User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Talk:E.O. Green School shooting

Uh yeah, i know what innocent until proven guilty means. Your the one that needs a lil' information. When you are referred to as a "suspect", that means you are being charged with the crime but have not yet proven innocent or guilty.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to act in a sarcastic manner towards her. Aleta is one of the fairest and nicest editors on WP. So please watch your attitude. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT rights opposition

I saw your recent edit and I think the article needs alot of work. It's rather difficult to find sources for some of the content that has been added. By the looks of it, the article has needed more sourcing for over a year. I'm going to try to work on it this coming week, so feel free to add any references if you can find it. Also, did you see where someone had re-inserted the list I had mentioned to you the other day? (sigh) I'm afraid major editing to the article will cause a stir, and from the looks of the Sanchez article (note how I've stayed away from that article for the most part), APK doesn't want to join in on that kind of fun. ;-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that in the history. I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of the deletion actually. Adding references will be a good thing. It's much more informative to say "X is on record as opposing thus-and-such in (ref)" than to just list X's name, esp. without a ref. I saw your comment about the Libertarian party and its record as compared to the Dems and Repubs for example. They all could be discussed with regards to their views as long as specific references are given. Ummm... I'm starting to ramble, not sure this makes much sense - so I'll end this comment now. :P Aleta (Sing) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it hypocritical for the L.P. to be listed up there with far-right and Nazi hate groups, but yet leave out the Dem party who has presidential candidates that say they don't support gay marriage and had a president that passed the Defense of Marriage Act. If all of the political parties are mentioned (in a NPOV manner), then I think that would be a good idea. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award you this Special Barnstar for correcting all of the minor mistakes to articles that no one else thinks about...for being a great asset to the LGBT project...for staying neutral and offering fair advice in article disputes...for helping me out when I've had questions about NPOV edits and other WP issues. Aleta for admin! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!  :) Aleta (Sing) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

De nada. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Leap Newsletter :)

Well, we've totally missed a "Leap" newsletter. But we can still put out a March one! I'm about ready, unless you have anything to add? It occurs to me that St Patty's day is this month - do we have anything to add on that subject? I'm going to look for some rainbow leprechaun thingies. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't work out, but oh well. Thanks for putting it together! I just made a couple small editorial changes, and added a shamrock. Feel free to move the shamrock around; I'm not sure if that's the best place for it. Aleta (Sing) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta why did you remove the references I put

You asked for citations. So I provided some references. Is there a problem with these references? By citation do you mean references or something else? Please let me know soon. regards, (Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I haven't removed anything you put, reference or otherwise. I'm not even sure where you mean. If something was removed, someone else did it. Aleta (Sing) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction, I did remove the statement at the start of the article referring to the talk page discussion suggesting starting it, but I don't believe I've removed any actual article text or references. Aleta (Sing) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This weekend

Take a sip (or two) and I hope you have a fab weekend. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, APK! I hope you have a great weekend as well! Aleta (Sing) 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

De nada! =) Aleta ^Sing 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, we were correcting Pope House Museum at the same time. You beat me to it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, nah, na boo boo! LOL Aleta ^Sing 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You found the first article written by me. It's a mess and I've procrastinated working on it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the feeling. The only reason the first article I created looks like it does is someone slapped a notability tag on it right away and I added tons of external links thinking it would get deleted otherwise. Aleta ^Sing 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and procreation

Have you looked at this article? It seems so, long, and the layout doesn't appear to flow very well. I'm kind of confused because there was a deletion nomination already, but it seems to still be here. I'm trying to decide if I should take out some of the article (alot of quotes) or do you think it looks ok? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it in detail, but it seems like maybe an issue fork - not necessarily a POV fork - from same-sex marriage. Maybe it should be merged, and some of the info should maybe be dispersed in other articles? Aleta ^Sing 23:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking merged as well. I feel bad though, since that guy has put that much work into it. It just seems kinda out of place with most WP article layouts. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's a little awkward. It just overlaps subject area so much. It might be good to post the question at WT:LGBT to get some more opinions from other folks. Aleta ^Sing 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to Bug you again..

Aw hell.. HELP! The Dixie Chicks page is too long, poorly sourced and written, needing to be split, with a new page soley for Dixie Chicks Political Controversy. Please, look at that page since I've been itching to see it split, but it appears it'll have to be ... me? (If you could see the doleful look on my face you'd laugh!) Please also peek at Martie Maguire's page, and see how I've done so far. I think it's coming along and I feel kinda excited about that (my 1st page!) But- I don't feel I can complete it until I see how the band page ends so I know what to leave on individuals' pages, etc. So, Specifically:

• can you suggest a template so I can take the Dixie Chicks "Band" page and split it, starting another page entitled, "Dixie Chicks political Controversy"? This page is WAY overdue and (strongly suggested), which I suppose I'll have to be bold and create (with your help)? (Yeah, I'm a chicken).

leahtwosaints (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're the only person who will really answer newbie questions like this, and you have my undying devotion. If only more experienced editors would adopt or at least advise us new people! Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile! :) back to you. I'll take a look at them and see what I can suggest and do. I know you've been working hard on the Martie article - I've seen lots of changes on it in my watchlist, even when I haven't looked at each step. Aleta ^Sing 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any template you could/should use for splitting the Dixie Chicks political section into a new article. You can just cut the text from the main article and paste it into the new one. Looking at it, I agree splitting it does look like a reasonable thing to do. When you do split it, remember to leave a summary section in the main article. There, you can link to the new article using the "Main" template: to link the summary section in Dixie Chicks to the new article use {{main|Dixie Chicks political controversy}}. Does this help? (I still need to look at the Maguire article, and I'll reply separately about it.) Aleta ^Sing 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina

