User talk:WLU

Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page.

If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do.

Editing biographies during content disputes

Hi there-- I have some concerns that you began negatively editing the biography about me here during a content dispute at the paraphilia article.[1] The negative content you added has also been added by an editor with whom you often collaborate and agree [2][3][4], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. The same editor removed my academic credentials using a different account [5] and removed my primary occupation, among other negative changes,[6] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [7]). In the interest of transparency, can you elaborate on that edit, its timing, and how that material came to your attention? My bio has been edited in a manner I consider punitive by other editors who have disagreed with me here or elsewhere. Many have been blocked. In the interest of NPOV, I have published a couple of responses I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe merit inclusion if we are to have such a one-sided attack included:

• James, Andrea (2008) Fair comment, foul play. National Women's Studies Association conference. (the author of the paper you added unsuccessfully appealed to the NWSA president to suppress this entire panel.)
• James, Andrea (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine, 3:56 ISSN 15508579

Also in the interest of transparency, would you be willing to discuss your personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues? While you are under no obligation to do so, I find that most people who share your point of view have connections to the topic, and that some have a significant conflict of interest, like the WP:SPA editor with whom you have been working. I agree with your statements about transparency in general and back-channel communication in particular, especially if there is a professional connection to a topic. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a very brief, neutral summary of an extremely lengthy article discussing a significant controversy of which Andrea James was a part. My actual text included no analysis, only noting that an article existed and addressed her role in the publication and criticism of the TMWWBQ. It was not done at the behest or request of James Cantor; I believe I added Drege's article to several wikipedia pages on the same day because it was unarguably reliable, unarguably relevant, and had the added advantage of being free and full-access. I don't consider it "negative editing" to point out a significant, reliable source that discusses a topic. I was unaware of James Cantor's earlier addition of the information, I merely saw a gap that seemed to require filling. I don't consider this single sentence fragment to be undue weight. Though I do not have time to read James' responses to the Drege article, I will attempt to do so in the near future; based on how I normally handle issues like this, I will probably include a similarly brief and neutral statement indicating Andrea James has replied on her website without significantly summarizing any content.

I am deliberately separating the article's subject (Andrea James) from you as an editor (Jokestress (talk · contribs)) as editors are not reliable sources.

I have no personal or professional connection to sex or sexuality issues, it is one of many topics that I edit because I see sources lacking, citation templates and citation information missing and I am interested in the topic.

If you have any issue with the brief, neutral summary included on the Andrea James page, I suggest bringing it up at either WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe the timing of your edit is merely coincidental, but I'm hoping we can resolve this without involving others. Your response to the appropriateness of the diffs I provided above will be a good indicator of your intent re NPOV. I'll wait a bit to see what additional edit(s) you make before next steps. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't feel the need to defend my edit according to NPOV. Neutrality is not determined by who made the edit, it is determined by it's content. I see no issue with the content, and no reason to link this to any other editor's motivation. If it is necessary to discuss my motivation - there's not much to say. Blanchard, his typology theory and TMWWBQ are all linked by their common relationship to Drege. I made a series of edits to the pages because it's a wiki and there are a lot of interesting links. As an editor, if I click on a link, see incomplete citations and see gaps where I know there are citations that could be used to verify information - I fill those gaps.

I can't prove to you that I'm not motivated by transphobia or an inappropriate relationship with James Cantor. I can only address the specifics of each edit I've made, and those I am happy to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you have demonstrated any "transphobia," and I don't believe off-wiki communication is indication of an "inappropriate relationship." The timing of your edit raises a question of neutrality, though, and I agree there is a lot of interesting information not given due weight on Wikipedia. I've supplied some above. As I said, I'll wait to see in this instance what actions you take now that you have been made aware of the concerns I have about the timing and how your edit appears to me. Your response will determine my response; until then I am assuming good faith while expressing my concern. Jokestress (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on taking any further action beyond possibly pointing to the two documents linked above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel you've had enough time to respond, so I've posted at the NPOV noticeboard.[8] Jokestress (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Yes, I know one get both blocked or banned for TE, but unless you have some really good proof of someone being guilty of it, making these kind of accusations is just not helpful. I'm sorry they give you such a hard time on the acupuncture page. You're doing a very good job, there. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Aquatic ape hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elaine Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why title change in acupuncture talk page?

