User talk:CyntWorkStuff/Archive 1

This page 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello CyntWorkStuff/Archive 1, 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:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

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).

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 {{Non-free fair use in}}, 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 --~~~~

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

CyntWorkStuff/Archive 1 ：

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)

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