Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbachmann (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 3 August 2005 (→phylogeny). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archive

User talk:Jokestress/archive01

You may email me directly via my Andrea James site.

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)

Hi, and welcome to the R&I page. I think I am basically echoing malathion's sentiment here, but let me say it anyway: You are obviously a well-spoken and -reasoned individual, and the attention you lavish on the R&I article is welcome. It is improving all the time, and I am confident that your contributions will benefit further. I have been on a much-needed holiday away from cyberspace for the last two weeks or so, and am only slowly getting through all the edits to the page; some of yours I liked very much. Please keep up your good work.

This being said, I was also quite put off by some of your contributions. For example, I cannot understand how you can view your comments on the WSJ article as anything but heavily skewed:

Though intended to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence," about half of the intelligence researchers asked to sign the statement prior to its publication as an op-ed piece refused to sign, citing numerous differences of opinion.

The tenor in Gottfredson's article (I mean the one with the background and history of the WSJ statement) is clearly the exact opposite of what your description implies, so you are misrepresenting or supressing data (namely, the number of non-signees and the condition under which the statement was signed) to make it match your own POV. That's terribly bad style, in any context, including WP editing. For illustration, here is the Bizarro version of your comment:

Several intelligence researchers asked to sign the statement refused to do so, out of fear of being physically attacked.

Like your comment, this is a true statement that can be infered from Gottfredson's article. But it would be a scandalously skewed representation of the truth, used to push a particular POV. I have learned to trust many of the other editors at R&I to not do such things, and would prefer to be able to put you on my own list of "trusted editors" as well. Best, Arbor 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

(Added after looking at your user page): I understand that you are a fellow skeptic. Great. One of the pending tasks I have for the R&I-related pages is to give an overview of the "Skeptic viewpoint" on R&I research. This would cover the chapter in Shermer, the skepdic-entry, the special issue of Skeptic (from somewhen in the 90s, I don't have it anymore, alas!), and the Miele–Jensen book. (I belong to the Swedish "chapter", so I have been busy collecting viewpoints in the "local" publications.) I can see that we are finally getting the Race and intelligence controversy page I have been lobbying for for weeks, so that would be a good outlet for such an overwiew. Can you point me to any publications that would fall under the "Skeptic" umbrella that I have missed? Arbor 20:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Another Misplaced Pages Parody

A person just posted a link at the GNAA article about another Misplaced Pages parody: Encyclopædia Dramatica. I figure we should have a listing of these, but not sure where. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup Reminder

Don't forget! L.A's first Wiki meetup is TONIGHT at 7:30 at Philippe's in Downtown. Check out the meetup page for details. See you there! (If you can't make it, come to the next one! - Eric 21:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

humor

Jokestress, I'm not making jabs at you. When I say "seriously," I mean that you/anyone might not believe me because it's acutally very unbelievable that a professor would be caught making such inconsistent statements. --Rikurzhen 06:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. ;) --Rikurzhen 06:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

WSJ

However, I do strongly disagree with your interpretations. I'm still hoping you'll respond to my point-by-point breakdown of the statement. --Rikurzhen 06:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Linda Gottfredson

Hi Jokestress, I wanted to say nice work on a clear and balanced article. Best, Nectarflowed 07:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman

Hey, Jokestress
I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

phylogeny

hi Andrea -- the nodal information, taxonomy and dates in the graph are drawn from Misplaced Pages articles (i.e. the articles on the (sub)species mentioned). the percentage is based on the previous graph it was replacing. the 2% number is widely quoted, e.g. in books by Cavalli-Sforza, but probably any Biology textbook. Is there anything in particular that you dispute? Especially the things based on WP articles may be questionable of course. dab (ᛏ) 06:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

alright, sorry, in this case my reply was beside the point. The separation of three branches of human population (imperfectly labelled "Africans, Europeans, Asians") is a result of mitochondrial research of the last decade. the "blown up" version of that part of the graph is on Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg (and the links in the image description page). The representation in this image is geographical, and most of the migration was done by the "Asians" (while most of the variety is subsumed under "Africans", only shown as two stubby arrows in that image, because they never migrated out of Africa). dab (ᛏ) 07:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)