User talk:Fireplace/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Welcome!

Hello, Fireplace/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi, glad to see you have started editing in Wikipedia. I hope you will soon expand your user page some, so I can learn more about you. The ex-gay subject matter is the cause of quite a bit of controversy in the German wikipedia, too, by the way.--Bhuck 10:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome also from the Opera Project

Hi. Delighted to see you are posting about opera directors! - Kleinzach 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Das Rheingold Characters List

Hello. I noticed your clear table on the characters. There is already one at Der Ring des Nibelungen, and perhaps that one should be reformatted according to your style. In the individual articles, do you think we should just link to the main page, or should each have separate lists? --Alexs letterbox 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point... I created a discussion section here. Fireplace 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

I see that you've been making a series of small, reasonable changes to the article, and I just want to say that your efforts are appreciated. Al 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Al. I hate to agree with him but he is right sometimes. :-) I came here specifically just to thank you and I see he beat me to it. --Anon 64 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both welcome, and it's nice working with both of you. Fireplace 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Felsenstein

This is not clear if it is Bartok's opera, Dukas' od Offenbach's Bluebeard??? (meladina 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

You're right -- it was Offenbach's. I fixed the article. Fireplace 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Der Rosenkavalier

Sigh... I'll admit to not knowing / not checking other opera articles. My understanding of commonly accepted WP philosophy is that recaps of fictional details are non-encyclopedic and belong on wikibooks, with a link from WP. What part of WP:NOT is that? ... Upon having looked, it's not there. My argument was that the plot is simply UE. I won't pursue this further - and leave the final word on the subject to you and the others at the Opera project. Cheers - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Die ägyptische Helena cast

Hi. I see you have Jeritza down for this, however the Oxford Dictionary of Opera give Rethberg (with Rajdl and Taucher cond Busch), with Jeritza, Laubenthal and Bodanzky doing the NY prem. on 6 Nov. 1928. Maybe you have another source for this? Best. - Kleinzach 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course. My eye skipped a line when I added the data. Thanks for double checking my work! Fireplace 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Donizetti operas

Thank you for a terrific job on Donizetti! I was really surprised to see all the red links appear as blue!

I've done a bit of editing - and put a couple of questions on the Talk pages which I assume you will see in due course. I have also been through all the Donizetti's operas fixing the genres. The main reason is that the word melodramma has been translated as melodrama/melodrammatic, whereas it really just means opera.

Genre has been a persistent problem on WP (with people translating opéra comique as comic opera etc.) so I think the best way to avoid trouble is to give the original Italian term - which is given in Grove.

Incidentally I start working on a list of pre-recording era singers (User:Kleinzach/Singers of the 17-19th centuries). You are now producing a huge number of new names. I wonder if we can collate them at some stage and make them into some kind of viable list? (Recording era singers are covered (at least from Caruso to Callas) by The Record of Singing).

Best regards. - Kleinzach 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach, thanks for the support, and info on genres. I'll take that into account from now on. I wholeheartedly support a centralized project on pre-recording era singers, and I think its potential value as an educational tool is huge. In adding premiere casts, I've been wikilinking every single full name, knowing that this will redlink many non-notable singers (I don't know in advance who's notable and who's not). I guess the next step is to create a messy list page and start sorting it out? Fireplace 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree it's difficult to know who is notable and who is not. Buondelmonte is knowledgeable about the early 19th century but the rest of us have no special knowledge. Anyway your work will doubtless uncover quite a lot of blue links as well. Re a possible list, do you have names in any kind of breakdown by period, or voice type or whatever? - Kleinzach 16:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pia de' Tolomei

Hi. I wonder if you had a chance to see the note I left on this one? - According to the short synopsis I have, Pia is married to Nello who is Ghino's brother. Does this correspond with your source? - Kleinzach 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This has Ghino as Nello's cousin not brother, but Grove is more reliable. Fixed. Fireplace 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosine or Rosina Stoltz?/La favorite/favorita

