping up-to-date on articles related to this topic. Regards. -Severa (!!!) 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by "Wikipedia experience?" I'm a little confused about how you're confused. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee hee. I looked at the links you gave me, is there a way to put them on my watchlist, for instance?  Is the Wikiproject: Abortion a pit of barking pro-choice and pro-life snakes, or would you recommend joining?  Joie de Vivre 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is a pit of barking snakes, all the more reason you should join, if you feel you can add calmness and reasonableness to the mix! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The noticeboard can be placed on a watchlist. However, because the "watchlist" operates off the "Related changes" function (see the left sidebar of any Wikipedia page), it cannot be placed on your personal watchlist. The page the WPAbortion watchlist draws from is WikiProject_Abortion/Watchlist, to which I manually add articles, images, and templates. Then, using the "Related changes" function, a sort of specialized Watchlist of recent changes to articles listed on that page is automatically built.
 * Contentiousness comes with the territory on abortion-related articles. Definitely second KC on the WP:COOL bit. However, although we have very few members, WPAbortion has had participants on boths sides of the fence — and all of them have been quite reasonable, in my opinion. We've had some disputes, mainly over the image to be used on a stub tag, and some trolling. But most of the really heated debates that I've seen within the project have been limited to article talk. Also, you don't need to be a join to take advantage of the watchlist or noticeboard. They can still be really useful to you if you're just planning on monitoring related articles. -Severa (!!!) 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Joie de Vivre,

I am the author of the D&C tutorial (posted at www.kuro5hin.org) that you de-linked here and I see your explanation as to why you made that edit, but that explanation doesn't appear to be listed in the External Links guidelines.

Bear in mind, I wasn't the person who added my tutorial to the Wikipedia D&C topic, but I am curious as to why you believe my topical and accurate explanation of the procedure (with multiple safety disclaimers therein) isn't germane to this topic.

I would appreciate a salient rationalisation of your motive to my e-mail address; ti.dave[AT]gmail.com

Thanks, Dave


 * Sorry, I don't email off-wiki without my own reason to do so. To answer as to why I deleted the description: it shouldn't be there for the same reason that there shouldn't be instructions on how to build a bomb linked to the Bomb article.  Draw your own conclusions.  Cheers,  Joie de Vivre 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The conclusion I'm going to draw here is that just like some people have a need to know how to build a bomb, some people have a need to know how to perform a D&C. Your edit is simply an unwarranted case of censorship and it's not clear who made you the arbiter of this matter. The U.S. Army Medical Command has deemed it appropriate that non-physicians have access to the information that I presented. In fact, they expect their non-degreed medics to be able to use that information in the field and have released this information into the Public Domain. If you find this information to be so troublesome, then I suggest you contact your representatives and ask them to modify the distribution of the Army's Field Manual, otherwise, try to un-clench and revert your edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ti dave (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * You're terribly verbose, and I don't appreciate your tone. If you wish to discuss this further, bring it up at the appropriate article's Talk page.  You might want to brush up on WP:CIVIL before you do that.  Cheers, Joie de Vivre 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From your link; "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" and you complain of my verbosity? I'd be happy to brush up at WP:CIVIL, if you'll do the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ti dave (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Re: Template:Abuse
Why, thank you, Joie de Vivre! I had seen it and didn't relate the 'commerical' to 'child sexual abuse', although I considered changing it to look like (Commercial) child sexual abuse. Any thoughts on that version too? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would make the template too wide. That's why I used the ellipsis.  Joie de Vivre 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply for 3O
At this point, they don't want to be a part. I would suggest full protection for disputes, warning templates on the user's talk, or bring this up at WP:ANI. Don't aggravate the situation by starting a revert war.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuals and gays
It doesn't really matter whether one's a noun and another's an adjective or whatever. Why do we have a biological term (homosexual) redirecting to a social term (gay)? – Steel 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A good point. This is somewhat trivial, but I believe that terms with a biological basis should have precedent over terms with a merely social (and somewhat stigmatic) basis. Edmund Lake 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Methods of abortion
The categorization system of WikiProject Abortion is long-established. It was designed to increase navigation between abortion-related articles by helping to sort articles into more specific subcategories and to keep everything from getting lumped together in Category:Abortion (which, before WPAbortion came around, was more of a junk drawer than a category). In the future, it would be appreciated if you would propose any changes you wish to see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. More of my reasoning is available on the CfD page. I'm perfectly happy to accept your new category into the fold, because it is a helpful distinction, but I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw the CfD, given that it is unnecessary. Thanks! -17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to work with you, Joie de Vivre, and I would appreciate it if you would work with me, rather than against me. There is an established order to the system of categorization in WPabortion, and I'm willing to work with you to accommodate your suggestions. It's bad enough that I've had to deal with harassment from two users (neither of them you) in the last 24 hours, I don't need a simple misunderstanding getting blown out of proportion, too. -Severa (!!!) 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dilation and curettage
Hi,

