User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Extended

You might be interested in this, which seems to be a more indepth version of the source currently used in the Janet article. — Realist² 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My quarters!

Lol, no, despite what you might think, this is not my bedroom!

. — Realist² 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This WILL interest you. — Realist² 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found more of these images by the same author on flickr. I've asked User:Mach to upload more of them from this Flickr account. I also noticed that Mach is an admin on another foreign language wikipedia so I think these images are uploaded correctly and here to stay. — Realist² 15:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy!! — Realist² 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears Maintenance

I have placed you and myself on Talk: Britney Spears as notable users to contact through our talkpages or e-mail if they need us to verify information or sources. If your not interested thats ok but i thought you wouldn't have a prob so i stuck your name up anyway. Ogioh (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood

Hi, is there any chance you can add some info to this, we can take to GA soon but would like to get it full up. Cheers. — Realist² 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LMP

Just wondering about Gay Icons in the lesbian community. The reason I ask I just read an 2005 interview in Interview magazine. Melissa Etheridge was interviewing Lisa Marie Presley they talk about her gay following but in particular her lesbians which make up about half of her concert following?74.73.176.161 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You have done a great job on that article by the way. Also I think it makes sense LMP's gay following. LMP gave Cindy Lauper her GLAD award last year in Los Angeles.74.73.176.161 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

Wow, a mezzo. I had no idea. Her voice seems so high-pitched and thin. Sorry, didn't see a source in the box, but found it in the body, and tracked it. Orane (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Helping out the rest of the world

Thought it might interest you to know that I'm using Janet Jackson as one of my examples of how to address genre in music articles in my music genre guidelines proposal. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. From my vague understanding dance music is a genre, albeit one that's not well-defined on Wikipedia (sometimes it seems like I'm the only one interested in working on genre articles). However, I feel the topic of "is it or isn't it a genre?" is beyond the scope of my guideline proposal. Hoepfully the guidelines would at least give people a means by which to determine whether or not to make references to "dance music" in the article. But I don't feel confident enough to tackle the greater subject with this.

Also: feel free to suggest articles of various types (band/musican bios, albums, and singles) to which I can apply my guidelines to see how well they work. Most of what I've been looking at the moment have been FAs which are of course well-referenced and well-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Madonna looks largely fine on the genre front (depending on whether or not you want to add dance music to the infobox; even then it's a small matter). What mainly sticks out is nothing is said about her music in the lead aside from some album names. "Influnces" definitely needs to be expanded into a full "musical style" section: it's nice knowing what's influenced her sound, but what makes her unique musically? In terms of honors, what I would suggest is summarizing the acclaim she has received, focusing on the most important things. As a bit of a sideways example: when writing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" I was aware that I was writing about one of the most acclaimed rock songs of all time. As it was unrealistic that I could cover everything ever said about this song, I made sure to focus on the highest honors, which have more weight anyways. The Britney article is slightly better in regards to talking about her music, but it still needs serious expansion. If you want to tackle either of these articles next month, I can help out a bit; just let me know which one you decide on.

