User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

SatyrBot unblock

done. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

My edits to Anderson Cooper were not vandalism. They are completely factual. The picture is confirmed to be his boyfriend, Julio Cesar Recio, and it is cited many times throughout the article that he is gay. I will revert the edits, please erase the warning from my page and do not falsely accuse me again. Thank you. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This warning is not ridiculous. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) needs to be blocked. He is known to post a series of unproductive controversial edits on various television news anchors. Just today (Sunday, August 03), he is at it again posting a controversial picture of Anderson Cooper with another guy, and calling that guy his gay lover. I’ve already reverted this obnoxious user’s edits in this particular regards. But as you can see, this person is not going to stop until he gets his way on here. He has already engaged in an edit war with a few other people including myself over this. So therefore we have to stop him. This account is used for nothing more than to vandalize on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 31 hours for edit warring and BLP vios. Horologium (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks Horologium. I appreciate it. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back: Bot runs?

Welcome back. Are you thinking of taking the bot out for a run? There are a couple of jobs that need doing on the music projects - nothing urgent, but if you are likely to have time this month, perhaps I can explain in more detail? Best. --Kleinzach 07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Klein! Give me a week or so? The bot needs some overhauling before I can crank it up. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! :D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Socarides

SatyrTN, regarding the citation needed tag you added to the Socarides article, I have to note that there already was a source - Socarides's book A Freedom Too Far. The one reference to that book was meant to source everything taken from it. If I'm doing this wrongly, please tell me how I can improve it. Skoojal (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Doh! My bad! When reading it, I saw the two or three sentence quote that looked like it needed a cite. I somehow missed the fact that the paragraph started with the words "In his book..." - Sorry for that :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see you made it back. Horologium (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Satyr's back? Yay! Welcome "home"! We've missed you around here. Aleta ^Sing 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Satyr's back. It better be some fine house for all the time you took. :-) Let us know something about it, if you don't mind. Welcome back, we all missed you. — Becksguy (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back, Satyr. Hope your house looks great. Now come over and help me finish mine... --Moni3 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey girl hey. I won't tell the others about our little deal. You know, the one about me e-mailing you dirty pictures as long as you came back to the Wiki. APK like a lollipop 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I'll try to get some pictures up - y'all won't want me *near* your places when you see...

(btw, apk, I'm still waiting for those pics...)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm breaking our deal. I'll sell them to you for a millie dollars. That song will probably not be your style, but APK doesn't usually listen to the typical gay favs. I'm a hip-hop fan cause I'm a mofo gayngsta! APK like a lollipop 06:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have pointed to this Millie, but only because I'm a total square. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Moni - that is *SO* gay! I LOVE IT! That beats APK's gayngsta any day! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? Even my inner masculine side is a big ol' disco lovin' interior design appreciatin' gay guy. Is that why I knew instantly what "Band of Gold" was about? --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, I think this tops your video! A dance remix to a song about women kissing. Dance music + lesbyterians = g.a.y. Boomyah. APK like a lollipop 10:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Turing: "trivia"

I've reverted your deletion of the trivia for the moment. I know it was done with good intentions to tidy up the article, but I'm slightly uneasy about wholesale deletion of people's work without any prior discussion. Isn't it possible to take steps listed at Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps for this article? Some of the facts must have a place elsewhere. The section already has a more specific title. Perhaps the list should be converted into a proper paragraph of text. At the very least, statements should be moved to the talk page for discussion or for people to work on, rather than deleted without trace. Kind regards, JRawle (Talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Russia portal/Things you can do

 Done, thanks for the note. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Howie Silbiger

This article has been deleted per G6 by your request. Let me know if you need anything else. It looks to me like the article should exist? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like i should stop tagging pages earlier in the evening, as it seems the bulk of my errors seems to happen the last few hours. Proper category should probably have been G2 as the user was requesting information why the article's subject could not have its own page on Wikipedia. In those cases i rather don't smack pages with an A7 not notable as it would be a little rude to explain what has to be done to create notability, immediately followed by a notable tag as if it were some final verdict. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should it be restored? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The article itself was simply a test page, from which not even a stub could be extracted(Its at the original creators talk page). At the same time, i spend some time to research Howie Silbiger. He has 197 hits of which all are either play lists, myspace pages or other sites that are fully unusable for Wikipedia. News.google.com turn up no usable sources, and based upon the small bio i found, there is no notability at all. I would say that the removal is correct, as were the previous A7's :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Namsadang

I want to hear your reasoning for the revert although I put back the legitimate WikiProject. Have you heard of the Korean itinerant "male" troupe before? I guess not. The article is still at beginning status to be expanded with much missing contents, so you thought that what on earth this article is tagged with the project banner. However, I would recommend to read the article of The King and the Clown, and you would know what content the article in question would have in the future. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Caspian blue!

I removed the project banner because the article says absolutely nothing about sexuality. Can you give me a nutshell answer? Are the troupes made up of only gay men? Do they only perform for lesbians? Help me (and other readers of the article) to understand why it should be considered LGBT. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Err.. they did not perform for lesbians (I consider it as a joke). Well, they used to be consisted of only men, not all of them being gay men, but they solved their "desire" within their troupe. Young apprentices were trained to play female characters under a guide by older performers. It was like a boy and old man pair in ancient Greece. They sometimes sold themselves to villagers or higher officers. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a joke :)

I don't really see how the men sometimes having sex with each other qualifies as LGBT? That's kind of like saying Prison should be in the LGBT project. If you feel strongly that it belongs in the project, would you bring it up to WT:LGBT? Because I feel strongly that it doesn't belong.

Hmmm. your comparison is not appropriate. Not sometimes also. Like Farewell My Concubine (film) which has the project banner, the subject has been a gay study in South Korea. So I strongly feel that the banner should be attached to there. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Farewell My Concubine is a film about a gay couple, and both of them identify themselves as gay. I don't know if they have sex in the film or not. Prison is about a group of men that sometimes (but not always) have sex with each other, but may or may not be gay. As far as I can tell - and tell me if I'm wrong - the Namsadang troupe is a group of men that sometimes (but not always) have sex with each other, and may or may not be gay. Please note - I sense that you're not a native English speaker, and I would like to point out to you that to men who have sex together may or may not be gay, which refers to a self-identification and a sub-culture. Now, are the members of a Namsadang troupe gay? Or do they just sometimes have sex together? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the movie characters were not "gay" at the first time. Like Leslie Cheung selling himself to higher officers, namsadang also did the same things to survive. They had not accepted female performers until 20th century and could not because Korea was a very conservative and secluded Confucian state. The pairs were like husbands and wives, and "pretty" and "feminine" apprentices were popular and coveted among old performers. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, there needs to be referenced information in the article. If that's added to the article, then the project banner can go on there - until then, it's just confusing. And really, unless the group is somehow like the Mattaccino (see the section on the Mattachine Society), the troupe itself doesn't seem to be LGBT. But please - add the referenced information so that others can join in on the discussion. At the moment, the article says absolutely nothing on the subject, which is why I removed the banner. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most sources are written in Korean, but these book links would get you take a glimpse of the future content.[1][2]--Caspian blue (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's just my point - you keep referring to future content - until the content is there, the banner is confusing. Can't you take the banner off until you've worked the content into the article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Sooner or later, I would add that info, and the banner could lead LGBT project members would also implement the article. Btw, if you're okay, can I copy and paste our discussion to the article talk page? I think I might get the same question from people.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for opinions from other members of WP:LGBT. I'm a) not convinced the acting troupes are LGBT, b) not happy putting the project banner on an article based on "future content", and c) don't believe you and I can reach any sort of consensus on the matter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you take your time just 3 minute to look into the links that I gave you, your doubt will be gone.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, can I copy and paste our discussion to the talk page of Namsadang? (questioning this second time)--Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Buraka Som Sistema

Hi, you speedied this article about a Portuguese band under notability guidelines. Actually, the article had a reference to an external link that asserted notability, but I neglected to mention the ref was in the Portuguese language. The funny thing is I created the article because there is already an article on one of their songs, "Sound of Kuduro", but there wasn't one about the band. If it's not possible to undelete can you restore it to my userpage, at least? Thanks. --Pc13 (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Volten Sins

Hi
I'm curious about this deletion. You speedily deleted it as "A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.", yet the article did say that the notable singer Jessica Jacobs was a member, which to me is not only an assertion of notability, but is a clear cut case of notability according to WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, just as I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Volten Sins. Do you disagree?
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 18:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Amalthea,

I didn't realize there was an AfD going on for that article - there wasn't a notice on the page, just a speedy delete tag. The article itself did not assert any notability of the band, only that Jessica Jacobs was in the band. That's a tenuous claim of notability if that's all that's stated. I did see all the links in the article, but were either self-promotional (which doesn't satisfy notability claims) and/or were links about Jacobs' notability, which doesn't mean the band is notable.

If you'd like, I can restore the article to your namespace, and/or restore it so that the deletion disscion can continue. Let me know on my talk page? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't want it restored, and I think it's very clear that the article wouldn't have survived the AfD in any case. I was just asking because, as I understand WP:MUSIC, it *is* considered notable by having "at least one member …", so it seems obvious that it does count as an assertion of notability. FWIW, Stifle was also of the opinion to speedy it, and I too think that this notability guideline is too strong, but I also think that speedy deletions should really go by the book.
Are you OK with me recreating it as a redirect to Jessica Jacobs, which I think is what WP:MUSIC suggests?
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - just did that. Thanks for writing - and thanks for your work! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. See you around, Amalthea^Talk 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons templates

Hey....