I just added most of the history section for this article. Could you scan over it when you get a chance and tell me if it comes across as "timeline-y?" The reason is that I got the info from the Raleigh government website and it was in a timeline format. Right now, I'm thinking it needs some tweaking but I'm looking for another opinion first. Gracias mi amiga bonita. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, going to look now! Aleta ^Sing 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. It is sort of list-like, but without going into detail for each thing, that may be inevitable, and I don't think it's too listy. I wouldn't worry about it. Aleta ^Sing 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over it and correcting those inevitable errors of mine. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! We all do it... it's so much easier to see things in what someone else wrote than what you wrote yourself. :) Aleta ^Sing 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What a difference a few hours makes

The way the article started and the way it looks now. Allstarecho, Parkwells and I beefed up the article. I'll definitely try for my first DYK now. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Aleta ^Sing 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun times

ALLSTARecho's Rainbow Glass Dildo Award For the party and celebration coming your way! Thanks for being you. =) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, thanks, ASE! Aleta ^Sing 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for your warm welcome and your message. Unfortunately, I don't think I can officially join the project because I have so little free time to go on Wikipedia. I stumbled upon this discussion of the category title, which grabbed my attention and interest, but I doubt I'll have time to do much more. If I again stumble on anything that inspires me to post, I will not hesitate, thanks to your kindness. Big Apple 21 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

reply on Big Apple's Talk page Aleta ^Sing 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Beautiful pictures! Thanks, and I hope you have a happy equinox too! Aleta ^Sing 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta I want your advice on it

I don't at all agree with the way the text about non-Western concepts is included in the gay article.

Users like Paul have repeatedly gone ahead and removed the text and included their own. He has warned me of being blocked if I reverted his changes again.

I want to know:

- Does Paul and his group really have the right to do such a thing as to block me for stopping them to tamper with the changes made by me or Aristophanes, after the discussions.

- If the references are valid, what right do editors like Paul have to stop them from being included in the introduction or in the first section, especially if there are some editors who support inclusion in the introduction?

- Who has given them that right? On what account do they get that right? Is the thing to go by majority?

- Can the majority also stop something which is supported by valid references?

regards (Masculinity (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Masculinity, yes, you can be blocked for edit warring; it's called the three revert rule (3RR). As for the content, you can continue to discuss on the talk page what and how you think should be there. No one person or group has a mandate to decide what should be included - Wikipedia works by building consensus. If you'd like to solicit views from more of the community than typically watch that page, you can start a request for comment. This might be advisable in the current situation, as it gets more editors involved in the dispute resolution process. Aleta ^Sing 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the three revert rule not apply to Paul as well. I mean if he reverts my additions thrice, can I not block him? Who is authorised to do the blocking?

Also, if I don't revert (undo) but add the same matter more than thrice (after it is deleted or changed by some one else), does that also qualify me to be blocked? (Masculinity (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, it's technically if you revert more than three times, although you can be blocked for violating the spirit of the rule, even if you haven't violated the letter of it. Other additions could get you blocked as well, if they are part of edit warring. Yes, this all applies to Paul as well, and every other editor on Wikipedia. Administrators are the ones with the power to block people for edit warring or other disruptive editing. Basically, edit warring is a bad idea, and the blocking is allowed to keep it from happening. If you have a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the talk page, not engage in a revert war with someone. Like I said above, it might be worthwhile thinking about a WP:RFC. Aleta ^Sing 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will Aleta. I will like to put it on the comments page. Only I do not know how to do it. And, I get tired looking at 'how to do pages'. But I'll do it. (Masculinity (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Would you like me to do it? Aleta ^Sing 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a great help. (Masculinity (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Done (except that the bot still has to do its part). Aleta ^Sing 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (Masculinity (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Aleta, the problem is not only the placement. Paul and a few others have changed the entire content that was agreed upon by those who discussed the matter for days, and finally reached a compromise with the Aristophane's inclusion.

How can I tackle that problem. Can we put that up for comments too?

ALSO, can I ask administrators to take action against Paul and a few others who have gone ahead and changed everything, despite there being a discussion going on which had almost resolved the matter. And then aggressively maintaining their change.(Masculinity (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

As for the content discussion, yes, the entire matter of the what should be said is fair game for discussion in the RFC. Go ahead and make your comments about what you would like to see happen and what dissatifies you. I worded the RFC the way I did intending to make it open-ended enough to include the entire content question relative to this topic.

You can request the help of administrators at WP:ANI, the administrators' noticeboard of incidents. Aleta ^Sing 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, when you say "can I ask administrators to take action against Paul and a few others who have gone ahead and changed everything" you are asking for retaliation of those you don't agree with and that's not allowed. You are making edits that have not been resolved on the talk apge and your controversial edits like this one is why people are wary of your edits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No agnostic, we discussed the matter for several days before a consensus was reached after compromises from both the sides. The last consensus added by Aristophanes was supported by apart from myself, Den, Aleta and Neil. When someone called alstar barged in and on his own deleted the matter followed by Paul and you, you reverted the additions several time. There has to be a method to it. New people joining in a discussion everytime cannot start from the scratch or insist on having their way. What was included after a long debate should be respected and any desired change should be incorporated only after obtaining a consensus for it on the talk page. Or let the matter be resolved by the administrators.(Masculinity (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