Can you please voice your opinion on the talk page of Dilation and curettage?

Thank you and happy editing,

 Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen your suspected sockpuppet report: a bit of AGF? ;-) Anyway, it doesn't matter. I've already replied you there, please take a look at it. I hope that Ti dave will come back here soon so we can settle the dispute ;-). Happy editing,  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About the army manual stuff: I think he/she simply wanted to mean that the informations are from the Army's Manual. Nothing more. Happy editing,  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We're waiting for your opinion at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant [], nevertheless, we're still waiting!  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Joie de Vivre 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Girl-girl
Hello, Joie de Vivre. As a prominent contributor to Girl-girl, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Girl-girl, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Iamcuriousblue 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Joie.
 * I just noticed the statement for your position in the RfC section of Talk:Girl-girl is not actually written by you. One of the reasons I encouraged User:Iamcuriousblue to format the RfC correctly is so we could hear your point of view. I have not read all the pertinent discussion in this controversy -- I doubt many of the RfC participants will -- and I am concerned that your position cannot be considered fairly represented as entered by curiousblue.


 * Could you please enter a statement? If User:Iamcuriousblue is misrepresenting you, we really need to hear it. / edgarde 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating argument - it has dragged me out into an area that I normally don't venture into. However, is this argument going to come down to defining erotica, then defining pornography, then defining what the sub-set is that is actually both? A semantics or English dictionary definition is hardly something to get too excited over, so I suspect that the emotions attached to these topics have feelings attached... I am watching this to see how it can be diffused, as I think it is probably one of the most delicate ones I have seen. On a different topic, you have dedicated a considerable amount of term to language fixes. Is there some sort of guideline you are looking to use? Jacketed 07:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope this isn't overstepping, but I've rearranged the Talk:Girl-girl RfC so it will be more readable to editors new to the discussion. If I've left out something important to your reasoning please restore it, but the Statement isn't intended to document your interaction with the other editor, so it's important to keep it on-topic.


 * I've had previous interaction with User:Iamcuriousblue and find him as having a "competitive" mindset, but I think given time he can develop a more cooperative approach.


 * In the instance it becomes "apparent that curiousblue does not value (or perhaps understand) the concept of a fair discussion", my suggestion would be to err on the side of understand.


 * Thanks for coming to the RfC. / edgarde 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that didn't work out. Sorry for the trouble. / edgarde 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Notice
I just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where Girl-girl should redirect: as "girl-girl" is a term used only to refer to a certain genre of pornography, Girl-girl should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Girl-girl. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the new proposal much better, and have commented so on Talk:Girl-girl. Thanks for giving this so much consideration. I hope curiousblue will choose to be similarly cooperative. / edgarde 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo on Your User Page
On your user page, you typed "the term for the unexplained of a fetus"... I assume you meant "the term for the unexplained death of a fetus"! =D PaladinWhite 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"You have new msg box"
You are using IE, aren't you?

My bot has the same problem, but I don't know how to solve it. Switch to Firefox ;-) It's safer, more secure and well, you shouldn't get that box when it's not needed.

 Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope! I have used Firefox exclusively for years now (for all the reasons you mentioned... and for the widgets :-P).  Do you know what I can do to fix this problem?  Joie de Vivre 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Try a Ctrl+F5, to clean the cache, but I really don't know how to solve it. BTW, I'm still waiting your comment at D&C medcab page ;-)  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to circumcision
Please see Talk:Circumcision. Thanks, Jakew 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Methods of abortion II
Hi, Joie de Vivre. Please see Category talk:Methods of abortion for a new proposal for a hierarchy to the "Forms of abortion/Methods of abortion/etc." categories which I think will address both of our concerns. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry things haven't been running as smoothly between us lately they have previously. I've worked well with you before, particularly on Abortion-related violence, so I'm thinking recent turns are an exception, not a general rule. I've had disputes with users I've work well with before, like RoyBoy, with whom I had a dispute over the summary of the ABC article over at Abortion in January 2006. We resolved our differences, though, and the article was improved as a result. The current climate among the abortion-related articles isn't the most cooperative one right now, but, I'm hoping that if we all pull together, we can figure out some solutions that'll improve Wikipedia and be agreeable to everyone. -Severa (!!!) 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion with the proposals for new categorization systems was at Category talk:Methods of abortion. I understand how one's real-world stress can influence their level of Wiki-stress (I, in fact, sometimes experience the reverse: Wiki-stress becomes offline stress). I haven't meant to come across the way I have lately, but, recently, I feel as though we've been faced with disagreements on pretty much every front of the abortion-related sphere. It can kind of be hard to handle it all at once, especially since categorization is something I've always considered rather clear-cut, and one of the things I regard as being one of the only successes of WikiProject Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely tired of trying to hold down the fort when we've got it coming from almost every single conceivable side in WikiProject Abortion. The abortion-related articles will never be perfectly neutral, perfectly written, perfectly sourced to everyone's standards — I concede that — but with the WikiProject Abortion categorization system, I thought I'd at least managed to wrest a little bit of order from an overwhelming amount of chaos. I was wrong. You can't please everyone, so why even bother? I'm sick of fighting a losing battle. I've tried to work with you to address your concerns, but you insist that it be all-or-nothing, so do what you will. I can't play mediator when no one is even willing to sit down and work collaboratively. -Severa (!!!) 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis
Having that as the only category is prejudicial; being one level away is irrelevant. Where are the concerns of too many articles in the main cat? Seventeen/eighteen articles isn't many; as most main categories have far more. I encourage sub-cating and I'd have suggestions for new sub-cats that could alleviate perceived main cat congestion. - RoyBoy 800 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Response from birth control page
We have often disagreed on issues. However, unlike other editors I have conflicted with, you have never personally attacked me. I have much respect for your focus on the issues, and great appreciation for your respect of me as a person.

In a recent post on the birth control page, you pointed me toward No personal attacks. I sincerely apologize for anything I've said that was seen as attacking you. Lyrl Talk C 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Duggar
Please do not add unreferenced biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jim Bob Duggar. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at past versions. I looked at the links and referenes. The bio info that the diff people added is from teh quiverfull interview. The 17t baby jim confirmed via email; it even says so on the cite. Also, you seem to dominate the page edit-wise. Its great that you want the page accurate, but others have provided accuarate information.Lilkunta

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] YOU JOIE have made an edit that disregards numerous contributions, sources, and references. You are not considering the information various users have added. Unless you are able to verify that you are michelle or jim, you need to pause.Lilkunta 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly how does removing poorly sourced info constitute "defamation"? Joie de Vivre 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said you are disregarding not defaming.

Removal of content
If an editor wants to add content, stating it's from "teh quiverfull interview" isn't good enough. I have made multiple attempts to politely explain this, but people such as yourself keep ignoring it. Please review WP:CITE. A quotation from WP:BLP:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." -- Jimmy Wales Please review the provided links and please stop reverting. Joie de Vivre 20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  You stop reverting. Tell Jimmy Wales to look at the page content and decide. You are dominating the page. You are disregarding numerous edits because you feel/think you are correct. It DOES NOT just say from quiverfull, it it linked and to the actual interview.


