Jump to content

User talk:JoannaSerah: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎POV: add
Line 197: Line 197:
[[User:MikeFromCanmore|MikeFromCanmore]] ([[User talk:MikeFromCanmore|talk]]) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
[[User:MikeFromCanmore|MikeFromCanmore]] ([[User talk:MikeFromCanmore|talk]]) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by [[WP:Verifiability]] instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Wikipedia based on your personal opinions![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527257379&oldid=526993069][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cunnilingus&diff=prev&oldid=527242382][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cunnilingus&diff=prev&oldid=527241309][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527246082&oldid=527244679][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527278778&oldid=527246082][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527304604&oldid=527295753][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527304838&oldid=527304604][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527352170&oldid=527320227][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527352330&oldid=527320417][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527353734&oldid=527352330] That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Wikipedia. You seriously need to read [[WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]], and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about [[WP:Reliable sources|reliably sourced material]], and [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|other policies and guidelines]]. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the [[Lesbian sexual practices]] article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the [[Pepper Schwartz]] study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. [[Special:Contributions/220.255.2.155|220.255.2.155]] ([[User talk:220.255.2.155|talk]]) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by [[WP:Verifiability]] instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Wikipedia based on your personal opinions![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527257379&oldid=526993069][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cunnilingus&diff=prev&oldid=527242382][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cunnilingus&diff=prev&oldid=527241309][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527246082&oldid=527244679][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527278778&oldid=527246082][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527304604&oldid=527295753][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527304838&oldid=527304604][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=527352170&oldid=527320227][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527352330&oldid=527320417][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbianism_in_erotica&diff=527353734&oldid=527352330] That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Wikipedia. You seriously need to read [[WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]], and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about [[WP:Reliable sources|reliably sourced material]], and [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|other policies and guidelines]]. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the [[Lesbian sexual practices]] article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the [[Pepper Schwartz]] study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. [[Special:Contributions/220.255.2.155|220.255.2.155]] ([[User talk:220.255.2.155|talk]]) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. Hate that your page turned into a battlezone, Joanna. Hopefully this won't discourage you from participating in the articles of your choice. We have to give people the opportunity to conform before blocking them, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Some just fritter it away. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


== Leith Links multiple referencing page display ==
== Leith Links multiple referencing page display ==

Revision as of 14:38, 10 December 2012

Welcome to my user talk page! Feel free to add comments at the bottom of the page (easier for me to find). Generally, I'll respond underneath your comment whether on my talk page or yours unless you request otherwise. -- JoannaSerah (talk)

State Legislative Leadership and Membership Templates

I created 2 sets of templates: {{Chamber officers box}} and {{Chamber members box}}. Posted comments about new chamber leadership/membership templates at this talk page. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Hard Worker's Barnstar
For your copy-editing and other minor edits, and your work on literature-related lists. INeverCry 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My first Barnstar. Just glad to help. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant idea

'Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm Facepalm'
I award you the Egg of Columbus for your creation of the Lunar sample display Navbox. 7&6=thirteen () 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you. It is appreciated. Any other template you need, just let me know. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that. Now that you've asked, we need a template for Call of the Wild, including the book and the seven different movies. 7&6=thirteen () 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Will look into that. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually almost got into (more or less) an edit war over that. And my opposing editor came up with that brilliant idea. 7&6=thirteen () 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just looking and found that TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) recently created one already: {{The Call of the Wild}} Is that what you need or something else/more? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I had in mind, although it is clearly incomplete. But I'll work on that. 7&6=thirteen () 16:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

You have e-mail.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

At one time we lived in Ashville, North Carolina. Here are some NC articles I created:

Wow, neat! I had heard of Moses Cone, of course, but hadn't known anything about the Cone sisters. Interesting article. Some of those others were already in my watchlist. Will have to check out more of your work. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yet another North Carolinian

