| Revision as of 21:47, 17 July 2005 editCausa sui (talk | contribs)Administrators24,854 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:51, 17 July 2005 edit undoCausa sui (talk | contribs)Administrators24,854 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| :''I found a "mess" when I arrived. I am letting about 50 things stand in the intro while I go through point by point. I find many of these belabored objections above and below (like this 1995 quibble- check the original APA release date) to be "irrelevant," in the way other POV objections are deemed "irrelevant" by the editors who got this article to its present state. I am going to come here every day for the next eleven months until this thing is NPOV. ] 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)'' | :''I found a "mess" when I arrived. I am letting about 50 things stand in the intro while I go through point by point. I find many of these belabored objections above and below (like this 1995 quibble- check the original APA release date) to be "irrelevant," in the way other POV objections are deemed "irrelevant" by the editors who got this article to its present state. I am going to come here every day for the next eleven months until this thing is NPOV. ] 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)'' | ||
| This comment comes across very badly, and in these tense circumstances could be read as ''"I'm going to edit this article the way '''I''' want it to be, and to hell with what anyone else thinks."'' When you come into an article this highly developed and start telling people who have a lot of background in the field, and who have worked very hard on an article for a long time -- even if you disagree with the work they have done -- that they're wrong and practicing bad science, you're stepping on a lot of toes, and people are liable to take it personally. | |||
| I think you have some interesting points and could potentially make a good contribution to this article in a non-disruptive way, with a slight change of tack. Please pay particular attention to ] and try more to work toward consensus before making major edits. Remember to ] always. Cheers --] ] 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | I think you have some interesting points and could potentially make a good contribution to this article in a non-disruptive way, with a slight change of tack. Please pay particular attention to ] and try more to work toward consensus before making major edits. Remember to ] always. Cheers --] ] 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:51, 17 July 2005
Talk archive
User talk:Jokestress/archive01
De-stub Daubert Standard
I hesitate to do it on my own because the great amount of good work you've done on the Daubert Standard article entitles you to great deference. The article is meaty enough, it seems to me, that it no longer qualifies as a stub. It's an excellent contribution to Wiki and stands on its own as a worthy example of a well-written, full fledged article on a very specialized topic/legal test. I'm confident no one can, with a straight face, argue it deserves stub status. Please consider excising the stub markup. Flawiki 05:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
De-stubbed as requested! Thanks for the kind words, though I'd like to point out that the article as it stands includes contributions from Wikipedians Toytoy and Postdlf, who worked separately on Daubert Motion before it was merged with Daubert Standard. Jokestress 05:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wired article
Thanks! Too bad Daniel couldn't figure out that I'm a guy.... - UtherSRG 16:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Good work
I just wanted to commend you for the good work I've seen you doing since you got here just a short time ago. It is not going unnoticed. Keep it up! →Raul654 07:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the birthday wishes. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Mark Felt
Salve, Jokestress!
I went and nominated W. Mark Felt as a FAC. I'd appreciate your vote at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 14:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I was reading your handle all this time as two words "Joke Stress". I didn't think of it as being a feminine of "Jokester" until I saw your picture. Glad to know you.
Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup
- Eric 16:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's official!
The first-ever L.A. Wiki Meetup will be occuring on July 25th, 2005.
Are you coming? Would you like to help host?
More details on the Meetup page. Be sure to check back regularly for updates!
- Eric 30 June 2005 10:40 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback!
You make a good point. I didn't think of that yet. I have now made two new external links to the moviepages on About Gay Movies. Scimilar to the links to the Internet Movie Database. Is that what you had in mind? AboutGayMovies 7 July 2005 23:45 (CET)
- Yep! See your talk page for more info. Jokestress 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)
Helen Gandy
Jokestress,
Since you worked on the Mark Felt article, I wonder if I could get your support on my latest FAC, Helen Gandy. PedanticallySpeaking 21:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Race and intelligence
Hello. I just wanted to comment about something you just posted on Talk:Race and intelligence. I'm really happy that you're such a bold editor and are so interested in improving Misplaced Pages, but you're stirring up a bit of a hornet's nest here, and I'd like to see if we can get things calmed down. You wrote:
- I found a "mess" when I arrived. I am letting about 50 things stand in the intro while I go through point by point. I find many of these belabored objections above and below (like this 1995 quibble- check the original APA release date) to be "irrelevant," in the way other POV objections are deemed "irrelevant" by the editors who got this article to its present state. I am going to come here every day for the next eleven months until this thing is NPOV. Jokestress 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This comment comes across very badly, and in these tense circumstances could be read as "I'm going to edit this article the way I want it to be, and to hell with what anyone else thinks." When you come into an article this highly developed and start telling people who have a lot of background in the field, and who have worked very hard on an article for a long time -- even if you disagree with the work they have done -- that they're wrong and practicing bad science, you're stepping on a lot of toes, and people are liable to take it personally.
I think you have some interesting points and could potentially make a good contribution to this article in a non-disruptive way, with a slight change of tack. Please pay particular attention to Misplaced Pages:Civility and try more to work toward consensus before making major edits. Remember to assume good faith always. Cheers --malathion 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)