I have Rosine. Is this wrong? The other thing is that my synopsis is of the Italian version of La Favorita so I'll replace a note to that effect. - Kleinzach 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Grove says Rosine, Stanford says Rosina, and Google turns up both. Perhaps she used both? I'm fine with either. Fireplace 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
She was French so Rosine is probably correct. Of course she might have Italianified her name at some point. - Kleinzach 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all that fantastic work with the Donizettis, and for all those teeming thousands of original cast lists that make the opera articles so much better, I award you this Barnstar. Keep up all the great work! Moreschi 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to feel appreciated =) Fireplace 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You certainly deserve it! Moreschi 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

198.103.172.9

Why are you removing my links and quotes? These are valid from an opposing view. Shouldn't you allow opposing views on the same subject? I have provided links as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs) 11:53, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for various warnings. Fireplace 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where to go for that. Again, why are you removing factual links? Stats Canada is a federal department.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs) 13:21, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were written from a non-neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Please review Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Fireplace 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reparative therapy citations

Thanks for adding those citations - its much appreciated! -Smahoney 00:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome =) Fireplace 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Me thank you, too. Richard Cohen (therapist) emphasizes that r.t. is only for "people who want to change". It would be like involuntary deprogramming" to 'do it to' someone who didn't want it.

Do the psych associations condemn r.t. for volunteers as well, or just a blanket condemnation? --Uncle Ed 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome again =) As I understand it, the standard position of the major health and mental health organizations is that there is no evidence that reparative therapy is effective, and that it can actually be harmful. It's a blanket statement. But don't take my word for it: [1]. Fireplace 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

No, you go ahead. Just so you know, that edit [2] was a revert to an older version. As you can see here [3] he just reverted to a very old version (and moved the text) but stomped on a bunch of other changes. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I'm reading the text though, I'm thinking much of it should be NPOVed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I'm having even more trouble figuring out what was done when the hard to follow reverts keep coming. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts on Same-sex marriage

Oh, go ahead - I'll take a break for now. I was just going through and turning links into references. -Smahoney 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

"does this count as one vandalism incident, or 2?"

I think it just counts as one. You didn't let him finish!  :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure if you know this, but you left some of the vandalism behind. Toiletpaper, Champagne, and Felching are still there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks =) Fireplace 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Skunkweed

No problem about the delete. I debated a long time before adding this one in the first place. I've lived in Austin, which claims "live music capitol of the world" status, for seven years. Music is a little bit of a different animal here, as you can drive at least five different streets in town on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night with your windows down and you will hear band after band after band performing live at just about every restaurant, club, bar and coffeehouse. There are quite a few performances on weeknights as well.

Here, there are bands that are hugely popular and sell out large venues within hours that appear, at least, to make little or no effort to get a major label. Quite frankly, they probably pocket more of their own money that way. I've been trying to fill in some of the holes with some of the groups that are "on the cusp" as far as Wikipedia notability. As I stated before, a line has to be drawn somewhere. There are plenty of bands around here that really have no business on Wikipedia.

Regional notability can lead to fuzzy lines that can be argued from editor to editor. For instance what is notable on English Wikipedia would not necessarily be notable on say, Italian Wikipedia, and that's fine. The sad fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be practical to subdivide further and have, for instance, a Texas wiki encyclopedia. This means that subjects that are perfectly notable and might be worthy of an article within that narrowed scope have no practical place to exist the way that something that is nationally notable, but not necessarily internationally notable, does.

Fortunately there is some sort of litmus test regarding music, but with many nationally notable bands leaving their labels within the last couple of years and the internet aiding in the rise of the national independent artist, we may be on the verge of a change in the importance and relevance of the major label. Only time will tell. If so, the album project may have to eventually revise that test.

At least for now, we have our arbitrary line. In hindsight, I view Vallejo as just above that line and Skunkweed just below. Although Skunkweed is technically a San Antonio band, they play Austin and make appearances on Austin radio stations quite frequently. I consider this the most popular band around that will likely never really "make it" in the conventional sense...but you never know. I've made a copy of the articles on my own local file server. If Sony/BMG ever hooks them up, I'll be the first to put the article right back (I won't be holding my breath either).