Oh, and I've have to say that the worst editors often gather around punk rock articles, where they spend far too much time arguing over genres and poorly sourcing things. The Britney and Madonna articles are masterpieces compared to the average punk article. I'm always glad when I see a new punk GA. The funny thing is heavy metal articles are prone to the same sort of problems punk articles are, but the metal editors are more accomplished, driven and more willing to learn and help others out in writing articles, and that's why there's there's a healthy number of metal FAs. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Another topic: I was considering nominating Honorific titles in popular music for deletion again after months with no progress on asserting its notability as a subject, and then I see it was nominated again earlier this month and closed with "Speedy Keep". Ugh. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with that page is that, yes, there are "honorific" nicknames given to musicians, but there's no sources that deal with the topic of honorific titles in popular music itself. Without that essential component, you are left with simply a list of people who have simliar nicknames, and that's about as appropriate a list topic as a list of supervillains named after animals. No matter how many sources people have added over the months to verify that each individual artist has this or that title, no one's addressed the actual topic of the article, and it really worries me that no one else is concerned with that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I met some resistance towards my draft from (oddly enough) people who want to keep the genre field; they didn't agree with many of the guidelines I lined out (one of the more bemusing objections was regarding my comments that genres should be arranged in alphabetical order). There was one guy who thought I was forcing these guidelines on everyone from out of the blue, when I and quite a few other editors pointed out that not only did I say I was going to write a guidelines draft as a way of moving the debate forward, but that I only showed it to people at that stage to gauge its readability. In contrast, people on the fence or initially opposed to the genre field liked it. After all that I figured I'd put it on the backburner unless the debate flares up again, then I'll put it out there. By the way, I'm close to taking In Utero to FAC, and I would appreciate any thoughts you had on it as a neutral reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hug

Sorry, *hug* — Realist² 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Scream/Childhood

Tis GA now! — Realist² 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Rep

I replied on my page about the images, also, what has happened to the audio samples? They used to be all on the right hand side, now they've moved and it looks butt ugly. I've noticed it on all my articles. — Realist² 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Icons?

Are you sure you want to take on "gay icons"? Most are already within the project, aren't they? My feeling is that people like Stefani may be fun to dance to, but I don't think her article is necessarily part of the WikiProject - but that's just my opinion... I won't take the banner off, I'm just curious about your reasoning. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hugs

And hugs to you too. Yes, it's been a while. :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Madonna

Hey BKOTO, did you want to remove those images? I'm not particularity interested myself, I though you did it accidently, but I'm not sure...anyways, I'm off to bed. — Realist² 06:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi BotO. Sorry to bother you about this, but I trust your opinion more than anyone else on this sort of thing. I'm coming to you for advice concerning my conduct with Caden. If you're (understandably) avoiding this whole dramatic situation, feel free to just remove this post and I'll understand, no harm done.

I'm not sure if you've been following the most recent incident with Caden and his subsequent topic ban, but if you haven't, I'll summarize: Caden had been editing an article wherein three gay people have been accused of murder; the article was well-referenced and so when another editor nominated the article for deletion, Caden accused the editor of being motivated by "political correctness" and silencing crimes committed by gays. The editor apparently took great offense to this, and Caden made other comments that didn't assume good faith, so the editor filed a Wikiquette alert on Caden, and then an incident report on AN/I.

The AN/I lasted only about 3 days but it garnered wide support for a topic ban, which was implemented the day before yesterday. During the course of the AN/I discussion, Caden understandably became discouraged with Wikipedia, and no doubt felt under attack on all fronts, even from me, since I admitted elsewhere that I had endorsed the harsher of the two proposed remedies.

Then, yesterday, I made a suggestion at Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Alternative_picture, an attempt to end a long-standing dispute between several editors, including Caden. I asked Caden if he would comment on it. At first declining, Caden today then did comment, and made an edit to the article Traditional marriage movement itself. I then told him that he probably should avoid making edits to the article directly, since the subject matter of the article veers dangerously close to his topic ban. This apparently was the last straw, and he responded with "I quit".

