User talk:Dstanfor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents 1 Talk:Xeni Jardin 2 Xeni Jardin additions 3 Refactoring Talk pages 4 Your article 5 Xeni Jardin Sandbox 6 New articles 7 Xeni Jardin RfC 8 Talk:Gay 9 {{unencyclopedic}} 10 Michael Morton

[edit] Talk:Xeni Jardin

Thank you for taking the time to refactor the talk page by remomving personal attacks. I'm guessing you already have read those two linked articles, but I wanted to make sure. --Christopherlin 02:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xeni Jardin additions

"and perhaps other names" either needs a cite or it's non-encyclopediac supposition. Any of us could have had other names, but it doesn't mean we did. "but does not have a college degree" needs a cite or it's just 'original research'. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from the talk page that noone is satisified that we've shown that xeniflores is her birth name. The LA Times article says she got the xeniflores jardin name from guatemala -- is that not enough evidence? Also, if it's relevent to say that she took journalism courses, her degree status is relevent. Since you can't prove a negative, and there's no evidence anywhere (including jardin's own page) that she's gotten a degree, it seems clear enough to me. I'm certainly not the only editor however so we'll see what other's have to say. Dstanfor 15:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

That isn't enough evidence to say that she might have more than one non-birth name, no. And her degree status is relevant, I agree with you, but we have no proof whatsoever that she doesn't have a degree. Basically, any claim made must be a supported claim, not a "this is probably so" claim. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring Talk pages

Hi-- I see you have removed personal attacks as well in the past. Everyone on the Xeni Jardin talk pages needs to relax and stop being sarcastic if we are going to get this article stabilized. I look forward to working with you on making this as accurate and neutral as we can. Jokestress 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll also notice that I was not a particpating party in either side at that point. I also think you may be using the wrong word (sarcasm) but I think I understand what you are saying. However, I don't think Gerardm is attacking you. Criticising your edits is not the same as attacking you. In either case, if Gerardm has gone over the line, it would be best if he was corrected by someone who is not you, since you are the target of his ire. If you make the corrections, it reflects poorly on you, even if you are doing the right thing at that point. Dstanfor 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xeni Jardin Sandbox

/xeni jardin

[edit] New articles

Whenever I work on an article, I make any red link into an article. In fact, most of my work is starting new articles. If you feel they are unnecessary, feel free to nominate them for deletion or make a merge suggestion. Jokestress 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To make sure Tyrenius sees it, you should put the comment you made on my talk page regarding the Xeni Jardin RfC here instead. Jokestress 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xeni Jardin RfC

Hi, I've noted your comment on Jokestress's talk page. I'm a little concerned that "a set of editors wants to include criticism of Jardin's work", as there doesn't seem the attempt at a balance, i.e. praise for her work to be included as well. However, my latest thought as on the Xeni Jardin talk page, it that her work on Boing Boing is best discussed in the article Boing Boing, where the blog criticisms would sit more easily. Tyrenius 05:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting the boing boing criticisms on the boing boing page does make a lot of sense. Good point. I think getting the LA times given title 'Wizard of Blogs' listed on the page was praise, but it could be considered pretty thin on the praise side. Thanks for helping us work it out. Dstanfor 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dstanfor, we are nearly there. I propose a "rabbinical solution" to fulfil 2nd para of point 4, namely via footnote 11. This mentions XeniSucks. It is actually a link to the Boing Boing site and an article by Jordan herself all about XeniSucks. It also has a link to XeniSucks which Jordan has posted. I would like your agreement to this, as it will enable things to move forward. Tyrenius 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gay

Hi, thanks for archiving Talk:Gay. Just a reminder: In the future when you do that sort of thing, you really need to make a note of what you're doing in the edit summary. I almost reverted your edits, thinking they were vandalism. -Smahoney 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{unencyclopedic}}

You seem to be going around and tagging lists en masse with {{unencyclopedic}}. I'm assuming you're doing this in good faith (at least some of the lists you've tagged are, indeed, of questionable encyclopedic value), but note that "{{unencyclopedic}}" is a call for article deletion, not improvement. In contrast with this are your comments on some of the articles' talk pages, which are often cleanup and/or expansion requests. Please consider this when using the tag. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I'll assume that you left this comment in good faith then. I used that tag instead of immediately putting the article up for deletion because I wanted to see what people had to say before bringing broader scrutiny to the list. It doesn't seem easy to make a useful list of fictional anythings. That doesn't mean it's easy to delete them since people hold fast to defending their turf, but after searching through about 200 or so google results on "list of fictional" I marked the ones that seemed the worst of the bunch. Dstanfor 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just updated Mek and removed your tags - I've left an explanation on the Talk page. If you disagree, feel free to respond and I'll try to address your concerns --Mrph 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Morton

Thanks for your contribution to Michael Morton. I haven't made much progress on the article. I really appreciate it. Best regards. --Chickville|talk|c 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you think it is best to leave the article Michael Morton as it is now and just expand, or merge it with N9NE Group. Will that probably make it more encyclopedic? I will appreciate another insight into this. Thanks. --Chickville|talk|c 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)