User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

silverfang

No im not silverfang.--Fang 23 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whare and what is tn?--Fang 23 03:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

php source

I just realized from a google search that your bot is php based. Is the source code publicly available? Agathoclea 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What in the world were you searching for that let you to my bot?!?!? :)

I'd be glad to give you the source to test out. Since I'm the only one using it right now, I'm sure there are holes - and there's very little documentation in the code. But if you'd be willing to send me bug reports and test out new versions as I fix things - and maybe even help me document? Then Sure - you're welcome to use it! My goal is to make it public source once it's reached a semi-stable place. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

grin - google - right at the second one. Fantastic - what is best? Email, if the files are not too big, otherwise I create a FTP account, which might be not too bad an idea anyway. Agathoclea 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Leaving

Hiya, thanks for your concern. As for leaving the WikiProject, I might. The past few days have been stressful for me, since I feel like all of my hard work is shunned and ignored, and I don't have the time I need to focus on the Project, or Wikipedia in general (testing season is here). Plus, I've never really edited any article that focuses on the LGBT community (I still live with my parents, who are totally against homosexuals). Anyway, I really appreciate your concern! WereWolf 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

XDDDDDD LOL! Sure, I'll totally beat you at the jump-a-class. Sometime next weekend, kay? Testing's not over 'till next Thursday, so yeah. WereWolf 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, hey, if you want to converse outside Wikipedia, my email's (removed), yo (Happy first day of March!). WereWolf 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

i unbolded your "oppose"

in the hopes that we won't have a "vote". I hope that's cool. — coelacan talk — 07:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. You're probably right :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical question for you over there... — coelacan talk — 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely you see the insanity/inanity of this, don't you? Please peek at Coelacan's page to see our refreshing chat on the subject. :-) Jeffpw 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm with Coelacan on this one. I agree that it's a slippery slope, and I worry about how far it will go. But if removing the flag and/or fixing the text on the banner will address everyone's concerns, so be it - as C said, it's just behind-the-scenes. The article itself is another matter.

All that being said, I have to ask — why Neville Chamberlain?!? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy of appeasement to the Nazis. Had I been thinking more clearly (it was morning for me), I would have made a comment about Vandals and Goths instead. Jeffpw 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh - more coffee. Gotcha. So would the image solution be something you could live with? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care for that idea. Did you read Haiduc's take on it? I tend to agree with him here. Jeffpw 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - caution is a good thing :) And he was the one to suggest rewording. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi again! I emailed you twice, and was wondering if Yahoo user can't email gmail users. is everything okay? WereWolf 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind :D WereWolf 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot

I saw that the current project your bot is working on is adding {{WikiProject Spain}} to selected categories. Would it be possible for a future project to be to add {{WikiProject Basque}} to selected categories?--Joebengo 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! As you may have seen, there are a total of 1,120 categories for WikiProject Spain, though only 780 are left. So it will be about two weeks before I can get to Basque. By the way, if you can put together a list of categories like that one, it will help immensely! And if you haven't yet, take a look at SatyrBot's current project page and the associated talk page to see how it's set up to work and some of the issues we've run in to so you'll be prepared :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Great!, I will get back to you with a list of categories and I will take a look at SatyrBot's page and talk page to get a good idea of how everything works. Thanks--Joebengo 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made a list User:Joebengo/categories it still needs some work so I'll add to it as need be, do I need to add categories that are subcategories of ones I've already listed?--Joebengo 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it's coming along then! Yes, the bot will only tag pages in the category, not subcategories. It sounds like a pain, but as I've found out from WP:SPAIN, all sorts of subcategories show up that aren't necessarily related to the project.

It's going to be about a week before I can finish up with this other project. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are good to go ahead with it, I'm not sure if there is more than 1,000 articles or not but I think there may be.--Joebengo 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Block lift

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SatyrTN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

refered to checkuser

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmm - could you use the autoblock template? Agathoclea 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Refered to checkuser (User_talk:Dmcdevit#User:208.54.95.1. Agathoclea 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try the autoblock template anyway, so that we can lift your autoblock. I left a message with a second checkuser as well, as they all seem to be on a coffeebreak atm. Agathoclea 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah - don't worry about it - It was too cold to sit outside at Starbucks so I came home :) Thanks for your help, though!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sport in the Canary Islands

could you put Category:Sport in the Canary Islands back for a manual check. There are plenty of non-spanish footballers in there. Agathoclea 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure - moved it back. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GLBTRT and project

I found out how many people the article is going out to - 850 at the last count, he says. And I've just been interviewed by the Guardian, and the chap seemed very interested in my work at WP:LGBT so we might be getting some free publicity that way too.