Do you know how one might include a template here that is hosted in the Commons template namespace, for example, Commons:Template:vk, or do they have to be copied over to our template namespace. And if so, how does one do that? Copy the code, create a new template page here, and then paste? Don't know much about templates, and Commons has some cool ones referred to as Commons:Category:Polling templates that I think we could use. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does {{tick}} help? Historically, Wikipedia (unlike other projects) has discouraged the use of templates like those polling ones. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_3#Voting_templates_yet_again and the links from there, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_7#Template:KeepVote for the most recent bout.

That said, I've seen several people that have "personal" copies. Like User:Morgan Wick/keep, as an example. Or even User:SatyrTN/Keep. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot error

Your bot removed a talkpage header which is there to tell people that the talkpage isn't a forum and it also added a comment thats on the talkpage[3]. Bidgee (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Phi Rho Eta

You removed a page entitled "Phi Rho Eta" because you says it doesn't list the importance. PRE is a social fraternity throughout the state of Illinois which does much innovative programming etc which sets it apart from other organizations which have the same purposes. I was once a member of their MTB program, and it has me in college to this day because of their hard work. I hope you put it back and soon. Thanks, Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.172.9 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey queen

Long absences make for holes in MoS updates. Recently, the MoS was changed to say dates are no longer to be linked. If you make me find it, I'll hate you, but I'll do it. And per WP:Lead, citations in the lead aren't necessary unless they're quotes, or very contentious information. I'm not quite done with the references. The stupid dorko library is closed this weekend, else I would have all kinds of citations about Pride and how worldwide it is. Now I have to wait until Monday. I'm hoping to get that from gay encyclopedias as comprehensive and authoritative sources. --Moni3 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<Butting in with irrelevancy> What's this weekend that the library would be closed??? Aleta ^Sing 02:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome all random questions. It's semester turnover. Classes start a week from Monday. My shrine of knowledge is shut down. Stupid shrine. --Moni3 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That's goofy that they close the library completely! What nobody does any work between terms? Or just wants to find something for pleasure reading during the break? How annoying for you. Aleta ^Sing 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the silliness of your library, I'm not convinced about the de-linking. Take a look at the talk page - there's hardly consensus. I'll abide by whatever you want, since you're sorta the primary writer, but personally I prefer the wikilinks. As for refs in the lede, the claim of Mafia-owned would certainly be considered contentious, and the fact that the raid was a normal occurrence is sort of a keystone for the patrons' response - I feel pretty strongly that it needs a ref.

BTW, we can probably take most of this to the talk page :)

Thanks for all your work on it! I doubt I'll be able to do more than spit and polish, but I'm pretty good at that... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Takin' it to the talk page... --Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - article you speedied Nfitz (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese cash move

You recently closed a move request at Chinese cash (currency unit) and as the nominator I obviously have no problem with your decision.

I'll probably regret beating this dead horse but you said "this being the English wikipedia, WP:UE comes out on top of WP:CN."

I thought I presented a pretty good case that the former title was not the common name for the currency either and that it bordered on O.R.. Did you disagree? — AjaxSmack 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not necessarily disagree. I felt the UE argument was stronger, though, since it didn't run in to the argument about the Chinese character vs the English word (which was somewhat specious, but *was* somewhat relevant). Since the UE argument was stronger, I closed referencing that one. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Packet Tracer

I see that my article on Packet Tracer was deleted, because of "blatant advertising". I am sorry that it may have looked like that; let me clarify that the software is NOT available to the public in general (as far as I know). Also, I am not getting paid to advertise this product; I am simply concerned that there is no information whatsoever available about Packet Tracer, a program used by perhaps a million students worldwide (the students of Cisco Networking Academy).

I am not sure what I am to do, to have information about Packet Tracer included. Perhaps the mere mention of this product is seen as an advertisement for Cisco Networking Academy? Probably I emphasized the features too much; but I wanted to include SOME relevant information.

When writing the article, I was concerned about quite a different topic, namely, that not much information seems to be available, except for registered users of Cisco Networking Academy; that makes it somewhat difficult to provide references.

Hilmarz (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hilmarz! The major problems with the article that you're referring to are:

• "Blatant advertising:" I recognize that you aren't being paid to advertise, but the truth is that it is a product, and the article had the tone of advertising.
• "Notability:" The bigger issue may have been that the program is of doubtful notability. In short, if you can find substantial coverage from reliable, third-party sources, the article will be beyond reproach.

As you can imagine, there are a lot of WP articles, and people are adding new ones all the time. Wikipedia has guidelines on what is encyclopedic and notable. The best way to ensure an article is kept is to make sure it has references.

Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help with anything else. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might try to change the tone of the article, but the major problem remains, that I can't seem to find public information (the information I have is for Academy users only). So I'll just have to leave the article deleted for now. Hilmarz (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any print materials that could help? Books that are available? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Axel Schock

please have a look on it and correct translationmistakes. GLGermann (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

DB-C2

Sure Thanks for your note. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot readied?

Hi. You're obviously getting back into the swing of things! Is the bot dusted off and ready to be put through its paces? --Kleinzach 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kleinzach. I'm back in the swing of things, but have spent almost no time on the bot. It's on my mind, don't worry :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Backseat Administration

The Backseat Administration from you is getting quite annoying. Nfanslim (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I don't understand what you mean. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace Backseat Administration, with "Being a dick" Nfanslim (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean, but I'll ask you to review WP:CIVIL - please discuss articles and their merits rather than calling me names. Being uncivil will get you blocked. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Going around, looking for articles to delete, and deprive users of the fruits of their labor. That's what I mean. Nfanslim (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Actually, I watch all the cities and towns in New Hampshire. When I saw a questionable "notable inhabitant", I reviewed the new article. When I couldn't verify the information in it, I brought it up to AfD. I would expect any involved editor to do the same - we're all trying to build a great encyclopedia, which means verifiable information. Thank you for your input - I appreciate the feedback. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You speedy deleted it though, you didn't leave it up for discussion at all. Which is unfair to me who worked for the past hour or two getting and compiling information, then you accused me of a hoax. Which I believe is totally unfair. Nfanslim (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Special:Contributions/Orangemike speedied it. Which means that two different admins found the "article" lacking. If you want to re-add the article, find three reliable sources that provide non-trivial, 3rd-party information and I will personally restore it for you. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

DA

Hi Satyr—I see that we have the gay thing and Mac OSX in common: what better opening? In response to your post at MOSNUM about the date autoformatting issue, first, let me apologise for squeezing my own post in above yours. We had an edit-conflict, and my post was in response to two comments directly above. I used a new section because the previous one was becoming very large.

I'm unsure whether you were caught out by Greg L's proposed text (which I think is premature in some ways—see my comments there), or the larger issue, or both. Most participants in the discussion are aware that sentiment against the DA mechanism has a long history, and that moves away from it started, I think, about two years ago. This was at Bugzilla initially, a long-running request for the decoupling of the linking and DA mechanisms. It has demonstrated that WikiMedia is very hard to move on big issues—the request, backed up by a petition of 86 WPians 18 months ago, has languished. MOSNUM talk has seen a steady flow of debate on the matter for more than a year, which can be found in the archives. It has flared up occasionally into animated debate, most recently a few months ago, where it became clear that there was strong support for strenghtening the language that effectively optionalised DA late last year (don't quote me on the exact timings). This "strengthening" has been done at MOSNUM, CONTEXT and MOSLINK, and there are moves to persuade WPians at large of the benefits of giving editors the power to use or not use DA as they see fit.

Here's a capped summary of the disadvantages of DA that has been floating around. I welcome your input; while I'm prepared to accept that you may disagree with some of the arguments, I hope to persuade you of the advantages in moving away from DA.

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Tony (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha haahha. I just read that and said, "Tony1's gay?" My gaydar sucks on Wikipedia. I'm thinking of looking for people to read Stonewall riots who aren't gay to get an NPOV perspective...strike another out... --Moni3 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tony1! Glad to know that if we disagree about dates, we at least agree about computers! =D

I actually was sorta blindsided by the whole date issue, or at least the way things currently stand. The first time I've heard anything about it was today, and I've been editing for a couple years now. I've been gone for four months, so that plays into the whole thing, but I honestly knew almost nothing about the change to MOS/DATE.

My response to the "disadvantages" is:

1. Auto-formatting does no harm, even if it seems to only do "good" for a few.
2. This is incorrect - it's definitely not trivial. Date formatting is an issue that's been around for years and years - and obviously there are proponents and opponents of each format. If it were trivial, something would have been worked out one way or another - the fact that it hasn't speaks loudly.
3. This issue can be solved with a simple css formatting - get the code guys to add a <div> around auto-formatted dates, and anyone can get rid of the blue underline.
4. "Errors" in wikilinking is an issue for all wiki-markup - tables are an example that is *tons* more difficult than dates, and somehow we survive. Yes, there are errors. There are errors in applying categories, but we still do it.
5. "Edit mode clutter" is a specious argument. Citations can be far more cluttering in edit mode than adding brackets around a couple pieces of text.
6. These "limited applications" may indeed be a valid issue.

I doubt we're going to agree, and that's fine. I'm also fine with auto-formatting being optional. I was pretty sure it already was. I thought that the wording of MOS:DATE had changed, and maybe it has, which set off a bit of ire on my part that was probably uncalled for. It seems to me the section MOS:DATE#Dates used to say more about auto-formatting - has that been re-worked recently?

