User talk:Yobmod/Archive 1

Enormous Omelet Sandwich
From the third cited source (CNN): That's a male 16 to 24 years old, says Bob Sandelman, a restaurant researcher. A core of young men eat fast food 20 times a month, he says. With the Enormous Omelet Sandwich, "Burger King is going 180 degrees away from politically correct food," he says. Many young males "like that attitude and couldn't care less about nutrition." They just want to fill up — cheap

Please read the entire article before making blanket declarations challenging fact.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation. I don't see how reading the "whole article" would have informed me any more - the sentence you quoted was not in the article, and still isn't. It was in a citation attributed to a different paragraph, which didn't mention the target age in any way. Adding a fact tag is a request for verification for a specific point, not "a blanket statement challenging fact". But thanks anyway.Yobmod (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

X in fiction articles
I noticed you on my watch list editing a few [X in fiction] type articles, and just in case you might be interested, I wanted to let you know about WikiProject Popular Culture. Although that project seems to have a broader scope than the select few articles you've been improving, you might find yourself interested enough to join in some of our discussion and perhaps even consider joining the WikiProject. Regardless, thanks for the contribs and happy editing. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List of games containing time travel
Hola. I checked your talk page history and wanted to thank you for starting the above article, which in my arrogant opinion was an impressive newcomer's effort and a good catch, and can be a valuable addition. Also thank you for sticking around after you met our local speciality, treating new articles like crap. (Sigh.)

I wish I could add that I will begin improving it immediately, but right now I'm as erratic as a ferret on amphetamines and couldn't guarantee that I would stick to schedule. I'll still step in if there's an attempt to get it deleted, and will endeavour to answer any questions you might have. --Kiz o r  18:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD
Please see Articles for deletion/Gopala Swami.Regarding your comments ".......Even reviews of his books from RS would be enough for me to change vote.. I found a new RS, in which he is mentioned.I have added the link in the External link. Please re-read the article and reconsider .-Bharatveer (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD
Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy and Talk:Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SSP:Cupidcobra
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I was a little nervous about my first action under this account being the creation of a suspected sockpuppet page, and I tried to be as thorough and careful as I could be, but apparently for some it still isn't quite enough. In the meantime, it seems Cupidcobra has gotten the hint, though I'm afraid that if the case expires, he might start again ... I believe that invoking Checkuser is the next step, but I think I might catch even more flack for it if I'm the one to push things forward.

Also, I want to reiterate that I'm impressed by your contributions to Sexism in India, and your determination to not let information go to waste, even if it's from as biased a source as Cupidcobra. My initial inclination was that the article should be deleted, but you've shown me that the much harder road of all-inclusive consensus can be worth taking. It's too bad Cupidcobra isn't seeing it that way. Murmurer (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CC9966; text-align: center;" |The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter  {| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XV: June 11, 2008
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; background: #ffe4e1" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |

Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around.

{| style="font-size: 90%;"
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles
It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.

Is Pride POV?
We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring?

Harvey Milk and Jim Jones
For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...

Queer Studies is offensive!
The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.

Lambda Literary Awards
What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put  around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website.


 * valign="top" |

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery
Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.

This month's Wiki stars
This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)

Compulsive hoarding of templates
Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page.

The Violet Quill and magazines
Zigzig20s suggests we create an article on The Violet Quill, as it seems such a milestone in the advancement of gay/queer literature. Members of the Quill all have pages of their own (Edmund White, Christopher Cox, Robert Ferro, Michael Grumley, Andrew Holleran, Felice Picano, and George Whitmore). We need to find more info on the Quill per se to reference the page that we create. Perhaps Google Books - and libraries? - can help.

A number of magazines also need articles, perhaps most notably QW, LGNY, and Lesbian Feminist Liberation.

Mom's nagging for Pride Month
It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver.

Fresh faces to brighten our pages
Hey, I've seen you around! Sorry there seem to be so many—it's been a while. But we welcome you all: Cheezisyum21, Taineyah, Dustihowe, Avesta69, RachelSummers77, Vivekgopinathan, AMK1211, Staffwaterboy, Ted Ted, Joe5150, Leahtwosaints, Robapalooza, Arthomure, Confusionball, Affinity likely, PrinceOfCanada, Yobmod, Npd2983, Neagley, Bvlax2005, Bvlax2005, Rhullsf, Textorus, Kieran.casey, Tyciol, Meojive, Sappho'd, Bookkeeperoftheoccult,  Gaywarrior, Aujourd'hui, maman est morte, and Balin42632003.

