User talk:MarionTheLibrarian

Welcome!

Hello, MarionTheLibrarian, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrea James

Hi Marion, and thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia. I see that you reverted all of my edits to the Andrea James article and I would like to avoid an edit war, so I would like to talk to you some.

I re-reverted some of your edits but I left the word "controversial" in the lead section of the article. I do not think the lead section needs to state any more explicitly that some of her activism has been controversial, as most activism is at least a little controversial. I moved some of your statements from the lead section to the "Transsexual Activism" section. The fact that "some" (Alice Dreger according to the source you cited) think Andrea James is more like Al Sharpton than Martin Luther King Jr. does not seem particularly encyclopedic to me, but if you feel this should be included, it belongs in the "Transsexual activism" section, not in the lead section. In general, you should try to avoid weasel words in Wikipedia articles. And your addition to the lead section about Andrea James' later removed personal attacks on Bailey's children was redundant as there was already a mention of that in the "Transsexual activism" section.

To say it again in a nutshell, while some of Andrea James' work is undoubtedly controversial, the lead section need not explicitly say so as it did after you edited it. I am trying to compromise with you and I hope you will do the same.

Andrea Parton (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for the Lynn Conway article, in which you put mostly the same, including forgetting to change the name James to Conway at first, except that I took out "controversial" as clearly an unneeded interpretation in the lead sentence. Dreger has become a principal in these debates, through her blog and her very one-side analysis, and is therefore not a suitable sendonary source per WP:BLP. And Marion, as you are new to wikipedia and have obviously a single purpose with strong POV in your edits, it would be wise to learn sooner, rather than later, how collaborative encyclopedia writing works. You'll just create a lot of grief for yourself and others if you keep up the way you've started. Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you recently edited pedophilia...

Did you notice that there's a RfC at Talk:Pedophilia#What_is_neutrality.3F? I and others would be grateful for outside input. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of paraphilias has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Nn123645 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have added a specific comment to indicate why each change was warranted. I provide them as individual edits so that other editors could comment on specific issues, since each entry has its own eccentricity.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Marion,

You're being too aggressive with reverts at the Pedophilia article. You added a lot of OR to the article, and now you need to discuss on talk instead of revert-warring with Squeakbox to keep your changes in. Thanks, -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my newness, but what's "OR"?

Secondly, I am not sure what I might have done that is improper. I proposed the new text, nearly verbatim, on the talk page, and it was endorsed by everyone who cared to say anything. So, after waiting for everyone to have their say (about two days), I put in the new text, precisely as advertized. Then it got reverted without any discussion at all. It would seem (to me) that going back to the agreed-upon text and asking that we all talk about it first is exactly the proper thing (on my part) to have done. What netiquette have I not followed?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

original research--the paragraph you wrote on cognitive distortions is almost entirely OR, and didn't get consensus. You were a little hasty to add it. And if someone reverts you on a big chunk of drastic changes that have less than 2 days discussion, go to the talkpage, don't immediately start revert warring, ok? -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the old dog here. I may have more of the references at my disposal, but I'm still just a newbie.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edits at Pedophilia

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an excessive warning. The editor's behaviour does not come into conflict with the 3RR (as yours has in the past), and does not exceed your own tendency to revert.

I therefore urge calm in the relationship between you two, and complaint only when it is justified. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, Marion's last revert restored only the material supported by a consensus on the discussion page, not the original research that Petra objected to. She wasn't edit warring. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, the three revert rule does not apply to reverting of any one statement on an article, it applies to multiple reverts on any one article in one day. Also, there was no consensus on the talk page at the time that the reverts were done. There was an ongoing content dispute that had not been resolved. As you know, edit-warring is not an effective method of resolving content disputes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I thought I was losing my mind. Tough crowd.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MarionTheLibrarian, the warning I posted on your page was not intended to convey anything other than information. It's a bit funny that User:Jovin Lambton urged calm. I don't need to tell you why it's funny, you'll see that for yourself as you get to know more about that user.

I posted the warning because you had already reverted three times on that page today. Since you have written several times that you are a new editor, I thought you might not be aware of the three revert rule. If no-one warned you, you might exceed 3RR without realizing it. It's a good idea to read the whole rule so you understand the way it works.

It's also a good idea to read the other main Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here's a starting page that lists the important ones:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars

Now that I've reviewed your talk page further, I see that you had previously received a similar warning, so the one I posted was probably not necessary. You are aware of the rule and of the idea of edit-warring, so nothing further need be written about that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on,folk. Marion is a brand new user with 8 days here and a 3RR template is entirely appropriate for a newbie. You are treating her like she is an experienced user. The rest of us are experienced enough to know 3RR and such a template would thus be inappropriate but Marion has just started and for an 8 day old user a template warmning is entirely standard, hence I find Jovin and AS's comments reflecting their own lack of real wikipedia experience, because otherwise I would have to assume bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am having trouble counting to three. I commited an undo at 21:23, and what might be considered a partial undo at 22:06 to reinstate the agreed-upon text. What were my other 1-1/2 undo's?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Marion, the idea is to give you the 3RR warning before you go over 3rr, not afterwards. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Rough crowd. Personally, I would warn someone at three not to do any more, but as you've pointed out, I'm new to wiki culture. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What an odd comment. Three is not a right, and the sooner you knew about 3rr the better. But you are right, due to a plethora (50 or so) poisonous sockpuppets the atmosphere is seriously poisoned re pedophilia at wikipedia. But there are many other calmer places on the encyclopedia where you might be advised to gain some editing experience before coming back to the rough world of the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not discouraged from editing Pedophilia. We really need more editors who are familiar with the literature. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I may be a bookworm, but I have quite a thick skin, and I'm not planning on going anywhere.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Freund images