In any case, sorry if I over-reacted. And thanks for your comments. To me, anyway, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. And I'm used to doing the wikilinks, now, so changing is not comfortable :) Thanks again! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So I'm interested to see whether your attitude shifts after seeing a lot of DA-free articles; that will be the acid test. Please keep in touch on this issue. Of course, the code you specified won't change the display for our readers, will it. That's really what I care about. Thanks for your reply. Tony (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But it *would* changed the code for our readers. There's no reason the devs can't add that div statement around auto-formatted dates, whether or not any other change is made. So no one has to see the blue lines under dates.

I'm curious, though - is there a new effort to *remove* datelinks? That's a *much* different thing than just saying it's optional... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed my failure to respond to your queries above.

• (1) DA does do harm, I believe: visually it dilutes the high-value links (I really want to optimise the utility of wikilinking, which may seem counterintuitive, since I want less underlined blue on the page.) For our readers out there, who are the target group, it delivers no benefit for the cost of clutter and dilution.
• (2) For the privileged few, DA delivers a very marginal benefit (who cares about the order of month and day, day and month?); I I wonder whether you find the international-format in plain black after every signature an issue? Only a minority of articles have that, anyway, as their raw format. You don't think that the smoothness of plain black outweighs the order of the month and day? I'd have thought the opposite. How do you cope with British/Australian spelling? May I make a suggestion, that you read a few DA-free international-format articles from time to time. I bet you five beers that you'll soon not even notice the different order. I flatter myself in saying that my PhD was in the psychology of reading; while I have no hard, specific evidence of my assertion, but have lived in that field for some time and have a feel for reading behaviour.
• (3) I don't think it's simple. See my points at MOSNUM talk about the Bugzilla debacle. And see my very final point.
• (4) Yes, errrors pop up everywhere. However, using DA-free raw format brings them to our attention mighty quick, rather than concealing them. And DA does invite errors (I've done a lot of surveying—one type is the single unit for US format, rather than the two sets of square brackets).
• (5) I agree that citations can be disruptive in edit mode (some are appalling, and I'd not use them). I guess my brain is coded to emphasise the minimisation of clutter, more than most people's. Maybe it's part of the copy-editing mechanism I live in. Tony (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I happen to have comparisons handy from a Featured List. You may wish to compare the previous autoformatted version with the cleaned-up version. Scrolling down side by side is best, but the difference is clear by comparing one after the other, too. It's in US format, so won't be the acid test for you. Tony (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the comparison means nothing to me. I'm to the point where I expect dates to be wikilinked. And BTW I have my prefs set to show me the European format :)

But to your above comments:

1) DA doesn't do the harm. Blue underlining does the harm, you're saying. That's not the same thing.

2) The other benefit you're ignoring is the standardized format. Yes, it's still for the privileged few. But see my final comment below.

3) It is entirely that simple. The amount of coding necessary to add the div around an auto-formatted date is simply trivial. Whether the developers listen or not has nothing to do with the merits of each of our suggestions - and getting a couple dozen (?) developers to listen and to change the code will be a lot simpler and more effective than trying to change hundreds of editors and millions of articles.

4) I disagree - errors are errrors. Whether they are auto-formatted or not makes no difference - and in fact, one could argue that the auto-formatting code is much better at picking up the errors that might slip by a reader reading plain-black text.

My main contention is that we can accomplish your goals by doing exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Rather than mandating a discontinuance of auto-formatting (which is counter to your concept of local control anyway), let's expand the coding so that auto-formatting happens even for readers who aren't logged in. And while we're at it, tweak the code just a tiny bit to allow individual users (and perhaps even the default) to turn off the blue lines under auto-formatted dates.

By doing it that way, we'll address your 6 points effectively. And to do so, we only need to pressure the developers, not change the minds of half (?) the community of editors. Much more efficient :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hey, thanks for your help in keeping my Vann's Appliances & Electronic Article from being removed while I'm trying to figure out Wikipedia and improve that page to make it meet the criteria. I was wondering, now that I've found third-party references and added a few things to explain why Vann's is a relevant enough to company to merit being on Wikipedia, how I could move the article back to the content and off my user profile, and also how I could move it back to my profile for more editing if need be. Thanks for all the help!

-Kellan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellan Standley (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Fairbrass

Well I apologise if my edit summary was cutting - I had a bad day at work! -- role^player 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border

You recently closed the survey about moving Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border → Migrant deaths along the United States–Mexico border, judging it to have reached No Consensus.

Three editors supported the change to the more inclusive title. The two editors voting in opposition did not oppose a move per se, but wanted an even more inclusive title, with one previously promoting the much more inclusive Deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border.

There seems to be high degree of consensus among the editors about the need to change the title of the article to something else than Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. I believe most if not all editors consider it an improvement to use the more inclusive migrants rather than immigrants in the title, regardless of their favorite new name. Many of our cited sources refers to migrants, and one editor has already purged many of them arguing that they are not about immigrants, forcing the issue.

As an evolutionary step forward, I request that you reopen the survey, this time to strictly determine whether editors want to Keep the old title or Rename the article to Migrant deaths along the United States–Mexico border.

Terjen (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

DA

Hi Satyr—I responded on my talk page. Tony (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted redirect

Satyr, I see that you deleted El Dorado Freeway per CSD R3. I have found reliable sources from the California government (Parks Dept pdf file, see page 16), an enthusiast web site (cahighways.org) and the Sacramento Bee that indicate this is a commonly used name for the highway. Unless you have any objections, I would like to restore the redirect. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Um. Given that a Google search turns up 32 hits for "el dorado freeway", and eight of those are Wikipedia (or copies), I think the R3 "implausible" fits rather well. I won't delete it again, so be bold if you wish, but I don't think it's widely used at all, and don't think it's necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It came to my attention via WP:RPP, where the anon IP who tagged it for speedy immediately requested salting after you deleted the page. Some of the IP's other contributions look a little strange, including tagging long forgotten user talk pages for G6 speedies ([4] & [5]) with no rationale. Looks... curious. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Matters not to me, except that my reasoning for going ahead with the R3 speedy is pretty sound - there's little to no indication that the phrase "El Dorado Freeway" is in use by anyone but us. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Horrible

I followed that from Day One (well, as soon as NPH inadvertently revealed it in an interview, and Joss was forced to announce it on Whedonesque) and have undertaken great lengths to show my friends it haha. It is SUBLIME.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. And you neglected to tell *me* about it? Does Whedon plan for NPH to get naked? Just curious... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I loves ya Satyr, but I just can't abide by this. :-) --David Shankbone 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah! I bet you didn't like Buffy the Musical, either, did you? DrH has two things going for it, IMO - it's a snub at "the system" for being created as it was. And it's funny, light humor. I'm only a bit into the second ep, but so far it's simply light humor with a story - much more interesting to me than any of the so-called reality shows! And third (which cannot be denied) I've always had a crush on Doogie! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG - how can you not love a show where the superhero comes *back* on screen to say "The hammer is my penis"!???!?? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely love how it came to being. I just felt it failed at what it was trying to do content-wise, but hats off for why it was created. hehe. --David Shankbone 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Benedict Stuart

Thanks for intervening to clarify the wikiproject categorisation. Despite my best efforts I think this remains one to watch though. I've been subjected to a sustained stream of homophobic abuse from the contributer Sceptik who has now been blocked for 31 hours, but may return to the discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will participate in discussions as I'm able :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Melaka Fray

Hey SatyrTN, you're an admin and Whedon fan... could you do me a favour and move Melaka Fray (Character) to just Melaka Fray? I tried doing it myself but it wouldn't let me because Melaka Fray already exists as a redirect to the Fray article, so I figured I needed an admin to do it? Thanks.  Paul  730 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. In general, you can request moves of that nature at WP:RM. Just FYI :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That page needs a lot of work but at least now it's under the right title.  Paul  730 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! That's what I'm here for :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank God, that eyesore of a page title was killing me :P~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reich

No stepped on toes, I simply was maintaining his listing and category given it's sourced albeit not mentioned. I've been meaning to get around to expanding his article but hadn't gotten around to it. Given the size of the article, I hadn't added his sexual orientation as it didn't seem to be the most critical aspect of his life. On the other hand, in his biography, he does go into great detail on being gay and how this affected his life. I'll add a blurb for now and also add him to the LGBT wikiproject. And I didn't mean to unilateral, I used the edit summaries as communication, but would go to user talk pages after the first edit. Evolauxia (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Auburn, NH Town Seal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Auburn, NH Town Seal.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Victor Salva

The reason I removed Victor Salva from the list is because he isn't gay, he's a peadophile, so not only is it only incorrect to include him, but also quite an insult. Permitting a convicted child molestor an entry in an anthology of the world's most prominent homosexual people conveys a negative image of homosexuality as a whole, which was I hastened to delete him. Forgive me if I broke some rule.

Yours,

--6afraidof7 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Victor Salva

You cannot be gay and a peadophile, that's why I removed him from the list in the first place; I hated the idea of people being given the impression that perversity and homosexuality are one and the same, co-exsisting together side by side. However, I shan't interfere with your decision to re-include him - you've obviously been around on this website a lot longer than I have - I just thought I should put my point across before acquiescing.

Yours,

--6afraidof7 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese wén

Can you please justify the comment you made in moving Chinese wén: "this being the English Wikipedia, WP:UE comes out on top of WP:CN" I am aware of no such hierarchy among guidelines. Would you also care to explain why you, an admin, chose to take an opinion rather than reflecting the clear lack of consensus over the course of the three discussions of this matter. Furthermore, could you explain why you curtailed an ongoing discussion which had just taken up a new point?
Dove1950 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dove1950! Thanks for asking for clarification - I'll see if I can explain my actions clearly, but please feel free to ask more if I don't.