Anyway, that's not what I came to your talkpage for. *Puts on irrisistably cute face and bats eyelashes* Satyr, please would you mind most awfully working out a way of creating a Top Twenty table of WikiProjects by number of members with your bot? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Coitenly! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could write it so that it only counts a username once? Few people will post on a wikiproject's pages that aren't members. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How accurate do you need the numbers to be? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't care, really. It's just personal curiosity, tbh. But accurate enough that the second I checked them they're obselete. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! You realize this is the internet, right?!? :)

I'm rewriting the bot - I'll put it up someplace so you can check when you want :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Most High Grand Magnificent and Glorious Barnstar of National Merit-Spain

Barnstar of National Merit-Spain

The Most High Grand Magnificent and Glorious Barnstar of National Merit-Spain is hereby awarded to SatyrTN for service above and beyond the call of duty, for relentless cheerfulness in the face of severe adversity, and for charming perseverance in a big, big project! Thanks from all of us at WikiProject Spain for hours of work and a great sense of humor throughout! ¡Muchas gracias! EspanaViva 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you very much! And thanks for all your hard work, even when RL threatened to de-rail us! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Playa del Fuego

You corrected an error that wasn't. The cost for both events in 2006 was $35. Vees 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It happens twice a year, so they can be referred to as distinct events. Vees 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Offer to fix the cite tempaltes on Mr. Lady Records

That would be truly awesome. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Neil (not Proto ►) 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Banner Shell

I started up thw WP:GEM project late last year, and used the WP:AUS banner as a structre for that project. Seeing that you already did the WP:AUS banner I presume that it would be straightforward to add the code to Template:WP Gemology and Jewelry? If so would you be able to at some point please? Thanks.SauliH 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think show each subproject/subpage on the line, as well as the rating. Thanks. SauliH 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Playing JaC

Thanks for your note re San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus's entry in JaC. Yes, I read the instructions but perhaps I'm confused. I started this article less than a month ago, and it was rated as B-class initially. I thought I read somewhere that one could start with a B-class for Jump-a-Class. If I'm wrong let me know and I'll cease and desist! MusicMen 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand it then. I've been kinda obsessed with this article lately, so it seems like a good time to give JaC a shot - I enjoy a challenge! MusicMen 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trocadero Transfer

The LGBT Category sign was removed in error. I put it back. By the way, next year a friend of mine who is a DJ and I will be putting on a show at the San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Historical Society about the history of gay night clubs in San Francisco since 1965 (I have lived in San Francisco all my life). Best wishes, Keraunos 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend I am doing the historical exhibit with used to be one of the DJ's that played at the Trocadero Transfer. Keraunos 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that I wrote the entire article on the gay color, Lavender ! Best wishes, Keraunos 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Werdnabot problems

Maybe poor Werdnabot has a cold; maybe s/he feels exploited and is on strike; all I know is that s/he won't archive my pages anymore. I did change my archives just a tad bit. Do you suppose Werdna is so persnickety that/he doesn't want to archive to my recently revamped archives? yours in desperation, Jeffpw 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot is presently blocked following a malfunction. Werdna doesn't seem to be around to fix it. You can always request MiszaBot III, which also starts a new archive itself when the present one reaches a certain size. Just ask Misza13, telling him (a) you current archive page, (b) how old threads should be before being archived, and (c) what size the archive should be allowed to get to before a new one is started.... WjBscribe 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RE intersex vs Transgender

Hi - RE your question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies,

• Intersex is a medical and community term for people born with a combination of female Primary and Secondary sex characteristics. Examples include Androgen insensitivity syndrome and Congenital adrenal hyperplasia which is probably the most common cause of intersexed XX females. An old term for intersex is Hermaphrodite.
• Transgender is generally considered a broad term including all behaviour that crosses or disputes social gender norms. This includes, but is not limited to, transvetites, drag and transsexuals.

As to why T and not I - the T group has had a longer affiliation with LGB groups, particularly drag and transsexuals. Much medical study of Homosexuality also included transsexuality and transgenderism in general.

Cheers, Mate

Lwollert 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, they both have to do with the fluidity of (and the spectrum) of gender. But Intersex people were *definitely* born that way, while there's some element of choice (or perception of choice) for LGBT. Does that sum it up? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... I would say, rather, that intersex relates to a physical/anatomical variation where there is a confusion of sex, whereas transgender is a social/intellectual/psychological (metaphysical?) variation, where there is a confusion of gender. Transsexual people are almost definately "born that way" (with perhaps the exception of 'some late-onset transsexuals. I cannot comment authoritatively for the rest of the transgender spectrum.

For example, drag queens may have more of an element of choice, than say, transsexuals, or transvestites.

I suppose some things to emphasis is that transgender is an "umbrella" term. "Gender" reffers to a variety of measures, including social gender (how someone is percieved), gender identity (how someone percieves themselves) and anatomical gender (how someone's sex characterstics interact with gender). Sex is generally defined as Male versus Female, Gender as Masculine versus Feminine. Thus a camp gay man, who is somewhat effeminate, has a male gender identity, and male sex, is percieved as more feminine in social gender, and thus breaks the gender stereotypes.

Cheers, Lwollert 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "queer" is so much easier than alphabet soup... <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL - yes, but people often look for a "symbol" or "box" to put themselves in, rather than accepting one they feel doesn't fit them. Lwollert 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MyMaths

The article should not be deleted. I am only 14 years old, why would I advertise MyMaths. It may sounds like it is advertising but I can assure you I did not mean for it to sound like that

Brylcreem2 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Whyte

I have requested an article about the well-known Scottish writer Christopher Whyte. Even before anyone has written the article, you have requested that it be deleted.

Perhaps you don't like Christopher Whyte's work. But he is an award-winning contemporary Scottish writer and worthy of note.

