User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2009

Wandervogel

Hello Haiduc, if you have the time. You uploaded the picture File:Wandervogel greif.gif in 2006. Can you tell me why it is in the public domain? Its creator only died in 1964. I'm asking this because in Der Zupfgeigenhansl, that I'm sure you know, there are many nice silhouettes by Hermann Pfeiffer that I would like to put on Commons. Glatisant 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glatisant (talk • contribs)

Paidika?

Surely this does not have to be RS to be included in a "further reading" section? I gather that Jack tries this kind of thing on repeatedly.

WP:FURTHER 81.105.56.240 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not up to arguing with Jack or anyone over every detail. Fact is, Paidika is not a significant source, and many of the useful articles are by scholars who have also been published elsewhere, so they can be cited without any reservations. I am not sure anything important is being lost. Have I missed something? --Haiduc (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

If you have direct evidence (such as two different accounts making identical edits, or other obvious things) then you can present the evidence to any admin (myself included) and I can block them under the duck test. However, I don't myself see a direct connection for this user to our favorite pederast vandal. What you can do is file a report at WP:SPI and a checkuser will possibly look into it. This is a new process, which has merged two prior processes (Suspected Sockpuppet Reports and Requests for Checkuser). Just start a new report for DavidYork71, and reference his report under the old system, which is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 (take care. Its huge and may crash your browser. No joke!). If you need help with this, let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Can you explain how your addition "The prevalence of male homosexuality has varied over time and across societies for cultural reasons" is supported by the source "Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162"? Here's the whole page:

“ preindustrial and underdeveloped societies, subject to exploitative obligations

in the form of rent, taxes, tribute, [and] forced labor service" (Harris, 1974, p. 665). In peasant societies, kinship groups serve as conservators of their resources in order to maintain position against competing groups and more powerful classes. Access to land is through familial inheritance, and it becomes important that title to the land be undisputed or dispossession can occur. This has strong implications for gender roles and sexuality, particularly for women.

Sexual Permissiveness in Preindustrial Cultures

Several researchers have used the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials, to draw conclusions about the frequency of premarital sexual behavior as well as factors that influence or indicate permissiveness versus restrictiveness in postpubescent sexual behavior. Broude and Green (1980) used the 186 cultures in the Basic Standardized Sample of the HRAF (Murdock & White, 1980) to detail the percentage of cultures in which certain sexual acts are permissible. Reducing the sample to 141 cultures for which data on premarital sex were available, in 21% of the sample, premarital sex was rated as expected and approved. Of the total, 75% viewed premarital sex for females as not a particularly serious issue, whereas 25% of the totals sampled regarded premarital sex with strong disapproval and sanctions. Of the 114 cultures for which data on frequency of sexual activity were available, in 49% of that sample it was reported that the frequency of female premarital sex was common, whereas in 20% it was thought to occur rarely or never. Of 107 ethnographies, 60% reported that male premarital sexual activity was universal and that in only 12% of the sample was it uncommon or rare. Of 34 cultures in which initiation of premarital sexuality was discussed, 35% indicated that males were the initiators of premarital sex and in 18% of the sample, females initiated sex. Homosexuality was also surveyed, although this behavior was not reported exclusively for adolescents. Strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon. Adolescence, however brief, is also a time in which individuals with atypical gender roles or homosexual preferences are noted and sometimes accommodated by the culture. Cases of transvestic homosexuality occur frequently in the anthropological literature (see Carrier, 1980). Whitam (1983) has argued that exclusive homosexual behavior appears as a constant and significant subpattern of sexuality across cultures.

”

This is about the expression of homosexuality. This expression will vary today too (eg: difference between Iran and Canada). This is not necessarily about who is gay or not, its about who shows it.

The sentence you added into "The prevalence of male homosexuality may vary over time and across societies in part because of variations in fertility rate or family size and the fraternal birth order effect." is something completely different. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered at my page. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Hi Hai. I'm not sure why you're making this reversion [1]. The wording I'm trying to use seems much clearer. Also, your edit summary says "one sided", but I'm not really sure what you mean. What sides are you referring to? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

re Salai

Do you think you could source and upload a better quality image? That one is terribly grainy as it has been blown up from a very small pic. I'm really pissed off about it. The ramifications of it being a 1475 image are considerable, from the point of view of art history. And the identification of it as Saltarelli has considerable ramifications in terms of the man's biography.