As you know, there was a *lot* of discussion on the issue, spread out over three requested moves. After wading through all of it, it seemed to me that the main points could be boiled down to the intersection between WP:UE and WP:CN. The main CN argument seemed to be that the most common name for the monetary unit was "wén". However, as was refuted several times in the discussions, the name of the monetary unit is *not* "wén", but rather 文, which can be transliterated as "wén", "maan", "boon", "wun", and many other ways.

Since the most common name for the currency is actually 文, and since this is the English wikipedia (see WP:UE), the CN argument holds less weight. The "new point" was actually just a variation on that same discussion.

Now, on a related but different topic, all of the above there is *my* opinion, after reading all the arguments and weighing each of their merits. That is what admins are supposed to do when looking for WP:CONSENSUS - weigh the strength of the various arguments - taking into account the minority opinion - and coming to a careful and considered opinion.

In this case, you were pretty much the only person arguing against the move, with an occasional comment by two or three other users, who usually added no more than the !vote of "oppose". So, taking all of that into account, I felt that the concern addressed by UE was stronger than the concern raised by CN, and said as such in the move.

I hope that helps - let me know if you have any further questions. If you still feel the move was wrong, please bring it up on the article's talk page again. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It won't come a surprise that I do consider your decision to move wrong. I'm glad to see that you read all three discussions but I'm surprised by your characterization of these discussions. The contributions of User:Endroit and User:Umofomia go well beyond your notion of opponents only voting. Nonetheless, has it occurred to you that such votes are in no way invalidated by the lack of additional comments? Take for example the comments by User:Nightstallion, who is elsewhere a vocal opponent of the Anglicization of terminology in Wikipedia.
I find your opinion on the transliteration of 文 rather curious. "Maan", "boon", "wun" etc. are not transliterations but approximate pronunciations in other languages/dialects, whereas wén is the pinyin transliteration, as standardized in the PRC. That's not a minority opinion but a fact.
I'm afraid that requesting a reversion of the move, whilst it will have to be done unless you accept your error, is a poor solution to the problem you have created by taking your own opinions into account, since it reverses the burden of proof. I invite you to undo your precipitous conclusion of the debate (within hours of a significant, unanswered group of comments from one side), to put the article back where two previous admins have concluded, based on the discussions, that it should stay, and to allow the discussion to continue.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT topics cat

yeah i created it since i noticed that for example there were categories linking gay villages ("gay villages") and LGBT people and books, but not articles by geography or by region, i thought this would be a good idea to link them and picked a title i thought was fitting and followed the category jargon. perhaps general category needs to be created: Articles on LGBT topics, then LGBT topics by Country, State/Provice, then region. what do you think? Honestly i was just trying to improve and pattern upon the many ...in/of the San Francisco Bay Area categories.^MY♥_INchile 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Meredith Town Seal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Meredith Town Seal.gif. 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) 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: British transgender people

If you're concerned about the category, then the proper procedure to get rid of it is to get it deleted or renamed rather than simply removing it from articles. Furthermore, not all British people are from England (Scotland and Wales are also part of Britain), and a Transgender People from England Category would not redundant, it would simply be a subcategory of the LGBT people from England category, just as the transgender and transsexual people is a subcategory of the LGBT people category. Asarelah (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm - yes. Except it is redundant (see Category:LGBT people from England, Category:LGBT people from Scotland, Category:LGBT people from Wales, and/or Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom), and since we don't have similar categories for any other country, it's also wrong. I'll CfD. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The transgender people by country category is a subcat of Category:Transgender and transsexual people. You'll find other parent categories also organize articles between occupation and country. Asarelah (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello SatyrTN/Archive 15, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of LGBT people list on Polish Wikipedia

Yes, it was deleted long time ago. pl:Kategoria:LGBT (biografie) (Category:LGBT people) is likely to be deleted soon too. Poles are just homophobic... There are one or two people who are able to do anything to stop development of LGBT articles on Wikipedia. I've no idea what you could do to help. Do you have any ideas? It would be nice to get some support. Dawid86 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits

You are absolutely correct and I apologize. I usually switch off such changes once AWB reaches userpages, but this time, unfortunately, my attention was diverted and the task finished by the time I returned. "C'est la vie" springs to mind. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deconfliction

Tried a few different search parameters and found plenty to show notability. [6], [7], [8]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cypriot Gay Liberation Movement

Hi - thanks for asking! I was unhappy with total deletion, which is why I de-prodded, but a redirect to Modinos v. Cyprus seems perfectly sensible, given the lack of direct information on the above - a sentence or two on the CGLM as part of Modinos' background wd be good, though. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! that seems fine for now. I think Modinos might be eligible for an article in his own right, but it's beyond my knowledge of Greek to do.HeartofaDog (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ippadikku Rose

Ippadikku Rose is a TV talk show telecast in one of the major cable channels in India called Vijay TV (one of the TV channels owned by News Corporation). The show is a big leap in a culturally conservative country like India. The article has several references. I dont understand how "No notability asserted" can be a reason for it to be proposed for deletion. I guess I will go ahead and remove the tag. Docku^Hi 18:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Docku! The article doesn't say *why* the show is important, it simply describes the show. Therefore, "No notability asserted". Feel free to remove the prod, but if you do, could you at least expand the article to include validly sourced info on why it's important? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Irish

I have replied to your comments on my talkpage. Thank you. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RV my edit???

Why did you revert my edit on the Anderson Cooper article??? All I said is that he has never publicly stated whether or not he is gay. I did not say he is not gay and I did cite the info. I will be putting it back on there. I do not want to get into a edit revert war with you but I just put something that was true down there and it was not vandalisum. If you were offended then reword it to your liking. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Miagirljmw14! Cooper's never said he was a murderer, either - do we need to put that in the article?

Flippancy aside, the issue of his sexuality has been flogged around quite a bit. Review the talk page archives if you want a flavor. I see no need to add a negative statement ("He doesn't talk about it") to muddy things further. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just said he never said he was gay so he may not be. If some one said you were gay (and you were not) and you never said it then how relibal is that. I have read the talk page and have in fact posted on it. We don't know if he is or not. It might just be a rumor. It is not a negative statement. I will admit I did deleat something I should not have but have fixed it. And this is not the same as murder. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And if blurtit.com is not a relibal source you find one. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, what are all the LGBT tags on the talk page suppose to mean??? I am putting back the statement. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Run to the Beat

Hi SatyrTN,

Can you please expand on the reasons why you deleted the Run to the Beat wikipedia page on August 7th? I can't see any differences between the other half marathon sites on wikipedia and that page. Can I also get a copy of the source text that you have deleted so I can work on getting it approved for wikipedia?

RTTB (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, RTTB. I've replied on your talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Porn star deletions.

Hey there. I've replied on my userpage. — Coren ^(talk) 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy category Dispute

SatyrTN, I'd like to ask for your input regarding a dispute over the recently-created Conversion therapy category, which in my view is being inappropriately added to several articles. The relevant disputes are here [9], here [10], and here [11]. I am asking you because you are a member of WikiProjectLGBT studies, and this has implications for numerous articles involved in the project. Skoojal (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Orange juice queen

Do you know if there was ever an article on the 1977 Dade County civil rights ordinance, the one Anita Bryant and Save Our Children overturned? I seem to remember, as if in a dream, that there was an article at one time. Did it get deleted? --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember one, no. Is there a way to search deleted items? /me scurries off to see. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Undelete doesn't turn up any likely articles starting with "1977", "Dade", or "Civil" (though I only skimmed that last one - you can more closely if you want). Maybe there wasn't. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was thinking of an earlier natty version of Bryant's article. At any rate, while writing Harvey Milk's article, this issue is included, and I'm rather surprised that it's not been created since the sources I'm using seem to suggest this was the event that spawned the Moral Majority as well as the unification and national focus of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. So, that seems kind of like a big deal to me. At any rate, I always kind of knew about it in the nether regions of my consciousness. Maybe it's been so long since I've come up against this kind of bile that the details of it are at once disgusting and fascinating. I may have to create it. A DYK might be something interesting to read. --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I help with that? Maybe work together on it? I enjoyed writing Morris Kight, and have a soft spot for Harry Hay - another article in that realm would be fun. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The recent death of Del Martin has me racked with guilt because their article has been sitting in my sandbox for months, and I don't know what I expected, but I felt the same when Jane Rule died and her article was a mess. Frank Kameny is another one that needs some attention. I was talking with my partner about this today since it's been swimming in my brain. The Dade County ordinance started a movement. Bryant's organization, Save Our Children, Inc., offered their services to the two dozen or so municipalities that had civil rights ordinances already on the books in 1977 and overturned them in Eugene, Oregon, Wichita, Kansas, and the infamous Minneapolis-St. Paul where she got the pie in the face. I was thinking that I would have to read Bryant's books now. She wrote one in 1977 about the hedonism of homosexuality, and an autobiography recently that tells that her husband beat her and forced her to do all that. Jack Campbell the Miami bathhouse owner expressed the opinion that she was just really in need of gigs, and this would raise her profile... There's always another story somewhere. At any rate, I really wasn't looking forward to reading her poisonous treacle, but it's much like a train wreck I know I wouldn't be able to stay away. I've got Harvey Milk's article to about 75% of where it should be. Because I'm concerned about diversity of sources with Randy Shilts as Milk's primary biographer, I'm probably going to have to go through Bay-area newspapers on microfilm...from 1973 to 1979. That will be very time consuming, but I went ahead and ordered them... The interim will give us some time to work out the construction of an article on Save Our Children, Inc. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of rude

