User talk:Dmlandfair/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of sex positions

Hi. A long time back (over the summer, I think) you changed the wording of this article so that the two partners in each situation were not gendered in order for the article to be more inclusive and less heterosexist. Sometime since then, (actually, it appears, not long after then), that all got undone by another user. Now we have a POV tag on the top of the page claiming that it's heterosexist again. I'd sure appreciate your input on the List of sex positions talk page. Thanks. Jacqui ★ 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding the question of sex positions... my position is that I'm in favor of it. 0:) Wahkeenah 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Crest School

I think keeping Mary Karey's occupation is giving my school a bad name. I do think you are correct though, even though I will not go on her web site.

[edit] pro anti-batpedophilia people:

that's not, gaynes not pedophilia. and neither kane, nor finger, schwartz, sprang, o'neil, timm, dini, burton, west, ward, o'donell, cloney, keaton, kilmer, conroy, wolfman, loeb, matzuda, or eny bat-writer, actor, editor, artist, producer director or true fan has ever intended batman to be gay. only a morbid asshole that hates batman said so. every man raising an ophan on his own is criing to be target of pedophilia jokes... but to think that's real only means that you are sick and is not the flu. wertham is also a morbid sick man anyone can se that.. if you can't that's because you are an idiot. besides... are you dislexic or something he is a flamboyant anti-gay morbid anal retentive asshole and you like him????? he is not even saying batman is gay you big ( ...) he is saying he is pedophilic!!!! and you think it is a minority issue? ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha get it?--T for Trouble-maker 08:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Llorona

I don't know if this is set down in any policy or guideline, but it's been discussed by users of IPA transcriptions a lot. Basically, the whole point of the {{IPA}} template is to make sure the phonetic characters render correctly for users of Internet Explorer, and linking a phonetic transcription means many users will see the transcription underlined, making it difficult to see whether characters have diacritics under them. The removal of the syllabification periods was incidental; I simply reverted back to an earlier version. You can put them back in if you like. I personally only indicate syllabification if it's the topic under discussion. --Angr (t·c) 09:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peppermint Patty

"Inferred" implies there is evidence from which to draw an inference... and there ain't any! Unless you count Marcie calling Patty "Sir", which might be overlooking the fact that Schulz's primary goal was to try to be funny. That's why "imagined" works and "inferred" is questionable. Wahkeenah 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, your criterion for "evidence" seems to be "textuality to the point of direct statement." According to that, no there sure "ain't any!" but the fact that that evidence doesn't have to be textual and can be drawn from subtext as well as extratextual places like the wider culture (and that's where contemporary students of literature find their evidence) blows your argument out of the water. Dave 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What subtext? That the girls' appearance fits the lesbian stereotype rather than that of presumably "straight" girls such as Lucy? Well, Lucy slugs Linus a lot, so she's obviously tough if not overtly butchy. She swoons over a pianist who shows no interest in her. Thus it's a "safe" relationship for both, so that must make Lucy a closet lesbian, and Schroeder a closet gay. What about the fact that Charlie and Linus are always hanging around together. They must be gay also. And let's not even get into the Snoopy and Marcie "dating" thing. I'm sure the animal "lovers" (pardon the expression) had a field day over that one. And keep in mind that Charles Schulz lived in the San Francisco area, the "capital of gay America", and that he came from St. Paul, and everyone knows the apostle Paul was gay, so it's obvious there is a constant gay "subtext" pervading the strip. I should send a note to Bill O'Reilly about this. He might have a heart attack on the air, which would be worth watching. >:) Wahkeenah 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You have the illustrations of Marcie and Peppermint Patty with their backs to each other. What should I "infer" from that? Did they break up? >:) Wahkeenah 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Eeep! That was a mistake, and it has since been corrected. Dave 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
They are also out of proportion to each other. Well, it's your page. FYI, I should point out that I don't have an inherent problem with the concept of them being lovers at some time in the future, I'm just saying it's not in the comic strip. They are whatever Schulz wanted them to be, no more, no less. In a way, they are all in cartoon hell, because not only did they never grow up physically, now they can't because Schulz has gone to that great drawing board in the sky, and the newspapers are running re-runs of "Re-run" and all the others. It's like that one "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode where they were caught in a wormhole loop or some such. Luckily, they don't actually exist, so it's a minor problem. :) Wahkeenah 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Kind of sucks for them. I totally agree that it's not in the comic strip, but I just think that there are enough mentions of the possibility of it elsewhere that it merits mention. Obviously nothing personal, and I've enjoyed the repartée. Dave 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll let you in on a secret, which I'm sure no one else will recognize, ja? I once knew a girl named Patty who did, in fact, prefer girls. And I used to call her Peppermint Patty. And she hated it, though not for the implied comparison that I was making (despite the lack of evidence in the strip), just for other now-forgotten reasons. :) Wahkeenah 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT/NAMBLA Issue

