:::Aleta, I'm not only talking about the response to the book Masculinity for Boys, although, it seems unreasonable to dispute something published by UNESCO. I mean had it not been something threatening the Gay community, it'll never have been disputed. What authority do people have to dismiss a credible source as UNESCO.
:::Aleta, I'm not only talking about the response to the book Masculinity for Boys, although, it seems unreasonable to dispute something published by UNESCO. I mean had it not been something threatening the Gay community, it'll never have been disputed. What authority do people have to dismiss a credible source as UNESCO.
I'm referring to the aggressive deletions, while the discussion is going on, and your helplessness to deal with it. There is certainly a strong gay agenda here, and this is not the only Western place it is obvious in. I have been banned at several gay sites and one mainstream western site for saying the same things -- sites that were willing to put up with terrorists who threatened them with murder. simply don't want to even listen to this stuff, because they know their ideology is faulty and it cannot survive being questioned in this manner. I've had enough of this. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade, when I see such flouting of rules and control of information by a powerful group. An injustice is an injustice. You can now proceed to delete the page I'd created as well as whatever information I'd added. ([[User:Masculinity|Masculinity]] ([[User talk:Masculinity|talk]]) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm referring to the aggressive deletions, while the discussion is going on, and your helplessness to deal with it. There is certainly a strong gay agenda here, and this is not the only Western place it is obvious in. I have been banned at several gay sites and one mainstream western site for saying the same things -- sites that were willing to put up with terrorists who threatened them with murder. GAys simply don't want to even listen to this stuff, because they know their ideology is faulty and it cannot survive being questioned in this manner. I've had enough of this. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade, when I see such flouting of rules and control of information by a powerful group. An injustice is an injustice. You can now proceed to delete the page I'd created as well as whatever information I'd added. I can't fight the consciousless gay mafia with the few support I have here.([[User:Masculinity|Masculinity]] ([[User talk:Masculinity|talk]]) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual]] ==
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual]] ==
Revision as of 09:56, 2 April 2008
I will generally reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
AgnosticPreachersKid would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact AgnosticPreachersKid to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LadyofShalott . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Thank you! I have accepted, and will answer the questions tonight. AletaSing 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support it as well, of course! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Leah! :) AletaSing 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, I didn't miss your RfA! XD I have no idea what made me look at the RfA page tonight (I don't generally skim it), but I'm really glad I saw your name there and was able to support you in time (which has not always been the case with other great users I know, unfortunately). You'll make a very fine admin, I have no doubts about it. :-) Cheers, and good luck! Raystorm(¿Sí?) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Raystorm!! :) AletaSing 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also cast a very easy support !vote for you. Good luck Aleta, and I think you will make it and will do your usual excellent job here with the mop. — Becksguy (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Becksguy! I appreciate it! AletaSing 13:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the admin discussion was scheduled to be closed a little while ago, so I guess you're officially an admin! Well, it will be official when someone actually closes the discussion, but congrats! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! =D It would appear to be nearly a done deal at this point, wouldn't it? AletaSing 03:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess someone has to close the discussion and after that, I don't know what happens. This was my first time being involved in a nomination process. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added most of the history section for this article. Could you scan over it when you get a chance and tell me if it comes across as "timeline-y?" The reason is that I got the info from the Raleigh government website and it was in a timeline format. Right now, I'm thinking it needs some tweaking but I'm looking for another opinion first. Gracias mi amiga bonita. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, going to look now! AletaSing 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks pretty good. It is sort of list-like, but without going into detail for each thing, that may be inevitable, and I don't think it's too listy. I wouldn't worry about it. AletaSing 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking over it and correcting those inevitable errors of mine. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! We all do it... it's so much easier to see things in what someone else wrote than what you wrote yourself. :) AletaSing 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being you. =) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heehee, thanks, ASE! AletaSing 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks so much for your warm welcome and your message. Unfortunately, I don't think I can officially join the project because I have so little free time to go on Wikipedia. I stumbled upon this discussion of the category title, which grabbed my attention and interest, but I doubt I'll have time to do much more. If I again stumble on anything that inspires me to post, I will not hesitate, thanks to your kindness. Big Apple 21 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply on Big Apple's Talk page AletaSing 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Beautiful pictures! Thanks, and I hope you have a happy equinox too! AletaSing 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta I want your advice on it
I don't at all agree with the way the text about non-Western concepts is included in the gay article.