 * Only after multiple reverts from you did you include the ref. Joie de Vivre 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  No the refs were always there.Compare & see for yourself.Lilkunta 03:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Including a URL at the bottom of the page in the wrong section does not constitute proper citation. Joie de Vivre 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa
I'll take a look, thanks for the heads-up.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Race and Crime
OK. Let's go through a *tag* by *tag* discussion. There are some tags that you deemed were not worthy of mention at the top of the article. Also, look to the discussion for race and crime

MrASingh 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Removed 18 banner tags placed by MrASingh. Joie de Vivre 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct place for this discussion is at the article's talk page. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia.  Joie de Vivre 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving one comment by MrASingh about content of Race and crime to Talk:Race and crime -- Joie de Vivre 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Adult model
I think you will see that Glamour photography more accurately describes the term, as the article seems mostly devoted to Playboy-style photos, which is where I got the redirect from. Pornography in the contemporary meaning includes more explicit content than is usually meant by Adult model. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen...
...this? - NYC JD (interrogatories) 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this. User:Mike Hatfield is NARTH's editorial director -- they are unhappy about your revert. I think you can discuss the matter with Mike and easily sort out the issues. utcursch | talk 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie: your response was very appropriate and articulate. Fireplace 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

John Money
I'd just like to explain here why I've reverted your changes to John Money. Most biographical articles I've ever seen on wikipedia have a broadly chronological section sequence. That is, if you look at Angela Merkel or George W. Bush, their early life precedes their political career, despite the later's undoubted relevance. The Money article mentions the Reimer case in the lead section, and then has a full section on it further down. Further, from a sequencing point of view, the Reimer case is founded in Money's previous work, which if it runs chronologically, has already been explained. --Limegreen 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
How would you feel about listing a request at Third opinion in relation to our dispute on the birth control page? Lyrl Talk C 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We seem unable to see eye-to-eye, and it sure would be nice to agree to have a third person's input be binding. However it turned out, at least the dispute would be over and the birth control page could be unprotected. Lyrl Talk C 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim Bob Duggar... again
I noticed that you reverted my edit. I find that it doesn't work out when editors revert content without any discussion. I would really prefer it if you would come to Talk:Jim_Bob_Duggar and discuss your concerns so we can reach a consensus about what the article should say. I have already stated my piece on the Talk page, and I would appreciate it if you would join me there to talk about the article. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 Joie, you have numerous on the Duggar wiki page .You are dominating the Duggar wiki page.  You act like you own this wiki page. Alot of ppl have added info but you always revert.Lilkunta 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

U violated the 3RR rule
 U have violated the WP:3RR so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not violate WP:3RR to remove unsourced biographical information in biographies about living people, which is what I was doing. Joie de Vivre 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
You are currently listed as one of the parties in a dispute at the Mediation Cabal. I have offered to mediate this dispute. Please see the Page for the dispute to continue mediation. --CaveatLectorTalk 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Help request
I am having trouble with another editor in a content dispute at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Joie de Vivre 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

read attribution
Please read WP:Attribution. It will explain the difference between a verifiable source and an unverifiable source. I have tried to explain it many times. Bloggingbaby.com is UNVERIFIABLE and thus IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SOURCE. Joie de Vivre 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 What specifically? Thats a long page.Lilkunta 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I already answered this. The section on reliable sources explains that self-published sources are unverifiable and thus prohibited. Joie de Vivre 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> No u didnt. U just repost 'readwp:attr'. What part/rule of the page, bc it is very long page.Lilkunta 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just told you. Joie de Vivre 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> If u want me to heed wiki directions, say which. U post wiki directions, & then arent specfic. Just forget it.Lilkunta 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

{Totallydisputed},{tone},{cleanup},{story},{fiction} tags
<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> U put all those tages ({Totallydisputed},{tone},{cleanup},{story},{fiction} ) on, y? I made changes ( which of course still were not good enought 4 u ). Also, When I put the {story} tag on u took it awway. So y did u put it back now? Lilkunta 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * That question is about the Jim Bob Duggar page. Please ask at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar.  Please try to keep the discussion about the article where it belongs, and the discussion about personal disputes on the personal talk pages. Joie de Vivre 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello, thanks for your contact regarding the further issues on this case. I have attempted to draw Lilkunta into the conversation by inviting them to the case page or to my talk page to state their side of the issue as a first step towards opening a dialog. I had hoped that I would receive a response by posting as I did on the article talk page but to date you are the only one to respond. Hopefully we will hear something shortly.--Ulysses411 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. This is what I referenced. --Morenooso 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that Lilkunta has since been temporarily blocked for disruption? Apparently the mods agreed with my assessment of that person (which was why I called the Cabal in the first place.)  Joie de Vivre 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reviewed that too. --Morenooso 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism last warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green">U r bias. If another wikipedian says something I will listen. I did not vandalise, I restored my comments that u took out. I asked u 2 leave my posts but of course, u dont listen 2 me.Lilkunta 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

