User talk:Jokestress/2008

Citation for Andrew Keen article
Hi there, I notice you were the creator of the article on Andrew Keen. There is one uncited statement there that I've traced back to the original version, namely "After the demise of audiocafe.com, Keen worked at Pulse 3D, SLO Media, Santa Cruz Networks, Jazziz Digital and Pure Depth." Would you be able to provide a source for this information? Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, the article is now fact tag free. Richard001 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Report to WP:ANI
I wonder if you could look at this one:. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism in grist article
Please be more careful when taking information from other sources. Your work establishing the Grist article is valuable, it meant I could look up the word, but in looking for more information I noticed you took at least one portion from the article you referenced either word-for-word or nearly so. Doing so degrades wikipedia in a number of ways. It is tempting to use a nice turn of phrase, go ahead when appropriate, just put quotes around it. Here, though, I wonder why you didn't just take the information and use it in your own way? As a language arts teacher I find many students wholly unclear on what plagiarism is and why it is a problem. Please do not take this as an attack, instead take a few minutes to make sure you know how to avoid plagiarism in the future. Note that this is not my view alone but the policy of wikipedia as a whole. --Fitzhugh (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Melle-falconetti.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Melle-falconetti.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donna Johnson
An editor has nominated Donna Johnson, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Calpernia Addams
An editor has nominated Calpernia Addams, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual talk page
I've redacted some of your comments to remove what i view as baiting language and disclosing information about another editor. If someone chooses to self-disclose elsewhere that is their business and we should extend all users that same respect. If they cross a line we need to remain civil and deal with it appropriately. Benji boi 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin
You may like to add to the discussion on the talk page about material your removed.  Ty  01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual GA nomination
I have reviewed the article. See the talk page. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Finke
what reason did you have for reverting what I corrected on this entry? TheOddler (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this account as a sock of banned user:ColScott. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitty love


Have a nice day! Bearian (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Grand Central School of Art
I have two articles from NY Public Library that I don't believe I have referenced correctly and I wasn't sure how to do that....help with editing this page? I can email the references....(rissaright@yahoo.com)

You may wish to be aware of a discussion currently happening on the Transsexualism talk page
Hiya, I thought you might want to throw in your opinion on this - recently (12 days ago) on the Transsexualism talk page, a new section has been added by someone who claims "I believe that, a small number of actual hermaphrodites notwithstanding, there is no difference between a transsexual and a homosexual except that the former are committed to reassigning their gender to match their sexual orientation. This is hardly an uncommon belief and one whose rationality is fairly self evident, why nothing in the article?", backed up by a second user 5 days ago. I've already stated my own views against this statement, and I just thought you may wish to add your views as well. Take care! Xmoogle (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your talk page says "Please use the little + option at the top of the page for adding comments, and give your comment a title. Thanks!" - however, changes in mediawiki make that button now say "new section", you may want to update that. Or you may want to ignore my pedantism, feel free either way :) Xmoogle (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Conway Mediation
Hi Jokestress, you don't need an invitation to participate in the Lynn Conway Mediation. Please feel free to jump into the discussion and contribute. BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alan Light
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got carried away and nominated this accidentally. Have reverted. Ged UK (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MarionTheLibrarian COI
User:MarionTheLibrarian has mentioned you at the COI notice I filed about it: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, indicating that you, too have accused here of WP:COI; if that's the case, you should say your piece there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: Zucker
Thank you for expanding the article I wrote on Kenneth Zucker. Off topic, you coached Felicity Huffman; William H. Macy's Vermont house is in the same small town as that of my wife's friend's recent ex-husband. Cstaffa (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Conversion therapy
Jokestress, you recently edited the conversion therapy article. I'm not sure that your edits were correct, and I have left a note about this on the talk page. I see a problem with adding material to an article that contradicts other material in the article, especially when that other material is left unchanged. Your edits to conversion therapy are not the only example of this I have seen; you may have noticed what recently happened to the article on sexual orientation. Skoojal (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your ANI post
Request for Oversight should help you.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It usually is. But I saw that your post was either going to be ignored for a while or that your post would go to the archive without resolution. But I think that those comments are enough to issue an oversight. If not go straight to an admin and see what they can do. Did you blank them from the talk page by the way? And no I am not administrator my only tools are Accountcreator and Rollbacker. I deal with topics at WP:AN and WP:ANI that do not require admin intervention or have gone unanswered.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch Inc
Sorry, missed your first message. Basically it was tagged as such by another editor, as well as being a WP:COI. After having a look at the article I agreed that it was written in a style which clearly sought to promote the company. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're cruel, jokestress.
Cruel, but fair. [regarding the reverting of my Xeni comments] --Petzl (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Aderet
Could you please revert your move of the village article to XX, (village). This somewhat goes against NCGN. I think it would be better to have the disambig article (disambig..) and keep the locality article as the main one. Please reply here, I'm 'watching'. --Shuki (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Other People's Comments is a Bad Idea
Yes, I know that editing comments is allowed in some circumstances. It is, nevertheless, almost always a bad idea. I think that, in the very few cases in which this would be acceptable, it would have to be to something so bad that only removing it totally would be the correct course of action. Striking through comments is sometimes done by the person who made them to show that they have been retracted, which is why it's unwise to do it to someone else's comments. I have notified James Cantor of what you did to his comments on the Man Who Would be Queen talk page. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New England Research Institutes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article New England Research Institutes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Levine, etc
Hi, Andrea.