"Or let the matter be resolved by the administrators." Ummmmm, nope, sorry Masculinity, but administrators do not have a stronger voice in content disputes than other editors. As frustrating as it may be, a consensus reached by a number of editors can indeed be changed when another enters the conversation. See consensus can change. We just have to continue the conversation, which is why we are having the RFC. Aleta ^Sing 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against making any reports to ANI while this RFC is taking place. Wait until some consensus has been reached in the discussion about what to say and where to say it. Only then should the changes be made to the article, and everyone should abide by them if consensus is truly reached. Aleta ^Sing 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, I'm glad you have patience because his distortion of the facts and WP pracitice are mind-boggling. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand the rules. So if a new person or group of persons can come and delete and change everything, and I do the same, then there will arise an edit war. Then, how come Paul threatens to get me blocked, while he can get away with it?(Masculinity (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

It does take two (at least) to engage in an edit war. It's a bad idea on both sides. Aleta ^Sing 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support For sysops

I am pleased to inform you that i have voted in favor of you becoming a admin best of luck :)

Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Aleta ^Sing 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what?

Thank you! I have accepted, and will answer the questions tonight. Aleta ^Sing 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I support it as well, of course! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Leah! :) Aleta ^Sing 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I didn't miss your RfA! XD I have no idea what made me look at the RfA page tonight (I don't generally skim it), but I'm really glad I saw your name there and was able to support you in time (which has not always been the case with other great users I know, unfortunately). You'll make a very fine admin, I have no doubts about it. :-) Cheers, and good luck! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Raystorm!! :) Aleta ^Sing 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also cast a very easy support !vote for you. Good luck Aleta, and I think you will make it and will do your usual excellent job here with the mop. — Becksguy (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Becksguy! I appreciate it! Aleta ^Sing 13:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the admin discussion was scheduled to be closed a little while ago, so I guess you're officially an admin! Well, it will be official when someone actually closes the discussion, but congrats! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! =D It would appear to be nearly a done deal at this point, wouldn't it? Aleta ^Sing 03:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess someone has to close the discussion and after that, I don't know what happens. This was my first time being involved in a nomination process. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's done! Wow. Thanks, APK! Aleta ^Sing 03:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Estey Hall

Thanks for the grammar correction, but the article doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if it's the sentence structure or what. What do you think? I made another one last night, State Bank of North Carolina, in case you want to scan for errors. (cause you're good at finding those on my new articles) :-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, usually a word starting with a vowel does take "an", but since union sounds like "yu-nion" I think it should take "a", but I'll have to look and see if I can find where a good grammarian has commented about it. It might be a case where it could be either. I'll check out the other article, too. :) Aleta ^Sing 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification (doh!) - I didn't mean your edit didn't seem right. It was correct. I mean the entire article. Some sentences seem oddly worded. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood, obviously. Ummm, I don't know, I've got to run now, but I'll look at it again later on. :) Aleta ^Sing 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, and for further clarification (lol), I meant DOH for myself. I should have worded it better. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, no worries! You did say the article, but I took that in the grammatical sense of "a" and "an" are indefinite articles. Ah, the vagueries of words with multiple meanings! :P Aleta ^Sing 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made a couple rephrasings, nothing very big. See what you think. Aleta ^Sing 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

De rien! Aleta ^Sing 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos

How do you add photos to a page? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarlandfanatic (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sugarlandfanatic, are the photos already on Wikipedia and just needing to be put in an article, or do you need to upload the photos? Aleta ^Sing 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they are on a site, and I would like to include them in a new page. The picture I'm looking at is also very large. It will need to be re-sized —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarlandfanatic (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Uploading images. There should be further help available from the talk page there, but I have not uploaded any pictures to Wikipedia myself. Be sure the licensing is appropriate for any pictures you want to load here. :) Aleta ^Sing 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your comments using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Aleta ^Sing 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the picture. Go look if you like. Monthaven Thanks for your help Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw it. It definitely improves the article! :) Aleta ^Sing 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch - I saw the bot notice on your talk page and went to look at the source of the image. It will probably be deleted as a copyright violation. We can't just take images from anywhere and post them here. This image looks to me like it's not likely to be in the public domain, nor is it likely to be justifiable as fair use; so it will most likely be removed. Can you get a free image of Monthaven? Aleta ^Sing 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Lake Village

Is there anything I can do to improve another article I made? Indian Lake Village ? Or should I just wait until people stumble upon it to add more.? Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A few suggestions right off:

• find appropriate categories to put the article in (the TN-stub I added to Monthaven is one to use, but there should be others)
• wikify it more - you should be able to add some more internal links to other wikipedia articles
• add references - you have some external links: can any of those be converted to specific references for information in the article?

That should be enough to get you going for a little while. Let me know if I can help you more! Aleta ^Sing 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a few things. I don't quite understand categories. I tried putting it ina category for the city it's located in, but the link was red. Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there isn't a category for that city; I replaced it with the county category. Also, to make references show up, you need to have a section for them with a tag to make them show. The tag looks like {{reflist}}. Take a look at the section I just added. Aleta ^Sing 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind...

<---Aim for the forehead.

...hitting me on the head with this? Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whack! APK falls out. Oops, didn't mean to do it that hard... Aleta ^Sing 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta need help

AgnosticPreacher is indulging in irresponsible editing. He has been repeatedly putting "the article is disputed" tag on the article on "non-Western concepts of male sexuality".

I asked him to bring up the dispute on the talk page, but he says he doesn't want to do it because I use long texts.