Amandajm (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's semi-fixed. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Douglass

This removal is of text that directly mentions Crompton in reference to Crompton's discussion of Byron's homosexual/homoerotic relationships, including Giraud. The removal is inappropriate as such. I would ask you to reinsert it, as Douglass is a reputable source on the history of Byron biographies and biographers. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put the removed quote with a more substantial quote from the original source here. According to the guidelines, cited information like this cannot be removed in such a way. If it is not restored in a few hours I will do it myself. Any further reversion will be linked to on the appropriate noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been working with Malleus on the GAN review for Giraud. I changed some things in the lead and emphasized others. Where I cut a little down emphasizing what you may favor, I promoted more about Giraud being used as an early image for homosexual rights in England, so I hope that it balances out. I'm trying to make it more readable, and not promote any viewpoint. I hope you can see it that way and not that I am trying to silence you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be happy to know that the article is now GA level. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Haiduc/Archives 2009's Day!

User:Haiduc/Archives 2009 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Haiduc/Archives 2009's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Haiduc/Archives 2009! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, me too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pederastic couples in Japan

You let me a message on my portuguese page, but I could not understand. Did you mean for me to check that version? I saw some things that are not on the current version. I wonder if they are worth to be cited. It should have some reason for those information have been undone. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Greetings Haiduc! There is a message for you here: Talk:Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you cast your eye over the History section just expanded by an anonymous author? --Dominique (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

use English

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Talk:Herodotus in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image you uploaded

Hi. You uploaded File:Jesus johannes.jpg here in 2005 saying it came from German Wikipedia. It is now up for deletion on Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jesus johannes.jpg because the source and details are unknown. Do you know where on German Wikipedia you found it? Other details? Can you comment at the Commons deletion discussion? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

Please don't be so quick to accuse especially when there is no evidence backing your accusation. If you look pederasty is completely covered under same-sex relationships. I see what you mean about heterosexual relationships but the fault with that thinking is you are assuming boyfriend, monogamy and all the others are heterosexual when they can be either homosexual or heterosexual and some of them bisexual. If you think about it that way you can even say there is more homosexual representation than heterosexual representation because none of the terms are only heterosexual. If I was political pushing then I would put in heterosexual relationships or take out same-sex relationships. You need to avoid accusing people of homophobia like that unless its clearly true. All that does is cause a lot of fighting and no constructiveness. --TheDecanome (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Erotes

Hi. I created an article on the classical mythological Erotes, mostly to avoid a mis-direct to the Lucian play. This would seem to be within your sphere of interest. I have some sources to expand on it, but i am concentrating on all the non-classical mythology at the moment (as there are so many books on Greek love, but little on other mythologies.) I was thinking this might make a good DYK (on Erotes, greek myth, homoeroticism/pederaty), if we can build it up in 5 days. Do you have sources to help with this? And are you interested? I sketched a plan on talk there. Thanks!YobMod 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Yes, I would mind.

It is quite sufficient to link from talk to an old version of the page, if people want to see what you are proposing. Jheald (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Resolution

I'm getting pretty sick of the constant edit reverting on the main Herodotus article. It's fairly obvious that you disagree with each others stance and are unlikely to ever find common ground. That said, I am going to ask that you try and come to some workable conclusion on the talk page without editing and reverting the main article. If this is impossible, I think I'm going to ask an admin to come in and sort this out. I've posted this on your talk pages too, just in case your not watching this page. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the other editors that I've seen commenting have in fact disagreed with the way that you have reported the information. Other than Alcmaeonid; Yobmod specifically disagrees with the way it was presented, Akhilleus seems to have slight support for the information, but with qualification of the sources, MinisterForBadTimes disagrees with the information and it's presentation, Shell supports Alcmaeonid explicitly. Only Septentrionalis supports your assertions. Personally, I think that if it were put into the article that Ptolemy Chennos has said this, but that he is the only source we have who says this and is thought by other historians to be unreliable, then this would satisfy all editors, but would be a virtually redundant addition. If this were a biography of a living person, we certainly wouldn't include this. I tend to use that idea as a basis on whether to include rumoured or supposed information in any biography article. I understand that you appear to have a high interest in Greek history, homosexuality and pederasty (deduced from comments on your talk page), I suggest that you might be pushing your own interest a little here. Consensus on the comments on the talk page is tending towards disinclusion of the information, might I suggest that you bow to consensus on this occasion? Fol de rol troll (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the articles talk page re: edits supporting your changes. Your assertions are not true. I have no agenda with regard to homosexuality, pederasty or any sexual choice. I believe in freedom for all people to do what they wish where it harms no non-consenting people. Your comment on my talk page seems designed to raise my ire. I'm not going to bite, I'll keep my personal opinions to myself. If you have anything to say with regard to talk page consensus, I'd be delighted to hear it, I note that you haven't commented on that. Suppresion of information is to be frowned upon, suppresion of information that is reasonably labelled as lies isn't. Fol de rol troll (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

template

As advice, consider listing all the articles that should be on a template and how they should be organized. Then look for other simply templates that may serve as a guide. I can help in a few days if you don't already get it done. -- Banjeboi 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Phineas and Ferb is a basic template, with brash colouring, that may give you ideas on how subdividing can work. The colours can be tweaked of course. Ping me on my talkpage when you want some assist. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see this. I knocked up a navbox template yesterday, not sure it requires something as substantial as the above. Feel free to modify it as per your needs. I don't know fortran either, it doesn't involve any programming skill - just a bit of scripting/html awareness. Mish (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Historical sources on Alexander the Great