I hope someone will write a Wikipedia article about Christopher Whyte. Unfortunately, I am extemely busy and unable to set time aside for this at present. I can draw up a bibiography, if you wish, but I haven't time to do justice to Christopher Whyte's unusual, highly original and challenging body of work.

Therefore, I should like to flag this up as an article needing written.

With kind regards Avril.rennie 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Moshinsky

[1]: Why place Marcos Moshinsky in WikiProject Spain? The connection escapes me. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, that falls under the "WTF" category :) Speaking of categories, he's in the "Category:Prince of Asturias Award winners", which was part of WP:SPAIN, so the bot put the banner there. In hindsight, that cat shouldn't have been automated. Please remove the banner if he doesn't belong. Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That explains it: roughly like sticking all Nobelists in a project on Sweden... - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Monsieur Mallah

I just wanted to let you know I partially reverted this edit by your bot. If you look at the section entitled "Romance," you'll see that the LGBT cat is appropriate for the character while the "gay men" is not. He's a gay gorilla :) CovenantD 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. A man (let's call brain that, though at some points he's just a brain) and a gorilla. Doesn't matter the gender of the gorilla - it's still not L, G, B, or T. It's Z - Zoophilia. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda like Jessica Rabbit; he's just drawn that way. Ever since his introduction, he's been treated as a human in a very hairy, very strong body. Maybe a closer look at this image will help you see what I mean. If we were to rule out all non-human characters, that would eliminate such aliens as Starman (comics), Phyla-Vell, Xavin, Element Lad and Hulkling. I see where you're coming from, but in this case I think the premise of the character should allow for it's inclusion. CovenantD 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not removing the banner, but I have strong reservations. Does that mean Bugs Bunny gets tagged? Snagglepuss? You see where I'm coming from. Starman et al at least look human, but Mallah just looks like a gorilla. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bugs is gay? I knew he like to cross-dress, but I always thought the flirting with Elmer was just for fun...

And have we ever seen Snagglepuss with anybody, of either gender? He could just be a very effiminate but ultimately asexual, uh, feline :D

Seriously, I understand your concerns and even share them to a degree, but I really think MM and Brain are a rare exception. The writer(s) obviously wrote that page to show them in the throes of a same-gender attraction, regardless of species (or robotic body). Bugs & Co. just used innuendo for humor. Because it looks like you've got a bot to go through these categories, I don't see it getting out of hand. That's why I'm basically asking you on your talk page to consider Mallah an exception. CovenantD 03:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool - I understand. Like I said, I'm not removing it again. Does the talk page have our banner?

I threw in Snagglepuss because of the Drawn Together episode, where he makes a cameo - check out the article.

In this instance, I've been using the bot account, but I'm manually reviewing articles in categories that should have our banner. I've been removing cats where needed, but mostly just adding the banner.

Anyway, good editing, and I bow to your expertise in this subject :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with CovenantD here as well. It's got to be the weirdest fictional same-sex relationship I've ever heard of, but it is the intent of the writers to be more of a "love conquers all" thing, even though one is a superintelligent gorilla and the other is a brain in a jar. They're just two guys in love. =P — coelacan — 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the Doom Patrol for you, Coelacan. They're the same team that brought us Danny the Transvestite Street.

I'm ensure the banner is properly placed, SatyrTN (anywhere near Short Mtn?).

Took a look at Gay Bash. While quite funny, it's still not conclusive - could have been Snagglepuss's gay cousin. Oh, no. Does that mean that Jasper, Brian Griffin's gay cousin from Family Guy, should be included?  ;) (Just kidding - he doesn't have an article.) CovenantD 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(I hope Satyr's not active right now and getting orange banners over and over.) Honestly, I would probably say yes on Jasper, except he's not notable enough to have his own article. And I'm actually wondering why Danny's not in Category:LGBT characters in comics... — coelacan — 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, um, I added Danny the Street to the category and the project. That might have been a crazy call on my part...? Is there any end to my madness? — coelacan — 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Madness good :)

ROTFL! I don't mind the orange banners - I like feeling connected more than I like wondering what everyone else is doing. Wait - is that codependent? Whatever :) And I don't know Family Guy hardly at all, so I'll leave that up to y'all.

I've been to Short Mountain many many many times, CovenantD - heading there for Beltaine this year, too :) And, in fact, planning on buying a parcel of land just down the road apiece from the Sanctuary. Have you been? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More of a Wolf Creek boy, actually. SMS is a bit far for me to travel. CovenantD 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I went there for Samhain a few years ago and had a blast. Though you west coast faeries are really high-church! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you know Silverfang (fka Wolfie)? ;) CovenantD 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Love her (and her multi-colored dreads) to death! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Foley Page deleted

hi i got a message about the notibality of the above mentioned ray foley... He is one of IRELANDS top DJ's, He has a prime time slot on Irelands No.1 Radio station voted numerous years in a row now... How can you question his notiability?????? What country are you from? just because you dont know him doesnt mean we here in Ireland dont know him!!! Come on please be fair and allow the Ray Foley from Today FM to have his page... other Today FM DJ's have pages here so why shouldnt he?????

thank you

Bogwarrior (talk · contribs)

Template help

Hi there Satyr. :-) I need your expertise. There's something weird going on with the LGBT project banner in the SSM in Spain talk page here. Something's wrong with the FA class, but I don't seem able to fix it either there or at the template page (everything looks normal to me). Could you give it a look please? :-) Cheers and thanks in advance Raystorm 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean because it's wider than the others in the WikiProjectBanners box? That's because of the "nested=yes". That tag works for the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but not for {{WikiProjectBanners}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait - you mean the link to the FA-class articles. Hold on - I know what that is. My bad. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - fixed. Thanks for letting me know! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Satyr! :-) Raystorm 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonny McGovern

Gurl! THANK YOU SO MUCH for putting all that time and hard work into the Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern article, the fans really appreciate it and we know Jonny and the gang certainly do!... except Chocolate Puddin', she hates your friend Wiki, ROFL. :D thanks again!