I share an interest in human sexuality/psychiatry. I've moved the page as you requested. Would you like to clean up the disambiguation? Do you want Stephen Levine (author) moved to Stephen Levine? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrea, I want you to clean it up because you're more familiar with these articles. There's a bit of inconsistency at the moment. I'll move whatever you think ought to be moved. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cleaned up the residue that was left behind. Now, the article Levine gives the psychiatrist's date of birth as 1950. Your article gives his date of birth as 1942. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Homosexuality and transgender
An article that you have been involved in editing, Homosexuality and transgender, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and transgender. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hfarmer (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your violation of BLP
Jokestress: In your edit on the talk page of homosexual transsexual refers to "about Bailey's sexual involvement with Juanita," which falsely asserts that Bailey did have such an involvement. You are in clear violation of WP:BLP. Strike out your unfounded accusation immediately. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Identity
In relation to our discussions around homosexual transsexual. Having a verifiable real person openly agree with any part of Dr. Blanchard's theory seems to be a new experience for you. I don't think that's the big problem here.

Our big disconnect is that you are as you would say "identity driven" and I am not. (I don't mean "identity driven" to be any kind of a euphamism for anything.) You think of yourself as a woman a transwoman perhaps and for you that seems to preclude ever identifying with another gendered social identity. I on the other hand identify as... my name... Then anything that comes after that depends on context. If I were in Thailand speaking Thai I would call myself a kathoey. If I were at a ball I would call myself a femm queen. None of those labels matter because I am who I am...my name... In context of this discussion of Dr. Blanchard's theory looking at my personal history in total I am classed as a homosexual transsexual. However for all most of the world knows I am just ...my name..., a brainy black woman. To me these things are not mutually exclusive. Because I am not "identity driven". I am just me ...my name... let the world call me a faggot....it dosen't matter because I know who and what I am... my name... and I define who and what that is. No one else.

Sadly, I think we would clash even if Dr. Blanchard were erased from history. We are on different wavelenght's. I still respect you as a person though. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay
Jokestress, I would like to ask you to stop editing the article about Simon LeVay. LeVay has publicly condemned you for the way you edited the article about him in the past (I would have done the same had I been in his position). You crammed so much misleading criticism of LeVay into that article that one can reasonably conclude that your only purpose was to attack him, which is a violation of BLP policy, a serious matter. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for you to continue editing the article in any way. Skoojal (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jokestress, I have placed a comment on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, urging that you be banned from editing this article. Skoojal (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a major problem, but you may want to step back for a few days while we look into this. Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lionel Ovesey
Jokestress, I'd like to thank you for your edits to Lionel Ovesey. Those were useful and worthwhile additions. Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of James Lyon
A tag has been placed on James Lyon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your talk message, however since this message (above) was bot generated after I tagged the page, and the page was deleted so I can no longer see the history of the page. I am not certain why you were notified, other than that it was probably because you were the first poster. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Title 15 of the United States Code
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Title 15 of the United States Code, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Title 15 of the United States Code is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Title 15 of the United States Code, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Title 15 of the United States Code
An article that you have been involved in editing, Title 15 of the United States Code, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Title 15 of the United States Code. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

LeVay article
Jokestress, on the LeVay talk page you wrote, 'Your prejudice against them because of their faith and stance on biology and sexual orientation should not be reflected in the article.' Regarding my religious views, you should know, having looked at my user page, that I gave up being a Christian only quite recently, and that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. My 'stance on biology and sexual orientation' is probably in some ways closer to Harrub and Miller's (and, for that matter, to yours) than it is to LeVay's. My objections to Harrub and Miller are thus not the result of what you mistakenly take to be my prejudices, but of my awareness that their website is a poor source and their views are of debatable relevance.