I've read WP:FICT and I myself am something on avid deletionist. However, flat out redirects aren't a solution. An AfD listing every Skins character article however, could help the community of editors who have contributed to those pages decide to more constructively work on a better "List of characters" page, for example.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed rude. But she really isn't notable - pretty much the entire article is written in-universe, and the only references are from the show's website. But if you feel an AfD is necessary, I'll go ahead with that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cassie and Sid are more or less the series' leads in the first series; Nicholas Hoult's character was sort of the known-actor poster boy. AfD would be better - I lost control of the articles during season two when users started adding episode-by-episode summaries which dragged them down.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Lloyd

Hi, just noted your reversion at Peter Lloyd's article. He has in fact "come out" (see [12]), but I agree that his article does not warrant the LGBT tag. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - the other news article just said "partner", but didn't go in to details. I've updated the article with the new item and cats. Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Laslo Zalezac

An editor has the requested the userfication of Laslo Zalezac which you deleted per A7 here. Just a heads up. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem userfying, though if the article is at Drv, I suppose someone paying attention there can do it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Old AI

It's back... Recreated with much the same text as before. Orpheus (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg

Just a heads-up that we seem to have had an edit conflict in reverting some vandalism to Whoopi Goldberg. To fix it, I reverted your (presumably inadvertent) revert of my fix. I mistakenly labeled you as a bot in my edit summary. Just clearing the air so you don't get a big wtf moment when you look at your watchlist :) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - thanks :) I saw that as it happened, and then noticed that I hadn't reverted back far enough, but that you had, so it's all good! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Elmar Kraushaar

please correct translation mistakes. GLGermann (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Looks good! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad

Glad to see that you're back. I hope you had a good summer. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hope you have, too! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine's been good, thanks. Hope you got that house in Tn. finished! Take care.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah. My partner got the electricity hooked up the week after I left, we have a pseudo system set up for water, and there's a roof. The rest is still being worked on :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll all work out. Glad to hear that construction has begun and it's a'buildin'. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Wieben and Rüdiger Lautmann

please correct translation mistakes. GLGermann (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Textile Institute of Pakistan

Hello there. With regard to your concerns, the article did seem to incorporate a lot of content from this site, which asserts copyright at the bottom of the page. I've reverted to the edit prior to the addition, as almost everything since were minor edits to the copyright infringing text. Thanks for posting it at SCV, those kind of infringements often go unnoticed, as CSB only searches new pages. May I ask how you stumbled upon the violation? Cheers! – Toon^(talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Total random chance! I don't even remember what I was searching for when I came across it, but it totally was chance. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, well, good thing it was you who found it then! – Toon^(talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lois Griffin

I answered you in the Talk page --Ravave (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:GLGermann/Memorial to homosexual people persecuted under Nazism

Please need translation correction for that article. Before i`ll finish that article there should be first a translation correction. GLGermann (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

maybe you can correct it soon. I´´ll like to finish the article. GLGermann (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure over exact lemmatranslation, so answer again on discussionpage of lemma. GLGermann (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good intentions

OK, I believe you have good intentions. I have nothing against you. I try and get along with everybody as best as I can. I'm sorry if I did not assume good enough faith with you because of all of our past arguments. No harm, no foul. You are all right with me. You are a very good arguer too. I would rather be on your side in an argument for a change, and hopefully that will happen at some point if we ever cross paths on Wikipedia again. We are all supposed to be on the same side here (the side of making Wikipedia better.) I am sorry to have argued with you so much, but I believe in certain things strongly enough to speak out about them. You are good at what you do too, and hopefully we all can try and make Wikipedia better. Peace! Geneisner (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility that we'll be able to work together, but your comments at Talk:Allen Ginsberg were a bit much. I don't mind constructive arguing, but consider actually listening to your opponent rather than continually repeating your own side - you may find that you actually *agree* with some things, which makes the whole process a lot smoother. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

OK, how is pederasty not lgbt? Haiduc (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I mess up again? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffff. Haiduc (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

that's correct. Pederasty is not only lgbt. also some heterosexual men (Lolicon) like girls between 10 and 16. GLGermann (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Balderdash. Haiduc (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bleah - sorry. Don't know what I was thinking. I'm not sure it belongs in the top-level (along with L, G, B, and T), which is probably where my mind started. But I'll revert myself - sorry for the mistake. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LGBTP. Now that is an idea. Actually, the classic division is androphile / transgender / pederasty. Thanks for the correction. Haiduc (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Me personally I prefer "Queer", but that doesn't seem to go over in this academic setting. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let all my friends in queer studies know that. Haiduc (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice I said "in *this* academic setting" :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

why is the term pederasty only as term for men/adolescent boy and not for men/adolescent girl ? GLGermann (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a guess here, and [13] probably will help you too, but my guess is that, in Ancient Greece (where the term originates), women were pretty much property. So the relationship between a man and someone who is going to be a man would be important enough to name. The relationship between a man and his property didn't deserve much of a name. That's just my guess, though. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

so maybe that's correct as a reason. In Ancient Greece women were pretty much property.

Virginity is a second reason. In many religions virginity is a "good" thing and so people in history didn't look enough on the Age of consent. GLGermann (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay actors

Yeah, we certainly don't need to subdivide the categories that deeply...I saw you emptying it out, did the last couple and deleted it :-) Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott Thompson

Sent an email about [14] . A second possibility is [15] and a third is [16] . -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Man in the Lighthouse

Hello there SatyrTN. I am writing you because of the deletion of the Category of LGBT in the article The Man in the Lighthouse. Although, it is true that the category is not supported in the article, as the article is still in progress and needed expansion, internet references support that the above-stated article is an LGBT-related films. As you may read in the article, it is a 2007-gay themed Filipino film, and as sources such as this. If you find the article to be LGBT-related, kindly make the necessary changes. Thank you and your prompt attention to this matter is highly appreciated! Axxand SPEAK ACT 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Axxand! Thanks for dropping by! The article really should have some sort of explanation as to why it's LGBT - like a plot section, maybe? WP:FILMS has some good outlines and suggestions for film articles - I recommend taking a look at their info. Once the article has an explanation, the category will be fine. Thanks for your hard work! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Artists AfD

If you nominate any more artists please always add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts, which is well watched. If you do this now to L St L, comments will appear. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader and info about your bot

Because some people had randomly adding unsigned comments in random order with no headings, I did some cleanup and added a talkheader to Talk:Typeface in April 2006. Your bot determined that the talkheader was "not necessary" today and removed it. I don't mind, terribly, since it is possible that it's no longer needed, but I was wondering by what criteria it made that determination. It seems harmless to leave the talkheader in place. A recent comment in your archives suggests the bot isn't even supposed to touch talkheaders. What's going on?

Is there an explanation somewhere of what the bot does? It seems poor etiquette to be running one without posting info about it. The bot left an edit summary linking to User talk:SatyrTN, but there's no mention of the bot here or on your user page. —mjb (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mjb! Actually, this run by the bot is entirely supervised. {{Talkheader}} is often considered "talk page clutter", and often is put on pages I have it searching out the articles that have a talkheader, but are less than 20,000 characters. It's ignoring articles that have archives on them. And then all it's doing is reporting to me - I'm reviewing the talk pages and deciding if the bot should go ahead and remove it.

Since this is entirely supervised, I haven't put together a "project page" like I usually do. Projects that are fully supervised and not "automated", and this one is similar to using a tool like WP:TWINKLE, often don't. But if you feel it's necessary, though, I'll be glad to. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I won't say it's necessary. Even though it's not fully automated, I think setting up a little info page or putting a note at the top of this page (since I was directed to go here) about what the bot is and what you're doing with it would be helpful and courteous for the curators/watchers of pages that get edited. It would've saved me the trouble of asking, at least. :) —mjb (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your bot deleted the talk-header from Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. This was unhelpful. Please stop your bot from doing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I don't agree that the talkheader is necessary on an article talk page that only has six sets of comments, most dating from before 2006. Please read through the documentation of the template. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to stop removing this template for now please, and discuss first. Prodego ^talk 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Prodego. Could you give me more to go on? "You need to stop" is rather vague. Is the bot causing any problems? Is removing the template hurting any articles or the encyclopedia? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I mostly do not understand where it had been decided that this template should be removed, and why? It isn't really hurting anything. It also doesn't seem to be an approved task for your bot. Prodego ^talk 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Who considers it "clutter"? The template provides instructions for our readers who may not be familiar with talk page ettiquette. And you may only be removing it from talk pages that have fewer than 20,000 characters, but what about pages that are quickly archived? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the bot is only making reports - it's not making any decisions. I'm reviewing the reports and making the decision on whether or not to remove. My goal in removing them is to reduce talkpage clutter and to make the talk pages easier to read and participate in.

BTW, the bot is ignoring any pages that have archives, and when I review the pages, I leave the template if I see any archives. I'm calling it clutter because that's what it is - a template that says "This is controversial" when there's been no controversy is cluttering the page.

