Talk:Jennifer Diane Reitz

message: Accursed Toys is not notable enough to have its own article.  Jennifer Diane Reitz is more notable than the company, which she founded.  Therefore, merge the company into this article.  Pan Dan 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, neither seems notable enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:CORP.  Will tag with  and .  Pan Dan 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jennifer Diane Reitz is a notable author of webcomics and computer games, and this article now cites a third party source stating that HappyPuppy.com, which Reitz and her family company founded, was once the most heavily visited games site on the internet.  Reitz is also a notable figure in the transsexual community, and in my opinion, her Transsexuality website is a good starting place for people with little knowledge on the subject.  I have removed the  tag from the article.  However, I agree that Accursed Toys should probably be merged with this article.  Andrea Parton 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is factually wrong. That site is a terrible starting point for anything, and is effectively designed to lure people down the same misguided trap thinking that resulted in JDR being in the situation he is today. It does the transsexual community no good to associate with someone rather demonstrably not a transsexual, surgery notwithstanding. 172.56.10.252 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom [[Accursed Toys]] 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The article currently states:
The proceeds of HappyPuppy made Reitz and her family a significant amount of money, but most was spent quickly.
* It had previously (my edit) stated that the money was "lost".
* Prior to that, it was claimed to have been spent on toys/anime, with a citation to Reitz' impressive collections of the same. 
Now, I argue that having a large collection of "stuff" is not enough evidence that subsequent lack of money now was due to those purchases. Sound investments and purchases can also lead to the accumulation of "stuff" without significant monetary loss. 
Conversely, money can be lost without it being actively "spent" - as the page now claims. Money can be lost through unsound investments or theft (for examples)
Lastly; Jennifer's own claim is that the money was lost on the internet crash. Whilst this seems likely, is there any other evidence for this claim? Additionally, what evidence is there regarding the "significant amount" that was made from the sale of Happy Puppy in the first place? Or what evidence is there that it has now mostly gone (not that I disbelieve Jennifer - more that I am wanting to ensure editors on this point consider where their opinions are coming from)
Personally, I believe some variant of "the money was lost" is most appropriate here. Any other thoughts and comments? --.../Nemo (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with Nemo.  Andrea Parton (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  *bows* I have updated page again in a manner I feel is appropriate, given the points I raised previously :) --.../Nemo (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the happy puppy money.... 

message: Google books shows that Game work: language, power, and computer game culture by Ken S. McAllister discusses some research of hers. It's printed by University of Alabama Press, 2004. That sure sounds like a reliable source waiting to be read. Cloveapple (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (new source) 

message: It says "Reitz has created computer games and anime-style comics since 1981", but the only one I've ever heard about is Boppin' (1994). 31.50.70.172 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What games did JDR create? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jennifer Diane Reitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903233345/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1996/39/b34941.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1996/39/b34941.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525063842/http://putaj.org:80/index.php/humanities/article/view/209 to http://www.putaj.org/index.php/humanities/article/view/209
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It must be mentioned that the "COGIATI" test was made up by Reitz and has no professional, or accredited, scientific or psychological backing whatsoever. It's no more credible than the "personality tests" you get in magazines for teenage girls. Except it's aimed at convincing people to become transsexual, through purveying complete nonsense as unquestioned fact. I genuinely fear for any young people who might take the test, implicitly supported by Wikipedia as it is. 
Isn't it WP policy to point out pseudoscience and deception, if it's mentioned or linked to? To avoid ambiguity wherever possible? That's particularly important in this case. The "COGIATI" link either needs removing, or a decent disclaimer attaching. It's absolutely not OK that one individual can give themselves implied authority and legitimacy through what is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia, albeit one that really needs more supervision around it's fringe areas. 
:84.67.99.15 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by reliable sourcing. If you have some to support the changes you want then please present them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to find some reliably sourced critical perspectives on the test, but I have to say I'm also concerned about the legitimisation that its inclusion here implies, considering its infamous reputation and lack of scientific or medical backing. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

text: (It has to be said that the test may simply not be notable enough for it to have seen any significant review in academic literature... The sole reference currently is a passing mention in a fairly undistinguished journal. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COGIATI