User talk:SusanLarson/2005Archive

This is the archive of my talk pages for 2005. Please do not edit on this page use the main talk page instead.

Roberts Article

I think both of us were working on the same article at the same time. I spent a few hours rewriting the text to include more information. If you want to seperate the areas by time, please go ahead. I did put a lot of effort researching stuff however. Thanks Davidpdx 14:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Not a problem just integrate the changes and I think the article will be great. I noticed the error on recent changes and fixed it then quickly broke it down into the different sections which makes scanning the article easier. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, things were made more complicated by User:Firefox who reverted my changes and then yours. Can you fix the headings again please? Sorry about all the confusion. Davidpdx 14:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure happy to help brt -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All yours David -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Susan, whenever you get nominated for an adminstrator position let me know. I'll put in a good word for ya. Davidpdx 14:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Notability, Non-Encylopedic, and do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notarity.

i'd like to mention that perhaps the opposite will come of this: the revelation that "anonymous IPs" are not so anonymous may in fact discourage future vandalism. who wants to be forced to quit their job? Themindset 10:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point to raise. For some people if they can accomplish a level of notoriety it wouldn't matter to them. It's the scandal they want not anonymity. So yes for the people with too much to risk it might discourage however for others treading a long in the grind of daily life it might be just the thing to get their 15 minutes of fame. "You know I am the one that... go see my article on Wikipedia!". We have seen the lengths some people will go to. So my point was we shouldn't be providing a venue for people like this to achieve satisfaction. :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you may want to consider being bold and merging, rather than nominating for deletion. Votes for deletion almost never result in article deletions on contentious articles. Kaldari 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Still learning the ropes so appreciate you telling me :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ps, since your learning the ropes, it is customary to respond to someone's comment on their respective talk page, not on your own... i just happened to come back and check and saw your response, most wikipidians would probably assume you never answered. Themindset 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of transgender people

You, as the operator of a Wikipedia fork, show know that refs to User: break on fork. I changed the ref and put your W name in parenthesis. Fplay 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your fixing it. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the BWW article

Dear Susan Larson, Let me just start by saying that I respect your work and all you do for the wikipedia community. With that said I would like to quickly state why I believe that the BWW (Bum Wine Wednesday) article should not be deleted. The first reason i believe that the article should remain is because i see little evidence that contradicts that BWW is in fact a WU tradition. Of course, it is very difficult to prove these claims with the criterion of web-refrences, but then again, how many college drinking traditions are found on the internet? it would seem that the criterion of web-refrences is flawed because not everything can be found on the internet. Secondly, a great number of people have quickly come forward in opposition to the deletion of the article; this would seem to prove that BWW is a WU tradition. Third, I myself am a student at WU and i can attest to the fact that BWW is celebrated in almost every dorm on campus (excluding Baxter, of course, because it is a substance-free hall) and is now celebrated in most of the frats. Fourth, a member of the WU community posted and then confirmed that BWW was recognized by WU alumni. This is very important, because BWW is now a much larger tradition than it was even a few years ago. In no way am i challenging your power as a wikipedia editor, i am simply trying to explain why i believe the BWW article is alegit and why i see little evidence to explain why it should be deleted. with respect and thanks158.104.76.254 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a general response see the My response section below but I wanted to specifically mention in response to your talk that all editors are equal from the oldest Administrator to the newest anonymous poster. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 18:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote wikipedia vandalism policy: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

My article and the edits of other articles were good faith efforts. BWW is real. I know because I helped to found it. I'm offended to be accused of vandalism for contributing an article I thought would be valuable to wikipedia. If you want to question the importance of this information, that's one thing (I'd disagree, but at least it's polite). However, accusing me of lying offensive, and I'd like an apology. -- 158.104.72.33 (Contribs)

My response

Never take reverts personally they are not aimed at you personally.

However in regards to the Bum wine Wednesday article you stated is practiced by a very limited number of people located on one university campus. You also stated that you helped invent the subject of this article. This is by definition vanity edits.

My reverts are based on to Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine'

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other

Based on the above the page is qualified for deletion. I felt that the reverted edits were made for a self promotion purpose and an were an attempt to establish validity.

If we followed your reasoning and were to allow the Bum wine Wednesday article and subsequent edits, we then would be required to allow every club their own articles no matter how insignificant. I and most other Wikipedia editors would respectfully disagree. I hope can you see the logic in this. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Vanity and Self-Promotion

First, it's only logical that a member of the group would be the author of the article. Non-members aren't likely to have the necessary knowledge or interest.