Greetings JoannaSerah. I moved to Charlotte about 18 months ago. I wrote all of the articles in Category:Parks in Charlotte, North Carolina and wrote or contributed to many other Charlotte based articles. My main interests are theatre, parks, Charlotte, and mathematics. I wrote articles on two Charlotte poets and added them to your List of female poets. I plan to do more local poets. If you have any ideas about how to stir up interest in Charlotte articles and especially if you know where I could get more photographs for illustration (e.g. The Green, St. Peter's Catholic Church, Madeleine Ozeray, and many other actors, let me know. There is so much in Charlotte that should be included.--Foobarnix (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen some of your edits and articles around Wikipedia. Great to have more interested in NC here. I had been trying to re-kickstart an active WikiProject North Carolina a few months ago, but really have focused more on content creation and general copyediting. Thank you for your contributions. There are so many good (and even great) poets in NC that there definitely should be more articles about. Charlotte (and really NC in general) does have a lot more info that should be included. As far as photos go, it just takes time to go out and take some of our own a lot of the time. Sometimes I'm able to go on picture-taking trips, but, honestly, I'm not a photographer. Just rely on my digital camera and Photoshop to post pics here. Keep up the good work. Next time I go down to Charlotte, I'll see what I can do. You could always post to the WikiProject NC talk page for any specific idea/project you want help on as well. That might get some interest. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace College --> William Peace University Move

I just wanted to drop a line and see if you wanted to comment on, or had any opinion about my new Peace College move suggestion. As I stated on that Talk page, aGoogle search results show 458,000 results for "William Peace University" and now only 301,000 results for "Peace College". In fact, the only results on the first page of a Google search for "Peace College" are articles from prior to May of 2012, a redirect page for William Peace University's new website, and our Wikipedia article. It seems to me that Wikipedia shouldn't be the lone holdout in a sea of actual, palpable, permanent (for now?) change. All University websites and all North Carolina press now refer to the institution by its new name. See, for instance: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/06/2466778/north-carolinas-congressional.html

Thanks! And let me know if there's anything I can help with that you're working on. I'm trying to get back in the swing of Wikipedia editing.Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that some more and comment there, but it does appear that they are more consistently using WPU rather than just "Peace College". Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently by the last Reviewer there is a need for expansion on the Sweden article. I'm at a lost for words. IF you could add 100-200 characters to the History section that would help a lot. Perhaps you, as another editor, can find things I can not. Google search? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Greenland on Commons

Just to tell u someone had a question about that pic--Sanandros (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll look into it. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, and actually someone else also asked a similar request for a pic NZ and GER on your talk page on commons.--Sanandros (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that now. I was having trouble creating that one and got sidetracked. Will have to revisit now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first DYK :)

<-- Looks like you will need one of those here in a few days when your first DYK hits the front page [1]. They will put a template here on your talk page once it has made its run. Good job, no corrections were needed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI

I HAVE JUST LEFT A COMMENT ON THE SUMMERY ,BUT THANKS ALOT ON THE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talkcontribs) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arthur Talmage Abernethy

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Time to update your user page :) Hopefully, this will be the first of many. Congrats again, you did a great job on the article. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated my userpage :) Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible edit warring.

{{help me}} Have not posted to WP:ANEW before and wasn't sure if this rises to that level, yet. 24.238.92.20 (talk · contribs) keeps adding info into a couple of articles (Peter Hedges and Ahmet Zappa) about some non-notable book/authors which seems to try to imply that those article subjects weren't original in their idea and possibly infringed copyright. The paragraph is uncited and appears to be WP:OR at best. Their edits were reverted with explanation. They do not use edit summaries ever and simply re-reverted the info back in. I took the info back out citing the reasons and referencing WP:BRD. I started a discussion on the articles' talk pages and left a note to the IP. Even after that, they chose to simply re-revert back in the info. Is this type of thing enough for WP:ANEW or if anyone else could help in this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to simply revert his/her edit again and possibly be accused of edit warring myself. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took off the help me tag for now. Another user reverted the IP user's edits. Will wait to see if anything becomes of this. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing came of it is the answer. IP editor 24.238.92.20 just went ahead and reinserted the material, without any response on the talk page. Maybe you'd better put that help sign back up. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24.238.92.20 has been blocked for 48 hours and warned not to add the material back in without a reliable source confirming that the idea was stolen. --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had taken off the help me earlier because I wasn't sure if I was going to be online the next few days, but was able to for a little while today. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for North Carolina lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30-in-1 record

Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame#DYK hooks with 5 or more articles ----Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, amazing. Just went away for the weekend and then my inbox gets filled with messages. :) Glad I could help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-assess?