Is removing the template hurting anything? Is there a particular article I messed up on? If it makes a difference, *I'll* remove the template instead of the bot doing it - but I don't understand why that's different from what I'm doing? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, a bot shouldn't really be used to make manual edits, secondly, that would be a problem as well, you shouldn't go around editing hundreds of pages without discussing what you are going to do first. Basically I am asking where it was decided to remove talkheader from any pages at all. Prodego ^talk 05:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The talkheader page itself says, in bold This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. So there really shouldn't be a problem with SatyrTN removing the header. Ctjf83Talk 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The template itself says "This template should be used only when needed." There's a ton of discussion on the talk page of the template about why it's not needed on every page. Some of that discussion includes:

• Four TfD's on whether or not the template is even necessary
• Over-using the template dilutes its usefulness
• Consensus is that the template should only be used on talk pages where it's guidelines have been violated

I'm not following any specific directions - this is just my own editing. I'm not using the bot to make un-supervised edits, and I'm not hurting anything by removing the template. Again, the bot is simply reporting to me, I review, and tell it to remove or not. You can tell by the bot's edit history, it's not running amok or anything. I'm responsibly reviewing pages and making edits with help from the bot - no different that using WP:TWINKLE or other tools like that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just ant to add my support for your sensible removal of {{talkheader}} from talk pages that clearly don't need it. Mike R (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to chip in my opposition here as well. If you're doing this as a matter of course (especially in a semi-automated manner) you really should have a better rationale than "I don't really think talkheaders are needed on short talk pages". Whether it really counts as automation if the bot is only doing the same resporting as a database query or not, it's still a mass-edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey, my friend, I have a question, if you have the time. I was doing work on an wikipedia piece called "First Families of Virginia," which I know you will understand. :-) In the midst of my work, all my contributions were reverted by another user (13 years old). What exactly does one do in a case like this? It's frustrating to be in the middle of contributing, and have everything wiped away. Thanks in advance for your guidance. Best regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You have the ability to revert as well, even to undo the other person's revert. If it was done as an act of vandalism and/or there seems to be no reason for the revert, that's what I would do. If there's a reason, or if you get reverted again, try checking on the talk page about "Hey, why was this done". And/or a specific note on the person's talk page. Do be careful of WP:3RR, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the speedy reply. Thank you for making me aware of the revert idea, as well as the WP:3RR rule. I had already left a message on this person's talk page questioning their actions. Thankfully, the main contributor (arbiter) of that page is a reasonable, informed and polite person who welcomes input, so it shouldn't be a problem. Thanks again, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all - glad to be of help :) SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for all your help.MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey

So I've been in my secret laboratory of evil, composing an article. And I'm having this recurring battle with myself. It just got a little hotter. I'm not quite finished, which you'll see if you scroll through it quickly, but it may squeak by GA with a few more days' work. I would like to have this at FA by the release of the film, so that it may appear on the main page. I just learned it's going to debut at the Castro Theater on October 28, but throughout the rest of the country November 26. FA takes at least 2 weeks, if not more, so... I would need the concentrated efforts of many editors at once giving suggestions and criticisms.

However, I'm nervous that Harvey's article is currently a dumping ground of crap about the Peoples Temple and Oliver Sipple that editors are not keen to give up. I'm still working on getting images, and I'm still shoring up citations. I have two guts which are telling me not to post it until it's ready because I won't be able to improve its content and stave off the nutjobs at once, and hurry up and post it, get it to a shaky GA shape, get it into PR and GA nomination and it will fall in line.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oliver Sipple content you have is fine, I think. I don't think it was that big of deal. Unfortunately until they get themselves blocked or otherwise desist the Peoples Temple editor may derail the process. That case hinges on a scan of a letter Milk wrote so a review of that source may help as I believe they have misrepresented it almost every time. In the "political alliances" article it's a big ol smear piece, IMHO. My hunch is that entire article is likely full of the same issues but I'm only familiar enough with the Milk content so can only comment on that section.

I wonder if sending to GA would help bring attention to the issues and, if problems arise would more quickly be resolved as the article would be then fully vetted and an expert in the material could definitively state - here's what the sources state. Let me know when you're in the final stages of tweaking the sandbox and I can offer insights. -- Banjeboi 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Any quality journalism about Jim Jones will easily include his many political connections throughout California. Concentrating on Milk is just odd. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he was an odd guy who was highly successful in a city known for its eccentrics. Apparently Jones set up the organization to decentralize a lot of the activities so many of the members didn't even know everything going on. All that aside I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Milk did anything accept what they asked him to do (even the Carter letter, IMHO). This was a church with armed guards at every entrance - I'd be a bit leery of not doing what they asked of me as well. The only material that was starting to get interesting was, unfortunately, from Michael Bellefountaine (spelling?) who has a solid track record of what seems like internalized homophobia. He was an ardent AIDS denialist (until he died an AIDS-related death) and seemed to take great pleasure in writing well reasoned arguments as questions - "Shouldn't the fact that Milk was gay and the Peoples Temple support of many LGBT issues be well examined in light that (blah blah blah)". Nothing substantial or new was ever presented, as far as I know, but by simply repeatedly asking the questions and calling for further examination he helped perpetuate innuendo. He was researching LGB associations within the Peoples Temple but also came up short looking for ways to associate Milk in this way. If you try hard enough you can link any politician to disreputable organizations and people but that doesn't make them guilty by association as much as a politician doing their job. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Antireligion and atheism

Do you know what is the difference between Antireligion and atheism? Is this indicate that it is possible for a person that he believes in the existence of god, but does not support organized religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that tidbit of information. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I thought you are aware of it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the difference, but I have no idea why you chose to leave that message for me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Julian

First you remove the category because it doesn't have a source, and then when it does you remove it again? --Silvestris (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason Kyle needs to show up in Category:Fictional gay men? He's a minor character of a soap opera - there's no reason to have him in the cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not a minor character, and there was an article in TV Guide about him getting a boyfriend on the show. Plus, he's one of the main characters in the online show. --Silvestris (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly I removed it because of WP:CAT-RD. If the character develops enough to warrant his own article, and if being gay is a "defining characteristic" (see WP:CAT), then feel free to add it back in. But categorizing the redirect doesn't really help the encyclopedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Defining Characteristic"

Hi, regarding your removal of categories from various articles, is it possible you're misunderstanding the intent of "defining characteristics"? The guideline is simply to "Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic", which makes your removals puzzling. In any case, the Homophobia category has been much discussed on the Sally Kern talk page, with a request to "comment here before rather than simply remove it". --EqualRights (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've replied on that article's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Antigua and barbuda branch of the scout association

Yes, it's plausible, but it directs there _first_ even with proper capitalization. It's unnecessary and an extra step. Please reconsider. The actual article doesn't see enough visitors to warrant this problem. Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw something about that in the edit, but I'm totally not sure what you mean. Does one of these links not work:

• Antigua and barbuda branch of the scout association
• Antigua and Barbuda Branch of The Scout Association

Technically, I suppose, the correct form should be:

• Antigua and Barbuda branch of the Scout Association

But what do you mean "it directs there first"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Branch" is the correct form as used by the UK Scout Association, like the US capitalizes Council. So, when I even cut-and-paste the text "Antigua and Barbuda Branch of The Scout Association" into the search function, it brings me to the article _through_ the less-plausible lower casing. Sorry I can't explain it better. At this point, please just speedy the thing, it is seriously not worth this much time. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See, the thing is, it's a perfectly plausible typo. So if I delete it, when someone types in the lower case version, they won't get to the article at all. To me, that's *much* worse situation than getting to the article, but through the redirect. If you insist, I will, but I strongly urge you to consider what that will do. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They can get there by just typing in "Scout Antigua". I am sorry, nobody is going to type in the long form of all that and not use caps. It was a bot created redirect, not a real world one. Your version with "branch" and "the" as lower case is much more likely to be typed, that would be a great redirect. Please, I understand your points, please delete it anyway. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know your editing on the Scout articles well enough that I'm going to delete it, but I'm stating once again this is *highly* improper, and in some ways is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Consider that some people don't go through the search box, they go to the URL and type. In which case, the all lower-case is going to get them nowhere. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing this over your reservations, and I appreciate your trust in me as a longtime editor. We've crossed paths before and I've found the same in you, you've helped out often, and thank you also for that. I never want to be detrimental to the 'pedia, in this case, thank you for understanding I know what I'm doing. Have a good whatever-time-it-is-where-you-are. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay museum in Berlin, Sascha Schneider and Johannes, Prince of Thurn and Taxis

Please correct mistakes and check it. GLGermann (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spellman

I'm not absolutely convinced that the article on Cardinal Spellman is of no relevance or interest to the LGBT project. There's good evidence that Spellman was an (active) homosexual - who ironically was also active in collaborating with the FBI to prosecute other gay men. This seems an issue of interest to me. I agree the article might benefit from more information but at the moment I think we should put down a marker.

And again you removed the project banner from the Scipione Borghese article. I thought the WikiProject was collaborative and we could all have a go arguing what should/ shouldn't be included? Sure doesn't feel that way. My reasoning is that articles on historical figures that were likely to have been homosexual is of relevance to the project - which is ultimately about raising the profile of LGBT issues. Otherwise we just stick to the narrow and predictable ground of same-sex marriage, pride parades etc. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind arguing about it at all - that's how consensus is formed :)

But we can't just put *anyone* in an LGBT category. "Likely to have been homosexual" is a *very* slippery slope that I have a hard time agreeing to. If you want to put the project banner on Scipione Borghese because there are rumors, you're welcome to. But he can't go in an LGBT category until and unless there's more than rumors. After all, it was commonplace to label someone a sodomite if you wanted to remove them from office - or get anything else out of them - whether it was true or not. So rumors are pretty useless.

If you do decide to put the project banner back on Talk:Scipione Borghese, you might make use of the "explanation" parameter. As in:

{{LGBTProject |class=Start |explanation=Rumors of homosexuality - see McBurger (1987)}}

Alternatively, you could start a discussion on the article's talk page to see what other editors think and whether they have access to any reliable sources to back up the claim.

