User talk:Jeffpw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Jeffpw/archive 1 User talk:Jeffpw/archive 2

Contents

[edit] GA standards

Good grief Jeff- please never rate an article I put up for GA. Jacques Damala is pretty thoroughly referenced for a topic on someone who has been dead for over 100 years. 28 references for an article of that size would have satisfied me. In any event a narrow fail on one of the GA criteria does not proclude a GA award if the rest are solidly met. Anyway we shall see what a third party makes of the article :). I'm optimistic... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your comment on Talk:Jacques Damala that It needs many more citations to even reach "GA" class. I meant that if you demanded such a high standard of references, I was not confident articles I might nominate in future would meet it. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take off the message- we're all entitled to our opinions. My comment was only meant as friendly jibe at your high standards (which are no bad thing). I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you did have a tough time with that article's nomination. Given that any user can assess GA as opposed to the vote for FA, there is quite a bit of variation in standards. For example the gap between GA and FA is not entirely clear. You are right that if put to that high a standard of review, Jacques Damala will have a reasonable chance of failing. I hope someone with a less stringent view of the criteria reviews it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to start an argument and I'm sorry my comment didn't come across as I intended. Peace. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up question

Thanks for the smile. Who ever came up with them did a good job :). I have a question... As far as I can see the only reason Jacques Damala is within the scope of the project is the sentence, "Besides his passion for women, he was also said to enjoy the company of young men, as well" with a reference to Extracts from The Divine Sarah: A Life of Sarah Bernhardt (1991). The article deals only with notorious womanising outside his marriage as far as his personal life is concerned. Is this really an LGBT topic? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the unacceptable reference is a citation from a book. So I suppose one could refer to the book directly to overcome that problem. But even if the book is the ref, the comment is totally hearsay. I myself would be uncomfortable with him staying in the list of bisexuals and LGB people, let alone his article being annexed to the project. My view is that for inclusion in the project the sexuality of the person must be more than just a passing comment. This is no Abraham Lincoln. So I would recommend removing our tag completely. Do you think we should canvas the views of the rest of the project? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've untagged it. Will also remove him from the relevant lists. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Scary- though on the LGB list, he wasn't on the list of bisexuals, even under NerriTunn's inclusive criteria! - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merits of article on Gay stereotyping

I've had a look at this article since it came up in the Gay lisp AfD (where I seem to have expressed myself rather strongly on reflection). At the very least this article needs an overhaul pretty soon, but I have reservations about the purpose served by it. There are no articles of Wikipedia about:

  • black stereotyping
  • jewish stereotyping
  • stereotypes of women etc.

and I think that is rightly so. Why is it that a specific article is needed to cover gay stereotyping? Can you think of any good reason why this article should not be deleted or merged into a section at the Homophobia article? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffpw, for what it's worth I agree with both you and WJBscribe on merging both articles into homophobia. If people meeting WP:RS were seriously suggesting that there is some real basis for these stereotypes and Wikipedia merely reporting this in an NPOV way that would be one thing, but the sources being cited on AFD for keeping gay lisp don't even support such a thing - the links I've followed all admit that most gays don't fit the stereotype. Eugenics writers were trying to make scientific cases for stereotypes about Africans 100 years ago too but most today would rightly recognize it as racism. This isn't any different. I'd support merging both into homophobia since that is what these stereotypes are. Dragomiloff 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems my briliant argument is slightly undermined by the discovery of this gem of an article- Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, which has been up for AfD since the 9th but I had missed. Doesn't look like it'll get the concensus to be deleted- damn. Still once the dust from this AfD settles, I intend to seriously tackle the Gay stereotyping page. It might be able to be reworked into something a little more acceptable... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Barnstar deserves another...

Hahaa... yeah, that was a good one.

Elaragirl's |Layin' Down the Law Barnstar
For forcefully stopping an impending flame war about the IDF Barnstar, and putting Striver in his place.

[edit] re that confrence

sorry, doing too many things at once, my reasoning is there now. like i said, not sure what else to do, also not sure it even needs to be anywhere as its just the official iranian line again. maybe?  ⇒ bsnowball  09:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) oh, yeah, putting it there follows more or less directly from my reasoning... more coffee needed... sorry, fr inconveniece of not explaining mine quick enough.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay stereotyping Afd

I see the article has been dominated at AfD. I'm in two minds about this. Tempted as I am to try and blow it out of the water outright, I respect Koweja's comment on the fact that a sizeable gay group play up to this stereotype to establish self-identity. Still not sure I want to defend it (esp. as I'd look a bit silly after my comments in the Gay slang AfD). So I think I'll stay out of it for now and see what happens... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you don't share my reservations. You did say yesterday: "Gracious, Koweja, that article is a shambles. I would nominate it for Afd, myself, but if you think it can be helped, I am certainly willing to assist." Voting to delete it may be seen as an odd form of assistance... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Cheers for that... Good grief, an account whose sole purpose seems to have been to vandalise my talk page. I am honoured! - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Err...probably, yes, and next time I will. Thanks very much for assuming good faith. To be honest, it didn't really have anything to do with you, but Elara recently got blocked for personal attacks and I did not want that to happen again. Not that it really was a PA - just not terribly diplomatic. Also IMO, a barnstar that says "BRAVO FOR PUTTING X IN THEIR PLACE" is not a clever thing to have on your userpage. It's bound to cause endless wikidrama etc. Unless X happens to be an indefblocked troll, of course, when it's different:) Next time, however, I will talk first. If I really wanted to be objectionable I'd cite this, but that's not clever either, so I won't. Thanks again for remarkable civility and AGF - not enough of that around sometimes. Cheers, Moreschi 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

Thanks for the heads-up. -- Kendrick7talk 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffpw_fbe1.html"