User talk:CyntWorkStuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello CyntWorkStuff, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf melmac 23:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Photo

Images on Wikipedia need source and licence information, and ideally have a free licence. Do you own the copyright of the image? If so what licence are you releasing it under for use on Wikipedia, see the section on free licences on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If the image is something you just took from the internet you need to provide reasons why the image is fair use in the article it appears in following these instuctions rationale for fair use|for fair use and tagging the image with {{fairusein}}, I doubt there is any justification for the fair use of that image.--nixie 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi hopefully I am using this "talk" thing correctly -- the problem is that we thought we did put in the licence information.

The photographer has given this image to our group. We don't want anyone else to claim it or resell it but we can use it or others can use it (free of charge) to show the group or the ideas in a positive light.

So what would that be and how would we do it?

Thanks

If your group owns the copyright to the image Image:BiPride.jpg and you want to use it on Wikiepdia, you need to licence it for re-use, possible licences would be {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-2.0}} or you could release it into the public domain {{PD}}. Works used by permission or with non-commercial use limits are not compatible with Wikipedias licencing and will be deleted.--nixie 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your name when using talk pages by typing --~~~~

[edit] Minor Edits and Images

Hi. I notice you have been marking the vast majority of your edits as minor. The minor edit option really should be read as really minor edit and should only really be used when you aren't actualy changing the content of the page. See Wikipedia:Minor edit for a better explanation.

Also in response to your image licencing questions above, unfortunatly wikipedia no longer accepts images that are non-commercial use only. All images added must be released under a free license that does not exclude the possibility of other people making money from it or using it to make derivative works. This has to be made clear to the copyright owner when requesting permission to use an image here. --Martyman-(talk) 01:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Howard

You're right, she was never a writer. I was de-categorizing the very large (at the time) category "Jewish Americans" into smaller sub-cats. I've moved her into "Jewish American history". Vulturell 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BiNet USA

just wondering about why that note was there, what it means, ect. thanks CyntWorkStuff from User talk:Joy Stovall

  • Hey, thanks for dropping a note. The notice about the deletion discussion is there because the page was proposed for deletion about a year ago. You can click the link in the notice to see the discussion in its entirety. It's archived. Originally, the article looked pretty bad. Here's the initial entry. While the discussion was taking place, the article was improved enough so that people decided it could stay in the encyclopedia. If there's no consensus to delete an article, we place a note about it on its talk page, so that everyone can view the discussion. Did that help, or did I confuse you more? Joyous | Talk 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gay Pride" series?

Hi, I'm confused about the '"Gay Pride" series' banner that you've put on a load of articles. Firstly that you've added it to a load of bisexuality articles, which I disagree is necessarily related to Gay Pride - wouldn't Bisexual Pride be more appropriate? Also I'm confused to what this banner actually means? - There's no link explaining what it is, or a way to list all the articles in the "series", as far as I can tell? Thanks. Mdwh 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More work?

More work? Sure. I can't guarantee I'll get it done immediately or do more than a cursory copyedit and wikification, though. --Sophitus 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activists

The articles Wendy Curry and Margaret Rood has not been deleted: since their content was already contained in BiNet USA, I turned them into redirects. I have no problem if you turn back these into articles. However, all four articles you mentioned had been tagged for "speedy deletion" by Ciphergoth. I invite you to discuss the issue with him before reverting. Regards. - Liberatore(T) 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I didn't delete the other two articles, but I know that they were previously proposed for speedy deletion for "not asserting notability". You may want to investigate with the admins who deleted them. - Liberatore(T) 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I should have explained that better, actually. Here is the story: the articles that meet the criteria in the page WP:CSD may be deleted "on sight" by any Wikipedia administrator. A non-administrators may mark them using a "speedy deletion tag", which amounts to asking an adminstrator to delete them.
In this case, Ciphergoth tagged these articles under criteria A7, which says that an article about a person can be deleted if the article does not say why the person is notable (he later explained his rationale here) Since those articles just repeated what's written in BiNet USA, I turned them into a Wikipedia:Redirect. For example, if you follow the link Wendy Curry you will end up in BiNet USA. At the top, you will see a line "(Redirected from Wendy Curry)". By following the link, you end up in the old Wendy Curry page, which you can still edit. Regarding the two other articles, they were simply deleted by other adiministrator who (apparently) agreed with Ciphergoth.
My suggestion is to try to discuss the issue with him first. Consider reading WP:BIO and WP:CSD before, as these are the relevant policies for the inclusion of biographies in Wikipedia. Let me know whether you have any other question. - Liberatore(T) 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've responded on my Talk page to keep the discussion on one place, but I can copy it here if you prefer. — ciphergoth 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your message on my talk page. I will first answer to your last question, which is the easiest: articles should themselves tell why their subject is notable from the beginning, that is, upon creation. They can be expanded later, but the should tell immediately why their subject deserves an article. On one thing I agree with ciphergoth: if the content of an article is already completely included in another, why having it in the first place? If the article on Luigi Ferrer says basically that he's the president of BiNET, and the article on BiNET says that its president is Luigi Ferrer, the Ferrer article seems only a duplication. Is there anything else that can be said about him? If you cannot expand the article beyond its state before deletion, there is really little point in recreating it. I suggest that you tell us what else interesting can be included in the article.