It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia.

- In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon."
 * }

We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * }
 * }

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nokia 6500 slide
I've rescinded the multiple nomination on this AFD and am now suggesting that it runs on this one particular article with a view to gauging community thoughts on individual phone articles. I'll then use that as a basis to decide how to approach the other ones. You may wish to change or add to your contributions here as the basis of the AFD is changed - this is a courtesy notice to allow you to do so if you wish. Exxolon (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright law
Sorry, but I'm not convinced you have a very good grasp of copyright law. Please look up "substantial similarity." Furthermore, plagiarism is a distinct problem that overlaps copyright violation, but the two are not identical. Either one is unwelcome here. --Amble (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand enough that "substantial similarity", like "obscenity", is for the court to decide for each particular case. The changes i suggested would make the similarity non-substantial IMO. And unless you are an American judge, your opinion means no more than mine. Plagarism is allowed on wikipedia, as long as it is not breaching copyright, and the source is cited - hence copyvio is the problem needed tacklingYobmod (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Plagarism [sic] is allowed on wikipedia"? Unbelievable.  --Amble (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Believable to those that actually read the guide-lines (Plagiarism): "Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced." Yobmod (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't say that plagiarism is allowed, as you seem to believe. That would be absurd.  It does say that plagiarism may sometimes be remedied without deletion.  In this case, it's apparent that some of the material was plagiarized from offline sources that most of us don't have access to.  Finding (let alone fixing) the full extent of the plagiarism would require a careful comparison of the text in question to every one of those sources.  If you'd like to volunteer, be my guest.  --Amble (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, read the article. If the copied work does not have copyright, plagariam has no legal meaning. Which is beside the point. You brought plagarism up, i was talking about copyright.Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read it, and it clearly states that all examples of plagiarism need to be corrected, even when the original sources are in the public domain. In the very sentence that you quoted, the operative clause is "if it can be properly sourced."  Once it's properly sourced (if that's possible), it's no longer plagiarism.  "Plagiarism is allowed on wikipedia" is absurd. --Amble (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copying of uncopyrighted material is legal everywhere, including wikipedia. I can write out the whole text of Hamlet and it is plagarism, but not copyright infringment. I can even misrepresent it and sell it. It is also allowed without citing Shakespeare, although it is recomended to do so in wikipedia articles. A conditional clause appended onto a statement doesn't invalidate the statement, it just clarifies it.


 * Plagiarism of uncopyrighted material is obviously not a copyright violation, but it's still forbidden by Wikipedia policy. The conditional clause doesn't invalidate anything, but it does qualify the preceding.  If an example of plagiarism can be properly attributed (so that it's no longer plagiarism) then it doesn't need to be removed.  If it can't (so that it remains plagiarism) then it must be removed.  Either way, plagiarism can't remain, because it's against our standards.  I'm quite disappointed by the apparently widespread attitude that anything we probably won't get sued over is fine.  Surely our standards are higher than that.  --Amble (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you do in fact understand "substantial similarity" to some degree or another, why have you been insisting that only literal copying of every word is an infringement? Have you actually looked at any of the examples I gave, in the context you were responding to, where the copying was blatant?  --Amble (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context i was responding to, i said the words should be re-arranged and replaced with synonyms. "Substantial" is a weasel word, put into the law to allow Judges to make their own decisions. If none of the original words remain, then it is not substantial. The copy-pasted text should of course be changed Yobmod (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Copyright infringement suits have been won against paraphrases that use none of the original words.  --Amble (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which cases?Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Salinger v. Random House, for example. Make sure to read the appellate court decision. --Amble (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! WP is suspiciously bad at giving examples in this area.Yobmod (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Diverse Harmony article rewritten
Hi, I've rewritten the article and invite you to revisit Articles for deletion/Diverse Harmony to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banj e b oi   23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - voted keep now :-).Yobmod (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Banj e  b oi   00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)