Users like Paul have repeatedly gone ahead and removed the text and included their own. He has warned me of being blocked if I reverted his changes again.
I want to know:
- Does Paul and his group really have the right to do such a thing as to block me for stopping them to tamper with the changes made by me or Aristophanes, after the discussions.
- If the references are valid, what right do editors like Paul have to stop them from being included in the introduction or in the first section, especially if there are some editors who support inclusion in the introduction?
- Who has given them that right? On what account do they get that right? Is the thing to go by majority?
- Can the majority also stop something which is supported by valid references?
Hi Masculinity, yes, you can be blocked for edit warring; it's called the three revert rule (3RR). As for the content, you can continue to discuss on the talk page what and how you think should be there. No one person or group has a mandate to decide what should be included - Wikipedia works by building consensus. If you'd like to solicit views from more of the community than typically watch that page, you can start a request for comment. This might be advisable in the current situation, as it gets more editors involved in the dispute resolution process. AletaSing 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the three revert rule not apply to Paul as well. I mean if he reverts my additions thrice, can I not block him? Who is authorised to do the blocking?
Also, if I don't revert (undo) but add the same matter more than thrice (after it is deleted or changed by some one else), does that also qualify me to be blocked? (Masculinity (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well, it's technically if you revert more than three times, although you can be blocked for violating the spirit of the rule, even if you haven't violated the letter of it. Other additions could get you blocked as well, if they are part of edit warring. Yes, this all applies to Paul as well, and every other editor on Wikipedia. Administrators are the ones with the power to block people for edit warring or other disruptive editing. Basically, edit warring is a bad idea, and the blocking is allowed to keep it from happening. If you have a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the talk page, not engage in a revert war with someone. Like I said above, it might be worthwhile thinking about a WP:RFC. AletaSing 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will Aleta. I will like to put it on the comments page. Only I do not know how to do it. And, I get tired looking at 'how to do pages'. But I'll do it. (Masculinity (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Would you like me to do it? AletaSing 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great help. (Masculinity (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Done (except that the bot still has to do its part). AletaSing 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, the problem is not only the placement. Paul and a few others have changed the entire content that was agreed upon by those who discussed the matter for days, and finally reached a compromise with the Aristophane's inclusion.
How can I tackle that problem. Can we put that up for comments too?
ALSO, can I ask administrators to take action against Paul and a few others who have gone ahead and changed everything, despite there being a discussion going on which had almost resolved the matter. And then aggressively maintaining their change.(Masculinity (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
As for the content discussion, yes, the entire matter of the what should be said is fair game for discussion in the RFC. Go ahead and make your comments about what you would like to see happen and what dissatifies you. I worded the RFC the way I did intending to make it open-ended enough to include the entire content question relative to this topic.