-Joey JLo Lopez

McCarthy Trenching

I almost Speedied McCarthy Trenching too, but then I did some research. Check out the article's talk page for context. Thanks and keep up the awesome work! Rockstar915 06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your response. The band does fulfill WP:BAND, and changes have been made to show... I didn't create the page -- per the speedy delete box: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I didn't create the page, so I removed the notice. Because I didn't create the page, I shouldn't add {{hangon}} to it, but rather remove the speedy delete box, per the box's instructions. As far as I know, I followed all the correct procedures. Please let me know if I did anything wrong, but the article ought not be speedy deleted, but rather cleaned up and expanded as they are a notable band (though I have never heard their music :) ). Rockstar915 06:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for understanding! :) Rock on, Rockstar915 06:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal whacking stick

I hereby award you this Vandal whacking stick. Use it well... WjBscribe 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a trusty Vandal whacking stick to deal with future such incidents :-). WjBscribe 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL!! Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Slarr

I created the Slarr page and it got nominated for speedy deletion so I added a hangon tag and left my reason why it should stay on the talk page, but now the talk page and article have been completely deleted and I've been left with no reason why. Why would they do such a thing? Slegrenst 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot and LGBT Cats

Your bot is a tad bit annoying. How exactly is it making its determination to remove the LGBT category? Does the article have to use the word "gay" or something? Wjhonson 02:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems a tad hetero-normative. Wjhonson 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We are the system. You write a bot that weakens our position by caving in to hetero demands. Wjhonson 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And do you also have a bot that scans for the word "straight" and adds "citation needed" to all those as well? Wjhonson 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed the cat from Lar Lubovitch for example. That's not an example of an article which didn't need the cat, and it's not an example of the cat being used improperly. I am the one who found the citation and added it. In my mind, there's no reason at all, for someone *in* the project to be doing that. We have plenty of people who would be happy to go around removing them, we don't need to be proactively doing that ourselves. It just undermines the whole project in my opinion. Wjhonson 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to that, some of these articles I started *solely* because the person was gay and that's what interested me in making an article for them. I mean come on, you removed the cat from a writer who wrote for Men on Men. That's a pretty right-in-your-face work that says "Yes I'm gay". Wjhonson 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you should stop. If your idea of a useful project is one that spends half its time eating its own flesh, than I don't wish to be any part of that project. There are enough critics without fostering one inside our own ranks.Wjhonson 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I regard Satyr's work here as vital to the reputation of WP:LGBT. More than any other project it comes under attack for having a POV agenda and taking too lax an approach to policies like WP:BLP. It is essential that the project be seen to take a tough line on reliable sourcing, especially with living people to counter this. And all editors should be taking a hard line on these issues in every article they encounter. We are not here to make special policy exceptions for articles of interest to LGBT people. WjBscribe 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument is not relevant. No one is asking for special policy exceptions. What I'm stating is that this sort of criticism should not be coming from inside the project. That is a good way for the project to implode. Hey let's all start criticising each other's articles! How fun!! It's not fun, it's really objectionable. To say that we have to police ourselves with a stricture that far exceeds that of any other editor appears to be a form of self-censorship imho. It's just not necessary. If there is a BLP issue, let someone raise it. That does not mean that the project itself has to be that someone.Wjhonson 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How is removing a category a criticism? Asking for a citation a criticism? We do that, both within the project and outside of it, with articles we like and those we don't, all the time - it's sort of the point of this collaborative exercise! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson, self regulation is far better than having the reputation of the project in tatters were it to come to light that we ignor potential WP:BLP problems in articles within the scope of the project. Finding the problems and resolving them is the sort of pro-activity that should be encouraged not censured. In any event, you've more than made your point, now please stop badgering Satyr and let him get on with his productive work. WjBscribe 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is, you are doing it on a global and systematic basis. Basically taking a hammer to a thumbtack. In general we don't have bots running all over the wiki on a seek-and-destroy mission at the *project* level. There are only a few bots, or individuals who engage in global activity like what you did. There is a reason why the RW has *authors* and *critics* and almost never are these the same person. And there is a reason why authors generally dislike critics. A project that spends time in internal criticism is not needed, we have enough critics as it is. Internal criticism is unnecessary and destructive to the goals of the project.Wjhonson 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. So does Satyr. I think you'll find most (if not all) other members of the project also disagree with you. This discussion is going nowhere however and I ask you again to stop badgering Satyr. You've said your piece. WjBscribe 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this again - ALL the edits I made with regard to categories and placing the banner are done in manual oversight - in other words, I'm reviewing each and every article. I'm reading every page. And then I decide what to do. The only reason I'm doing it under the bot account is because it's tedious and repetitive. The bot is doing nothing automatically. So nothing I did was on a *global* level - it was a review of each article to decide if there were citations there or not, if the categories were warranted or not. I'm perfectly willing to admit I made mistakes - no doubt about it. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be. But in no way were my actions criticisms of anyone. I may have noted that a particular article needed a citation, but that's what all reviewers do. So I'm sorry if you've taken offense at something I did, but I don't see that anything I've done is out of line. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi there. I'm not sure which Welcome template you left at User talk:Slipk087, but the link to BOLD goes to Wikipedia:Bold (a disambiguation page), not WP:BOLD. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tech question

