User talk:Zuejay/Archive 2

Merge of Sex reassignment Therapy Sub-article and article

It seems no-one wants to disagree with this, and it would allow streamlining of the Transsexualism article. Shall we do it? Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Have attempted something - see what you think. ZueJay (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Hair

Sorry about that. I kept going back and forth trying to figure out which title belonged to which picture. Having the pictures there makes it easier. Thanks for pointing that out Pnkrockr 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement

Would you be willing to look in again at Traditional marriage movement? Your contributions there in the past were greatly appreciated! Sdsds 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seven of Nine pic

You beat me to the punch on the Seven of Nine pic, I had an editing conflict when I saved my changes :-) Which pic do you like better, mine or yours? Yours is better lit, but mine is closer to what she looked like in most of the time she was on the ship (hair, catsuit). -- Techtonic 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the grey-suit one at the "Attire" section since it specifically talks about that outfit, and I put the blue-suit one in the infobox. -- Techtonic (Talk) 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada under LGBT

I was pleased to see another project add the article to its list, but what exactly is the connection? I know everyone assumes Nigel is gay, but as the article points out nothing in the film explicitly suggests he is and that aspect of it is much downplayed compared to the book (and, in fact, I may even trim that section if it comes up during a later search for recognition because it may not be reliably sourced). And he's the only character in the film of which that could be said.

Mind you, I don't object, but I'd like to understand the relevance a little bit better. Daniel Case 04:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Whether to tag or not?" is something we're constantly working on at the Wikiproject. I just saw the movie for the first time yesterday - hence the reason I looked it up on the Wiki. I was surprised to see the section on "Nigel's gayness" (odd phrasing) and thought it should be tagged for now. Perhaps there's a better way (or place) in which to compare the book and the movie. Depending on what happens with that section, the tag may not be needed. Guess I was being a bit preemptive - the idea being to place the tag now, sort out how the "gayness" is being dealt with, then reevaluate the tag's appropriateness. ZueJay (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, for the time being I can see. "Nigel's gayness" was the only way of putting it that occurred to me as I was writing that section; I'm sure something better could be written. I was amused that so many people reviewing the movie feel that inferring he's gay based on some stereotypical assumptions is enough to demonstrate that he's gay absent any proof. So I did the usual Googling to see what people had to say. The Stanley Tucci Out interview, where he says that as far as he's concerned the character is gay, is probably enough to justify some discussion of it in the article but it's also about the only one to pass WP:RS. The blogs linked have some interesting discussions I would probably have quoted had they been from reliable sources; I was surprised they were the only people making those points. The gay.com award notwithstanding, I am still just absolutely amazed that this long after The Celluloid Closet so few people said anything about the film's greatly suppressing a lot of what was more explicit in the novel. It certainly struck me, having read the book.

If it really came down to brass tacks with WP:A it would probably mostly lose, but reading over what you wrote and what I just wrote I say: keep it as long as you can. Daniel Case 02:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I was just going to change things around such that we dump our project tag and add instead Category:LGBT-related films. I think this is the more prudent course of action, especially after reading this discussion. That should be adequate so that we remember to keep tabs on it without claiming so much involvement, which the Project has not had. You know, I think I'll still do that. Thanks for calling me on this, though. It certainly will make me consider more of my options before straight-up placing the tag on an article. ZueJay (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandi Carlile

Your choice of articles to reference Ms Carlile's sexuality is an embarassment to her and the reader. You have referenced a 2002 college newspaper, where a band member refers to the crowd as people who "want to marry and hump us". Really classy.

The LGBT Project definitely seems to have an agenda on Wikipedia. I didn't realize that encyclopedia's were about someone's sexuality. Perhaps more focus should be placed on her as a musician and not her personal life.Ubtrbelizeit68 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(My response posted on Ubtrbelizeit68's talk page) Thanks for letting me know that the source cited was not one you think credible. I have asked for additional input on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies page. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there. I think I will bring this up on her article's talkpage as well to gather even more input. ZueJay (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the LGBT project has an agenda to make all LGBT-related articles the best quality they can be. In an effort to do that, we review articles that claim to be LGBT-related, either through ignorance or through vandalism. I personally don't care whether "Ms. Carlile" is a lesbian or not, except that if she is, I want to work towards getting her article to FA status. I suspect you and the LGBT project can agree that that's a worthy goal? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess my issue is that there are hundreds of articles out there about her with no mention of her sexuality. Yet here, she keeps getting labeled (though, I suspect some if it is vandalism) based on one old article. What is "FA" status and why does one need to be a lesbian to attain it? I would thing that the real goal of any Wikipedia article is to make it a quality one, regardless. The current article seems so generally empty but any time content is added it is usually about her personal life and not about her music. Does this make sense? I'm not trying to stir up the waters or anything..just trying to understand and see a quality article come out.155.91.45.231 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Sorry...forgot to sign on.Ubtrbelizeit68 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not sure what the "FA" comment is about, but I agree that a quality article is important. I also agree with Satyr that I could care less whether she is or isn't...but ultimately, tracking this down and finding truth with a credible source is a goal of the wikiproject, especially when asked by another editor to help out in this goal. I honestly figured the chosen article had already been put through the credibility determination by another editor as it is used in the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Your concerns are justified, warranted, I just wished you had approached with a little more tact. If you'll notice, the information has not been reintroduced to the article at this juncture, and personally, until we come to a consensus, I don't think it should be reintroduced. And if a Wikipedia article seems thin to you, I would encourage you to keep adding more referenced info to it. That Medleyville Q&A has some great information about her musically-formative years. ZueJay (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to come across so harsh. I have removed uncited (vandalism) "lesbian" comments so many times, it was just making me mad and I so hate that Western Washington article. It really was written in poor taste. But what can you expect from a college newspaper.Ubtrbelizeit68 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Seven_of_nine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Seven_of_nine.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. Videmus Omnia 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gave it a shot. Take a look and let me know. ZueJay (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