What do you think I should do? (Masculinity (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, the tag seems reasonable, because even if APK is not discussing it, other people have disputed the accuracy of the article on the talk page. I'm not sure what else to suggest at this point. Aleta ^Sing 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, other people have also stood by the article. Those who have disputed have been invited to sort it out on the talk page. I have responded to all the specific issues that were raised and made suitable changes to the article, where I could not justify what was written with 'valid' references.

Now, it does not seem fair to have that tag put, without caring to mention the problem that seem to have prompted the tag. The whole thing about tag then becomes one of not allowing the other point of view a dignified space.

Surely, Wikipedia knows how to deal with such saboteurs. (Masculinity (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

(aka) He wants you to block me, the "saboteur." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

First, "saboteurs" does not seem an appropriate term to use and may be seen as a personal attack. Deleting vast amounts of the article would be sabotage; tagging it as disputed is not. Second, the fact is that people have questioned the veracity of it. You have answered them, but not to everyone's satisfaction. The dispute is ongoing. OK, the person who added the tag is opting out of the debate, but there are others who will still participate. I would suggest that the concerns of improper synthesis should be addressed. Aleta ^Sing 18:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind addressing any issues if they are real issues and not biased ones. And I feel there is a lot of bias against allowing non-Western view-points, and a lot of these accusations are baseless. It is all too easy to accuse an article that makes a particular community uncomfortable as synthesis, and show one's collective power by getting away with it, but quite another to take the trouble to point out specific lacunaes constructively or otherwise, so that it makes any sense.

Also, for all the irresponsible editing Agnostic is indulging in, he seems to know he can get away with it(Masculinity (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

And may I ask, where are all those people who have problems with the article. Why are they not there discussing those issues? And why is AgnosticPreacher going ahead with making changes in the Gay article when there is a discussion going on on the talk pages about what should be done.(Masculinity (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Actually, I will also discuss accusations if they are clearly biased. But at least they should be specific. Like this portion of the text says this, while the references say only this, and so the rest is OR or synthesis or whatever. Am I asking for two much?(Masculinity (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

There's been lots of discussion on that talk page. If it hasn't occurred for a couple days, it may be that people are getting frustrated. You say that someone (Agnaramasi?) needs to discuss putting an attribution needed tag. No. If a statement has that tag, it means that someone thinks a citation is needed for that specific statement. There's not much more to be said about it. You have a number of references, and appear to be capable of finding more. I think what needs to happen is you carefully cite each statement, making sure that the source says what you attribute to it. Is there some bias? Probably, but the way to combat it is to make sure that what you write is ironclad. Be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. For example, instead of saying there is no "gay" in India, when there appears that there is, perhaps you could say that such-and-such author reports that in X-subculture men who have sex with men identify as.... Aleta ^Sing 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, acknowledge the changing views where they occur. "While in X, men who have sex with men are seen as ...[ref] in Y, the term 'gay' is becoming more prominent...[ref]" or some such. This will go a long way toward dispelling the idea that you are trying to pretend certain views don't exist. Aleta ^Sing 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, I have always respected you as a Neutral moderator, and am hoping that just because you are a part of the LGBT community, you will not let that bias come into this. And I have always respected and followed your suggestions, as I will do here as well.

However, the tag that Agnostic has put is not in front of a specific sentence. It is a general tag saying the facts are disputed. After all the refrences I have provided that basically say everything I have written in almost similar terminology (some on the gay talk page) it should be clear that if anything is disputed it is the use of the word 'gay'. Surely, the entire article is not disputed. If there are some parts of it which are disputed why can't he specify those?

And mind you, I have never said "there is no gay in India", so I wonder why you say that. In fact, I had writen an entire paragraph on how westernised Indians living in urban meteros have started adopting the Indian as well as the Western concepts (of homosexuality). What I'm saying instead is that in traditional Non-Western spaces (which are different from Westernised Non-Western spaces) there is no concept of sexual orientation. This fact is also corroborated by anthropological studies.

See, half of the problem is because of a strong bias. You think there is a problem, which is not there, but you you don't care. You just go ahead and go on putting tags after tag and deleting stuff. And when as an administrator you condone that, it doesn't help much.

My articles may still have problems, I'm not denying that. But, I am willing to modify my articles. And, I'm willing to accomodate.(Masculinity (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps you could explain better what "traditional Non-Western spaces" means. I'm not sure I understand that, and I doubt most readers do. I'm going to assume that the "you" in reference to tagging and deleting is general, and does not mean me, because I have not been doing that. As for the no gays in India comment, that was probably an overgeneralization on my part, but in the discussion on the talk:gay page, you sometimes seem close to saying that. Aleta ^Sing 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In reference to my possible bias, let me assure you Masculinity that if I thought there was no merit in your additions, I would not have been engaging in trying to advise you to the extent I have. I think there are problems, but appreciate a need for discussion of these issues. Aleta ^Sing 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is yet another form of discrimination, when I'm expected of a rigority which is extremely missing in the LGBT articles. For example, the article on Gay is full of the Gay ideology, and at many places without any valid reference or citation. E.g. it says that "If a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as 'closeted', 'discreet', or 'bi-curious' can be used for him". I tried to watern down (after giving about three weeks for discussing the point) a sentence from the Heterosexuality article that says, "is the most common sexual orientation among humans". Silly Rabbit, who acts as if he owns the page, never bothered to reply to the questions that I raised, and went ahead and reverted back the changes.