It may be argued that Harrub and Miller's views should be mentioned - I don't have a strong objection to this, so long as they are identified as creationists, although other editors may feel differently (ask James Cantor or ProudAGP what they think). Regarding your use of them as a source: I've been looking at old versions of the article, ocmparing them to LeVay's response. LeVay may have been over-stating his case when he wrote that, 'Although the biography gives detailed source references, most of these appear to have been lifted bodily from an article published by Apologetics Press, a Creationist anti-science organization.'

Actually, only three of the comments that appeared in the article (the comments by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, the comments by William Byne that started, 'LeVay's work has not been replicated...', and the comments by LeVay that started, 'It's important to stress what I didn't find...') follow word for word what is in Harrub and Miller. Still, one can easily see why LeVay might have suspected that you did not read the original sources (Even your use of the word 'noted' was similar to the Apologetics Press article). As you don't wish to discuss this on the talk page, I'd like to ask you again here whether you did in fact read them. I'm prepared to admit that I didn't read most of them. Skoojal (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your ongoing questions about my reading original sources continue to baffle me. We are supposed to use secondary or tertiary sources, so whether or not I have personally read the primary texts is not really relevant. LeVay's "what I didn't find" comment has been quoted in several sources since the Discovery piece, as have Byne's "not replicated" comments. I can give you four or five for each. The Hubbard and Wald is from page 95 of Exploding the Gene Myth. So yes, I have read the originals. As I mentioned, a lot of the articles I started back then were not meticulously sourced, though. Harrub and Miller present what I consider a pretty good overview, mainly because they discuss brain plasticity that usually gets left out of these determinist discussions. In fact, LeVay's work on plasticity and the visual cortex is probably under-represented in this article.
 * If you look at my original article, it's pretty neutral though not sourced. After other editors expanded the criticism sourced to Pinel, LeVay complained via OTRS at the end of 2006. That led to my sourcing the article. You'll note I added praise from Byne at that time. That's when LeVay set up his page attacking me for the edits, which I maintain (over the objections of partisan editors here) are pretty neutral. The material I have recently cited on the talk page shows that the range of commentary extends into far more pointed criticism than my summary. LeVay's accusations of my not reading the originals and suggestions of plagiarism (apparently favorites of his to level) seem based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. I'm surprised you share it given the amount of work you do here. I hope this answers your questions, as I'd really like to stop discussing LeVay's irrelevant off-wiki attacks. If I worried about what every person said about me on the internet, I wouldn't get very much done. Jokestress (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement that LeVay complained via OTRS seems pretty definite. I'd like to ask why you are so sure of this? Forgive my asking the question, but the answer might interest historians and sociologists of science, who no doubt read Wikipedia just as others do. Skoojal (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can contact him via his site to confirm. Jokestress (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

-

Article about you
Jokestress, on the talk page of the article about you, I've recently suggested that the article mention that one of your websites criticizes Simon LeVay. I'd be interested in your comments as to whether this is a good idea or not. Skoojal (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. My criticism of LeVay (and his of me) is not notable - not covered in the press. Further, my criticism of LeVay to date has not been about eugenics, but rather about the unfortunate tendency among a certain type of gay male "scientist" to pathologize and demean trans people in the precise way that gay males were once pathologized and demeaned by similar "scientists." If there is ever a part of his biography that discusses his sexuality textbook, my published criticisms might be appropriate there. I feel that mentioning his criticism of his Wikipedia article in his Wikipedia article falls under self-references to avoid. I don't plan to join in this debate, though, so however everyone decides to proceed is fine. Jokestress (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

-

Ángel Matos
thanks, just letting you know I am appreciating your work on the article :) I know I've got flaws in my writing but it is very much a work in progress as all the information is pulled together and it should form up better with time Mathmo Talk 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy category dispute
Jokestress, I'd like to ask for your input regarding a dispute over the recently-created Conversion therapy category, which in my view is being inappropriately added to several articles. The relevant disputes are here, here , and here. I am not asking you because I expect you to agree with me, but because you have taken an interest in related matters, and in my view something with implications as great as this should be discussed as widely as possible. Skoojal (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fabrication
Please stop claiming edits were done by consensus when it is just you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits were made by reaching consensus with User:James Cantor, User:Dicklyon, User:Hfarmer,User:ProudAGP, and User:WhatamIdoing over the course of many weeks. You were involved at several points in August, but did not participate after that. If you wish to revisit these decisions, I would appreciate if you would wait until the remainder of the controversy section is agreed on. Then we can go back and look at the first part without it affecting ongoing decisions about the second part. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's Darlie, you know . If this is you then email the little bun address ( you might have told me ya know ) . The article has been a horror since the beginning and everything I've deleted has been to keep it neutral and minimal . User:WhatamIdoing,   User:James Cantor and User:ProudAGP have been the problem. Removing the whole "Andrea James" controversy was me . It's important to avoid conflicts of interest. DarlieB (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.
Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal. here] The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion.
I have added the request for a third opinion at WP:Third opinion. — James Cantor (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article Review
Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Hello. I am asking that this articles "Good Article" standing be reassesed due to all the rewriting I did in response to the reviews at FAC. I.e. that it was not comprehensive and that the prose was so dense as to be incomprehensible. I made the article longer where appropriate and tried to keep the overall gradel level under 12th grade. I am notifying you because of your contribution to this article.