I noticed your comment on the nambla talk page. It struck me as so curious that I went to diciontary.com and looked up the word gay. It says that gay means "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." It seems that even adult men and two-year-old boys are members of the same sex. So even if NAMBLA did advocate pedophilia, which it doesn't, it would still be a "gay" organization every bit as much as it would be a homosexual organization. Where can I find a citation for this cultural definition that you keep talking about? Corax 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You didn't ask me, but here's my tupence worth: NAMBLA's very name contains the English-language equivalent of "pedophilia". Don't be a weasel. 0:) Wahkeenah 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm not sure why I got that little gem either. I didn't use the word pedophilia or criticize its use by anybody else in any of my comments. Dave 01:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a WikiPhantom. Wahkeenah 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that like a sock puppet? Dave 02:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could be. It's an official catchall term I just invented, for anything in WikiPedia that doesn't make sense, which my original research indicates would cover a lot of ground. 0:) Wahkeenah 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I gather this has to do with some ongoing debate over whether NAMBLA is a "gay organization" or not. It's like debating whether the Mafia should be considered a "Sicilian-American organization" or whatever. It comes down to whether organizations that support and/or engage in illegal activities should be lumped with those that presumably don't. And I don't know what the answer to that question is. :\ Wahkeenah 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a lot like that, but for different reasons. To me it's like saying that the American Mafia should be in the Sicilian organizations category, when for subtle but important reasons, it should really be under Sicilian-American organizations. :-) This discussion/flame war happens pretty often. Hopefully there can be some compromise and resolution. Dave 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, this particular flame war is not mine. I have enough of those fires in other areas. Compromise and resolution are possible, but don't bet the family jewels on it. :\ That reminds me... where are the equivalent organizations, namely NAWGLA, NAMGLA, and NAWBLA? That seems discriminatory. It probably comes down to funding... to budget considerations after deducting attorney fees. Wahkeenah 02:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Normally I do (and tried that already), but this fellow is insistent, not amenable to reason, and he and I will just wear each other out. Haiduc 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to COLAGE

Thanks for your addition. It's a bit longwinded but I think it's reasonably fair. You could add a similar section (but the other way round if you know what I mean) to the NAMBLA article and it would be equally fair. Please don't ask to get me blocked again though. It's not very nice. We have talkpages for a reason, Dave, and we're big boys who can sort their differences out without needing the police to do it for us. Okay? Grace Note 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Seeing that put me in a bad mood, so I just went with the quick 'n' dirty route. Won't happen again. Dave 03:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes on LOST characters

Thank you for the conversion of "Basic Facts" into the infoboxes on the LOST character pages; it's a wonderful improvement and I'm amazed no one thought of it earlier. Regards, LeFlyman 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! *beams* Dave 18:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse list AFD

Someone has messed up the formatting of the AFD, preventing new votes or changes. It will probably be fixed shortly. But I'll say that having read the responses I will likely change my vote to "categorize then delete". As one of the voters says there, the category still works better and it is dead easy to add a category line to any articles not already covered. I might also suggest starting a Wikiproject:Buffyverse if one isn't already underway to come up with standards for Buffy-related articles (including, for example, set categories). For examples of how these work, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who and Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. 23skidoo 04:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy already, and it's done a lot of good production and standardization, but the poster who made that article has been causing a little trouble for my WikiProject editing because he doesn't like the encyclopedic standards of WikiProject Buffy. That's what led to the creation of the list page. He's been getting progressively more reasonable, and compromise seems like it might be on the horizon at some point soon, so things are looking good. Thanks for your consideration and for your advice! Dave 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

How do you make those boxes on the top right of your profile, and where do I go to get a list of possible boxes? P.S. Feel free to delete this after responding --Radaar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Radaar 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of images from Transgender article

Could you please explain why you removed the images from this page ????