My question for you: did I act correctly? Should I have been more sensitive, particularly in how I worded warnings? Should I not have actively endorsed his topic ban or talked about his "failings", or should I have defended him when others talked about his "failings" more aggressively than me? Should I not have told him to avoid editing Traditional marriage movement, which may not have been under his topic ban, and when nobody else had yet complained about it? In general, have I been a good adopter? I am asking because Caden's reactions have caused me to doubt my actions, and I trust your opinion on this more than any other. Whatever advice you feel like giving would be very much appreciated, since I know you must be busy. Thank you. -kotra (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I act correctly? Absolutely. Your personal responsibility as an adopter can only be taken so far... even parents have a limit to the responsibility of their children.
Should I have been more sensitive, particularly in how I worded warnings? Absolutely not. In my opinion, the majority of editors involved have been overly sensitive, if anything, to his behavior.
Should I not have actively endorsed his topic ban or talked about his "failings", or should I have defended him when others talked about his "failings" more aggressively than me? I fully support both your decision to endorse the topic ban (which should have happened during the first report) and as for your discussion of his "failings" - part of being a mature individual means being able to deal with constructive and non-constructive criticism.
In general, have I been a good adopter? I am asking because Caden's reactions have caused me to doubt my actions, and I trust your opinion on this more than any other. Caden's true "failing" is that he rejects all criticism as either censorship or liberal conspiracy. Since we have both known him, Caden has habitually resorted to using fallacies-a form of pseudoreasoning whereby unsound and illogical arguments are offered as if they are reasonable-in order to justify his behavior. From day one, Hasty Generalizations-making a generalization based on too small or unrepresentative a sample-such as [[.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRobert_Eric_Wone&diff=261607937&oldid=261574368 this and Sweeping generalizations such as this have been the primary obstacle to keeping his edits both civil and neutral. This unique situation is outside the realm of the adoption program because you have been dealing with an editor who (understandably) has a distorted view of an entire community based on personal experience, which in effect has nothing to do with wikipedia itself, the adoption program, you, me or any other editor. Failure to recognize that bias in his editing is also outside of your responsibility. Failure to recognize hypocracy by demanding acknowledgement of his gender/gender identity and not extending the same courtesy by labeling on more than one occasion (if not all) the LGBT Wikiproject as the "Homosexual wikiproject", and LGBT related articles as "homosexual articles" (which clearly is not only a Pejorative to Gay men and Lesbian women, but a sweeping generalization to bisexual men and women as well as transgender men and women who are also part of the project and the community as a whole), even when brought to his attention, is again, ultimately outside of the scope of your responsibility as an adopter, because the resulting incivility has nothing to do with wikipedia or its policies but his personal view of the LGBT community. In retrospect, you will probably go down in wiki history as an Archetypal example of how all adopters should conduct themselves if they chose to mentor an editor. I believe all individuals are responsible for themselves, I do not accept that a child's action are a direct reflection of their parents, nor do I believe an adoptee's actions are in any way a reflection of an adopter. If Caden chooses to retire from wikipedia, that is his prerogative and his alone. As human beings, there is a limit to how much we can assist an individual, no matter what the situation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have missed your response on my watchlist somehow. Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I agree with all you have said here. I did notice the behavior you describe but sometimes decided not to risk being too critical (particularly when others were already doing so), and so I kept silent sometimes and let others take that role. I hope that, from now on, this adoption remains at the calm level it's at right now; it has been particularly stressful at times. Anyway, thanks again, you've been a great help! -kotra (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

my fault

Didn't mean to mark it as vandalism. I wanted to see what would happen if I clicked the button but it did it automatically. I was using Safari and I just got these tools for editing and marking vandalism, but never saw the commands for marking vandalism when comparing edits. I'm gonna read the instructions for using that tool from now on. I would have discussed it but that accidental edit happened instead. If I could have discussed over the edits afterwards, I feel maybe dance-pop should be added to the genres section. Very sorry BTW. El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make sure to do so. Very sorry bout that again. I thought maybe dance and adult contemporary would be rather notable. BTW, I'm fairly new to the LGBT project. I'm not really so sure on which articles need to be edited. I've only edited maybe three or four relating to LGBT related subjects. I am however watching an article for Wilson Cruz (a Puerto Rican gay actor) and I'm still wondering how the article is written like a resume. Maybe you know? El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Batmanthekillingjoke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Batmanthekillingjoke.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch

I feel like nailing my head to a table. — Realist² 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

dork. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled (How Does It Feel)

U wanto give a GA review for this article? Dan56 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I may look it over tomorrow; if not Moday, then some time this week. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)]]