As for Spellman, the article has one brief mention in regards to McCarthy, though the it says quite clearly "there's no documented evidence". And the very first discussion on the talk page is on the topic, and no one brought forth any sourced evidence. So, unless you have sourced information, the consensus thus far seems to be against him being included in the project - but you probably know more about him than I do. I object to simply slapping the project banner on the article without any discussion of why, but I support adding sourced information - with the project banner :)

Forgive me if my actions seemed blunt. I routinely review the LGBT categories; they are all too often the targets of drive-by vandals, adding an LGBT category and/or the project banner with no explanation "because it's funny". I try to keep our categories neat and tidy - as much as I can, anyway. I was not targeting you - just looking for sourced info to back up any claims. Thanks for your work :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Female wartime crossdressers in teh American Civil War

Taken from a closed discussion[17]: Keep - created this category as there seemed to be multiple individuals fitting this specific category. There is nothing special about the Civil War, but I felt that people may be interested in looking at other female crossdressers from the same war more easily (make a category, rather than adding multiple see also to each page). Feel free to construct categories for other wars. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (equally applicable as other stuff doesn't exist).--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Comment Perhaps I should have tried to wikilawyer a little better. There is no reason to create this cat - the parent an be placed in whatever cats this one is in just as easily as this one. It's simply a matter of WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL. If the parent cat is split into specific wars, there will be a dozen categories with only two or three entries, which is unhelpful to anyone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is still WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because this particular war was split off, does not mean that the other wars have to be too. This particular war is useful to split off because

A - it groups together a sizeable number of similar entries (aiding navigation, providing a point to look at similar articles)

B - it depopulates the parent cat (aiding navigation, non-Civil War entries are now easier to spot)

The alternative navigational aide is to add See Also entries on all American Civil War crossdresser entries. Which is unwiledly.

Or alternatively editors could play favourites, and risk POV-flaming shenanigans

Or the whole thing could be forgotten. Which leaves us with not exploiting wiki-technology to provide simple and easy navigation wherever possible. That would make me sad <ToT>.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - why are you bringing this hear? You may have noticed that the CfD was closed. The category kept. There's no need to keep arguing for it to be kept :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Flava Works Article

Since you have shown an interest in the article on Flava Works (thanx!), I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that it is being considered for deletion. I have added a defense on the articles for deletion page. GBataille (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments and encouragement regarding the "Flava Works" article. I have worked on it some more, making improvements to both its language and its documentation. GBataille (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I commented and

you probably won't like what I had to say at Talk:Jon Schillaci. Sorry... Aleta ^Sing 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Have you read WP:BLP? "It sounds like" doesn't work. Please review my comments. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of UEFA Super Cup winners

Hey SatyrTN, I've adressed your comments at the FLC, if you could have another look at te FLC that would be greatky appreciated Cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Widespread

Actually, I wasn't thinking simply of LGBT individuals, but of speculation about relationships between celebrities in general. But this is just a sense of things - I might well be overstating it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Langston Hughes

So I'm in the library right now, and Rampersand's book is not on the shelf. Bummer. However, I found A Langston Hughes Encyclopedia by Hans Ostrom, and there's an entry on "sexuality and Hughes". Says it in part: "Hughes's own sexuality has been a topic of interest to critics and scholars for some time. Whether he was heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and/or asexual, how he himself viewed such categories, and the extent to which his sexuality should affect one's interpretation of his work have all been sources of speculation, argument, and controversy. In the story, "Blessed Assurance" Hughes treats the issue homosexuality in ways that might be construed as callously comic, but in the poem "Cafe: 3 a.m.," part of a Montage of a Dream Deferred, he implicitly criticizes New York City vice squad policemen for looking at homosexual (Hughes uses the term "fairies") men sadistically. The poem further suggests that homosexuals are not "degenerates" but were "made" by "God or Nature"."

"Biographer Faith Berry seems to conclude that Hughes was bisexual. Biographer Arnold Rampersand concludes that for the most part Hughes was asexual." Gosh, it goes on. If you want me to copy this, scan it, and email it to you, I can do that. Let me know by email you - it will have to be in an attachment. It will have to be Monday or so. It also references a book by Martin Duberman called Queer Representations. I have a Duberman book at home about civil rights and queer writings because he references Harvey Milk. I may have access to this Queer Representations book. --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow - kewl! I'm not so much worried about Hughes - his article is referenced. What about Gilbert Price - is he mentioned? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to log off of the station I'm at to go look for more info on Hughes, but I'm in the middle of scanning microfilms. There don't seem to be any books about price alone. When I'm done with the microfilm, I'll look through a few indexes of Hughes' biographies to see if I can find anything and report back.--Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. A dozen biographies of Hughes. Only one mention of Gilbert Price - that he sang a song Hughes wrote. Nothing naughty. Bummer. Let me know if I can find something else. --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Lovely to see you over there. Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk)

Shucks - thanks :) I took a wiki-break this summer and I'm only just remembering that I like reviewing the FLCs. Plus I've got a couple more to finish :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto edit summaries with popups

Hi there. I've been meaning to ask someone—why does it say "$1 $2 $3" when I automatically restore revisions using popups (ie: here)? It showed up properly only twice today with me, and when I tested it after it messed up, nothing changed. ~ Troy (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know :) Are you using Huggle or something like that? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's alright :-). I am using Lupins anti-vandal tool, but that's it. I had another issue too—both of these problems just involved regular rollbacking or popups without any of those tools. If I kept crawling back to village pump every time this happened, then I wouldn't have the time to do anything else. ~ Troy (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for giggles, try quitting your browser and coming back in. Other than that, I don't really understand what you mean by "regular popups". I can try to puzzle it out with you, if you'd like. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried that. It's OK, I guess I'd rather not spend more time on these annoyances until I'm less busy. Also, I meant using popups without any other tools via popups (ie: Lupin's tool). I expect it to work for most of the time under those conditions, but the server might just be a little off, as usual. Thanks for trying, though :D Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Best way of getting a page deleted

You were the admin who did my requested speedy deletion of the Westphalia,_Iowa/sandbox test article for which I thank you. My purpose behind all this is to learn more. Originally put a copy of the Westphalia article in the sandbox to try out the stubtagtab script. After I learned that,

1. I assumed that I would need to get rid of the sandbox copy that wouldn't get automatically deleted. Is that correct?
2. Was requesting a speedy deletion the best way to request that?

Thanks for your teaching efforts. --Sultec (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sultec!

Good questions! Theoretically, pages in the Sandbox do get deleted. However, what that means is pages under the Wikipedia:Sandbox get deleted. The way you created the page Westphalia, Iowa/sandbox was technically not a great way to do it - there's a good chance that if you'd left it alone, it would have stayed there indefinitely. Not that you did *wrong*, just that it might not be the best way. I recommend creating sandbox pages in one of two places: Wikipedia:Sandbox (or a sub-page like Wikipedia:Sandbox/Sultec1) OR in your user space. WP:Sandbox pages are quite likely to get deleted in a few weeks. A couple months, tops. :) User space pages are not likely to get deleted (though they might, but it's highly unlikely).

To delete any sandbox page you create, the speedy process is best. Your method worked fine, though the most specific would be {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}.

Hope that helps! Feel free to leave me a message if you have any further questions! And/or you can type {{helpme}} and your question on your own talk-page - someone will be by shortly and will help out. Happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming back for now

Hey Satyr, just dropped a line to let you know I'm going to spend some time on here again. I thought I should let you know re: the LGBT project activity bot. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! I haven't gotten the bot back in to service from my *own* wikibreak... Sigh - I should do that... Anyway - WB :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Campbell Incorporated

Hi SatyrTn. I'm sorry for changing your User page. I was just a little mad at you for deleting Ohio Raceway Stadium and Brian Campbell incorporated, as those were my pages. You said that Ohio Raceway Stadium was "blatant advertising", but if so, why would you not delete Talladega Superspeedway, or Bristol Motor Speedway? Also, I am the developer of Brian Campbell Incorporated, so I was mad that you deleted that. Tell me why you did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BriMaster2000 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Andreas Meyer-Hanno and Frankfurter Engel

please correct translation mistakes. GLGermann (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

I undid your change to the page for Alphonse Fletcher Jr. Hobart Fowlkes no longer lives with Mr. Fletcher, nor has he for a couple of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyfaison (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that says that? The other sources on the page say that they are together. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the source cited on that line that mentions Mr. Fowlkes. Can you point me to the original so I can verify how old that information was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.220.120 (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure! The New York Times, HGLC, and a 1999 Times article all refer to their home together or to their relationship. Please don't remove the info again until you have a source that states something? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kitty Chong

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kitty Chong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guillaume Dustan

He wrote about AIDS on the Paris scene apparently. Anyway, the topic really don't interest me at all. Feel free to find more info if u can.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I got over my prudish attitude and tried to improve the page with ur references. Let me know what u think.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of cleanup, too. The French article is totally longer than ours, but I don't know that it says much more :) Anyway, thanks for your help!! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The French article is not referenced; that is the bane of the French Wikipedia as a whole. Why did u delete Category:LGBT writers from France?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WT:LGBT/CAT, we're trying to move away from "LGBT occupation" categories in favor of "Gay occupation", "Lesbian occupation", etc. And then also place people in "LGBT people from country" categories. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Could you pls add a reference for the overdose part?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I bet imdb isn't a reliable source. Nor is the French Wikipedia. Hm. /me scurries to find something. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yaay! Found it! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I find it really appalling how most articles about him really focus on barebacking as a way to make him come across as the bad guy. There seems to be a lot more to him - the earlier novels, the short films, the editorial work...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - the reviews I read make it seem like he writes pr0n. But maybe it's good - I may check out the English ones and see. :) The focus on barebacking is a bit .. difficult to take, though, you're right. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Francois Cusset in Queer Critics seems to suggest it is contemporary French literature with a postmodern stance on depraved sex. I don't think that would appeal to my romantic yearnings tbh. If you get a chance to read In My Room, perhaps you could create a page with a plot summary, character list, and so forth.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) $10 US, Barnes & Noble. I'll get it next week, but won't be able to read it for a few weeks. I'll see what I find :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Karpaga