Warm regards and best of luck to you. --UnhandledException 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Common era edit conflict

No problemo re the above... :-) --Centauri 09:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

When you edited Dark Lunacy and removed a link, you called it "blacklisted". Does wikipedia actually have a list of "blacklisted" sites or was the term just used to describe a link that violates wikipedia policy? --Wildnox 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a list of websites marked as spam that the current wiki software won't let editors add to websites (or leave in when making another edit, as I was doing). Here it is: [4]. I have no opinions about whether that link actually is spam. Fireplace 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for linking the list. --Wildnox 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Although now I've worked myself into confusion because darklyrics.com isn't on the list. I was given a warning message that named the site though... feel free to try to add it back in and see what happens. Fireplace 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I probably won't add the link again, I kinda didn't like including it in the first place. I'm not even sure why I included it in the article. --Wildnox 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Biases?

Hello, I saw the text you removed from anon. It was uncivil. However, not horribly so.

He/she suggests "removing the religion section and creating a separate article where both views are adequately discussed." I'm not sure if I agree, but it is something to think about. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right... I keep a very low threshold for removing comments on my talk page from people with bad history (in this case, a user who uses multiple anon IPs, probably has at least one account, and has a record of incivility and inappropriate edits). As far as creating a separate article: sounds good, maybe something here would be a good candidate. Fireplace 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The privacy vandal

To remove information like that, go here and go to the bottom of the page and follow the instructions. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Exodus (organization) move

Hi Tariqabjotu. You're right that the suggested discussion template for discussing page moves wasn't used, but see here: Talk:Exodus (organization)#Page title. There were no objections, and this is a procedural request because a redirect already exists. As the article makes clear, the name of the organization is Exodus International. Thanks. Fireplace 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite common for low-profile articles, like Exodus (organization), to not receive much input, even over long periods of time. Creating a new survey / discussion section (along with adding to WP:RM) helps solicit input from users who normally would not visit page in question. Nevertheless, you can always contact an admin (I am not one) if you disagree and feel the page should be moved immediately. -- tariqabjotu 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alive in Christ article

Hi, I've seen some of your edits on Exodus International, and note you live in the Boston area. Alive in Christ is an ex-gay sort of ministry at Park Street Church. I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at the article? Thanks. CApitol3 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ex-gay

Thanks for your work on the merger of Ex-gay into Reparative therapy. Rosemary Amey 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Cohensholding.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cohensholding.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Fireplace, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation

Thanks for your attention to Reparative therapy; and also to International Healing Foundation, Same-sex attachment disorder and Richard Cohen. I've want to see all this stuff merged for a long time. Encyclopedias are about accuracy, of course, but good organization is the real key. --Uncle Ed 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Hello! I see you disagree that the Homosexual agenda article does not have a worldwide view on the topic. You have written why you think that, but you have done so in the edit summary when reverting my last edit. I guess you and I can agree that the edit summary is not a good place to have a discussion. I have written my arguments on the talk page of the article. You can remove the tag, but please write on the talk page why you did it and let me give you an answer. I, like you, want to improve LGBT-related articles. If you take the time explaining to me why you don´t agree that we put the tag on that article, you will be improving Wikipedia and helping me to be a better Wikipedian, by teaching me the things that you know and I don´t. A.Z. 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Category of "women writers" under review for reinstatement

Hi! I hope you will pardon this notice, but the category "women writers" was recently deleted and is now up for deletion review. I noticed that you commented on an earlier discussion about "women" as a qualifier in categories and thought that you might like to know about the current discussion. scribblingwoman 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ex-gay

I think the articles could be merged, but I haven't had time to read the arguments for/against. Seems reasonable. You might be interested in using your Lexis account to pull off an interesting article on Exodus International from the 2/12 New York Times. It was lengthy; sort of the basis for my jokes on the Talk page for Ex-Gay. --David Shankbone 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the discussions on reparative therapy and ex-gay get very long and detailed very quickly, which makes input from outside editors difficult. Thanks for the support. (I'd read the Times article -- thanks!) Fireplace 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

NARTH

Nice work on digging this up. Where did you find it? Got a ref? Joie de Vivre 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add it to the talk page. You might need university access to open it online without paying. Fireplace 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate that. Everyone should have access. Joie de Vivre 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

good finds

I've noticed several articles recently that you've tagged with {{LGBTProject}}. Latest one was Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. When you find these articles, however ir is you do, consider adding them to the rotating list at WP:LGBT#Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT. That lets other project members take a look and work on newly found articles. Thanks! — coelacan — 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. The project has lots of sub-projects, it takes a while to see how it all fits together. Fireplace 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
=) Well, feel free to ask on my talk page or WT:LGBT (project talk page) if you've ever got any questions. — coelacan — 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