In these changes you request for the Film infobox, does "nested talk" refer to this method of opening a subpage for comments? If so, why? I'm not good in template jargon, but I think I bumped into this nested talk before. Hoverfish Talk 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin might be the better one to ask, but I'm almost positive it's the class used for the nested templates rather than the class used for standard templates. I'm almost positive it has nothing to do with opening a sub-page for comments. That's something like what {{WPBiography}} has, right? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Thanks, that was really helpful! I'd recommend putting a notice on the village pump as well as here if you want to let people know. However, I'm not at all sure that the council directory is up-to-date, such pages usually aren't. Thanks! >Radiant< 09:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stefano

As far as I can tell, the article does not exist in es:Wiki. Raystorm 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Satyr, for reverting the vandalism to my page. I've just reported Rasheed3036 on the AN/I for his repeated vandalism. Aleta 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I've seen so many people's pages which say "this user's page has been vadalised X times". I sort of feel like I've accomplished something by getting a vandal annoyed enough with me to vandalize my page... not that I want it to keep happening, of course... I'm glad this one is gone for now at least. Aleta 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Moral support

Like WjBscribe, I wasn't paying total attention to your posts - I think you're on the right track with nailing uncited buggers - keep up the good work!
And I'm from a little college town known as the only one on Earth! ZueJay (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask why we striking entries rather than removing them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Purple Heart
		I, Jeffpw, award this barnstar to SatyrTN for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you for your contributions to the LGBT Project. Some of us appreciate them, and you! Jeffpw 12:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Your contributions to the project are absolutely vital, and appreciated. Certainly I think we'd be half as successful as we are today were it not for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww - stop, y'all. No, not really. :)

I dunno, Dev - would deleting them make more sense? That works for me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm not all too sure about what's going on, although I've read (okay, skimmed) the discussion above. Anyway, if it's about showing moral support... you go Satyr! :-) You're the best and don't let anyone tell you otherwise! You're a great editor, and have always come to my aid whenever I've requested it... ;-) Raystorm 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's 2019 people on that list. If we remove them, we can calculate what percentage we've done. It seems to work for WP:MEC as an incentive to spur people on, what do you say? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suere - sounds good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Boys in the Band

To my way of thinking, a stub or start article contains little to no information. This one has a detailed plot synopsis, includes production details with dates and cast members, and has a photo. It certainly provides more data than many other Wiki articles. In fact, I'm not sure what more one could say about the subject. If you would like to suggest what you would add to make it more complete, I'll be happy to hear your thoughts. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings are not mandatory . . . they are designed to divide overly long articles so there's not one mass of print running down the page. This article is short enough to warrant not using them. And keep in mind their use in film articles is suggested, not required. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to have an article, be it short or long, divided into several separate sections, each of which contains only one or two sentences. Thanks for your friendly input! SFTVLGUY2 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem in adding critical and audience reaction to the article is finding any that can be referenced nearly forty years later. If you look at the article for the film, you'll see I found a sufficient number of reviews to quote. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case with the play. SFTVLGUY2 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just putting these here to take a look at later:

• [2]
• [3]
• About 200 articles (40 in 1968 alone) on NY Times (not free) [4]

Thanks

Thanks for removing the unsourced category from Juan Gabriel. Since they put that in the page has been a magnet for vandalism. I just think the guy is so talented and does good deeds to boot.PEACETalkAbout 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pepper LaBeija

Hi there. Did you mean to db the talk page of this? First off, any db should be in article space. Second, the article is sourced and asserts notability. The subject had an obit in the New York Times. It's marked as a stub. The subject appeared in a notable film. If you want to AfD this, go for it, but this is not a db candidate. Thanks. Jokestress 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue how that happened. I swear there wasn't an article there when I put the tag on! Sorry for that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Archival

Eh, Satyr- can't help but notice that you have two Bots archiving your talkpage to two different archives. See:

• User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 4
• User talk:SatryTN/Archive 4

I guess either there was a mistake in your request to Misza or he made an error in programming the Bot. And Shadowbot3 is a Werdnabot clone that works from the same template. WjBscribe 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've asked Misza to fix that. I think I'll stick with that bot, which seems to be working well. Thanks for pointing it out as I would never have noticed! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite templates