Incidentally, the 380 unique Google hits are considered by many editors not so many. And it is already known that counting the number of Google hits is not a realiable indicator of notability. On the other hand, WP:BIO includes other criteria that are considered more reliable.

Many people believe that the main principle behind notability is whether someone (else from the people directly involved with the article subject) took the time of talking about the subject. As far as I can see from the first Google hits, Ferrer appears to be notable only in relation to BiNET. Is this correct?

The point of "invisibility factor" is a good one, and I really cannot say much. As far as I can say, on some topic that are known to be underrepresented the criteria for inclusion are typically relaxed (for example, an article about an Iraqi writer of the 50s was not deleted even if his name generated less than 10 Google hits). In general, however, our rules no original research, verifiability and reliable sources may end up creating a bias against some topics. Here Ciphergoth may have something to add.

To summarize, my main question is: what would you add to these articles (for example, the Luigi Ferrer one), if it were undeleted? - Liberatore(T) 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Digging the Google hits, I have also found some other mentions of Ferrer in the news [1] [2] [3] [4]. When I turned that article into a redirect, it was only because of its lack of content at the time, but I have no objection if it is now recreated in expanded form.
Note that we have a rule about recreating articles (WP:CSD G4) but this only applies to recreation of the same article that was deleted. There is no rule forbidding recreation of articles about the same subject, so I think you can create a new article with this new information in it. An alternative you may want to consider is to use a subpage of your user page such as User:CyntWorkStuff/Luigi Ferrer as a draft until you feel the article is ready to stand objections, and then move it to Luigi Ferrer. - Liberatore(T) 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In short: no, there is no way for being always notified of a proposal to deletion. This is done sometimes, but not always. I understand that this looks very unfriendly from your point of view, but there are a lot of articles created every day, and some people have to check them, and telling whether a subject deserves an article or not is not always easy. In particular, "speedy deletion" decision is based only on what's written on the article: that's why I usually recommend not to create articles that are shorter than a 100-word paragraph.
Notification of candidates for speedy deletion is also sometimes of little usefulness, as these articles are often deleted very quickly, and notification is often seen by the authors only after the article has been deleted.
There are however other processes for deletion (WP:PROD and WP:AFD) which are perfomed when the article contains a claim of notability: in this case, you can check whether some articles are nominated for deletion by placing them in your watchlist, and check that watchlist often (these processes last 5 days on average).
After an article is deleted, you can request its undeletion the Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is a discussion on whether articles should be undeleted. I did not suggest to undergo this last process in this case because the deleted articles were very short, so the conclusion of the discussion would probably have been to keep these articles deleted. In this case, I think it's quicker to just create new expanded articles. In my opinion, Ferrer is notable even if he doesn't exactly meet the criteria at WP:BIO, and I presume the other ones are on the same degree of notability. Keep in mind that others may disagree with me.
Regarding the links: yes, there is no need to include all of them; of particular interest are links to major media (e.g., national newspapers) and links to articles that are specifically about them (e.g., an article that is only about Ferrer). - Liberatore(T) 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You cite the Google test in discussion with User:Paolo Liberatore. A note of caution, though - this test is not always reliable. I personally have zillions of Google hits, and they are largely for me rather than my namesakes, but there's no way that makes me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. By contrast, my namesake Paul Crowley has a far lower Google profile, but he's clearly a prominent academic in theology and can be covered well.

