User talk:Newsoas

Intersex page

 * I saw that you and a lot of other editors are developing the Wikipedia article Intersex. Are you with a class project? Some of what you and other users are doing does not comply with Wikipedia community guidelines, and volunteers here will have to fix what you are doing. If you are with a class, could you please ask your professor to go through Wikipedia Education Program training for professors?
 * If you and your class are not able to comply with Wikipedia community guidelines in adding content then everything that you have added will be reverted. We are all volunteers here and while we are able to have relationships with classes which want to partner with Wikipedia, we cannot be on call to volunteer large amounts of time for people who do not meet us. Consider also posting to the WikiProject Medicine page to talk to the community about developing health content.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Bluerasberry, my interest on the intersex page relates to intersex as a human rights issue, as I'm aware of significant developments in that field. I'm trying to ensure that everything that I add that is original is properly verified. I'm not associated with other recent editors, and I find the voice used in some recent edits by others to be too subjective, selective, and also dated. Newsoas (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure why you think I'm it be a course leader, I hope that my contributions are verifiable, presented with a neutral voice, and useful. Thanks. Newsoas (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Organisation Intersex International Australia was accepted
 Organisation Intersex International Australia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Na-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

License tagging for File:Intersex flag.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Intersex flag.svg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The image designer has added a Creative Commons license to the source page.Newsoas (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there!
Thanks for this edit :) Just one point, though - the fact that it was done by an administrator doesn't really lend any additional weight to the argument. Admins are only editors, just like anyone else on here - we're not 'special' :) - A l is o n  ❤ 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, A l is o n  ❤, I appreciate what you do. Newsoas (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Ilario, A Story of the First History) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Ilario, A Story of the First History, Newsoas!

Wikipedia editor Schuy B. just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Good start, synopsis does need some expansion."

To reply, leave a comment on Schuy B.'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sexual orientation and the Australian Defence Force
Hi, I've just moved this article back to Sexual orientation and the Australian Defence Force as this name is consistent with that of similar articles (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_orientation_and_military_service ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick-D, given the material in the article about Cate McGregor, and the likelihood of similar needs to expand content elsewhere, a change in the name of category is more preferable, imho. Regards, Newsoas (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be best to discuss that centrally somewhere then (probably at WT:MILHIST). My concern is that these articles are about the evolution of attitudes, and not just "people". I'm also not sure if " LGBTI" is the best term to use: concerns have been raised in the past that this kind of jargon isn't actually widely understood or used (I'm not sure what the I is in that acronym I'm afraid). Regards. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Queer Theory page
Rather than linking to Iain Morland's list of publications, would it perhaps make sense to add a reference to this specific article? Morland, Iain, “What Can Queer Theory Do for Intersex?” GLQ, 15:2, 2009, 285–312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.42 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for the comment. I believe that Iain Morland is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia, but I don't have the information to write it. Part of my rationale for linking to the list of publications was to highlight the potential for such a page. Newsoas (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim Ambrose
Jim's a great guy, and his work is amazing but I'm not sure if he meets Notability, especially per WP:BLP1E. Mind if I check with him first, just in case he really doesn't want one? (they can be a burden, too) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Alison, I was thinking of the New Yorker article this month/last month, and also XXXY (film). That's more than one event. Please check with him though. Newsoas (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * emailed! :) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! There seems to be plenty of material, between the New Yorker, XXXY, Interface Project and press interviews. I will wait for a reply. Elsewhere, please let me know if I over-do anything, but I hope that so far I'm documenting useful, notable work. However, I could do with help on a couple of pages. Newsoas (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I had a chat with Jim earlier tonight, and he's not really keen on having a BLP, for a number of reasons. He's also really not notable enough right now. Can we hold off on this for the moment? Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 03:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And hey, keep up with the great work you're doing here. It's awesome! - A l is o n  ❤ 03:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking - I'll not write an article (but do note that someone else has been adding Jim's name to articles, including the page on Eden Atwood earlier. Thanks also for your positive words, Alison - that's appreciated! Newsoas (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Third International Intersex Forum.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Third International Intersex Forum.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

On "photography about intersex"
On this reversion by you: Plenty of the subcategories of Category:Photography by genre can be criticized as crossing better-established genres. You appear to want Category:Photography about intersex treated as no other subject matter is treated: put directly in Category:Photography. Do you think it merits special treatment? If so, why? If not, what are you proposing?

Please reply here. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a case for a Photography by subject matter category, then I would suggest that subject matters belong in the Photography category. I note that there is a "Subjects of iconic photographs" category. Newsoas (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there should be "Category:Photography by subject"? I'm not completely opposed to the idea myself, but if it were done then a number of "genres", perhaps most of them, should be "subjects" (the change being a tedious but fairly straightforward job); and more problematically a number could be either. How about something like "Category:Photography by genre or subject"? This would avoid tiresome argument over which side of the divide this or that lies; and as there wouldn't be many subcategories I think it would be very easy to use, for at least the next five years and for all we know the next twenty. (It could of course be subdivided later.)