They are incredibly fiddly and irritating to make changes, particularly if you don't know the parameters. Look at A-E. There are 430 references, and as they were mostly written by me, they are all set out the why I described - when someone uses a cite template, I have to manually change change it in order to keep the same format. They also usually take up obscene amounts of space in the editing box, which makes general editing hard too. They're really, really annoying and I dearly wish people wouldn't use them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. That's the point. The dates are differently formatted and the entire thing is rearranged (like the publication date being put at the end). My way also makes it much easier for new people to edit because they don't need to know the parameters - and people who do know them seem to regularly not bother to put in all the information, which is a pain to then change. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev, here. I think the templates are a pain in the ass, and frequently don't work. Even experienced editors sometimes have trouble with them. After you've inserted refs for a while, you get to know which items go in which order, and then it's easier just to type them. Jeffpw 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, once again I'm totally confused. First, Dev, the dates are formatted the way you set in your user preferences - since they're wikilinks, they'll get formatted instead of staying in APA (or whatever) format. But more importantly, why isn't the template formatting things in a standard way - APA, ALA, Harvard, or whatever? I thought it was - in fact, I thought that was the whole reason to have the template? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, your argument about it being easier for new people is silly - new people are going to have the same problems whichever way they do it, don't you think?

Jeff, why do you say they "frankly don't work"? I'm seriously confused and trying to learn, here :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes when you use the templates, they simply refuse to cooperate, and you get a reference that doesn't look right (instead of a pretty link, you get the http address with no name, etc). If you don't believe me, ask SandyGeorgia, one of the most experienced editors I know here. She almost always types them herself, because she finds the templates so frustrating. Given her ubiquitous presence in all areas relating to FA, if anyone's opinion on the matter counts, it would be hers. Jeffpw 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you decide on a method of replying and stick to it? This conversation is incredibly fractured now you've decided to start replying on this page instead of mine. And no, the dates look completely different to me. When I type them, they come out at March 23, 2007; on the template they come out as 2007-23-03. The cite templates are very irritating to use and fiddly to fill in unless you know the parameters - I suspect the reason that I find most cite templates not fully filled in is because people don't know there's a parameter for it.

Look, even you don't agree with me, Jeff, Sandy or SlimVirgin on this issue, could you cooperate on the LGBT lists? If we're going to FL, the references have to be a uniform format, and I will only have to keep rewriting your edits to them if you keep on using the templates. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - since Jeff jumped in here, I stayed here. My apologies.

There's absolutely no requirement whatsoever that you rewrite the citations. While none of the Wikipedia guidelines agree on what a citation should look like, they all agree that you can use whichever method you like.

And furthermore, why should I learn how to format citations — especially when I can use the templates and they come out looking exactly the same? When I look at the references on F-J, the only way I can tell whether the template was used on to create the citation or not is because the dates are wikilinked on the templated ones. Look at the list and compare #26 and #75 - they're formatted exactly the same except for the wikilinked dates.

Sandy and I had a quick conversation, since s/he's traveling, but take a look at hir talk page and see what we said. Hir issues seem to be programming ones, and what issues there are certainly should be addressed — and I'd love to fix them. But if the template is filled out correctly (and I like to think I usually get it correct) I don't see why I should change. Can you show me an example of how the template produces an incorrect citation? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've set my personal preferences to one format - I wasn't aware that I hadn't picked one. I looked at the references again and the cite template puts the date at the end of the reference and most of the refs have the date after the author. While the guidelines don't care what referencing format you use, they do say you have to be consistent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out an example of where it's putting the date at the end of the reference? All the ones I've looked at put the "retrieved on" date at the end, but put the date of the publication after the auther. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

F-J, ref 42. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's cleared up, I guess I can't object to your using them, even though I hate them. Hate them! I have an FAC being disrupted at the moment because an editor insists I have to use the templates. Speaking of which, while I was discussing with him I found this in WP:CITE: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Does this not apply here? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) I'll let you know what I find out about "cite news". And yes, that guideline does apply. If you want citations on the list to be typed out, that's fine. But I resent having to learn a new way of putting in the citations when they turn out looking the same. <shrug> But whatever - I'm impressed at how the list is coming along. BTW, it occurred to me that, when this is done, it'll probably be the most comprehensive list of its kind on the web! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will be, surely you know by now I never do anything by halves? ;) That's why I've been hunting down all those lists of people that already exist - if we compile them all and add citations, we'll have the most comprehensive and accurate list of LGB people in the history of mankind, let alone the web. Neat thought, innit? :D I'm peer reviewing the list at the moment to clear up any other issues and get ideas for what to put on the front page - FLC is a real possibility I reckon. We just need to get another people to help compile it, all the editors so far have too much to do to get it all done by themselves. WP:LGBT are lazy sods though, so I was thinking we announce some kind of drive similar to WP:BIOGRAPHY's assessment drive at the moment. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's daunting to most people. What about having a sign-up for people who pledge to cite X number per Y time-period? Like, Coe would probably be willing to sign up to do one a day, Jeff maybe 3 a week, something like that. There wouldn't be any "prizes" or anything, but I find with a list that has **THAT MANY** entries, without some constant feedback and encouragement it's easy to get discouraged. And cross-posting to WP:Bio isn't a bad idea, though I think they're as lazy as we are :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I first started the drive I *did* ask that everyone do just one a day. Instead I have the usual crowd doing it all again. Cross posting to WP:BIO might be a good idea though, I'll go let them know now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

Bot request

Yes, SatyrBot does what I was looking for. If it's not too much trouble, could you modify it to search Caribbean related articles and make the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Small to-do list? Does the bot update the lists automatically every once in a while, and if so, how often? Thank you much. Jwillbur 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

You want the output to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Small to-do list, not to their talk pages, right?