In such a scenario, it seems utterly oppressive, if I am not even allowed to summarise numerous references that question the applicability of Western notions of sexual orientation on non-western societies as -- sexual orientation is not valid in non Western cultures. It is unfair to demand that I use exactly the same words as in the references, when nowhere is this practice followed on Wikipedia. You yourself said at one place that the citation should be relevant to what is written, and that should be enough.(Masculinity (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't know if you saw my comments in the two paragraphs above your most recent post - it apparently overwrote my comments, and I had to restore them. Aleta ^Sing 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your comments above, and it seems it happened while we two were posting at the sametime.

Aleta, the "you" is meant for some members of the LGBT editors here, and not you in particular (only as far as you condone these hostile editors).

I know, that you are neutral and open to other POVs, and have been going out of your way to give a space to voices other than the western ones. And that is why I come to you for help. However, Sometimes, I feel you are unwilling to take on people from the LGBT community, even when they do not show the restraint that is needed to make this exercise constructive.

I think it should be understood, that even though I am an outsider/ alien in this LGBT space. Some of those who 'control' this powerful LGBT space don't want me here, and would do anything to harass me -- which often takes the form of hostile, negative/ destructive editing. So, unless I get some support from the administrators, it is going to get extremely tough for me.

Like I said, constructive editing is always welcome. But there should be some check on hostile/ destructive editing.(Masculinity (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Traditional non-Western spaces mean spaces in non-Western societies which are not westernised. Some spaces in these societies have been extremely Westernised. They speak English, have western education, lead Western lifestyles, work in multinational companies and often visit Western nations or have lived there. I'll see how I can explain it here.(Masculinity (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<As for the no gays in India comment, that was probably an overgeneralization on my part>>> The problem is when you, being a neutral person, can over-generalise, the hostile editors can really harm when they overgeneralise, and act upon that bias. That is why editors like Agnostic have been deleting stuff and putting negative over-generalised tags, but when confronted to be specific and discuss, they become evasive. The problem can worsen for me, if they feel they can get away with it. There needs to be a solution for this. Editors need to take responsibility for their actions and carry it through (be willing to eplain them), otherwise what is the point of restricting editing to registered editors. (Masculinity (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Hey!

Thanks so much for your kind message. Should I need any help from "above" I will be sure to contact you..Thanks so much for offering. Now and again it can be really handy to have an admin "available"...at least until/if I become an admin myself. I may ask you for tips nearer to the time of my Rfa. Good luck with everthing. regards --Camaeron (t/c) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

No prob. NimiTize 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There and Congradulations

You don't know me I am just some randomn guy but i think it is great that you are now an admin, congrads

Wannabe Wiki (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the smile and congratulations, Wannabe! Aleta ^Sing 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting picture... hmmm. Happy Easter to you, too! :) Aleta ^Sing 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter 2008. We will not see Easter this early again in our lifetimes, most likely, unless we will live for another 152 years. From the article on Easter: The calculations for the date of Easter are somewhat complicated. In the Western Church, Easter has not fallen on the earliest of the 35 possible dates, March 22, since 1818, and will not do so again until 2285. It did, however, fall on March 23 in 2008, but will not do so again until 2160. Peace brother. — Becksguy (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brother? LOL! Thanks, Becksguy, I hope you've been having a lovely early Easter yourself! Aleta ^Sing 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A belated congratulations

I did not know until now that you had been seeking to become admin. Congratulations on your success. Wiki needs as many good admins as it can get and I suspect that you will be a good one. The way you conducted yourself during that whole mess with John celona, speaks volumes.  : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Albion! :) Aleta ^Sing 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Congratulations. I apologise for being neutral, but it was more making a (unblued) point, and I am sure you will be extermly capable. If you ever need a hand on anything hit me up! Pedro :  Chat  13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm very glad to hear of your success. Happy editing and happy easter :-) Lradrama 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! (No need to apologize, Pedro.) Aleta ^Sing 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Congraulations on your RFA passing. Hendry1307 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Aleta ^Sing 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Block of user:Suckitlosers

The editor you just blocked shows a strong similarity to user:Fiesta bowl who has been abusing sock puppets to make the same edits. See the comparison of contribs between Suckitlosers and Fiesta bowl (or his assorted socks). Extending the block to indef as a sock puppet evader would greatly help us with this fight over at the OSU Football article. Thanks! Baegis (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You may well be correct, but I'm a brand new admin and not quite comfortable doing that yet. Let me get someone else to look at it and see if they agree with your assessment and recommendation. Aleta ^Sing 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Congrats on getting the mop. Baegis (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I changed it to indef. "Suckitlosers" is a flagrant violation of the username policy, even if he were behaving like a perfect gentleman. --B (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know, B! I didn't think about the username itself. That makes sense though. Aleta ^Sing 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "Request for comment" on Gay talk page headed to

It seems nobody has anything more to say on this topic. So, what is the next step? (Masculinity (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I have a couple ideas to see if we can get some more comment. Let me think see if I can. Aleta ^Sing 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, silly Rabbit has deleted the short abstract I had put in in the omosexuality, after the discussion on that page. And on Sexual Orientation page as well. He wouldn't participate in the discussion. How do we tackle this? (Masculinity (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Please, have some patience. I have just posted requests that people participate in the RFC at the talk pages of the following projects: WP:SEX, WP:CSB, and WP:LGBT. Aleta ^Sing 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Do you think I should remove this from ASE's page? It seems like a rant from someone who has been recently blocked for disruption. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