NB a change from "Category:Photography by genre" to "Category:Photography by genre or subject" would be non-trivial; and even if you agree that it's good, the potential minuses merit a couple of days' sporadic thought before it's started. If the mass change of categories is a bore, then its reversion because somebody has brought up an irritatingly sound objection is far worse. (I speak from experience.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Hoary. Looking at Photography by genre, there certainly are a number of categories that are also relevant to a 'Photography by subject' category, such as underwater, war, weddings, the page aboutSpirit photography. My experience of changing categories is that the process is manual, albeit automated to some extent by robots. I would be more inclined to create a new 'Category: Photography by subject'. Such a new parent category would be a good place for some of the other pages in 'Category: Photography', such as 'Medical photography', and may well be useful for other social, cultural and political groupings. Having some pages and categories inside a new category as well as the 'genres' category is, to my mind, an advantage. Newsoas (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there were "Category: Photography by subject" then "(Category:) Medical photography" should belong to it. But I'd like to make sure that I understand what it is that you're suggesting. Is it that "Category: Photography by subject" should be started, alongside (neither above nor below) "Category: Photography by genre", and directly below "Category: Photography"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, a parallel category in Photograph alongside Photography by genre. Newsoas (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not against it. But jeez, 21 subcategories and 97 pages to be thought about, from Paparazzi (surely neither a genre nor a subject of photography) to Dog shaming (WTF? sorry I mean probably a genre) to Night photography (don't know, perhaps both?). Would you be up for half of the work required? (Me, I need a break for lunch. I need nutrients just to think about this job.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Hmmm. Newsoas (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, just before I have my long-delayed lunch, interesting discoveries. Wandering around the directory tree shows that "... by topic" (rather than "subject") is the approved approach. (See Category:Works by topic -- and yes, there do exist the occasional use of "subject area", "theme" and perhaps more.) Thus "Category:Photography by topic". To me, this is curiously unidiomatic. ("She's a photographer? Really? What's her topic?" Odd.) But idiomaticity aside, the meaning of "topic" seems close enough to that of "subject", and conforming with standard practice hereabouts is much less likely to cause frustration and time-wasting. (And I see that there's already a half-hearted attempt at Category:Photographs by topic.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This might be to disambiguate topics from individual subject persons and places? How about we populate that category, and also do a Cfr (rename request) - noting that the category links to category "Photographers by subject", and "Paintings by theme", "Magazines by content"... Newsoas (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was an excellent lunch, but sorry perhaps my brain isn't yet firing on all cylinders. Populate which category? (If Category:Photographs by topic, then NB this is "photograph s "). -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and had a go at populating the Photographs by topic category. Take a look, and please feel free to adjust. The distinction between photography and photographs is a tenuous one, in my view. particularly when considering 'Photography by country' - now (at least for now) in Photographs by topic.
 * I was suggesting that we maybe consider renaming 'Photographs by topc' to 'Photography by subject'. Newsoas (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I kind of think 'War photographs' should be contained within 'War photography' within a renamed 'Photography by topic', just like 'Australian photographs' is contained within 'Photography in Australia', and 'Photography by country' - does that make sense? The country-specific categories were already in that format, and I've just modified 'War photographs' to match. Newsoas (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have kept you waiting, but I have been doing something. Of the "topics":

People who frequent the page (offhand I forget its title) where requests to rename categories are considered love consistency. They'll want good reasons why "topic" should be "subject" just for photography and not for all the others. (And if you say, "OK, for all the others as well", the rejoinder will be "Why?".)

"Australian photographs" itself doesn't make sense. Does it cover a visiting Brazilian's photos of Australia, or a visiting Australian's photos of Brazil? (If it covers both, it's meaningless.)

The idea of "photography by country" is itself a bit dodgy, but it's basically "photography in that country", though it rather shoots itself in the foot by adding photography by people from that country.

Not topics but genres: Candid photography, Dog shaming, Glamour photography, Lifestyle photography, Lolcat, Photobombing, Selfie, Street photography, Travel photography

Just to take one example: "travel photography" might for you include Tokyo; to me Tokyo is home. I've been to NSW and my photography there was travel photography, I'm sure constrained by (pre-Flickr) assumptions and lack of imagination. Generic stuff indeed!

Perhaps both topics and genres: Mug shot, Night photography, Rogues gallery, Spirit photography. And indeed probably War photography and much else. The thing is, pressures to conform tends to turn (theoretically open) topics into (more or less closed) genres. The majority of practitioners of photography (like those of anything else) tend to follow ruts. Yes, even most of the pros.

Paris in Motion (photography) looks to me like an ad. Red Shirt School of Photography looks like a genre, if anything-- though with its miScaPitalized title, it looks to me like somebody's early sketch for something in their MFA course, and anyway a dubious fit in WP.

Perhaps Category:Photographic techniques: Geophotography

Perhaps both Category:Photographic techniques and (as the medium becomes the message) genres: Color photography, Infrared photography, Panorama, Panoramic photography. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions - I'll work through them, particularly where you make different choices to mine. (Feel free to work on this, too.) Newsoas (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Oh! Thanks! :) Newsoas (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)