That is correct, but it doesn't make much difference, so if it's easier to put it on the talk pages, then go ahead. As for frequency of update, I think once a week would be plenty. Thanks again. jwillbur^talk 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The lists have been created, but the bot seems to be collecting articles from both WP:CARIBBEAN and WP:LGBT. jwillbur^talk 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, it works now. Thank you! I was trying to make a list of needy articles by hand before this. jwillbur^talk 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For creating SatyrBot, a valuable contribution to WikiProject sanity. jwillburtalk 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! Let me know if you need anything else! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

Everyone gets the full newsletter by default. If they want the link they can put their names down here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. And with the development of the collapsible newsletter box,

it's easier to just receive the whole thing. Why did you want to know, btw? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Damn, that means I've actually got to go write it at some point. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, did you get my email about Wikimania? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't leave it too long, I have to get a three hundred word plan together! We are good though, aren't we? :) I deliberately didn't invite anyone this month to see what our recruitment levels would be like, and while we've only gained 18 members, two of which are returnees (so I hope that teaches everyone that recruitment can't just be left to people drifting in when they see a banner), the fact is that's more people than when we were recruiting hard back in November last year. ...I'm just so upbeat about everything, aren't I? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

advice

Hey I had a quick question. I've gotten involved with the "sexually transmitted disease" page, and it gets vandalized up to 10 times a day. What's the best way to initiate protection on a heavily vandalized page?--Coryarlo 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thankyou--Coryarlo 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banners

Please, don't take this personally. I can just see this being seen as some kind of gay-hate thing and blowing up in my face. Even if we disagree, I want you to know that I have the same feelings for WikiProject Dogs and their fictional coverage, WikiProject (name a city) tagging anyone who was born in that city, but didn't necessarily have any significance to being in that city, etc etc. It's needless over-tagging. It's great that you want to help these articles, but the organization of collaboration doesn't make sense here. You'll defocus the core elements in the WikiProjects, which is the whole point of having a scope, or simply leave a bunch of banners around and have no real relation to the article. And for anime characters.. being gay or not is hardly a big deal. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Little pisses me off more than when someone says that I cannot have a say in a WikiProject simply because I did not list myself as a member. WikiProject memberships are completely open, and listing one's self as a member is always optional. "Members" do not get a greater say simply by being members (but likely do get a bigger say for other semi-related factors), even in how their own project works. That's the way things are done on Wikipedia. We are not closed off like that. I stand on equal ground with you in this discussion, and you have no right to push me aside because I'm not in your click of editors. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to come off that way. My intention in "taking it to the project" was to get more input from project members on whether the articles belonged, and gauge the project's reaction to editing anime articles. Please forgive my causing offense - it was unintentional.

I disagree with removing the banner from those articles for three reasons. First, project members should know about the articles to help edit and improve them. While they may not know much about the animation, they will be able to add to the article's content when it comes to reception within the LGBT community, within the straight community, and how the character is portrayed.

Second, the articles definitely fall within the scope outlined by the project - same-sex attraction and societal reaction. You say "being gay or not is no big deal" in anime. That in itself (its acceptance) is a societal reaction that should be noted.

Third, I know that Wikipedia is an open community, but people who are active participants in a WikiProject should have more say about the activities and scope of that project, wouldn't you say? It smacks of ownership to say "I edit this article, and I don't think you can say it's within your scope".

I truly welcome your input, but seeing that you'd removed the project banner from so many articles really raised my hackles, as I can see yours are :) Thanks for talking this over. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, I might be over-reacting.. There's no need for me to jump in and remove the tags like that, because that'll just piss you off and make you less likely to consider what I'm trying to say. It's just a pet peeve of mine to see projects starting to get nutty with their scope and with their tagging. Regardless of if the articles are in the scope of the project or not, my behavior isn't appropriate. I'm sorry for that. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm jumping all over articles leaving notes. Maybe we can continue this discussion here? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - after a good night's sleep, I decided to review the articles in question with a fresh eye. Here's what I think:

1. Tomoyo Daidouji — There's a full four+ paragraph section on her relationship with another woman. The article should stay in the project for that reason, IMO.
2. Tsukasa (.hack) — There are some transgender issues present, though it's subtle and not strong. Could be within the project, maybe not.
3. Yukito Tsukishiro — There's a bit of talk about their relationship, including the fact that it was removed in Cardcaptors. I think that's significant enough for inclusion.
4. Toya Kinomoto — Hints that he's bisexual. Probably doesn't belong either in the Category:LGBT characters in comics or in the project.

Just to let you know, I did review every article before putting the banner on them. I did it under my bot account because it was highly repetitive (especially in Category:Gay porn stars :), but each article was reviewed, so it wasn't just slapping a banner on every article in a category.