Second, it's absurd to guess the intent of authors in editing pages. I was attempting to provide useful information to readers by providing internal links to an article on what I feel is a phenomenon of some signifigance. Moreover, the article doesn't encourage others to participate in the activity, it simply informs the reader of the practice's existence. The accusation of self-promotion is thus unwarranted. If the article has the effect of promoting BWW, this effect is purely coincidental.

Third, I'm certain that articles on specific products (like Wild Irish Rose or MD 20/20, for example) or on small-time bands are little more than advertisements, yet no one wants to see these pages deleted (it seems). Adding links to my article actually adds validity and importance to the articles on specific bum wines because it increases the informative content of those articles, making them more than simple advertisments.

Fourth, I agree that wikipedia should not allow articles on any "club", regardless of significance. However, the extent of the debate about BWW on wikipedia shows that it is indeed significant enough to warrant mention.

Fifth, it seems that you're accusation is that the edits of other pages were self-promotion. If this is the case, it certainly doesn't warrant removing the article itself. 158.104.72.33 05:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response.

I didn't nominate your article for deletion. I simply voted on it. Based on my knowledge of wikipedia policy, my opinion generated by reading your article and any associated information on the talk pages (none). I then made a decision on how I would place my vote. Your being argumentative with me isn't going to change that vote. In fact it made me change my vote from a speedy delete to a strong delete. Sorry -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might try talking to the author of the bum wine article about the possibility of adding it as a subsection of that page or finding another where it does belong. However it does not belong as it's own page. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NewsMax.com

Thanks for your work with NewsMax.com --DDerby-(talk) 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome :) Let me know whenever I can be of help :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Paolese

Hi, I moved your -test1- to San Paolese from his user page to his talk page. Please remember to put comments on talk page in future. Regards, novacatz 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User male

Thanks for the change, though I had put "user" because I thought that was the standard. I'll see if there's anything about that. Done the Female one! Still messing with the colors, feel free to change anything!

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so sure about the white text, so tried a compromise with black text (black text didn't work well with the dark blue, so lightened it a bit). The transgendered is a good idea, but is there a standard symbol (like a combination of the two?)? If it's not on wikipedia, it would take me a while to draw it as I don't have my regular computer, but you could draw if yourself if you wanted. Don't see anyone at Category:Transgendered Wikipedians though... ;) — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look (you can tell these are my first templates), I don't see any boxes with centered text. Look e.g at the boxes at User:Cswrye, User:Raelus, User:A.M. and so on. I think I'll put them back to left justified. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The transgendered symbol looks good. I can try to make a symbol in the same outline style as the other ones for a template, but for now if you want to make a box with version you found that would be great. I'd do it, but I've spent a bit too much time on Wikipedia from my office already... Signing off, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature template

Please use template substitution for your signature, as per Wikipedia:Template substitution#Other. Under current MediaWiki software, any time you change your (currently-transcluded) signature, every page that you've posted it on will have to be regenerated from scratch the next time someone wants to view it. While it's undoubtedly convenient to be able to retroactively change your signature on all pages you've posted on any time you like, it causes undue strain on the servers. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey thanks a lot for posting the result :-). Too bad it resulted in keep, but I guess majority must be respected :-)... Jam2k 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on FISA

I missed the edit by User:DRJ which entirely removed my analysis of 1802(a) and (b) of FISA. Thanks for the help. I have a feeling that this will only become more problematic in the near future. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on the www4 point. I wasn't even really paying that much attention. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Hebrew words

Hi Susan: Please read my response to your comments at Category talk:Hebrew words#Reply: Category:Hebrew words is NOT meant to be a dictionary. Thank you. IZAK 10:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Walker

Hey Susan, do you remember me? You helped me with the Barbara Roberts article. I need a little help with formatting, I can't seem to get it fixed. Could you take a look at the Vicki Walker article for me? Thanks so much for your help! Davidpdx 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "Susan's Place"

Susan, I stumbled upon your user page through your listing in the transgender Wikipedians page. I am familiar with "Susan's Place" and I have visited the site many times. I also identify as transgender, though I see myself as a crossdresser. A few years ago, I didn't know who I was and your website was one I went to in my search for answers. I have been through depression and suicidal thoughts, but now since I am expressing my feminine side I am doing so much better. I finally feel happy with who I am, and I started writing again and doing all the things I used to enjoy. I started my own support group and am slowly drawing in members.

I just joined Wikipedia a few days ago, and I have added some info on transgender films. I was amazed at the depth of information about transgender here on Wikipedia. That's very encouraging. I also have a website: [1]. --Athena2006 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Léon-Bernard Giot

Hello Susan! Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge many of the facts on this page are grossly exaggerated. Do you know LBG? Regards and a Happy New Year!!! gidonb 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]