YES. Aleta ^Sing 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And you just beat me both in reverting the rant from another page and in warning him! :P Aleta ^Sing 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The user did it to several userpages. By the time I reported it to AIV, someone had already blocked. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how people move so fast sometimes! Aleta ^Sing 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is good. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone is on a crusade. Wikipedia to save the masses from evil evolutionism - yikes. Aleta ^Sing 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having flashbacks of my childhood. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what Tony Fox just wrote? lol Aleta ^Sing 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cookies, milk and some Xanex. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

Congratulations on passing your request for adminship! I am glad I supported, and I would give you a new T-shirt and a link to the new admin school, but it seems you have both already (thanks for this!). :) Good luck. Acalamari 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Acalamari! Aleta ^Sing 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too, Aleta. Have fun with the mop and bucket! :) --PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peace! Aleta ^Sing 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome message. Haven't thought of a good name to register with though. 69.143.226.129 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anastacia Beaverhousen. I wish I had used that one. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heheh, You could certainly go with APK's suggestion. Whether you use it or something else, though, people tend to look less askance at edits from registered users than ip's (fairly or not). (It also just tends to be easier to talk to a name than a number.) Aleta ^Sing 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Scott Gross at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Gross, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Gross. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification! Aleta ^Sing 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{LGBT-bio-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Nice work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockIP/72.68.123.27

I usually leave either {{GBlock}} or {{GblockIP}}. This editor knows and doesn't care, but any random editor that tries to use the same computer during the block should be warned. Also, I recommend using "harassment" as the reason for this user. That's an automatic block, whereas technically vandals should be warned a number of times. Just some FYI =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes sense about harassment as opposed to "mere" vandalism. I'll go add one of those notices as well. Aleta ^Sing 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the length of time? IP's can change so quickly - and this guy has used several just in his harassment of APK today - that a long time doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I'm seeing people block IP's for much longer times. Aleta ^Sing 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a believer in 31hrs, but this person seems to be able to move around, so I don't know that anything more that 12 is needed. But it probably doesn't make much of a difference =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ew. It called you "honey" =( -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"It" haha. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that... I sure ain't IPjerk's honey! Aleta ^Sing 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kippah

Hi Aleta - would you mind protecting this article from unregistered users for five days? The "Gay Jewish 72.76 Vandal" continues to put an inappropriate photo on the article. Thank you. --David Shankbone 13:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Aleta ^Sing 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you're now an administrator. For instructions and a great deal of admonition, take a look at the reading list or Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, though I suspect you'll find nothing earth-shattering in either. I wish you the best of luck, and as much fun as you can muster, in your future editing. Regards — Dan | talk 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Told you you'd pass :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Dan! Thanks, H2O! Aleta ^Sing 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

File:APK jager.jpg

PAR-TAY!

Congrats! Now, let's have some shots! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

<grin> Aleta ^Sing 04:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about using your new tools. WjBscribe 04:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, WJB, I'll most likely be taking you up on that offer! Aleta ^Sing 04:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations love. May you swing the mop with the best of them, as I know you will. I'm happy for you. And say crap if you want, I don't mind. Champagne is on me for you and all your supporters. — Becksguy (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Becksguy! :) Aleta ^Sing 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, seresin! Aleta ^Sing 05:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

May I add my serius admnim concatulashunz? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Satyr! I love the cat! That'll have to go on my user page. :) Aleta ^Sing 06:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How odd. Notice the reason this user voted against you here. The same admin supports this person although they only have 1,345 mainspace edits when you had 4,300 mainspace edits. Hmmm. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, *shrug*. If it had hurt me, I might be upset about it, but at this point, I'm just not going to worry about it. People can be fickle. Aleta ^Sing 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Spencer^T♦C 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Spencer! Aleta ^Sing 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great news. Same for you, ever need help, you know where I am. Rudget. 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, congratulations. I'm very pleased to see you as an Administrator. You deserved it. Please keep it up. (Masculinity (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank you, Rudget and Masculinity! :) Aleta ^Sing 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Aleta, you're now an evil dictator admin. ;) Use the mop for the better good hehe! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, thanks for the shirt, Raystorm! Aleta ^Sing 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll use the tools wisely. I'm a bit more skeptic about your use of the force... ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MoP! I'll do the best I can with the tools... and the force! Aleta ^Sing 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Aleta... GL with your new buttons...Balloonman (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Balloonman! :) Aleta ^Sing 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bless our new Dictato.. ah, Admin! (sheesh, just kidding..) You are my Fairy Godsister!! Glad, so glad! Time to do the Dance of JOY! Now, if only there were more of you... ((((Aleta)))< big hugs.

Smiling, --leahtwosaints (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Leah! *hugs back* :) Aleta ^Sing 10:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for re-starting editing on the Yarrow page. I think making some progress via collaboration on issues unrelated to the 1970 incident can only help create an atmosphere conducive to useful mediation. Of course, we haven't yet seen any intervention by the primary belligerents on that issue, so my optimism may be misguided.

Unrelatedly, congrats on your recent be-mopping. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've done anything terribly controversial there with these edits, but I agree with you that it can only be beneficial to make improvements in a friendly and collegial manner.

Thanks for the congrats! :) Aleta ^Sing 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

How do I create a good talk page? I see some of them with information in boxes. please help me. Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly coming to you as Admin this time...