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

Alzheimer's

Thanks for the interwiki links on the AD page. I was thinking we could ZAP all of the External links and just leave the See Also with a reasonably short list. Thoughts?

WP:MEDMOS has some suggestions on reordering things. We might need to create a Alzheimer's Treatments page and summarize the current ones on the main page and then let the other topics slide over to a new page. What do you think? --Chrispounds 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of AD, I think the German AD (or one of the non-english) page has some images that looked really cool. I was thinking we could move it over, but it may have some translating that is needed for a caption. I was not sure how to link to it. --Chrispounds 00:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pics could be good. We can try translating using AltaVista, but there must be a German/English Wikipedian around here somewhere! Give me a minute to take a look. ZueJay (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The brain images, CAT scans, are good. Baisically the caption says there's an image of an Alzheimer's patient on the left and normal on the right. Notice the volume and something about liquid? The image is good, and free at NASA. I think you should do the honors b/c you found it ;) ZueJay (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there is a bit of a conver on the talk page regarding treatments - its probably a good idea to slide it into a new article with an approriate summary on the main article page. I'm really a lay-person on AD, so if you've got something that gets heavily technical, slide it over, b/c lay-folks will be intimidated and stop reading. It took me a minute to get the "susceptibility gene" thing for ApoE. ZueJay (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the treatment section is not that long - may be best off to simply ding or relocate a lot of those external links first and see where that leaves us. ZueJay (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Geophysical engineering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Geophysical engineering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical engineering. Thank you. (yes, I know you haven't worked on it, but this is the best template I could find.) Argyriou (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

Hi,

I am assuming you have already seen WP:FU and WP:NFCC therefore the best thing I can do is refer you to :

User_talk:Durin#RE: Fair Use & Image Deletion

for an exposition of Wikipedia's policies.

Basicly, Wikipedia is moving to a free content criteria with a severe curtailment of Fair Use images.

You might also find this useful User:Durin/Removal of fair use images.

As for Kate Mulgrew the fair use image of her as Captain Janeway is acceptable on the Captain Janeway page as is her fair use image on The Black Donnellys as they depict her portraying characters but on the Kate Mulgrew page itself, only a free photo is acceptable.

I hope you find the pages, I have referred you to, useful.

Tovojolo 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I thought you also might enjoy reading this :

Tovojolo 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question on the discussion section of the Danica article...

"What driver wins as a rookie??" Marco Andretti did, last year at Sonoma. His grandfather Mario did, and a lot more often, in 1965. The comment made by that user was slightly POV, but likely trying to make clear their belief being a woman driver does not entitle her to the kind of "God's gift to motorsports" press she's gotten; the last gift of God Almighty to motorsports perished during the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. --Chr.K. 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that (Andrettis') after I posted that edit summary - but since we can't edit edit summaries *shrug*. The article constantly suffers from that kind of subtle POV attack, and it subsequently makes me antsy. I'll try to watch myself more... ZueJay (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Henniker

Thanks for the welcoming message, no matter what I do, people seem to think I'm a Vandal, one time a MODERATOR even sent me a rather nasty message accusing me of doing it purposefully, that came very close to making me think Wikipedians were just a bunch of elitist snobs, of which I wanted no part. Is there anything I can do, to keep this kinda thing from happening, again? 71.233.230.223 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Guitarist

Template:Infobox Guitarist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kudret abi 05:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Gay unions

I've started a discussion for this template's colours at the template's talk page. Morgan695 05:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your words of welcome. I am interested in literature so I think LBGT writers, novelists, poets, dramatists should be fun !

Vonita 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)