Thanks for being reasonable and for hashing this out. I'll remove the banner from Toya Kinomoto and wait to hear your thoughts on the others. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to collect my thoughts on this and take a little break from Wikipedia for a day (for many reasons), but I should have something for ya tomorrow. I am starting to better understand your position on this. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaks are good :) Let me know what you think when you get back. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, getting back to this, my feeling isn't really about "how gay" the characters are, but rather.. the character being gay doesn't make it a gay article topic. Same with almost any given WikiProject, except for those who are actually about fictional elements and style issues. It just seems like a "nab all the articles ya can get" and that seems misguided. WikiProjects shouldn't be too narrow, but they shouldn't be so broad that they're including articles that don't need to be under their scope. WikiProjects help people finding articles, and articles finding people, and people finding people to work on articles. I don't really see someone going to the LGBT WikiProject to find an article that's about a fictional character in an anime. It's possible, sure, but you can make almost any connection between any article and a WikiProject, but that doesn't always make for a logical and efficient scope.

I feel this same way about most WikiProjects (that aren't about fiction related topics) when they start tagging these articles. Only rarely do I see a situation where one could argue a reasonable connection to such projects. I tried to tell WP:DOGS something similar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Movies, Cartoons, TV Programmes,Comics. I've removed a good many WP:WPCAT banners from fictional cat articles.

Because WikiProjects are about getting work done it's not always useful to go by raw categorization. I've removed WP:DIGI's banner from many voice actor articles, because even if that voice actor had major involvement with the show.. our project isn't going to be of much help. It makes more sense to have the BIO project tag the article, or even WP:JAPAN. Being in the LGBT categories means it makes sense to navigate those articles as a reader, but not necessarily as a collaborative project that has a special focus.

I do see your point though that I should probably bring this up on the project page for everyone to consider. I'll probably try to do that tonight, and type what I've been saying so it makes sense for those who likely have not been following our discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Boys in the Band (play)

Satyr, would you mind taking a look at the edit history of this article and telling me what you think? I got a message accusing me of vandalism, which is the last thing I'd want to do, or think that I have done. :( Aleta 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like there was a mixup in reverting. I don't think anything you did was vandalism - in fact, you improved the citation needs nicely. If you'd like, I'll help out. See above for some refs I found and just haven't put in the article yet. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Satyr. I knew that I wasn't vandalising the page, but, still, to be accused of it hurt. It's nice to hear from a "third party" that it didn't look like that. Your recent edits have definitely improved it. Aleta 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aleta, I've been following the interaction on the talk page of the article, as well as your edits to the article itself. You in no way vandalised. Shall I go slap the user silly who made such a vicious, mean-spirited, totally unwikilike comment???? Just say the word and I'll release some aggression, babe. Jeffpw 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Jeff!! Thanks for the laugh and for the offer. I guess let's just see what that user does/says now. Maybe s/he was just having a bad day and threw it at me... You and Satyr have definitely improved my day.  :) Aleta 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is anyone supporting Aleta for removing the reference I added to clarify the section re: Natalie Wood? Perhaps not with rancor, but definitely without thought, he reverted the article to an old edit without checking the consequences of his handiwork. I believe a responsible editor makes sure all pertinent, valuable, and/or necessary info is retained instead of simply cutting and pasting an old version of an article. At the very least Aleta should have been reminded of this. SatyrTN, thank you for fixing the references as you did. SFTVLGUY2 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it looks like a mistake was made in all the revertions. Mistakes happen - that's no reason to WP:BITE. And I'm supporting Aleta because I'm assuming good faith - s/he *did* help improve the article, after all. As did you and as did I. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake when I reverted SFTVLGUY2's edit, inadvertently removing the Wood reference. I missed seeing it there. I was not trying to damage the article. I also can assure you that I have a belly-button. Aleta 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Witeck Combs Help

Hello! My name is Kevin... you have been helping to edit my page on Witeck Combs. I am hoping to branch out on the whole Gay marketing section and add a few new pages on such things as the Human Rights Campaign's corporate Equality index. Anywho, this has been my first wikipedia page to create. Perchance, do you know why the article Witeck-Combs is not showing up when I search for it? Also why can I not get to the page when I click on the web address for it from... say my gmail? Its says that there is no such page. Do I just have to be patient and allow the database to update itself to show these changes. Thanks a bunch! -Kevin-

Turtle Creek Chorale

i just wanted to bring to your attention something i saw today on the diff page for the Turtle Creek Chorale with this in the comment: ‘Removal of LGBT template as the Turtle Creek Chorale board does not want this as a part of their Wikipedia entry’

....can they dictate that? --emerson7 | Talk 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunh. I wouldn't think they could require that be removed. An editor could remove it, but any editor could put it back, too. I'm not very well versed in that aspect of Wikipedia policy, though, so I don't know the answer. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in - I'd like to know the answer to this important question. I'll look into it. MusicMen 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This one's actually not really difficult, policy wise: it's a conflict for them to dictate what they want in their entry. I'm sorry they don't like it, and they can register their dissatisfaction on the Talk Page, but that tag applies. Philippe 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess somebody needs to put it back :-) Jeffpw 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I was at it, I added the tag to San Diego Men's Chorus. Jeffpw 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. :-) Philippe 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> It came off the article again, this time because there's no evidence in the article that they're a GLBT org. I readded it, pointing out their membership in GALA (which is listed in their associations sectin). I also began a section on the talk page, in hopes of shutting down this edit war and building some concensus. Philippe 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)