User talk:Tecoates

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

TheRingess 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality article
I hope you will not be discouraged by my reversal of your modification. It is Wikipedia practice to state ideas in the intro which are treated at length later in the text. Please feel free to continue to contribute. Haiduc 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I almost forgot to mention, I copied your message to the Homosexuality talk page and responded there - others will want to participate. By the way, do not forget to sign your comments with four tildes (like this ~ so that we can keep easier track of who says what. Regards, Haiduc 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Norwich School
Hello, is there are any reason why you have copied the entire Norwich School, Norwich article to a new title? This is strongly discouraged because it messes up the page history. See WP:RM for the proper way to move pages. I'd like to undo your attempted move unless there was a good reason for it. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - apologies - the title change was I thought necessary and well overdue, since the title broke wikipedia guidelines, but you are quite correct that I appear to have gone about it the wrong way. I've amended some of the content on the page, so I'd rather it wasn't just undone, but moved back by hand. I could do that, if you'd prefer and then we could go about moving it the correct way? There's basically another related problem in that there are currently poorly titled pages for Norwich school, Norwich School and Norwich School (educational institution) and for the school of art and design. I thought they should be sorted out and was endeavouring to start that process. I shall add this to your talk page too... Tom Coates 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK no problem it can be fixed. It may be easier to revert and then reinstate your edits before any move. I will take a closer look later. It seems there are quite a few Norwich schools, and I appreciate your efforts to sort them out. At first sight, saying Norwich School (educational institution) seems a bit redundant to me. I wonder if it should be Norwich school that should be renamed Norwich school (movement) or something. Naming conventions are always a bit fluid, but there seems to be a convention to name schools School Name, Location. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

your last edit to "queer"
I think there might be something wrong with adding the phrase "straight(non-conformist) homosexuals" for 2 reasons -- first I'm not sure what "straight homosexual" means (is it the same as "straight acting"?)-- but also, I think this might contradict something earlier in the paragraph that says that to be queer is to be against heteronormativity...scotteaux 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually sort of the point - that there's a distinction between going along with heteronormative structures (marriage, belief in strict divisions between sexes) and preferring men or women. Ah. I see what you mean though - it should say 'conformist' not 'non-conformist'. Basically the theory is that there can be 'straight' homosexuals who buy into heteronormative structures and try and emulate them, and 'queer' heterosexuals who resist the labelling and heteronormative structures. I can find some references if you'd like... There's a reference here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200002140012 Tom Coates 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that I understand what you mean -- but I still think there might be something contradictory in this paragraph, which says in an early sentence that (1) queers are against heteronormativity and at the end that (2) you can be queer and embrace a straight/conformist model.scotteaux 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - now I think you're misunderstanding. Because there's a distinction between being homosexual and being queer. The paragraph we're looking at talks about how one use of 'queer' is to indicate a break with heteronormativity specifically in terms of being 'outside the bounds of normal society'. It later states, "In this context "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT". The argument is that while one use of the term 'queer' is to be a reclaimed synonym for homosexual, another use is as a declaration that standard sexual categorisations and the life patterns and stereotyping associated with them do not apply to you. One group of people use it to mean 'gay' and another use it to mean 'defying conventional sexual categorisation'.


 * Under this latter circumstance, some queer theories have described the possibility of 'queer heterosexuals' - ie. people who confound easy categorisation, defy heteronormativity and yet sleep primarily with people of the opposite sex. Similarly the idea of 'straight homosexuals' would refer to people who primarily had sex with members of their own gender but otherwised tried to minimise their difference from straight people.


 * Another way to think about it is that 'straight homosexuals' would work for assimiliation into a culture created primarily for heterosexuals and would minimise their differences from heterosexuals to do so, whereas 'queer heterosexuals' would fight to open up that culture so that it was natively attractive and suited to people of various sexualities, freeing heterosexuals from the dogmatic enforcement of traditional ideologies and structures in the process. Does that make more sense?


 * I understand that there is a difference between being homosexual and being queer. I’m just saying that I think that there’s a problem if the definition queer means being against heteronormativity unless you are gay (the case of the straight-acting, conformist homosexual).


 * No, heteronormativity does not mean just being “outside the bounds of normal society” (which would be the case for the straight-acting homosexual) – HETEROnormative describes an imitation of the model heterosexual couple. In fact, your example of the straight-acting homosexual is precisely what the term heteronormative refers to.


 * So, we cannot say that queer is to be against heternormativity – except when you happen to be homosexual and heteronormative. This doesn’t make sense.


 * I’m not sure how we want to define queer here, but we shouldn’t contradict ourselves. Either we should get rid of the idea that to be queer means to be against heteronormativity (perhaps we should say that being queer just means being against normalcy?) OR we need to get rid of the statement that says that the homosexual who embraces a heteronormative ideal is somehow queer.


 * I’ve copied this conversation over to the queer discussion page, because I think that other folks might be interested in participating.


 * Thanks for your patience with all this! I do appreciate all the time and energy you’ve put into this!scotteaux 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Perhaps the line is phrased badly. What it's supposed to mean is that by divorcing the idea of queer from homosexual, and by saying that queer means that you're against heteronormativity, then you create a situation where straight people can be queer and gay people can be straight. Queer in all contexts means against heteronormativity, so I'm not saying that a 'straight' homosexual is queer. As you say, that would be ludicrous. I was trying to communicate that if one understands queer to mean anti-heteronormative, then a pro-heteronormative homosexual would precisely NOT be queer, and could be described as 'straight', in defiance of how that term is usually meant.


 * Again I think the line needs to be re-read - in this context *queer is not a synonym for LGBT* since there can be queer heterosexuals and straight homosexuals.


 * I think we've been saying the same thing all along -- sorry for the confusion! I just made a minor change to the language in the queer entry, which makes it a bit clearer for me.scotteaux 10:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fe logo small.png
Thanks for uploading File:Fe logo small.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tecoates, I moved your image of Nick Harkaway to Commons to use it in the german article as well. I would have moved the high-resolution image as well, but I saw that there is a grey frame on the foot of the image. I think there might have ocurred a mistake when you first uploaded the image. Would you mind to upload the high-res version on again? Thanks, Stefan Bernd (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Nick harkaway.jpg
File:Nick harkaway.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Nick harkaway.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:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Marcos High School (Santa Barbara, California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Signage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Signage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Blogging and Wikipedia
Hello. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question, but I saw that you were a blogger and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask. I'm currently doing a project on Wikipedia and would love any input on the topic of blogs. Pretty much, I believe blogs should not have this negative stigma as an unreliable resource when it comes to citing them on Wikipedia. As a hip-hop fan, many of the places that cover the genre are blogs, and so I believe it is a bit unfair to the industry as well. Also, in terms of Wikipedia appealing to younger generations, I think it would be beneficial to allow more blogs as sources since many millennials read them and would be able to cite them in articles. What are your thoughts? Thanks! AdamtheGOAT (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)