Hi ,would you comment on the Categories for discussion ? thanks a lot Catalographer (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicolo Giraud

Do you feel that this page should be submitted to FAC? If you do, feel free. I only request that I am a co-nominator, and that we try to work together to meet the needs of the reviewers. If a question comes up in which you feel that it might cause not the language but the ideas of the page to be changed in an unfair manner, please mention that the ideas are there based on extensive consensus based compromise. I am sure that most reviews will be based on grammar and MoS problems. Is this acceptable? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted to allow you to have a central say so you do not feel as if people would be ganging up against you. The language is a delicate compromise and some people wont realize it. I would still want you as a co-nom. Plus, FAC is rather easy. You list a page, it sits there. Occasional reviews drop by. Sometimes serious, sometimes not, and then if you can fix things you try to accommodate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hi, Haiduc. The new lead text in Homosexuality is being aggressively challenged by an editor who feels it is faulty. When you get a chance, could you swing by here and here and help build consensus? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I re Phoenix of9

Hello, Haiduc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg

File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But it was proposed for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg. It would be great if you could clarify the questions about copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

The section Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Association with child abuse and pedophilia is somewhat reasonable but does need some pruning. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mental Health Care for People of Diverse Backgrounds

Hi Haiduc. I tried to fix your reference regarding homophobia, young people, and suicide. As it is now, it is not easily verifiable nor does it conform to WP:CITE. Without having a copy of the volume myself, though, this proved difficult. Mental Health Care for People of Diverse Backgrounds appears to be an edited collection of essays by various writers. Thus, the citation needs more than just the name of the collection and its editors, it also needs the name of the essay and the name of the writer of that essay, which, of course, may be one of the editors of the overall volume. I have some of the data:

• Editors: Julia D. Buckner, Yezzennya Castro, Jill M Holm-Denoma, and Thomas E Joiner Jr.
• Title: Mental Health Care for People of Diverse Backgrounds
• Date: 2007
• ISBN: 1846190940
• Essay Author: Kathryn H. Gordon and Yezzennya Castro
• Essay Title: “The assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients”

If you can fill in the two missing items here on your Talk page, I’ll go and enter them into the footnote for us.

By the way, I agree with your edit summary, which suggested that anyone who finds the word, homophobia, inflammatory most likely suffers from it.

Thanks!

— SpikeToronto (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done SpikeToronto (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Nicolo Giraud is now an FA (your first, I believe, but I could be wrong). I know the history and the dispute was hard on everyone, but you should be happy that even with a compromise, it turned out to be a good article that took a relatively obscure individual and analyzed the history and development in an area that you are very interested in. I would hope that the addition of the Don Leon section helped secure in your mind that I wanted to be fair to all perspectives and that a fight over technical terms was less important than allowing the sources to speak for themselves. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Chogyam Trungpa

Thanks for helping out. Bertport (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, I think that compression of "carried off-stage for being too drunk, or even too intoxicated to give a coherent talk" into "carried off-stage for being too intoxicated to give a coherent talk" results in a meaning unsupported by any source I have seen. There are several sources that say he was occasionally carried (on and) off stage because he was too drunk to manage it otherwise, but some of these sources say he still gave a lucid talk. On the other hand, the Steinbeck passage says he was sometimes too drunk to give a coherent talk, but does not say he was carried off stage because of that. On the contrary, the report is that they let him sit there until he was ready to go. Bertport (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Haiduc. You have new messages at Tdinatale's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mishk'vei Ishah

I've just taken it to WP:DRV on the following grounds.

• I'm not convinced there was a clear consensus. It seemed nearly evenly split to me. Consensus is not 50% + 1
• Closing admin's rationale is nonsense:
  • "noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR". Despite the fact that the second comment made, remarks, in bold, that the article is a merge of two sections from two other large articles. And the fact that the article is covered in cites, and therefore cannot be OR.
  • "vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion". Despite the fact that none of the keep votes are by assertion. Yet there are several delete votes that are nothing much more than a mere vote.
• There was too much voting without discussion, and no chance was given to rectify this, or allow the discussion to come to a consensus
• There was rather a lot of involvement by people who had not made a single previous edit in over a month...

Newman Luke (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah

You can ask for userfication or even have it sent to WP:Incubation. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting exchange with Cynwolfe (see our talk pages) Dominique (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)