You can request the help of administrators at WP:ANI, the administrators' noticeboard of incidents. AletaSing 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Masculinity, when you say "can I ask administrators to take action against Paul and a few others who have gone ahead and changed everything" you are asking for retaliation of those you don't agree with and that's not allowed. You are making edits that have not been resolved on the talk apge and your controversial edits like this one is why people are wary of your edits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No agnostic, we discussed the matter for several days before a consensus was reached after compromises from both the sides. The last consensus added by Aristophanes was supported by apart from myself, Den, Aleta and Neil. When someone called alstar barged in and on his own deleted the matter followed by Paul and you, you reverted the additions several time. There has to be a method to it. New people joining in a discussion everytime cannot start from the scratch or insist on having their way. What was included after a long debate should be respected and any desired change should be incorporated only after obtaining a consensus for it on the talk page. Or let the matter be resolved by the administrators.(Masculinity (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
"Or let the matter be resolved by the administrators." Ummmmm, nope, sorry Masculinity, but administrators do not have a stronger voice in content disputes than other editors. As frustrating as it may be, a consensus reached by a number of editors can indeed be changed when another enters the conversation. See consensus can change. We just have to continue the conversation, which is why we are having the RFC. AletaSing 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against making any reports to ANI while this RFC is taking place. Wait until some consensus has been reached in the discussion about what to say and where to say it. Only then should the changes be made to the article, and everyone should abide by them if consensus is truly reached. AletaSing 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, I'm glad you have patience because his distortion of the facts and WP pracitice are mind-boggling. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to understand the rules. So if a new person or group of persons can come and delete and change everything, and I do the same, then there will arise an edit war. Then, how come Paul threatens to get me blocked, while he can get away with it?(Masculinity (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It does take two (at least) to engage in an edit war. It's a bad idea on both sides. AletaSing 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For sysops
I am pleased to inform you that i have voted in favor of you becoming a admin best of luck :)
Thanks for the grammar correction, but the article doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if it's the sentence structure or what. What do you think? I made another one last night, State Bank of North Carolina, in case you want to scan for errors. (cause you're good at finding those on my new articles) :-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well, usually a word starting with a vowel does take "an", but since union sounds like "yu-nion" I think it should take "a", but I'll have to look and see if I can find where a good grammarian has commented about it. It might be a case where it could be either. I'll check out the other article, too. :) AletaSing 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification (doh!) - I didn't mean your edit didn't seem right. It was correct. I mean the entire article. Some sentences seem oddly worded. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood, obviously. Ummm, I don't know, I've got to run now, but I'll look at it again later on. :) AletaSing 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo, and for further clarification (lol), I meant DOH for myself. I should have worded it better. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heehee, no worries! You did say the article, but I took that in the grammatical sense of "a" and "an" are indefinite articles. Ah, the vagueries of words with multiple meanings! :P AletaSing 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made a couple rephrasings, nothing very big. See what you think. AletaSing 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sugarlandfanatic, are the photos already on Wikipedia and just needing to be put in an article, or do you need to upload the photos? AletaSing 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are on a site, and I would like to include them in a new page. The picture I'm looking at is also very large. It will need to be re-sized —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarlandfanatic (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Uploading images. There should be further help available from the talk page there, but I have not uploaded any pictures to Wikipedia myself. Be sure the licensing is appropriate for any pictures you want to load here. :) AletaSing 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please sign your comments using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. AletaSing 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. It definitely improves the article! :) AletaSing 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch - I saw the bot notice on your talk page and went to look at the source of the image. It will probably be deleted as a copyright violation. We can't just take images from anywhere and post them here. This image looks to me like it's not likely to be in the public domain, nor is it likely to be justifiable as fair use; so it will most likely be removed. Can you get a free image of Monthaven? AletaSing 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Lake Village
Is there anything I can do to improve another article I made? Indian Lake Village ? Or should I just wait until people stumble upon it to add more.? Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions right off:
find appropriate categories to put the article in (the TN-stub I added to Monthaven is one to use, but there should be others)
wikify it more - you should be able to add some more internal links to other wikipedia articles
add references - you have some external links: can any of those be converted to specific references for information in the article?