Your reply to my edit is not constructive. If you have a problem with POV, please talk about it rather than labeling my edits 'vandalism'. The way, the truth, and the light 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Please do not report a user to aiv when it is clearly a content dispute. Furthermore, do not warn them for vandalism for the same. The username is underdiscussion. ViridaeTalk 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further more, please make yourself familiar with WP:3RR and be aware that the edits you have made will not be treated as reverting vandalism, however much you believe they are. ViridaeTalk 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the belief that repeatedly adding unsourced, inflammatory/offensive content to a page counted as vandalism (diff). I see that it doesn't fall under any of the suggested categories. My mistake. Fireplace 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there fellow Harvardian! I'm also working on the Opera Project @ Wikipedia. I'll be coming back to Cambridge from a longish research trip to Berlin in September. We should get together and listen to some opera in Boston then! Matthias Röder 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Coordinator

Hey, WikiProject LGBT studies is looking for new Deputy Coordinators, have you thought about doing the job? See: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007 TAnthony 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that to give more people a chance to run, I have extended the deadline for nominations until May 5. The election will the run for one week. WjBscribe 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Cohen (lecturer)

I think the animating image of Richard Cohen (lecturer), while humorous, is edited unjustly. He may be a fool, but using this image risks Wikipedia's NPOV. Perhaps you have a still screenshot of the same show? --Knulclunk 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about this. If you watch the original CNN video, it does accurately capture the flavor of the scene. If you think it goes too far, I won't object if you take it down. Fireplace 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

voting is on

and there are questions for you to answer at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007. Thanks for volunteering! =) ··coelacan 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Updated DYK query On 8 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cohensracket.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cohensracket.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Thanks for your message. I am rather bot-challenged. One other reason I haven't gone over to an automatic system is that there is so much traffic. How can a bot judge which topic is still alive and which has ended? In order to keep the page manageable I am archiving topics which are only a few days old when they seem to have reached resolution. Maybe a bot can do ths? I don't know. Best. --Kleinzach 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi. You wrote "The statement of current consensus regarding infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Lead_section is somewhat more straightforward and unambiguous than the one we have at WP:WPO#Infoboxes. . . ."

What exactly did you have in mind, I wonder? The Composers project text has been changed of course. Originally it said " Current consensus . . . on the project's talk page." which made sense to me following the centralized discussion. Anyway I'd be interested in your ideas. We should defiitely be closing any loopholes here. Best regards. --Kleinzach 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your reponse. The reason I wrote to you here was because your point was imporrtant, but dare I say slightly off-thread? The policy on the Opera Project was made by 5 members, so we would need to restart the discusssion (archive 15 number 1) to change the policy. The other thing is the distinction between project and article discussions. The idea was to have policy to obviate "duking it out' (to use Makemi's phrase) on each individual page (of which there are hundreds potentially). Please feel free to email me if you want to talk about all this on a one-to-one basis. It may be helpful to see each other's perspectives etc.--Kleinzach 05:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay -- I don't see my suggestion as changing the content of the guideline but instead rewording it into a clear, bright-line rule (helpful when dealing with gadflies). If it'd be a hassle to change, it's probably not worth it though. Fireplace 13:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

The LGBT Wikiproject as endorsed you as an assistant coordinator. Thanks for volunteering to help out in this capacity. As you are aware Dev is going to be away for the near future given her real life commitments (exams etc) so it falls to you and Satyr to take over the running of the show... I remain around should either of you have questions or need help. Best of luck, WjBscribe 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. =) Hit me directly on my talk page when you need grunt work or a sounding board. ··coelacan 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Muah ha ha!!! It worked, Fireplace! You and I are now in control of the world!
Hm. Or we have the un-enviable task of figuring out just what the heck we're supposed to do.
Either way, congrats! Here's your Glitter Bucket - I'm keeping the Rainbow Mop — they're so much fun to ride on! :) --- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos for LGBT Portal

Hey Fireplace - what kind of photos are you looking for? Can you give me some parameters, subjects, etc.? I'm re-shooting Evan Wolfson and the Freedom to Marry staff in June (and also Tony Kushner and John Cameron Mitchell); aside from portraiture, what are you looking for? Pride photos? I guess I could go this year... --David Shankbone 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I wasn't necessarily concerned about a project; more so what I should bring to your attention in my normal course of photographing. --David Shankbone 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

88

I won't comment unless I have to.