Even press mentions don't always mean sufficient notability. I've been on a TV talk show talking about bisexuality and villified in the tabloid press for polyamory activism, but I don't think that makes me notable enough for a Wikipedia article by any means.

WP:BIO sets a high bar. Encyclopaedia Britannica has no coverage even of (eg) Lani Ka'ahumanu or Fritz Klein; while Wikipedia can and should be much more inclusive than Britannica, it's still important to take great care what is included simply so that quality does not suffer.

BTW, thanks for your work on J. Michael Bailey - all that nonsense needs to be exposed for what it is! — ciphergoth 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I don't claim to know how notable these activists are; as I said, I'm going purely by what the articles say. I'm only saying a few words on how I interpret WP:BIO to help you direct your biographical work where it is best suited to WP; you are best placed to judge whether you can write an article that will for example convince the reader that the subject will be remembered a hundred years from now.
The Washington Post article you mention is pretty breathtaking. It's annoying when any bisexual person is off-handedly described as gay or lesbian in a context like that, but it's just astonishing when it's someone like Ochs, who has been doing great work for the bi community worldwide for nigh on two decades. Still, things are much better than they were I think - the example of egregious biphobia that has stayed with me most was a photo printed perhaps a decade ago in the free British gay paper The Pink Paper; the photo showed a banner held aloft at a Pride march saying something like "Erehwon University Student Union supports lesbians, gays and bisexuals", and the caption read "Erehwon University Student Union supports lesbians and gays". The Pink has been bought, sold, died and been resurrected many times since then, and the current incarnation is pretty good about it now and reports very positively on our events. One battle is not the war of course, but these victories keep you going... — ciphergoth 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activist bios

It may seem weird that another bisexual activist, far from joining you in what you're trying to achieve here, is actively resisting, and I've been trying to work out how to express what my reservations are. It's not a US/UK rivalry thing; if it were, I'd just create entries for Marcus Morgan, Alison Rowan, Jenni Yockney and the like and be done with it. And I hope at least that it's not internalized homophobia/biphobia. I think I've finally worked out what it is.

In the end, I don't think bisexual activism should be about us, the activists. It should be focussed on the community we serve and the people we're reaching out to. In combatting bisexual invisibility, I'd rather be highlighting the bisexuality of people who are already famous for other reasons. In raising the profile of our community so people can find us and benefit from what we do, I'd rather talk about our events and our organisations than the people behind them. I'm happy to see us celebrating our activists *within* the community, as for example with the "cake awards" at BiCon 2002. But when we the activists start demanding recognition for ourselves from outside the community, we run the risk of getting lost in activism about activism about activism. We are not the point - what we do is the point.

Does that make any sense? — ciphergoth 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you sometimes answer + in comparison to the raging debates over trivia (I mean pages and pages going on for years about a local idiomatic expression said at New Years . . . well actually I guess some people are using it to debate nationalism, what is or isn't 'authentic' & what is a 'colonial remnant' . . . oops not meaning to be insulting to you as a British person) at the HK area this isn't so bad. Or maybe just very few people care about all of this.
But really I'm not doing any of this at the behest of any individuals or organizations. This was all my own bright idea. I just became annoyed when I could find more info about all the imaginary characters, etc. for something like WoW than actual real people who are doing things that affect my RL.
You are looking at it from the point of view of an "activist", (I went & Googled you, even found your LJ). But I am actually just a peon who (other than one or two persons, one of whom sadly has died) has only vaguely heard the names of but doesn't know any of theses people who actually do all the "movement stuff". Thru chatting with the other peons here and there I found that none of us actually knew who all you people were. We wouldn't know you if we fell over you in the street. So I went to look for info on all these people who, lets face it are the ones helping to shape our lives, and found precisely nothing.
So I thought if I and my friends want to know who these people are who "represent" us, others probably do to. So I went about starting to collect little bits of info. and putting it up. And then one day "poof" it was gone . . . and the rest you know because that is where our lives intersected.
So, I just added in CBD something I personally think is silly, but others seem to like, (after all there is a great deal on that flag which I think is passing ugly). Will there be some sort of objections to that? CyntWorkStuff 17:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
An entry on CBD is a great idea - thanks for starting it! Will do some editing in a bit.
The Wikipedia:Fancruft here is a pain in the arse; I wish we could rid Wikipedia of it. If WoW people want a record of every last detail of WoW, they can get their own wiki. We certainly shouldn't take that stuff as an example to be emulated.
I proposed on BIACT-L that what we really need is a Wiki of our own. We can be much more freeform there. Hell, we can have an entry for everyone as wants one, so you can look up other people who attended the same BiCon as you. And we can create it on Wikia. What do you think?
— ciphergoth 08:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BiNet