Regarding the Image.
The template you used advises that if the only real problem with the Image is a question of our permission to use the image that a different template subst:npd should be used. I have taken the recommended actions. I have also not only emailed the photog but left comments on his blog to the same effect requesting his explicit permission. (those are not displayed probably awaiting approval from him). The template automatically sets a date for deletion seven full days in the future. In this case unless I get a reply byt November 25th 2008 the image will be automatically deleted. This was the proper action. Since we want articeles to be illustrated if it is possible. Right?

By the by last nite guess who I met and had a long talk with at the TG day of rememberance vigil? Go on guess? I won't keep you in suspense. It was JSM. We had a long talk about all kinds of things. She was intrigued by my being a muslim and wearing Hijab. I told her how I was an atheist before I was a muslim, I hated god, but the Quran touched me. I mentioned you and that we interact here in passing. She did tell me her name but it was noisy I'm not sure. If I happenstance into her again, she lives not that far from me, I suppose I'll get it then. I would never put it here. Since she was a stranger I asked her... If I ran for our congressman's seat (Danny K. Davis 7th district) would I stand a snowballs chance in hell? She said why not, and being a stranger, who has also lived here all her life she would know. Just thought you should know that.

Bye. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

hello
Im mediating a case on medcab can you comment on it because your username has been mentioned. the medcab request is Here, it it on the page Homosexual transsexual. thankyou. Hereford 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What Letter?
On the Paul Barresi talk page on November 19, 2008 you mention that a certain actor was mentioned in a November 2002 letter from Tom Cruise's lawyer. I have been working to get Paul Barresi to provide a copy of this letter for viewing for over two years. There is a letter on the Net which is sloppy and has no name as to who it is regarding other than client Tom Cruise. It looks like the name and address have been inked out too. This is not a letter nor a source and calling to Bertram Field's office on several attempts, his staff is firm in their statement that Fields never wrote such a letter during the entire course of 2002. So, I am wondering if you have a source available to read the letter mentioned. This would be a big help to many people. Thank you. Helena Churchill (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest contacting David Halbfinger at the New York Times, who reported, "Mr. Fields indeed wrote a letter on Nov. 20, 2002, threatening the pornography actor with legal action." The Halbfinger citation is in the article's references. You could also contact Mark Ebner and Andrew Morton, who have also reported on the letter. Jokestress (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Valentin-Elizalde.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Valentin-Elizalde.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

rosario entry
Hi

First, thanks for posting an entry on me--that was a huge surprise.

Second, it made me (try) to figure out wikipedia writing and entries.

Sorry if I didn't follow regular protocol. I'm surprised I was able to do as much as I did!

As you might have gathered from the addition to my own entry, I'm on the LGBT committee of GAP --and the only (semi) web savy person. So I prepared the website

http://www.aglp.org/gap/

now I discovered GAP isn't even on wikipedia, so I'm trying to make an entry. I'll eventually figure this out.

Thanks,

Vernon

GAP
I don't think the wiki scripting is intuitive at all. I'm just imitating code for other pages. And now I'm even more confused about sandboxes and Talk pages. I'm not sure where this is even ending up.

So I better not do anything more with my entry--lest a flame war starts! :) There seems to be a lot of that.

I'll try to get more citations for the GAP entry, and then get out of here. Thank you for your citation. But I think it must have come in just before I did a bunch of editing, which seems to have gotten lost as a "conflict". Very confusing!

Once I think the GAP article is done, I'll have to figure out how to actually post it. Vernon A. Rosario II (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Satire
I have formulated a version of the BBL template that perhaps you will find more to your liking. It frames the issue in a clearer and more neutral way. Take a look. Template talk:BBL sidebar/(Template)Autogynephilia theory (Tounge in Cheek) :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again
Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal. This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)]

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Scobell (disambiguation)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Henry Scobell (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Author/Home?author=Scobell,+Henry,+d.+1660. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Jeffrey K. Harris"
A page you created, Jeffrey K. Harris, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the article was requested, it still has to comply with policies and guidelines - it looks to me like the opening sections of a CV, but I will leave it alone. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK that was funny if a little insulting - I am perfectly well aware of how to edit Wikipedia, but thank you for your concern. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)