If I had have put 14/88/311 then an investigation would have perhaps yieled more results, there isn't enough administrators to sift through all of the queries about names. Just accept it's my name.


JBAK88 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You have email. Moreschi Talk 10:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fireplace 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality -- length of article

I noted at Talk:Homosexuality#Article length as compared to Heterosexuality that the article is very long. I would be grateful if you would read my comment and give your input. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! Fireplace 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DSM IV

I was not aware of that DSM IV is used by mental health professionals internationally to diagnose mental pathology. Can you please share from where you got the information? Thanks!LCP 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The DSM-IV has been into 22 languages. As for specific instances, a quick google search turned up some: [5] (Denmark: "The diagnostic criteria for bipolar mania according to the DSM-IV is well established although not fully validated."), [6] ("International Criteria for Vascular Dementia and Their Problems: ICD-10, DSM-IV, ADDTC and NINDS-AIREN"), [7] ("International Criteria for Alzheimer's Disease and Their Problems - ICD-10, DSM-IV and NINCDS-ADRDA"), [8] (Sweden: "The ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and the prevalence of schizophrenia"), [9] (Sardinia (and US): "Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in DSM-IV Bipolar I and II Disorder Patients: Effects of Rapid-Cycling and Treatment Delay")... there are plenty more. Fireplace 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I had no idea.LCP 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Situational sexual behavior

Hi, I just restored Situational sexual behavior. Although this specific name is not frequently used, I think it's a good topic, and it was deleted without being properly orphaned. I invite you to AfD it if you still don't like it. Dcoetzee 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Ex-gay people

I agree with your name change. I have put up a formal proposal for name change. Thought I would let you know. -- Psy guy Talk 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to put in the newsletter that should have gone out two days ago. Any ideas? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tough question -- not much happened this month. It might better serve the project to skip this one rather than spamming members with a boring newsletter. Fireplace 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Animation

Thanks for the compliment re Image:US_LGBT_civil_rights_animation.gif. I can definitely speed it up -- I chose 4 seconds as the interval because people might not keep up with a faster speed -- unfortunately it's not customizable for the viewer (it's an animated GIF). I could make it faster, and see if someone wants it changed back. Or make different versions in different speeds available, although it's possible that admins might not take kindly to the space/bandwidth that would use.
--Slyguy (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! It really looks great. Fireplace 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Once again, describing my edits, just because you disagree with me, as "incvility" is unacceptable. Desist. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are incivil because your behavior amounts to wikistalking, because you use language like "Desist", and because your general modus operandi on wikipedia whenever a dispute arises is to turn disruptive. You've been blocked about twenty times, including a one year block handed down by the ArbCom, and you're one of a handful of users on indefinite probation -- this should make you stop and think about your editing style. Fireplace 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Your false accusation of stalking is also unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grieg

[10] [11] That's the other consensus I meant. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  19:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant look at the edit summaries of those edits. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reparative therapy

Talk:Reparative_therapy#Use_of_the_word_.22relapse.22 Joie de Vivre 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg

I have tagged Image:00sep29Paulk.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Portal:LGBT

Would you say the portal is complete now? I'd like to peer review it with a view to an FPC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Cohen page

Hello, I noticed the small changes I made to this site were immediately reverted. Wikipedia's policy is NPOV. The words, "self-described", and the italics around "sexual reorientation coach" are pejorative, as is much of the language used to describe Richard Cohen on this page. Wikipedia has a policy against slander and bias, and this article is full of both. Let us work to create a neutral article that states only facts with neutral language.