Hi, Cynthia. I don't see anything on the talk page that would suggest that there was a consensus to delete the article BiNet USA. When the article was first written, it wasn't much more than a sentence and a link to the website. During the discussion, one person agreed that it whould be deleted, but seven others disagreed. I closed the discussion myself as a "consensus to keep" the article. If there had been a general agreement that it should have been deleted, I would have deleted it at that time. The notice about the discussion on the talk page isn't unusual: anytime an article is recommended for deletion, but is subsequently kept, we leave a notice like that, directing readers to the discussion. Joyous | Talk 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to add such a note yourself. Actually, just the fact that the article is still there is explicit proof that it was agreed to keep the article. Otherwise, it wouldn't be there. Joyous | Talk 22:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I understand your hesitancy. Please be assured that no established editor who stumbles across the notice on the talk page will think that the article was intended to be removed. Notices like that are absolutely standard. Joyous | Talk 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bisexual Foundation

I don't have anything to add, no -- but I do know Dr. Klein and some members of the foundation. I know it's against policy for people to directly report on things they themselves are involved in, but perhaps I can find someone who is both knowledgable and uninvolved Scix 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article re-write

So now, what is the correct procedure to move new data in, especially as I would assume Wikipedia doesn't want to loose the old comment? Should I just go into "edit" mode; select and delete all the old data and do a copy/paste with the new data? Or should I somehow archive the old article with all it's comments, especially the ones about the "neutrally being disputed"? Also since Wikipedia editor Aaron Brenneman did the work to review and put in the comments regarding same, is it considered good form to notify him prior to or when I put in the new data? Thank you.

If you did a pretty extensive rewrite, I think it would be fine just to go into edit mode, delete the old text and replace it with the new, via a plain old cut-and-paste. The old article will be preserved in the article's history archive automatically, so you don't have to do anything to save it. It's up to you whether you want Aaron Brenneman to look over it before you install the new article. It probably wouldn't hurt to get some feedback and opinions from him, if he's made extensive comments. If there are any discussions on the talk page of the old article, just leave them in place. If you need any help with any of this, please let me know. Answering questions is one of my favorite things to do here. Joyous | Talk 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want that temp page anymore, I'd be happy to delete it for you. Many people keep a subpage for rough drafts, notes, etc. If you want one, all you have to do is create a page called something like User:CyntWorkStuff/workspace or something like that, and you can have your own personal workspace. Joyous | Talk 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Your subpage is gone. Joyous | Talk 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

CyntWorkStuff ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i'm on aol & always getting blocked so it says do this . . .

You need to give more detail, what does the block message say. e.g. Autoblocked because.... which user being blocked has caused you to end up blocked also. --pgk(talk) 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK there were a couple of autoblocks for that user, I've removed them so you should be clear now. --pgk(talk) 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
please, see as follows
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Tawker for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
vandalism
Your IP address is 152.163.101.8. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
please unblok this too
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Naconkantari for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Johnny Wheeler". The reason given for Johnny Wheeler's block is: "please contact an administrator for verification, as described on this page.".
Your IP address is 152.163.101.9.
Ok both blocks were for 15 min or less so they should be over now, if not can you slap the unblock back on please. Thanks! -- Tawker 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if you can switch ISP's (or AOL could get intellegent) it would make life a lot easier (either that or we find a bug fix) - I know I've hit sharedip blocks in the past and they're annoying. -- Tawker 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Winosbaily". The reason given for Winosbaily's block is: "AN:I vandal". Your IP address is 152.163.101.13. CyntWorkStuff 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Drini for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Limpieza de Culo". The reason given for Limpieza de Culo's block is: "username".