Aleta, when I get stressed on the Dixie women stuff, I stray and work on other pages. Worked a bit tonight on Cris Williamson's page, which seemed neglected. However, an older woman I once worked with when I was a kid, a "'70's wishful lesbian musician" has been adding (as an editor) pages about herself. Yes, she wanted to make it in the SanFran women's scene in the 1970s but the group couldn't get along enough to produce anything of note. Isn't this against Wikipedia policy? Her real name is Pamela Pollet, nickname is Tiik, (editor name Poettiik), and if you check the entry for BeBe K'Roche she created the page. O God, she's flooded Google now with all kinds of supposed "merchandise" that is mysteriously out of stock, or are her alternate blogs and websites. I really wanna keep my name out of all this, hell, the last thing I want is lack of harmony and edit interference and all the bad junk I read about. She even lives somewhere in the city where I am. I didn't want to bring it up, but she is very ambitious in this kind of way. Was why I thought of it, and checked, and Bingo. Only I don't want to have Bingo. Thanks. Please don't mention me; you are kind and can perhaps persuade her to follow a wee bit closer to guidelines? I mean, if she's familiar with the lesbian rock roots scene, as she has said, then why am I adding to the Cris Williamson page?! Told you I'm a chicken. Bawk! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Aleta-- would this help for the BeBe K'Roche page?: Template:Nn-userfy Perhaps if I am right about this article about this user, there's a way to be kind --you know, the don't bite the newcomer or whatever the phrase is. Someone was pretty snitty with me when I first came to wikipedia, so much so I erased most of her post to me, though I wrote her back asking to tell me what it was I had done wrong, so I wouldn't repeat my mistakes. She softened some then, at least in print. So... this here is a woman who probably has a lot to offer. I think I kinda jumped, just seeing two articles by and about her, is all. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS- OH yeah, does anybody have a chicken "gif" for my userpage?

What - commons:Gallus gallus doesn't have what you need? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Leah, I've been away from the computer for a few days (weird feeling!) but I'm back now. I'll take a look at the page and see what I think. :) Aleta ^Sing 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it allowed by Wikipedia policy

Can an editor remove a link to a Wikipedia page, however controversial that page is, if the matter on the original page itself is not disputed?(Masculinity (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Sure. People can and do remove links all the time if they think they aren't appropriate for some reason. Aleta ^Sing 02:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I semi-lock the page Non-western concepts of male sexuality?

There have been deletions on the page by people who had not signed in. I would like to restrict the page only to signed editors, because this article, I feel, has been targeted by people who believe in a particular ideology. (Masculinity (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

He means me - Please check the history of the article and you will see that all of my edits have been a) attempts to bring the article in line with the MOS and b) an attempt to remove a source that has been rejected as unreliable. It is not that I am "not signed in", it's that I don't have an account (and I don't plan to get one). You can see from the talkpage of that article that this editor has various WP:OWN issues (commented upon by multiple long-term editors) that need to be dealt with. --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about the UN document is still going on. Also, we are still involved in the discussion on the Talk page, so we haven't had the time to discuss the changes on the above mentioned article. If meanwhile, people who know nothing about the issue keep editing the page at their whims and fancies, it will defeat the purpose. The page is of course open for changes, but if the 'gay' page can be semi-locked, this page too should be locked, considering lots of people delete the information because they don't like it. (Masculinity (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Masculinity and IP. I've been away from the computer for a few days. I'm back now and will take a look at the situation. Aleta ^Sing 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, the general answer to your question of how to get a page protected is either (a)ask an administrator, which you did, or (b) ask at requests for page protection. Having now looked at what's going on, I'm not going to protect the page. You all are having a content dispute, not a vandalism issue, and anonymous editors have the right to edit and participate in these disputes. It looks like consensus is going against you on using the "Masculinity for boys" paper, Masculinity, and so you may not be able to use that as a source. (I am staying out of the question of its reliability either way.) Aleta ^Sing 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

which clearly means that even if you are not a party to it, wikipedia works in a way, that the powerful gay community will have its way, because of their sheer majority here. which in effect means that it is not really a matter of citing valid references, but that of who's the majority here. If that's the way it is, I can't help it. I'll try some more and then go my way. The lie may have its way today, but it can't rule forever. (59.178.118.16 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

I disagree. I believe a number of the editors criticizing the reliability of that paper are not affiliated with the LGBT project, and there is no reason to assume they are part of the "powerful gay community". Please try not to attack others just because they don't agree with you. Aleta ^Sing 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice the IP is registered in New Delhi, India. Hmmm, I wonder who that could be? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, I'm not only talking about the response to the book Masculinity for Boys, although, it seems unreasonable to dispute something published by UNESCO. I mean had it not been something threatening the Gay community, it'll never have been disputed. What authority do people have to dismiss a credible source as UNESCO.

There are enough references to sustain the pages even without Masculinity for Boys, however, inspite of all the other references, people have gone ahead with deleting the small stuff put up on the 'gay' page, inspite of the RFT going on, and you've just shown your helplessness. The RFC page is also not going anywhere with aggressive mob chauvinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the aggressive deletions, while the discussion is going on, and your helplessness to deal with it. There is certainly a strong gay agenda here, and this is not the only Western place it is obvious in. I have been banned at several gay sites and one mainstream western site for saying the same things -- sites that were willing to put up with terrorists who threatened them with murder. GAys simply don't want to even listen to this stuff, because they know their ideology is faulty and it cannot survive being questioned in this manner. I've had enough of this. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade, when I see such flouting of rules and control of information by a powerful group. An injustice is an injustice. You can now proceed to delete the page I'd created as well as whatever information I'd added. I can't fight the consciousless gay mafia with the few support I have here.(Masculinity (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