I'd be much obliged if you could (re-)run your ruler over articles I have an active hand in. Principally Bantayan Island which I have spent a lot of time on. And some others within its ambit, such as Bantayan, Cebu.

Thanks

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 22:09, wikitime= 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

You wouldn't know how I could speed-up the process of article creation for my new article at AFC: Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) would you? Thanks! Also -- I don't know how to link to an AFC request, so sorry if what I did there was too cumbersome. Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard this. I figured out how to add it without going through AFC -- it's been a while since I've written an article! Take a look over at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). Do you think leaving up the blank AFC request will hurt?Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see. Good job on the article. It is well written. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm trying right now to get a DYK out of it.Cdtew (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
You are amazing and the glue that holds Project North Carolina together. The momentum you are creating is inspiring. Thank you so much for all you do there. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah now, Dennis, you make a girl blush. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve more than a barnstart, that is for sure. I have so many projects but I am hoping to focus more on NC articles soon. What is so helpful is the organization you are adding to the project. That is often the weakest link. Good organization helps us remember what we need to work on, and what we are working toward. And it isn't easy. This is why I appreciate the efforts so much, and I know that many benefit from your efforts, including those that don't know it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian football

Hello Joanna. Thanks for doing some fixing on George Pape – (your diff). When I created the article I doubted anyone would even look at it, much less be interested in improving it!

We haven’t met before so I browsed through your list of interests. I was surprised to see you are a fan of the West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football team in Perth, Western Australia, my home town. At first I was delighted by the possibility that enthusiasm for the Australian football code might have reached North Carolina, but then I realised it might just be a Wikierror. I did a little exploring and found the sporting teams associated with Winthrop University in Rock Hill SC are called the Eagles. No! Please tell me you are fan of Australian football! Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikierror. I am a WCE fan! :) There's lots of college teams around that are called the Eagles, yes, but being on the East Coast here in the US, most of the time that I say that I'm an Eagles football fan, they think I mean the Philadelphia Eagles. I have enjoyed watching the best Eagles for several years now. Have had to only catch them play online since can't find it on TV around here often. Sometimes Fox Soccer Channel covers it. I just usually forgo trying to find it on TV and watch online. I have been focused more on North Carolina articles lately, but did do more with WCE articles before. Will have to look into more of those again. Don't really know why I picked them to root for. I had been a fan of Aussie Rules for years and around 2000/2001 started cheering for them. Maybe it's the colors, the song, Rick the Rock...who knows? Anyway, great to meet you, Dolphin. Any other wikiediting help you need, just let me know. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That's the best news I've had all week. Many years ago I went to Mojave CA for a training course. When the class learned that I was from Australia one of them said "Tell us about the Flying Doormat!" They were talking about Bruce Doull who had very little hair on top but what was left around the perimeter was long enough to reach his shoulders. At top speed his hair flowed behind him like Superman's cape. I didn't know much about Doull but it immediately established something to talk about. When I enquired how people in California might have heard about the Flying Doormat the answer was that Aussie Rules featured on some pay TV channels late at night in the US. So I'm not surprised you have heard of Perth and the West Coast Eagles, just delighted. Dolphin (t) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Funny how you can claim I'm inserting POV when the whole intro of the article was based on POV that isn't accurate, and was extremely bothersome. Why should one study outweigh findings of others? I'm keeping out annoying, offensive, generalizations whether you like it or not. You can keep your hasty generalizations, but don't bring it to the articles to be read as fact. Thank you. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike, you should take your concerns to the article talk page, that is what they are there for. This way others can offer their perspectives as well. I think you will find if you take a slightly less aggressive attitude, Joanna and others will be more than willing to consider your perspective. I know it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, lord knows I've had 100s of mine reverted, but the key to finding a solution is through calm dialog. The same as you would in the real world. Sometimes, you just haven't explained your edits so that others understand, other times you learn why you were mistaken. And yet other times you will just disagree, but that is what consensus building is about. There is an essay worth reading WP:BRD, which covers the best ways to handle situations like this. You both care about the content, the best solution is dialog to first find common ground, then work towards a resolution through peaceful discussion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out WP:BRD, Dennis. I might avoid the pages for a while, though. I should have known better than to venture into the sexuality-based articles. I usually avoid them. From what I read of them, they have some editors who are good at trying to keep things more appropriate, cited correctly, etc., but so much of them are focused on luridness and are battlegrounds for POV editing. Often sections and whole articles sound like they are written by middle/high school boys (especially those relating to female sexuality). As a female Wikipedian, I know I should probably care about those articles more and make a fuss, but, to me, there are so many more interesting things to work on, really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone who is very familiar with LGBT content, Jenova20. he is also a member of WP:WER, very fair and likable, and a great editor overall. he is a good contact if you need a second opinion or simply want to point out a problem. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should stay away from points addressing male sexuality then? Because all I did was correct blatantly false information on males and you seemed to have a problem with that! As I said, for a general rule, one finding by a shady study does not make their claim fact, and does not discredit all prior ones done. Honestly I would have deleted the whole point that I edited if it was up to me, because it's selective, not needed, etc, but I only modified in order to make whoever made that bizarre contribution happy. Hey, if I was messing around and putting false and offensive information into articles revolving around how females act, desire, etc, you might feel differently.

MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unnecessary WP:POINTiness. Saying some of the points are blatantly false is your opinion. Please just stick to discussing the articles on their talk pages. You characterizing that as a shady study might be disingenuous, I'm not certain. I'll let others weigh in on the real scientific nature of whatever evidence you actually provide to the articles. Please make sure to back up your edits with citations. While you might be right about the gender of Jenova20, it is really improper to edit someone else's talk page comments. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you mean by pointiness. And no, it's not my opinion, it's fact. You're confusing opinion with reality. If you can prove me otherwise then you're welcome to, but you can't because there is no evidence that says most X are of trait Y, so you certainly can't declare all X are of trait Y as fact. For the last time, one statistical outlier does not mean the outlier is correct and all the others are wrong. And I have no need to insert citations, because I wasn't adding anything new. I was simply correcting what was stated (OPINION), which wasn't true. Also you have no credibility. And I simply changed she to he so calm down.

MikeFromCanmore (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike, I've left a warning on your talk page. Between POV editing, edit warring and this harassment, you are quickly working towards a block. I suggest you disengage and learn how to contribute in a neutral fashion, or find another hobby. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's POV editing to remove POV edits and opinions from articles? I genuinely want to know. Honestly it's pretty amusing how I'm getting attacked for removing false information from articles; that just shows what a joke an encyclopedia is when everyone can edit and insert their own opinions to be read as fact. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by WP:Verifiability instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what reliable sources are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Wikipedia based on your personal opinions![2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Wikipedia. You seriously need to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about reliably sourced material, and other policies and guidelines. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the Lesbian sexual practices article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the Pepper Schwartz study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. Hate that your page turned into a battlezone, Joanna. Hopefully this won't discourage you from participating in the articles of your choice. We have to give people the opportunity to conform before blocking them, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Some just fritter it away. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leith Links multiple referencing page display

Many thanks for your useful comment. I think I prefer the template that produces the page number in brackets. I'll hold off a bit until I see if I can get used to the other style, which I don't particularly like (since to me it looks like two footnote numerals are being given). I appreciate your help. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]