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Winosbaily". The reason given for Winosbaily's block is: "AN:I vandal". Your IP address is 152.163.101.13

Your IP address is 205.188.116.67. CyntWorkStuff 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Drini for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Limpieza de Culo". The reason given for Limpieza de Culo's block is: "username".Your IP address is 205.188.117.12. Please unblock thank you CyntWorkStuff 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

All listed autoblocks have been cleared. Please paste info if you are still blocked. pschemp | talk 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Drini for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mi agujero del maíz". The reason given for Mi agujero del maíz's block is "aol triggering dos , cleanup". Your IP address is 152.163.100.13 Thanks CyntWorkStuff 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Released. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Happy August -- not this person, thanks

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Cyde for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pedro the Seagull". The reason given for Pedro the Seagull's block is: "Banned vandal returning". Your IP address is 64.12.116.202. CyntWorkStuff 18:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done --pgk(talk) 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock>>Hello not me as usual -- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Skull22". The reason given for Skull22's block is: "vandalism account".Your IP address is 205.188.116.74 Thanks CyntWorkStuff 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock released. You should be able to edit now - let me know if you can't (put the unblock template up again). Sorry for the inconvenience - your edits are valuable to us and we need you! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexuals in media

Wicked, thanks! That was officially my first article...despite it's stubbiness. Glad to get some help. I just read about Klein's death, felt I needed to give some tribute. Great man. Met him just a few months ago.

The stuff I initially had in there in the introduction about the negative portrayal of bisexuals was pretty much directly from The Bisexual Option. Then I know The Celluloid Closet is about movie portrayals of homosexuality. I meant if the article...maybe 'discussed' is the wrong word...summarised the perspectives of the books/film, it would be a more worthy article. Andral 23:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...Well, I'd definitely call Fritz Klein a scholar, myself...do you see that as inacurate? As long as there are articles showing different perspectives of the cause for homosexual desire in the first place, I don't quite understand why studies on media perception shouldn't be shown here. Did I not understand you correctly?

[edit] Sheela Lambert

I would have done more work on it but I had to pack for a trip (it's Memoerial Day Weekend, you see). I like the work you've done on the article since then (although I must admit I've never heard of Lambert before). I'll probably work on the article some more, too. -Branddobbe 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexual pride flag

No problem. I was kind of glad to see that only one LGBT flag was missed. :) —tregoweth (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Gay Pride original NYC banner ==

The photos I've got are not public domain, so I can't add them to the article - I have two photos scanned from the jacket of Don Teal's book, "The Gay Militants", New York: Stein and Day, 1971.

The first is the cloth banner from the head of the march, strung between two side poles and looking about 8 - 10 feet wide. It is being carried by a group of gay men and lesbians marching on a Manhattan street and chanting something. The banner reads:

First line:

CHRISTOPHER STREET

Second line:

GAY LIBERATION DAY

Third line:

    1970

(I don't know why wikipedia does that strange thing to the year, sorry, I'm new in town)

The photo cuts off "Street", but "Street" is reported in the text.

The second photo is from the park after the parade, a large group of people, mostly sitting on the ground, with trees in the background. One cloth banner held by some participants reads "Lesbians Unite", there is a Gay Activist Alliance placard, an American flag, several placards and signs I can't read, and, near the camera, two cardboard placards on sticks held by other participants, clearly created to the same design, with "Gay Pride" printed on them and what look like two large paper flowers attached to each sign - so "Gay Pride" was present, but only as a slogan among many slogans.


EdgarCarpenter 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PFLAG

I personally felt that template was needed because of a few words which seemed to cover up the truth of the matter such as "education" on the summary of their mission. Why would that word be weaselly? Because it implies that they are enlightening people by their work. They are providing a political message not education. Hope this helps, Chooserr 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all the catholic sacramental articles are NPOV - or at least to my way of thinking. They don't say that the eucharist is the true presence of christ or that transubstantiation is real. They just say that these are things catholics believe. It can hardly be compare to saying pflag educates people. The truth is radically different. They are a political movement, and like any other political movement their information is biased and cannot be defined as education. Chooserr 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes and merges, etc.

Hi there. Sorry for the delay in replying: I saw someone's note below yours, and I simply didn't scroll up high enough to see that there was another message hanging around there.