Thanks for uploading Image:Freund, Dr Kurt, 1914-1996 ~CIP 66.jpg and Image:Compressed freund cropped.jpg. You didn't specify the source of these photographs, though, which means User:OrphanBot will soon remove them from the article. Could you edit the source into the fair use justifications just added? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll add the source.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

alternate accounts

Thank you for accepting my suggestion at the checkuser report talk page and posting disclosure of your alternate accounts on your user pages of this account and your former account, User:WriteMakesRight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. All I ever needed was instructions on how.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Conway

Marion, your edits have gone beyond just very POV. You're even distorting the contents of sources like NYT now. Please consider how wikipedia works. In the long run, your efforts to push a point of view will come to nothing. There's no sense make a lot of work for everyone in the process. Slow down, do some more neutral editing, learn the process, and contribute, instead of disrupting by pushing a narrow point of view in an area that you are obviously much too close to. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lynn Conway. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dreadstar † 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and all the related Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies and guidelines. I've protected Lynn Conway and Andrea James to stop the edit warring. Please work it out and find consensus with the other editors on the article's talk pages. Dreadstar † 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping you can provide some input to prevent a repeated edit war. Last week, you (correctly) protected the Lynn Conway page, which was devolving into an edit war between me and user:Dicklyon. He and I discussed the issue on the talk page and came to an agreement on how best to resolve the situation. The protection expired, and I edited the page in the manner to which Dicklyon and I agreed. However, he has now backed out of that agreement/consensus and is reverting everything that any other editor changes on that page. Any guidance or intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Help me, Dreadstar-Kenobi. You're my only hope.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to pursue the steps in the dispute resolution process, such as getting a third opinion, starting a request for comment or through formal mediation. Dreadstar † 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A useful step would also be to respond to my question when I asked what agreement you are referring to. Anyway, on the talk page I mentioned that I'm up for mediation; if you are, too, say so, and we can set it up (formal or informal). It's a step that can only be undertaken when the interested parties all agree. Read about it and get back to us. BarbaraSue, you, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am entirely amendable to mediation. BarbaraSue will have to speak for herself. The conversation leading to what I believed to be an agreement was:

• At 20:30, 25 May 2008, I wrote "I suggest that, instead of referencing only the Dreger article itself (which is what I had been doing), we reference the entire issue of the Archives >including< all the commentaries." I also suggested this text:

A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian an intersex activist, in which she concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

• At 20:40, 25 May 2008, Dicklyon wrote "I agree with you that Conway's involvement in this controversy be mentioned and all sides made accessible. The easiest way to do this is with a brief summary and link to the full article.", which is just what my suggested text did.

• In order to double-check that we were indeed agreed, at 21:37, 25 May 2008, I wrote "I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?"

• At 23:29, 25 May 2008, Dicklyon responded by reiterating why he believed I was biased, but did not address my text. Because silence counts as assent and because Dicklyon did not provide any other suggestions, I left it at that.

When the protection expired, I put that text into the Conway page (including a summary and a link to the entire article) and put a note on Dicklyon's talk page indicating I had done so However, Dicklyon removed the text we discussed and replaced it with his own text that he had not previously shared, that we did not discuss, and did not provide the link to the full article.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is regrettable that I was not more explicit in my disagreement in this edit, or that you interpreted your edit that you represented as consensus as doing something like I suggested. But thanks for pointing out what you were referring to. I was not silent in reaction; rather, I fixed it with a main link like I had proposed and asked you what you were referring to. The "brief summary" that you included ("A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian and intersex activist, in which Dreger concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey; that history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.") is completely one-sided, and consistent all of your other POV-pushing edits, especially since you know that Dreger has gone public one side of the debate, and the editor of the archives, Zucker is also a proponent of that side. You are being quite disingenuous here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Experts have every right to hold and express opinions on the subjects in which they have expertise. Both Dreger and Zucker have long histories of publishing in high quality professional outlets in the relevant areas. Whether you think that any given expert has a bias for a particular view is irrelevant. When opinions and debates reach the level of being printed in high quality outlets, such as the Archives and the NYTimes, they meet all the requirements for inclusion in WP. Whether you think that a peer reviewed journal should be disqualified is irrelevant.

Whether I misinterpreted your words/silence or whether you entered the discussion in bad faith is a judgment that only external readers can make.

I am ready to begin the mediation process when you are.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Dicklyon insists that the editor of the preeminent sexology journal (Zucker) and the eminent historian (Dreger) were biased, prior to findings. There is no evidence of this, and if Dreger concluded (and Zucker published) results unfavorable to Conway, the most parsimonious explanation is that she did so because said results are correct. Conway's role in this controversy is very important to her career, and it generated both the New York Times article and entire issue of the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. MarionTheLibrarian has tried to refer both to Dreger's target article and to the critiques of that article. That seems fair.BarbaraSue (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)