You've turned it from a descriptive title into an almost meaningless title. --Mindjuicer (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It should be restored. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It gives essentially the same content (link to the article) but there's now a lot more room in the edit summary bar to write things. But change it back, I don't really care. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Username

Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish. I have concerns that your username suggests you are an official representative of that institution, and as such, it may violate our username policy. Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted. Can you expand on how you are personally or professionally connected with this school, and if you are connected, will you consider changing your username? I prefer to conduct these discussions on-wiki, but I am happy to take this off-wiki in the interest of your privacy. Jokestress (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My user name is actually my initials, I have never represented myself as having any relationship to that institution, and I don't know if I've ever even edited the Wilfrid Laurier page. Also, be aware that this sort of comment really looks like a combination of outing and a mild, barely even a hint of a threat, that you might try to figure out my real-life identity and do something about it. I'm willing to assume good faith that this is not the intent of the post, but frankly when you completely fail to provide any diffs suggesting any sort of actually problematic edits (particularly when I've never, ever intimated on any level that I in any way represent the actual institution), it's a little hard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As I said, I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki. Also as I said, I didn't include them because they do include identifying information. However, since you say your connection to WLU is merely a coincidence, I will take you at your word and consider this resolved. Jokestress (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may interest you

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Giving MEDRS teeth, similar to BLP. Also, the discussion Sandy links to at the end of her opening comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI on Kuliukas

I've filed an ANI report on Kuliukas. Please feel free to expand or clarify if you wish. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Signed and awaiting your comment. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently drafting, you're slowing me down :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Story

What's the deal with you and User:Bittergrey? Is s/he actually involved in the BLP dispute or just wikistalking you? Something that needs to be dealt with at AN/I? It seems personal and obsessive. I also checked his tp archives and found a lot of strange responses to what seem to be innocuous posts from you (e.g. about being the "better wikipedian"). N^oformation ^Talk 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey is a he as far as I know.

The history of it all starts here, but the real guts of it are found at talk:paraphilic infantilism and it's archives (starting at archive 3). Other flashpoints are here (note that the paraphilic infantilism discussion started before outsaurus.com), here and if you really, really want a headache, you can read this, this, this and this, all ongoing simultaneously, and the latter three on the same page.

So there's a bit of wikistalking (on both sides) but Bittergrey has a habit of continuously bringing up my motivation, any past action he considers in any way questionable (to an absurd degree) and completely failing to ever recognize past consensus or editor improvements (for instance, note the dates of some of the edits brought up here, and my comment here. I keep getting annoyed and starting lists of all the accusations, but I hate (and often find unproductive) RFC/U, WQA, AN, ANI and related editor-assessing venues. I basically haven't been cheesed off enough to climb the mountain that is trying to resolve stuff like this. Doesn't help that I can't stop beating dead horses. As you can see if you read the RSN/FTN discussion, there's a lot, a LOT, of repetition - on BG's part because...I don't know why, and on my part because he keeps repeating the same essentially incorrect information. If someone points out that I'm wrong, I feel the need to both admit it (i.e. [9]) and let it drop. Despite repeating the same point many, many times (such as "the DSM does not discuss paraphilic infantilism, there is a pretty clear consensus on the topic" see here and here) he keeps citing it as if it did (i.e. [10]).

Yes, quite personal and obsessive. I can't say it's only one-way either, but I don't think the lion's share of the fault lies with me. A thumbnail's sketch can be found on my user page (search for "shiny dollar"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think an interaction ban would be beneficial? I appreciate that you can admit fault in the matter but from what I've read (so far) I haven't seen you do anything egregiously rude or bad; at least on his talk page you've been as civil as can be expected. An RFC/U might also be an option. Honestly I probably have a shorter fuse than most editors when it comes to snarky and condescending responses, but at the end of the day I guess we have to remember that we're all just talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe :). N^oformation ^Talk 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Chimps and humans are apes, not monkeys :P My favourite comeback to creationists.

Personally? I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned. Beneath the dispute between he and I is an unwillingness to compromise on articles, intolerance of dissenting POV, POV-pushing and willfull misrepresentation of sources. Another layer to that is the endless incivility that gets turned on anyone who disagrees with him. And I do mean "anyone" - look at his treatment of James Cantor (which has perpetuated for years) and WhatamIdoing, both of whom do not deserve it. Witness his treatment of FiachraByrne on talk:paraphilic infantilism. An interaction ban would help me, but wikipedia still has to deal with pointless drama. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)