Talk:Melissa Farley has the Living Person's Bio tag on it because it's...well, it's a biography of a living person. Wikipedia got into a bit of difficulty last year with some defamatory information that was added anonymously to the biography of a person who is living. As a result, we're trying to tighten up biographies to make sure that information that is added is sourced. The tag just puts the article into that category. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles so tagged. They don't indicate that there's anything wrong with either the article or the discussion. It's just a notification to anyone who works on it to be careful with information. This page explains it in great detail. It's best if you leave the tag in place.
For the merge/don't merge disagreement at Media portrayal of bisexuality, it looks like a solution might be found if a few more people were involved in the discussion. One way to do this is to list the article at proposed merges with a brief explanation of the disagreement. A few more eyes might help in reaching a conclusion.

Again, sorry for the delay in response. Joyous! | Talk 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, Bailey, etc.

Thanks for the great work you are doing! When you come across an NPOV marker, there should be a reason placed on the talk page. If it seems that issue has been addressed, it is generally considered good form to start a new section on the talk page proposing removal of the NPOV tag, and saying "if there are no objections by (such-and-such date), I will remove the tag." Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Sometimes I just decide to be bold and remove it if it seems completely inappropriate, but it's generally better to give it a few days. Jokestress 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

please - not me Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.You were blocked by DakotaKahn for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Northwest flys into this airport". The reason given for Northwest flys into this airport's block is: "username".Your IP address is 152.163.100.201. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Can you please post future unblock requests at the bottom of the page. Leaving them in the middle of a ruck of other stuff makes them difficult to find and deal with. --pgk(talk) 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usual blocking problem of AOL user & off thing in re: Username

{{unblock}} please - not me as usual Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.You were blocked by Naconkantari for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Wellingtonoil&gas". The reason given for Wellingtonoil&gas's block is: "

Your IP address is 205.188.117.68. CyntWorkStuff 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've lifted the autoblocks caused by Wellingtonoil&gas's block. I don't know where the username guff came from - looks like a weird mix-up or a strange transclusion. Clearly not your username, so I've deleted the weird warning. Hopefully you can now edit freely again, with apologies for the inconvenience. Wikipedia:Advice for AOL users has some workarounds for future problems; also we have new software arriving all the time which might one day make this problem go away completely. Until then, please bear with us and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on WikiProject LGBT studies

When you've got a few minutes, I was wondering if you'd take a look at my ideas regarding increasing participation in WikiProject LGBT studies? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per your request I'm at your talk page posting my reply to what you wrote on my talk page

CyntWorkStuff wrote:
hi again . . . let's try this introduction & getting to know each other stuff again
I think there seems to have been some sort of terrible misunderstanding here both about my questions and comments and about how to use various parts of wikipedia.
Let me again try to introduce myself. Hello my name is Cynthia I'm a nice older LGBT woman, kind to pets and children, etc. with (I'd like to think) good feminist credential stretching back many, many years.
NOTE: Now, having had this problem on Wikipedia before, let me just say this flat out. If the problem is that you do not approve of and/or have trouble with the concept of LGBT (aka "queer", aka bisexual) people and you feel that your particular belief systems would make it impossible for us to have a cordial discussion because our value systems are just so different, please just says so. I'm not partially attached to this article, I came across it because of some link to some area I was actually working on. Additionally, at this time I'm too busy to have a debate on the merits of LGBT Rights. I in no way meant these statements to be rude or to belittle any belief system you may have. Additionally if you want to discuss LGBT Rights with me please e-mail me and I'd be pleased to discuss them with you at another time.
Anyway, if you'll kindly take a look, you'll see that my "about me" page is here and we can talk back and forth "off-line" so to speak by means of our respective "mytalk" pages. Again, I am NOT a scholar just a humble computer programmer . By my using the "mytalk" pages, this means I get to ask the dumb questions about topics and people can answer me and point out appropriate scholarly articles so I can lean more WITHOUT impacting an actual article.
For instance, if I was to say to you I heard there were some rare breed of dolphins that appeared to be pink, that would not be slander against dolphins that were blue. Questions & comments posed in the "mytalk" area are not accusations, they are just questions and comments and the "mytalk" area is a place we can discuss things informally.
The things that go on "mytalk" pages are NOT questions that I would put on any article "discussion" page. SO may I most politely and respectfully suggest that you take my "hello there" comments and my "I don't know much, this is what I've heard but I'm willing to learn comments" off the actual article discussion page. They are not, as far as I know the kind of thing that belongs there.
Please just chat back at me |over here on my page and we can get to know each other and discuss things. OK? Sound good? CyntWorkStuff 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered the fact that I don't care if you have a cat, that I don't wish to entertain your "stupid questions" on talkpages or care uno iota about your sexual preference or that I am uninterested in "getting to know each other" in "private"? Have you considered that I find it bizarre that you would write "Please just chat back at me lover" to someone who hasn't had a single exchange with you and that you would--because I am treating another user with some courtesy Peter G Werner because even though he does have an obvious agenda opposite of mine, that he more or less appears (from what little I know now) to be able to avoid making public false accusations about other people--that you would speculate in a public statement that I am "afraid" of him. You say that replying to talkpage ramblings is not appropriate on discussion pages yet that is precisely how you and Peter G Werner / iamcuriousblue began the discussion with material that he moved from his talk page to reply to you. See: "umm why second-wave feminism removed as not relevant on Melissa Farley"? It seems it is you who is mixing up quite a lot, including the fact that I'm not here to do anything but mop up what I can of your sloppy wikipedia practices and your gossip and misrepresentations about feminist scholar Melissa Farley. P.S. I'm posting using my real name and while you are "desperately" asking for personal information about Farley, and even her "family", that you are such a coward that you don't even post on Wikipedia using your actual name or even show your face on your own talkpage.--Nikkicraft 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cynthia,
I hope you can see from my reply to you that there were some misunderstandings about our earlier communications. If you would still like to work this out I am willing. However if we do you would need to cease writing negative insinuations about me. It's okay to write anything you want, but please have knowledge to back it up rather than just speculation. Sound good? If so then I would extend an invitation for us to talk briefly and work it out. Oh yeah and I'll start out by apologizing for the fact that I did not realize when you wrote "lover" that it was a typo and that contributed to our miscommunications. sincerely, Nikkicraft 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm on AOL & have been blocked again