Thanks

Dlloyd

[edit] Mercaz harav

Yeshivat Mercaz haRav is an institution for higher talmudic learning, and not a person. Therefore it is not a bio stub. Still, thanks for your input. Ayinyud 11:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Your adminship nomination didn't achieve consensus. Please look at the reasons voters opposed your nomination and this will be a big aid to succeeding in the future. Many initially failed nominees have gone on to be admins later. Cheers, Cecropia 18:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Categories and lists

What's your opinion on the dozens (maybe even hundrdes) of lists on topics that already have categories. I just used a few examples here User:Paxomen/Categories and lists, please have a look. As was propsed I renamed the article to List of Buffyverse-related topics which is surely comparable to the year-old page List of sociology topics (as mentioned elsewhere there is already a sociology category). I also cleaned up the alphabet contents for ease of use. -- Paxomen 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'List of Buffyverse-related topics' up for deletion

Hiya, wondering why you claim this deserved 'speedy deletion' because it was 're-posted content' when you know better than anyone, that this article does not look anything like the previous article? I am willing to continue to give the article more detailed annotation over the coming weeks. Lists are supposed to complement categories to make up for the limitations of the search engine. I looked at your recent 'user contributions' and noticed that you weren't nominating other lists such as those I mentioned here, therefore I don't understand your logic for deleting List of Buffyverse-related topics unless it was a personal attack? Please check out the major changes I recently made to the article List of Buffyverse-related topics, giving it major functions that simply cannot be produced with 'categories' , and consider whether delete is the right option? Why let people who don't care about the Buffyverse (who in fact enjoy deleting what they insultingly refer to as 'fancruft') decide the fate of an article which is not designed for them? Just because those people won't need/use the article, does not mean that fans won't? Buffyverse fans are a tiny minority on Wikipedia, but does that mean each Buffyverse article should have to meet significantly higher standards than are generally upheld on wikipedia, I believe the list created is superior to the most of the lists on wikipedia (such as those here) yet those are not under threat, and the Buffyverse list is? -- Paxomen 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be fancruft (which is far too subjective and just a bad criterion), but it's definitely listcruft. Dave 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should look into wikipedia policies before assuming they are genuinely wikipedian. Both the policy on WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Fancruft, are massively controversial, just look at their discussion pages and revision history. And listcruft was only created a few weeks ago by Stifle, and the only discussion that has so far taken place is someone who has criticised the nature of the whole article. The articles given as examples of listcruft on this article (which is very dubiously a guideline anyway) are
  • List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker
  • List of people that have ears
  • List of dog names

Does 'List of Buffyverse-related topics' really belong with those artciles? Anyway the 'listcruft' article claims it is partly based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but having a reading of that section of the policy immediately shows that lists of closely associated topics are not discounted at all their whatsoever, only Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons are discounted! Are you saying that artciles closely relating to the same fictional universe are only loosely associated?

Anyone can start writing their own wikipedia guidelines, but you might be better off focusing on the polcies/guidelines that are either confirmed as official, or based on a long history of discussion, and resulted in some form of consensus or compromise. An official policy worth reading relating to this is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and also guidelines based on long discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If my list is really worthy of deletion then why aren't you deleting the dozens/hundreds of other lists for which

(a) categories already exist
(b) are less well presented
(c) don't contain links to 'discussion pages'?
(c) don't contain links to 'revision history'?
For just a few examples see here, but dozens more on this page?

Finally on the matter of 'cruft', I think you might wanna consider how appropiate/respectful it is to use the term at all when referring to articles other wikipedians have spent time on, everyone has a subjective opinion on how important different topics are but that's no reason to go on a deleting frenzy of topics we don't like or aren't interested in, or act disrespectful toward those articles. I personally have little interest in this article: List of noise topics, and think it is far less-well-presented than List of Buffyverse-related topics, but I respect the fact that maybe some 'sound engineers', or people working on 'sound effects' and other people may appreciate the article's existence, so I'm happy not to start disrespecting the article's producers, or calling the list 'cruft', or nominating it for deletion. I think it's sad that so many people on wikipedia work toward censorship and deletion rather than creation. -- Paxomen 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Yall.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Yall.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Dave 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)