Spoonring 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Spoonring

My talk page is not the right place for this discussion. Also, please review WP:SOCK, as you seem to be editing wikipedia with multiple accounts. Responding to your argument: the label "sexual reorientation coach" is not recognized by any broad communities, and Cohen's only justification for applying that label seems to be that he "certified" himself as one. It is appropriate to draw attention to these issues. Fireplace 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Homosexuality

I note that you are revert-warring on the above articles and are now coming perilously close to violating the three-revert rule. Please discuss your differences on the relevant talk pages as your next revert is probably going to result in your editing being blocked for a time - Alison ☺ 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the record, I reverted twice on both articles, so WP:3RR would not have applied on a subsequent revert. The editor's additions were homophobic original research that was reverted by several other editors, and the editor was warned that continuing to push the issue would result in a block. Fireplace 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I warned them myself (and BTW, I'm no fan of Ray Blanchard either) - Alison ☺ 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed [12]. Thanks for working towards compromise. Cheers. The Behnam 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like most what you're doing on Craig

But wouldn't editing out opposing voices entirely be hubris maybe shading into bad faith? (So I'd caution you to please watch your multiple reverts. :^) Justmeherenow 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "giving a balanced presentation both sides of the issue." (Wikipedia doesn't do that anyways). As several editors have said, it's a question of notability and arbitrariness. This is more appropriately discussed at Talk:Larry Craig. Fireplace 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You performed three reverts within 24 hours. "Don't do multiple reverts" is a hardfast rule so you should have either left it alone or trusted it to others. --Justmeherenow 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Good call

I didn't mean to delete the ethics sentence on Richard A. Cohen I am glad that you caught it. I wonder if the Medical views section should be renamed to something more descriptive. Medical views is too neutral. Thoughts?LCP 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

why prod?

I noticed that you prodded Pondicherry interpretation, giving the reason, "no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think that "reliable sources independent of the subject" includes journal articles, such as those listed in the reference section of Pondicherry interpretation. American Journal of Physics and Foundations of Physics seem to be peer-reviewed journals. WP:N's word "independent" links to WP:SOURCES, which claims that such publications are ideal. I tried reading the blurb in the talk that you linked the prod tag to, and I don't understand how "mainstream" the sources need to be. (As a side note, good scientific discoveries are always unveiled in journals, and you should be suspicious if any scientific discovery were announced in major newspapers without any accompanying peer-reviewed scientific journal article.) Lisatwo 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. In sorting through the Integral thought material (which is mostly non-notable), I got a bit trigger happy on this one. Fireplace 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your good work

I see the authors of the prodded articles are responding appropriately, by merging them. Let's give them the time to do it. Please feel free to remove any links not justified by WP policy from the remaining articles, and refs to non-reliable sources. If you need any support, let me know. DGG (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you will have to AfD Richard Tarnas. DGG (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Looks like the jolly old Integral thought walled garden is back again. Check out [13]. Moreschi Talk 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

State by state LGBT rights

Count me in, representing Alaska. Let me know what I can do to help! :D L'Aquatique talktome 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Integral Theory

I removed the New Age references because some people on the Ken Wilber Facebook group requested it. If you think they need to be there that's cool. I don't really agree, but wouldn't want to start any edit wars..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.123.228 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Substantial changes on "I AM" Activity and other articles

Making "substantial changes to the article" without discussion or reaching a consensus is not the best editing technique on Wikipedia. Small changes such as grammar or punctuation corrections do not need to be discussed. However substantial changes should be discussed and a consensus reached. Arion (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Response at the article's talk page here. Fireplace (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy Ballard

HI Fireplace. I notice you made this article a redirect earlier today. This can confuse newer editors who might be working on it or have it on their watchlists. In the future, could you discuss that sort of change on the talk page or with the primary editors before implementing it? Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This series of articles is a part of wikipedia that doesn't get much sunlight, and recently attracted attention at the Fringe Noticeboard. The article failed to satisfy WP:N and WP:SOURCES, so being bold and redirecting it to an article which does satisfy those standards is an appropriate response. At the end of the day, I'm not sure what will happen to the article, but a bold approach has generated discussion and attention, so I'm comfortable with it. Fireplace (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great White Brotherhood

It was patent nonsense, as far as I could tell, made no assertion of notability that I could find - admittedly, it's sometimes har d to tell when an article has the first problem - and had no independet sources. It's possible it was wrong, but I think that some sort of evidence'd be need shown. Anyway, deletions are easy enough to undo. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Lesser ritual of the pentagram

I've added a partial bibliography which I hope you will agree establishes notability. There are dozens more which could be added, see Google Books search. Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ascended Masters, etc.