And I asked you no less than three times to stop sprinkling your comments inside other people's comments. you have reverted three times to a version with those edits. Your complaints that the policy pages are "too long" do not absolve you from the responsibility to follow Wikipedia Talk page guidelines. Refactoring talk pages is permitted. Removing disruptive edits is permitted. Much of what you are doing is prohibited. You are probably going to get in trouble if you keep it up. Joie de Vivre 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> I too have asked you numerous times. Y am I supposed to heed u when u ignore me? R we not = ? PS: u rnt using Scare quotes r u?Lilkunta 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

No, they aren't scare quotes. The quotes around "too long" are a summary of your complaint here that I should point out which specific section of WP:Attribution you had violated, when it is your responsibility to learn the local rules and customs. You should "heed" because my reasoning is based in a knowledge of and a respect for those customs. Joie de Vivre 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> Again, r u following all the rules u tell me to read/learn/follow?Lilkunta 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Time for a break
I would like to recommend that both of you take a break from editing the Jim Bob Duggar page and its associated talk page for 5 days as a cooling off period. Both of you seem emotionally invested in the article at the moment and I think a break will help calm things down. While this break is going on I will post a request for review both with the Mediation Cabal members as well as to members of the Wikipedia Biography group. Hopefully these impartial editors will be able to offer insights into the article and perhaps another editor will make changes to the article during the break that will satisfy both of you. If during this break you feel the need to address your concerns further please post them on the case page. So for clarity since people from different time zones are involved please refrain from further edits, reversions and comments until Sunday, April 8th.--Ulysses411 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
SatyrBot 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lilkunta requests you refrain from contact
Hello, I have been requested by lilkunta to ask you to refrain from posting on their talk page during the break. While the requested moratorium was on posting to the disputed article and its related talk page, please honor this request. While I did not find the nature of your comments particularly offensive apparently Lilkunta is feeling picked on at the moment. Thanks in advance.--Ulysses411 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Joie. Thanks for all your edits on the RT-related articles -- much appreciated. It looks like you have your preferences set to mark your edits "minor" by default. This feature is most useful to users who are doing massive disambiguation, spelling, etc., projects across many articles. Per WP:Minor most of your edits don't count as minor, so you might think about turning off this default setting. Fireplace 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please see discussion on talkpage. Discuss fully there your intent to delete and develop consensus. Ronbo76 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. <font color="#FF9933" face="monotype">Amos Han  <font color="#00FF00">Talk 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ronbo76 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Joie de Vivre 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fetal pain
Your presence is requested at Talk:Fetal pain to try and clear up some outstanding issues. Some editors are becoming impatient, so I'm making this request to make sure you haven't forgot about us. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Just to let you know, I'm the mediator for the John Money case. I'll be adding comments soon. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions! mcr616 Speak! 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the troll remark. The comment that you made did come off as a bit snobbish though. I reviewed everything and found that Alteripse's paragraph wasn't poorly written. I hope you guys can reach a common ground on the John Money article and work together. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments though! mcr616 Speak! 18:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about using gender specific pronouns, but I'm pretty sure you would have gotten pissed off if I called you It. I'm not assuming that I have a higher position then you; You requested the Mediation Cabal's help, I picked the page. I was just stating my solution and what I thought should be done. I in no way binded you or anyone else to do anything. mcr616 Speak! 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand, those comments were directed to alteripse. Did you not see they were directly under their comment?  Joie de Vivre 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding pronoun usage, see Singular they for one solution! Joie de Vivre 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very sorry! I misunderstood. I respect your decision to use gender neutral pronouns, though. mcr616 Speak! 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see what you mean. It just said that David Reimer reassumed a male gender role at age 14. It didn't say he wasn't male to begin with. mcr616 Speak! 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mammary intercourse