That should be enough to get you going for a little while. Let me know if I can help you more! AletaSing 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few things. I don't quite understand categories. I tried putting it ina category for the city it's located in, but the link was red. Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there isn't a category for that city; I replaced it with the county category. Also, to make references show up, you need to have a section for them with a tag to make them show. The tag looks like {{reflist}}. Take a look at the section I just added. AletaSing 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Template:Captioned
I'm pleased to inform you that you're now an administrator. For instructions and a great deal of admonition, take a look at the reading list or Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, though I suspect you'll find nothing earth-shattering in either. I wish you the best of luck, and as much fun as you can muster, in your future editing. Regards — Dan | talk 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about using your new tools. WjBscribe 04:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WJB, I'll most likely be taking you up on that offer! AletaSing 04:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations love. May you swing the mop with the best of them, as I know you will. I'm happy for you. And say crap if you want, I don't mind. Champagne is on me for you and all your supporters. — Becksguy (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Becksguy! :) AletaSing 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, seresin! AletaSing 05:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I add my serius admnim concatulashunz? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Satyr! I love the cat! That'll have to go on my user page. :) AletaSing 06:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. Notice the reason this user voted against you here. The same adminsupportsthis person although they only have 1,345 mainspace edits when you had 4,300 mainspace edits. Hmmm. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, *shrug*. If it had hurt me, I might be upset about it, but at this point, I'm just not going to worry about it. People can be fickle. AletaSing 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Spencer! AletaSing 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. Same for you, ever need help, you know where I am. Rudget. 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, congratulations. I'm very pleased to see you as an Administrator. You deserved it. Please keep it up. (Masculinity (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you, Rudget and Masculinity! :) AletaSing 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats Aleta, you're now an evil dictator admin. ;) Use the mop for the better good hehe! Raystorm(¿Sí?) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heehee, thanks for the shirt, Raystorm! AletaSing 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I'm sure you'll use the tools wisely. I'm a bit more skeptic about your use of the force... ;) Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :) 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MoP! I'll do the best I can with the tools... and the force! AletaSing 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats Aleta... GL with your new buttons...Balloonman (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Balloonman! :) AletaSing 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bless our new Dictato.. ah, Admin! (sheesh, just kidding..) You are my Fairy Godsister!! Glad, so glad! Time to do the Dance of JOY! Now, if only there were more of you... ((((Aleta)))< big hugs.
Whack! APK falls out. Oops, didn't mean to do it that hard... AletaSing 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta need help
AgnosticPreacher is indulging in irresponsible editing. He has been repeatedly putting "the article is disputed" tag on the article on "non-Western concepts of male sexuality".
I asked him to bring up the dispute on the talk page, but he says he doesn't want to do it because I use long texts.
What do you think I should do? (Masculinity (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well, the tag seems reasonable, because even if APK is not discussing it, other people have disputed the accuracy of the article on the talk page. I'm not sure what else to suggest at this point. AletaSing 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, other people have also stood by the article. Those who have disputed have been invited to sort it out on the talk page. I have responded to all the specific issues that were raised and made suitable changes to the article, where I could not justify what was written with 'valid' references.
Now, it does not seem fair to have that tag put, without caring to mention the problem that seem to have prompted the tag. The whole thing about tag then becomes one of not allowing the other point of view a dignified space.
Surely, Wikipedia knows how to deal with such saboteurs. (Masculinity (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
First, "saboteurs" does not seem an appropriate term to use and may be seen as a personal attack. Deleting vast amounts of the article would be sabotage; tagging it as disputed is not. Second, the fact is that people have questioned the veracity of it. You have answered them, but not to everyone's satisfaction. The dispute is ongoing. OK, the person who added the tag is opting out of the debate, but there are others who will still participate. I would suggest that the concerns of improper synthesis should be addressed. AletaSing 18:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind addressing any issues if they are real issues and not biased ones. And I feel there is a lot of bias against allowing non-Western view-points, and a lot of these accusations are baseless. It is all too easy to accuse an article that makes a particular community uncomfortable as synthesis, and show one's collective power by getting away with it, but quite another to take the trouble to point out specific lacunaes constructively or otherwise, so that it makes any sense.