Not me please unblock. Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.You were blocked by KnowledgeOfSelf for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Eddie segoura.". The reason given for Eddie segoura.'s block is: "sockpuppet of banned User:User:EddieSegoura".Your IP address is 64.12.116.199. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --pgk(talk) 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and have immediately been blocked AGAIN

Not Me -- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Merovingian for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dont be a player h8r". The reason given for Dont be a player h8r's block is: "vandal account". Your IP address is 64.12.116.7. Thank you (again) CyntWorkStuff 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should be released now. Syrthiss 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL user blocked for a 3rd time today - in the middle of an edit which was blown away

Not me again please unblock again -- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bunchofgrapes for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Nc817". The reason given for Nc817's block is: "EddieSegoura sockpuppet". Your IP address is 64.12.116.74. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked Again

Not me please unblock -- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Misza13 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Unblock lol fuck me lolz". The reason given for Unblock lol fuck me lolz's block is: "user...". Your IP address is 152.163.100.67. CyntWorkStuff 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First block of the day

Not me please unblock -- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "FOLLOW THE RULES, TALK PAGES ARE NOT PROTECTED.". The reason given for FOLLOW THE RULES, TALK PAGES ARE NOT PRO Your IP address is 205.188.117.9. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That's very strange, I don't see any blocks, even when checking the autoblock logs. Please copy and paste any future block messages that you get. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . I thought that was exactly what I did. This came up when I went to post a reply to someone. I hi-lited, copied & pasted exactly what it said and added the "unblock" thingy. What else did you need done? CyntWorkStuff 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure, because your block message should be useful: it indicates that you were blocked because you share an IP address with FOLLOW THE RULES, TALK PAGES ARE NOT PROTECTED. However, when I checked the appropriate autoblock logs for that user, the one IP address that was also blocked because of this user has already been unblocked. Therefore, I can't find any evidence that you are blocked. Even your IP address that you gave above doesn't look to be blocked. When I try to block these things, it says that you are already unblocked. I'll try unblocking your username too, even though it doesn't show you being blocked. It might work, but let me know if you still can't edit. Nope, it says that your username isn't blocked either. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the autoblock appears to have expired, you should be able to edit now. -- Natalya 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but why couldn't anyone find it? and why did it stay on so long this time? Or is that just one of those odd mysteries of wiki-life? CyntWorkStuff 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia

Hi, I am not an admin, you might try User:SamuelWantman. If there is any other way I can help please let me know. Haiduc 00:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help if I can. Is it related to this? You can post to my talk page, or send me an e-mail if you'd prefer. To send me an e-mail go to my user page and click on "E-mail this user" from the toolbox. -- Samuel Wantman 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Caller