 * It's on the talkpage - you are deleting like crazy. I can ask for a Cabral if you like? Morenooso 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I await your answer on this talkpage. Morenooso 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any comments by you on the talk page. I explained each of my edits. For instance, why does info about the male parasympathetic nervous system (referenced with what looks like college lecture notes) belong here? It would be pretty redundant to include it in every article about a sex act. Joie de Vivre 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are on an edit war. Do you wish a Cabral? --Morenooso 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have clearly stated my concerns about the content. I await your response. Joie de Vivre 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are approaching 3RR on this with your deletions. You appear to want to dismantle this article. I expect a Yes or No to the Cabral. --Morenooso 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good editors do not just revert without comment and then cry "edit war" after they do. I made some changes, I clearly stated my case for the edits, and then you reverted them with no comment on the Talk page.  You have not even made an appearance on Talk:Mammary intercourse.


 * Oh, pardon me, now you have. "I disagree" is not a good enough reason for wholesale reverts.  Joie de Vivre 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the talkpage prior to my revert. I also reviewed your talkpage comments and referenced it in my revert. Need I say more? --Morenooso 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did mention assume good faith but after seeing your cabral mediations; am having doubts. Do you wish another Cabral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * What do you mean by "another"? Joie de Vivre 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Hell, what do you mean by "Cabral"?) Joie de Vivre 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * *I* called the Jim Bob Duggar mediation. Are you aware that the other person in that dispute has since been blocked for disruption?  I don't think your actions are fair or reasonable.  of course I have no way of knowing what the reasons are because you never stated them.  Joie de Vivre 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Connections
Thanks for making contact! I feel very strongly about the plasticsurgery4u links, but I felt at the time like User:alteripse (who at the time presented himself as a "neutral" party even while being terribly critical of me for following standard Wikipedia practices - i.e. once I left a message, trying to make peace, with User:Plastic Surgeon on his talk page, and User:Plastic Surgeon characterized it as shockingly rude, and User:alteripse characterized it as "obnoxious". Very unprofessional, if you ask me.

I wish you very good luck with both User:alteripse and User:Plastic Surgeon. If you like, please drop me notes if/when these two go on the attack for your having removed plasticsurgery4u links. I'm happy to help argue the point and draw fire. I'm also comfortable escalating the issue and even filing RfCs on both of them if need be (though I recognize the need to try to resolve conflicts if at all possible before going to that stage). At the very least, I am very certain that User:alteripse is not at all ethical in presenting himself as a neutral party vis a vis User:Plastic Surgeon's editing behavior, and am perfectly comfortable calling him on that. --MalcolmGin 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. User:Plastic Surgeon is now apparently going around deleting his own comments from Talk pages. See Talk:Gynecomastia where Boochan restored and spanked him. I also note he did it at Talk:Umbilicoplasty, which you may wish to revert to your last version (or I suppose I could if you want). I expect he'll be doing that a lot - my impression is that he's trying to completely withdraw to reduce Googleable negative "press". When User:alteripse was "presiding" over my dispute with him, User:alteripse actually archived out all the discussion I'd had with User:Plastic Surgeon so the disagreements wouldn't be so easily Googleable (from, for instance, Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome). At this point I find that behavior disturbing and abhorrent. I wish User:Plastic Surgeon had turned out to be more amenable to actually learning how to go about being here without ruffling quite so many feathers. --MalcolmGin 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. According to User:alteripse's comments in the history of User_talk:Plastic Surgeon (who apparently was made admin in 2005), User:Plastic Surgeon has invoked the (proposed policy/guideline) Right to vanish. Thus his Talk page is "deleted" but the history remains. --MalcolmGin 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting birth control page
I think the correct procedure for requesting unprotection of a page is to ask the admin who protected it in the first page. I have left a note at User talk:Malcolm asking for unprotection. Would you please drop a line there? Lyrl Talk C 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam and Talk:Fertility awareness
Could you please come and weigh in at Talk:Fertility awareness regarding a link that I feel strongly is linkspam.-Andrew c 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin
Please, do not put speedy deletion tags on Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin. If you really want it deleted, please, try the CfD. I have created the category, and I believe I know the policies and philosophies of Wikipedia enough to discuss in favor of the category. You may be surprised to find how the rationale goes way beyond the simple ghettoization claim you've put there. But, first you must provide the community an an opportunity to discuss the matter, and speedy deletion may not be an ideal way of providing that opportunity. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 10:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)