With respects, the Paal you linked in your comment is a city in the Netherlands. Perhaps you intended (the yet to be written) Paal (film)? If the former, I am confused. If the latter, I can understand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For clearing that vandalism off. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

List of The Open Championship champions

Hey SatyrTN, I have responded to your comments at the FLC, I would greatly appreciate it, if you could have another look over the article for me. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of PBXes

Hi, two days ago you deleted PBXes two hours after a db warning tag was put there. Wouldn't it have been better to first wait a few days before proceeding? Are you able to un-delete? Thanks User:Techy71 Concerning the notability of the page: this can already be seen by it linking to several other pages. PBXes is a cloud application/SIP software and geo-social network. This makes what wikipedia is for, describing technologies and linking them together. —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Hi there, yes, too bad indeed, what is the rational behind deleting it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecorthay (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PBXes is a wonderful application with a large worldwide network of satisfied and loyal customers. I've used it for almost three years. The services offered by PBXes are very useful and can be of great benefit to wikipedia users looking for virtual pbx services. I can't understand why its article would be deleted.

PBXES is indeed a very nice application but from how I understand wikipedia it's very simple. Pbxes is a commercial company and wikipedia is being use to advertise for a commercial system. If pbxes would have been non-commercial and free things might have been different. Every commercial company thinks he makes, sell offer good products services that can be helpfull for many people, but wikipedia is not an advertising platform, that makes wiki what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.46 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages on businesses. WP is not just about non-commercial and academic projects. Besides this PBXes is mostly (99% of the accounts) used as a free service. It is a product not being advetised for. This article and a lot of other articles on the web about PBXes are not created by PBXes, also this article was by one of its users. E.g. already in 2006 PBXes was named one of the top web applications by [18]. (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why this entry was deleted, also. Please give us a chance to reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodyLarry (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it seemed to be simply WP:SPAM. If you have verifiable information from reliable sources, please feel free to recreate. You may wish to review WP:FIRST for information on writing your article and how to avoid deletion. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A Quick Question

Hello my friend, just one more dumb quick question. I've wondered about this for some time, but when one is making changes I notice there's space to specify what the changes were. Is it best to do this? How much depth does one need to go into? And when is it called for? (I know see that it seems to be good protocol to explain the reasoning behind some changes). Thanks again for all your help. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MarmadukePercy! Those are called "edit summaries", and you can find out more about them at Help:Edit summary. Short answer: I recommend always putting something short and sweet in there. Hope that helps :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as always, most helpful. Thank you much! MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot WikiProject tagging

Has your bot retired from doing this? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um. Not really, but I haven't done much testing or work with it recently. If you have any other resource, I recommend going with that, since I don't know how much time I'll have in the next few weeks to devote to getting the bot up and running. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem

By and large, wikipedia is a wonderful place, especially given its open-source nature. But there are inevitably the somewhat sour apples. One has stolen at least one idea of mine and leaped to post his own article first (after I'd explained why someone was notable). The same individual has repeatedly trampled on my contributions, without first saying a word. I'm fed up. To whom does one complain, and to what panjamdrum does one address one's complaints? Many thanks from a loyal wikipedian. Best regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First, of course, see if the person in question will talk to you directly. If that doesn't accomplish what you think you need, you might go to Dispute Resolution and see if those steps or people can help.

Sorry that you're having issues :(

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Advocate article

He's cute and he lives close! Satyr, that would be great! Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar German Translation

Hi, as I could see you awarded User:GLGermann with the Star, and it has an Translation of the text saying "Here's the LGBT Barnstar, awarded to you for all your wonderful work in translating German articles to the English wikipedia! Thanks!

Ist hier das LGBT Barnstar, zugesprochen Ihnen für Ihre ganze wundervolle Arbeit, wenn es deutsche Artikel zum englischen wikipedia übersetzt! Danke!"

I would recommend to change the German part of the text to: "Hier ist der LGBT Barnstar, er wurde Dir verliehen für Deine wunderbare Arbeit die deutschen Artikel für die englische Wikipedia zu übersetzen. Danke!"

may not be perfect, but in German this version sounds a bit more like a real sentence with some meaningful grammar ;-) 87.162.85.199 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

'07 Population estimates

What's wrong with including population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau? They're valid estimates from the most authoritative source on the subject and numerous other Wikipedia pages for cities, towns, and other municipalities include population estimates. Heck, sometimes they have cited sources from less reliable sources than the U.S. Census Bureau. I believe it's understood that no population figures are 100% accurate unless they're from census years (and even those aren't technically 100% accurate). In addition, I'm not removing the official 2000 census figures from any of the demographics sections since all other figures are based on them, and I'm not changing the lead-in paragraphs population numbers either.

If you'd like to help, I've been using the U.S. Census Bureau's population finder: Population Finder.

I started by updating figures for cities in counties that I've lived in and now I'm moving on to towns whenever I have free time to update a few figures here and there. I started doing this out of curiosity as to how much the populations have changed in the past several years. --Amwestover (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Weekend not online

Hello, SatyrTN. No luck here either. Good Weekend is also an insert for the Sydney Morning Herald (The Age and SMH are both owned by the Fairfax organisation). I checked the SMH site [19] and it tells us Good Weekend is not carried online. Pity, really, it's sometimes full of excellent reading - but I guess they have to give people some incentive to buy the hard copy paper. I believe they put out a consolidated GW CD every quarter. If microfiche is still used these days (I'm out of practice in doing that sort of research), I suppose it would eventually become available through library newspaper microfiche holdings. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That certainly confirms they're a married couple, but it doesn't give any details of where and when the marriage took place. or even if there was a "marriage". I'm sure you know that "married couple" is often used in the gay/lesbian world to mean 2 boy/girl friends who have a committed relationship but nothing more "legal" than that. I have no worries with adding it in as an additional source, but the GW is the only one I know of that tells us they had a UK civil partnership in 2007. Re your struck-out post, I don't see the issue with WP:V. That doesn't say that the only acceptable refs are online ones. If all we can find is a paper source, that's better than nothing. True, it means it can't be readily checked, but that's no different from the vast number of book/journal cites we use in major articles. The only way anyone else can verify the cite is to obtain a copy of the book/journal and go to the page referred to. That's usually not too hard, an inconvenience and maybe a wait at worst, but in this case I guess overseas readers just have to trust that I really did get it from a published source. I'll keep my eye out for something online in the meantime. The non-online availability of GW is actually a damn shame, because I've collected lots of clippings from GW over the years, many of which I've been planning to use as WP citations. I'll still do so if all else fails, but I'll prefer online cites if they exist. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've found it via the journo's name. Well done. How did you track it down? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Diligence :) I'd found it before, but I don't like using the website of the journalist, since that may or may not be what was printed. But I feel like the two together are strong enough to pass most WP:RS concerns. Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Makeida

Hello... FYI, I've relisted the speedy for Makeida. I didn't want to just delete it, given your removal, but the article is one that has been repeatedly created for promotional purposes. The user who did so ended up being indef-blocked for his/her actions. AS well, the references are from blogs and other unreliable sources. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I saw some of that. I didn't look at all the refs, but saw that it had been recreated, even by a user namd Makeida. I would have preferred an AfD, just to get community consensus, but whatever :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NH Population figures

Hi SatyrTN, Yeah, I noticed all those changes as well and was going to do nothing, due simply to their sheer volume. But it's already led to a problem in one town, so if you're willing to roll them back, I'll support you. The only alternative you might want to consider would be having both the 2000 and the 2007 figures in the infobox, with 2000 clearly labeled as "census" and 2007 as "estimate". I think I've seen that done elsewhere, but can't come up with the specific article. Good to have you back in action, by the way! --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I'm pleased to hear that there is an active New Hampshire Wikiproject. I worked hard to update all those population figures and hope to do more soon. I would appreciate not having the contributions rolled back. The new figures I've been updating have been U.S. Census Bureau numbers which according to WP:USCITY are valid -- technically they're the only allowed numbers based on their guidelines. Their guidelines do not require that only decennial counts be used and does not exclude U.S. Census Bureau estimates. There has been discussion on the talk page and although I haven't read all of the discussion, several users have shared by view that recent U.S. Census estimates can and should be included as long as decennial estimates aren't removed since most demographic information is based on that. Aside from that, visits to countless Wikipedia articles, usually for larger municipalities, will have population estimates beyond the 2000 census. --Amwestover (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible recruit

User:Michael-david Reisman. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes

I'm back. XD WereWolf (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jari Sillanpää

Just saw your reliable sources question. Seiska looks ghastly - too tabloid for reliability on its own. But remember that Google can translate Finnish (enough to get the gist anyway) these days: Google "Jari Sillanpää" homoutensa and you get multiple confirming hits, including direct interviews, in other entertainment mags. For instance, here (translation) in Ilta-Sanomat; and in this article (translation) at Iltalehti he talks about how coming out has affected his career. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)