I want you to know that I really appreciate your note on my talk page. My apologies if the forum shopping remark went too far. With respect to newspaper searches, I'd actually not expect to find much on the individual masters in the newspapers. I suspect the same would be true for the gods, saints or other objects of the religious imagination associated with other new religious movements.

My point of view is that when it comes to religious matters, sources internal to the religion are sufficient for reporting what the adherents believe. Yes, it would be good to have at least some outside views, but typically a new religious community of the size of Theosophy has several voices and at least a couple of associated publishing houses. There is not always agreement between adherents, and many of the publishing houses publish a broader range of books than just those specific to the belief system. That is, some of the Theosophical publishers can't really be labeled "vanity presses". They were/are real publishers with editorial staff, submissions, etc. and like most publishers probably rejected many more manuscripts than they accepted. So they did play a defining role, yet at the same time, it was a fairly broad community that produced the writers.

On the other hand, I can certainly see your point when we get down to the submovements which claim Theosophy as their spiritual parent. Where to draw the line is certainly something for the Wikipedia community to decide. On the third hand, it doesn't hurt to assure those who are intimately familiar with the details of the topic, either because there are involved in research on the topics or even more intimately involved as members that we value their opinion about what elements are significant enough to be considered notable within the topic. Yes, they may need to supply some citations and sometimes they won't be there. But sometimes things that should be considered valid sources are dismissed incorrectly. I think it pays to be a bit accepting in order not to alienate potential editors. When religious issues are involved, feelings are likely to get hurt. So let's trim the fat without cutting away too much meat or our or anybody else's fingers. :-) Curious Blue (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate what you've brought to the table. The extent to which primary sources and religious publishing houses can be used to establish notability is a genuinely murky area of Wikipedia's policy. If I have any reputation capital left after the Ascended Master discussion, I think I'd like to raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability or the WP:Village pump. Fireplace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You've repeated the "wild goose chase" accusations several times, so you have forced me to respond. "Wild goose chase", in my understanding, refers to someone telling someone to go somewhere to find something that is not there, and that person knows it. I gave the references to you in the full belief that I had seen that "Seven Rays" belief mentioned in those books.

I apologize if the reference to the "Seven Rays" septenary belief was not specifically mentioned in 2 of the 3 books that I mentioned to you and that you checked. I have all 3 books in my home library, but did not actually check for specific mention of that "Seven Rays" belief before I mentioned the books. I remembered that they made a summary statement on some of the beliefs, and I thought that the "Seven Rays" theory would definitely have been mentioned. I still have not had time to go to my home library to check into the text of the 3rd book, but I hope to do that tonight. Arion (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of the Seven Rays references I was remembering from the 3 books I mentioned to you:
  • Lewis, James R. Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective Stanford, California: Center For Academic Publication 1994
page 4: "Guy Ballard's contact with Saint Germain in 1929 placed him in the same role claimed by Madame Blavatsky. Upon his return to Chicago, he began to deliver dictated messages to a small group who met in his southside home. From that time forward he regularly dictated messages from Saint Germain, Jesus, and those personages described by Blavatsky as the Lords of the Seven Rays - those Masters most immediately concerned with the course of human evolution."
The other book's mention of "seven-fold committee" apparently refers to their organizing that committee in a manner that corresponds to each of the "Seven Rays". Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilbur and other things

I certainly support your edits of Wilbur and associates, but I think you are totally off the track with the Theosophists. I'm writing this because you may see my different positions on this as totally peculiar--but i think I know what I'm doing and my distinctions are the right ones. (And I want to make clear that I accept that you equally honestly think your way.) To me, there's peculiar pseudoscience, born in wishful ignorance. And the same for social science, for there is real social science to compare it with. When it gets to anything involving the spiritual world, everything is equal. (art is a little complicated of course; so is politics-- if I had to word in a phrase, art is about what is personally meaningful; politics is about morality. As for morality, that's really complicated -- besides being the most important thing in life, and as it doesn't arise here I defer that discussion. DGG (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trans-bashing

The Original Barnstar
For your hard work on Trans-bashing, I award you this Barnstar. By expanding the stub up for deletion, your efforts have secured the article's place in Wikipedia. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally voted for this stub's deletion. Your efforts have significantly expanded the article. Just thought you might like to know your work has been appreciated. Phyesalis (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! =) Fireplace (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 21 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)