User talk:Meitar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed deletion of Audacia Ray[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Audacia Ray, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No indication of how this author is notable

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 {{dated prod}} 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. RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion contesting this deletion to Talk:Audacia_Ray. Thanks! --maymay (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Various[edit]

Hi, I see you added a citation tag to a claim on Pegging (sexual practice). Thanks for responding to a dubious claim, but a quick Google reveals nothing at all about anyone with that name linked to sex ed or the subject of the article. It was probably a poor classmate of the anonymous editor being horribly teased. I think it is much better in such circumstances to completely remove material (which I've done) than to merely question it. But thank you for spotting it: we all need to work to keep this stuff out of the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the next step and removing the claim. And even more thanks for coming back and offering me your insights. :) And, finally, thank you so much for the contributions to sexuality articles you've made in the past. It's good to make first contact with someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality, finally. --Meitar (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for your contributions over the years. I'm afraid the project isn't the most sociable of places: we get demoralized (mostly because if the sheer amount of vandalism). --Simon Speed (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Men and Feminism[edit]

The basic problem with Wikipedia is that, regardless of the aggregae nunmber of edits or number of registered editors, we simply have too small a number of active editors who are capable of doing serious research. This means many articles have only one or two people paying careful - thoughtful - attention. In fact, for any articl to thrive it needs to have a relative large (>5) number of well-informed editors or editors who know how to do library research. I am guessing this is not the case with Men and Feminism.

There are only two ways to deal with someone who is soapboxing: the first way, which is possible only under ideal circumstances, is to insi8st that the article follow consensus so any one person trying to force through major changes must convince many well-inormed editors.

The other way, which you can do (which I have tried to do, ditto Cailil) is simply to insist that the other editor just follow WP policy: NPOV demands that we represent all significant views from verifiable and reliable sources proportionately. This other editor is perfectly free to make changes to the article - as long as they result in the article having better accounts of more significant viws from reliable sources. And no editor can delete content that is properly sourced. At most an editor can ask for a citation or for more contextual information about that view (which would add valuable content), but no one should remove sourced content. Just stick to these two basic principls, and have patience.

If the other editor persists in any pattern escribed in WP:DE, or violates 3RR, kep a careful record of it including dates, links to edit diffs, and basic details. WP should thrive on conflict, as long as all editors follow NPOV, V, and NOR and work together to add better content, better accounts of more significant views. This still may well be possible with the editor to whom you refer, and th outcome would be a better article. But if this does not happen, you will want to have a record of specific problems over a considerable period of time (a couple of weeks, at least) and then you can go make your case at AN/I. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution in RI[edit]

I know you did some work on Prostitution in Rhode Island in the past. There is a copyrite tag and half of the article has been removed. I was wondering if you would be interested in working on this article again?You Can't Clap With One Hand (Talk) 19:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giselle (talkcontribs)

February 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adolescent sexuality in the United States.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. In addition, reverting the same content multiple times over a period of days is generally grounds for a block..
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NW (Talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the notice, if you look at the history of the article in question you'll actually see attempts at a WP:BRD process, and no violations of WP:3RR; I made some intermediate edits rather than mere reverts. Thanks for taking notice of the situation, though. :) --Meitar (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that you were trying to discuss on the talk page, which I appreciated (and why I didn't block). Still though, if it gets to the point that you are all still reverting over the same content after two or three days, that's a good sign that it is time to ask for administrator attention if you haven't already. NW (Talk) 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was my hope that since more editors were speaking up in the Talk page, we could avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. Also, as I've mercifully never had to ask for such intervention before, I'm not very familiar with this particular bureaucratic process itself, which you may have interpreted as an unwillingness to start it rather than the more accurate case of hesitation regarding how. Again, though, as this article is clearly going to be contentious, I appreciate your watchful eyes. --Meitar (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake then. For future reference, the catch-all noticeboard is WP:ANI. The popular WikiProjects (ones with activity on their talk pages) such at WP:MED are also always good choices if they are relevant. NW (Talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

re STI/STD[edit]

If STI is the preferred term, how come our article is named "Sexually Transmitted Disease"? I have heard STD zillions of times and have never heard STI, and granted that's just my personal experience, assuming it is typical isn't it a service to our readers to use the more common term? Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to my edit on Adolescent sexuality in the United States? I realize you've heard STD more than STI, and this is an issue the public health sector is trying to address. STI is the preferred term because "disease" (the D in STD) denotes symptoms, but sexually transmitted health problems are asymptomatic in nature. While many still refer to STD, common usage often finds the terms in unison ("STD/STI"), and some groups, notably the World Health Organization, uses STI exclusively. --Meitar (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Twitter[edit]

I just got pointed to your Twitter post. Thanks for pointing out the FB friendship, that was an oversight which has now been corrected. He was only my FB friend for the purposes of keeping up to date on the site. In point of fact, I don't know him personally, and I left FetLife some time ago in large part due to some questionable decisions on his part. As I said on the FetLife talk page, any assumptions on your part that I favour FetLife in some way are...unwarranted. I do, however, favour Wikipedia, and its policy of neutral editing. RobinHood70 talk 22:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's really encouraging to hear, and I appreciate your taking the time to inform me of this. I also favor Wikipedia and it's policy of neutral editing, but I'm sure you can understand why I had trouble assuming good faith on your part given, as you put it my "history" with such things. I am looking forward to continuing to improve Wikipedia's articles with you. :) --Meitar (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources[edit]

I've had a response on the issue of reliable sources that I mentioned on FetLife's talk page. He requested that I specify which ones I had questions about, so I went through the entire list of references for anything that didn't come from a mainstream journal, pretty much. I know you added at least some of them, so I thought I'd point you to the discussion, in case you wanted to contribute. RobinHood70 talk 06:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You really think Salon (website) is a questionable source? You must be joking. Right? --Meitar (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)