No problem, really: I saw the two articles and just went, "oookay, this needs doing." I remember watching the show way back in the day; hope it'll eventually see a DVD release. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD is now "Categories for discussion"

There used to be separated discussion pages for merging categories, deleteing them, or renaming them. They've all been merged, and the pages are all in the process of being renamed "Categories for discussion". The log pages for eadh day have not yet been renamed. I think this is because the process of creating and archiving them is handled with programs (bots), which have not been updated yet. So whenever you see "delete" think "discussion". BTW, it is not unusual for a program to be posted for a rename, and then the discussion decides to delete it, and vice versa. -- Samuel Wantman 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yes", and "yes". -- Samuel Wantman 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unblock ASAP

Not me please unblock ASAP snce I was in the middle of editing something. Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by GIen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JIMBO WALES IS AYN RAND'S LITTLE BITCH". The reason given for JIMBO WALES IS AYN RAND'S LITTLE BITCH's block is: "user". Your IP address is 152.163.101.12. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done --pgk(talk) 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piping

I notice that you are adding categories using the "pipe trick". You added a category for Brokeback Mountain and added the optional "|Brokeback Mountain" to the categories. This is not necessary. The piping is only needed if the article would not appear in the correct location if the title is alphabetized. This is mostly needed for articles about people which get alphabetized by last name, for example George W. Bush would be categorized [[Category:Idiots|Bush, George W.]]. -- Samuel Wantman 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary to fix any of these. It doesn't hurt anything. BTW, you can use the pipe trick to display one thing and link to another, such as if you wanted to make a link to idiot. However, my example here would be seriously frowned upon in an article. The displayed link should always be a variety of the original, like this: Gay and lesbian community. -- Samuel Wantman 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unblock innocent AOL user

{{unblock|not me I'm just on AOL dial-up}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by DVD R W for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gaius Maximus Lollius". The reason given for Gaius Maximus Lollius's block is: "Vandalism only". Your IP address is 152.163.101.10. Thank you for your help CyntWorkStuff 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to edit now. --Chris (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == in re entry on Sigmond Freud in Bisexuality ==

Thanks for the friendly notice. Feel free to edit it to more NPOV as you see fit.--Lamrock 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: LGBT noticeboard

Categories for discussion and articles for deletion are run differently. AfD articles get their own page dedicated to that AfD entry, wheras category entries are just made on one big page. Linking to the AfD entry is, in my opinion, much more convenient than forcing users to scroll down through the entire list of AfDs for that day. -- Steel 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just think it's more convenient (and quicker) to go directly to the entry than it is to load up the entire log for that day. Indeed, pretty much everywhere else on Wikipedia standard practice is to link to the indiviual entry than to the entire day's log. -- Steel 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When it comes down to it, I don't feel particularly strongly either way. I just think loading up the invdividual AfD entry which is the standard way of doing things is easier than loading up the entire day's log (which is a pretty big page and does take a while to load. If you think the old way was better, feel free to change it back. Oh, and I'm not an admin either, and even if I was, that wouldn't make my opinion any more valid than a non-admin's. -- Steel 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Review Article

http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals/stflr&collection=journals

Try this link. I can access it, but it might be because of my connection to UPenn's library. CaveatLectorTalk 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limoncelli Living Tag

I wasn't sure if it _did_ qualify, I just wanted to put a living notice up there. The Bio project tag was the first I came across, then I realized there was one w/o some project I knew nothing about I could use instead. If it quailfies, please change it back. --Vees 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not me inocent AOL dial-up user blocked in middle of edit

  • Sorry about that. Eight autoblocks found and lifted. We are working on software improvements that will help minimise this problem. You yourself were not blocked and your reputation is fully intact. Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. Sorry for the inconvenience and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexual pride flag

Hi, I see that you added a template with the words "This article is part of the "Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia" to Talk:Bisexual pride flag. However, what good does it do? It creates neither links nor categories, and it does not even explain what the "Gay pride series" is. If it's just there for simple looks, I really don't think it's necessary. Do you? GilliamJF 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks for the response. GilliamJF 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I just asked the same question over at the helpdesk and got directed here - if it's a "leftover", it should be deleted. --Charlesknight 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/n/User_talk%7ECyntWorkStuff_9fd2.html"