BYE!!!! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Aleta ^Sing 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Girdles

Is it wrong of me to think that this issue is completely and utterly hilarious? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<grin> No, it's not wrong! It does seem like much ado about nothing, doesn't it? Aleta ^Sing 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, and I think I want to stay that way in relation to this topic. On a side note, I'm gonna start working on that Pullen Church article tomorrow or late tonight. I'm working on Charlotte Forten Grimke House right now. (for once, I'm writing about a NHRP not located in North Carolina...shocka!) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way - it's related both to D&D and LGBT (or at least the T)... As for for the Pullen article, cool! Are you going to start it in a sandbox? How do you want to work this? Aleta ^Sing 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes me happy to have discussions about a girdle :) MUCH preferable to some of the other stressful situations/articles lately. =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the truth! :) I've also been doing some work on the not-so-controversial portions of my other pet controversial article.Aleta ^Sing 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG, are the Sanchez and Brannan "discussions" still going on? In regards to the Pullen article, I must admit something. I've never used a sandbox to create an article. :) I've talked about doing it, especially the one time I accidentally closed a window with an almost completed article, but I'm a slacker in that regard. I'm actually going to have to research and find out how to use one. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course on Sanchez, don't know about Brannan (I never followed that one as thoroughly). As for the sandbox - it's no big deal. It's just a place called that in your userspace. I have one at User:Aleta/sandbox. You can start one at User:AgnosticPreachersKid/sandbox if you want. Or we can just start the article in mainspace. Whatever. I just assumed you were using one since you put articles up fully-formed with links and everything - you must be doing all that offline instead? Aleta ^Sing 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep a WP window open with the article I'm creating, and come back to it off and on. I'm a nerd and try to make sure everything I can find is already in the article before I finally create it. I currently have a window with the Grimke House article that I've been slowly working on since last night. Can we play in your sandbox? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks hot, to me!

I just glanced at the Brannan article and I'm a little confused. There are plenty of references, but only one citation. Also, the LGBT project tag is no longer there. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my sandbox is fine. I'll start fiddling with it in a minute.

Brannon succeeded in convincing people that he shouldn't have his sexual orientation in the article, even though it's all over the web in his own page that he is. Go figure. Aleta ^Sing 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I meant to say that an advantage of using a sandbox to write an article versus what you're doing is that if the power goes out or your modem explodes, you don't lose all your work. Of course, I usually just do stuff in mainspace and make a jillion edits there, but sandboxes can be useful. Aleta ^Sing 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez continues to baffle. Brannan still hurts. That's all I meant. I'm spending my time on more .. researchy pursuits. (I love the English language!) PS - we should do a newsletter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeppers, we should. But I'm not wearing a girdle to work on a newsletter (or anything else for that matter... ugh!). ;-) Aleta ^Sing 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you wear it! (And I wanna see...) lol Aleta ^Sing 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Who took a picture of my wardrobe? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that must have been Satyr since he posted it here. hmmmm.... Aleta ^Sing 03:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a busy weekend. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of what all took place this past weekend, here are some pix I took of Satyr. Don't tell him I'm showing you this. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so proud of my new license! (on page three) =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy weekend indeed! Aleta ^Sing 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep finding more and more refs for the Pullen article. Did you see The News & Observer link I added at the bottom of the page where I listed possible sources? I'm finding alot of good info there. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I haven't looked at that one specifically - I will! It's coming along, isn't it? :) Aleta ^Sing 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and I just e-mailed the creator of this pic, asking him to upload it so we can have a picture and submit the article for DYK. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good find! That would be great! Aleta ^Sing 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the 'Category:1884 establishments' be appropriate for the article since that was the year it was founded or is that cat specifically for the year a building was constructed? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you're right - that does apply. Good catch! Aleta ^Sing 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The image issue

The guy who took the flickr photos e-mailed me back and said I can use them, but I told him since the pix say "all rights reserved" he would have to do it, I think? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I am not an expert on the image rules. His email might be sufficient if you can send it to OTRS. I am strictly on guessing ground here though. Aleta ^Sing 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had to look up OTRS to find out what that was. ha. I'm not sure how to send them a flckr e-mail though. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not a regular email? Is it just on the flickr system or something? Aleta ^Sing 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, on the flickr system. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... let me see if I can find anything that would help. It seems like I see a lot of images here from flickr, but I don't know if that means anything inherently. We might need to ask at the image upload sections since there are folks who do a lot of that (and I've done none). Aleta ^Sing 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just asked David since he's very familiar with uploading pictures. We'll try both routes. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh David, of course! Aleta ^Sing 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Aleta ^Sing 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're fast! I posted a question only to realize the section immediately above was your post of the question. I deleted mine then so we wouldn't spam the page. Aleta ^Sing 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC):

The answer isn't the one I was hoping for. :( AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. Do you want to contact him again and request that he do that? Alternatively, or in the meantime, we could go ahead and post the article without an image. It would certainly be better with one though. Aleta ^Sing 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've still got a little more to add to the article. Did you see the possible source I added? I'm not sure if a Planned Parenthood article would pass RS though. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) That route of his changing the license sounds promising. Aleta ^Sing 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can use the Planned Parenthood release to say he had endorsed the sex ed statement, and we can quote what they've quoted. Aleta ^Sing 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How's that? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I took the pipe to "South" out so it would just say "Southern United States" since the country info isn't there otherwise. Aleta ^Sing 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)