Also, for all the irresponsible editing Agnostic is indulging in, he seems to know he can get away with it(Masculinity (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And may I ask, where are all those people who have problems with the article. Why are they not there discussing those issues? And why is AgnosticPreacher going ahead with making changes in the Gay article when there is a discussion going on on the talk pages about what should be done.(Masculinity (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I will also discuss accusations if they are clearly biased. But at least they should be specific. Like this portion of the text says this, while the references say only this, and so the rest is OR or synthesis or whatever. Am I asking for two much?(Masculinity (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There's been lots of discussion on that talk page. If it hasn't occurred for a couple days, it may be that people are getting frustrated. You say that someone (Agnaramasi?) needs to discuss putting an attribution needed tag. No. If a statement has that tag, it means that someone thinks a citation is needed for that specific statement. There's not much more to be said about it. You have a number of references, and appear to be capable of finding more. I think what needs to happen is you carefully cite each statement, making sure that the source says what you attribute to it. Is there some bias? Probably, but the way to combat it is to make sure that what you write is ironclad. Be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. For example, instead of saying there is no "gay" in India, when there appears that there is, perhaps you could say that such-and-such author reports that in X-subculture men who have sex with men identify as.... AletaSing 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, acknowledge the changing views where they occur. "While in X, men who have sex with men are seen as ...[ref] in Y, the term 'gay' is becoming more prominent...[ref]" or some such. This will go a long way toward dispelling the idea that you are trying to pretend certain views don't exist. AletaSing 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, I have always respected you as a Neutral moderator, and am hoping that just because you are a part of the LGBT community, you will not let that bias come into this. And I have always respected and followed your suggestions, as I will do here as well.
However, the tag that Agnostic has put is not in front of a specific sentence. It is a general tag saying the facts are disputed. After all the refrences I have provided that basically say everything I have written in almost similar terminology (some on the gay talk page) it should be clear that if anything is disputed it is the use of the word 'gay'. Surely, the entire article is not disputed. If there are some parts of it which are disputed why can't he specify those?
And mind you, I have never said "there is no gay in India", so I wonder why you say that. In fact, I had writen an entire paragraph on how westernised Indians living in urban meteros have started adopting the Indian as well as the Western concepts (of homosexuality). What I'm saying instead is that in traditional Non-Western spaces (which are different from Westernised Non-Western spaces) there is no concept of sexual orientation. This fact is also corroborated by anthropological studies.
See, half of the problem is because of a strong bias. You think there is a problem, which is not there, but you you don't care. You just go ahead and go on putting tags after tag and deleting stuff. And when as an administrator you condone that, it doesn't help much.
My articles may still have problems, I'm not denying that. But, I am willing to modify my articles. And, I'm willing to accomodate.(Masculinity (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps you could explain better what "traditional Non-Western spaces" means. I'm not sure I understand that, and I doubt most readers do. I'm going to assume that the "you" in reference to tagging and deleting is general, and does not mean me, because I have not been doing that. As for the no gays in India comment, that was probably an overgeneralization on my part, but in the discussion on the talk:gay page, you sometimes seem close to saying that. AletaSing 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to my possible bias, let me assure you Masculinity that if I thought there was no merit in your additions, I would not have been engaging in trying to advise you to the extent I have. I think there are problems, but appreciate a need for discussion of these issues. AletaSing 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is yet another form of discrimination, when I'm expected of a rigority which is extremely missing in the LGBT articles. For example, the article on Gay is full of the Gay ideology, and at many places without any valid reference or citation. E.g. it says that "If a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as 'closeted', 'discreet', or 'bi-curious' can be used for him". I tried to watern down (after giving about three weeks for discussing the point) a sentence from the Heterosexuality article that says, "is the most common sexual orientation among humans". Silly Rabbit, who acts as if he owns the page, never bothered to reply to the questions that I raised, and went ahead and reverted back the changes.
In such a scenario, it seems utterly oppressive, if I am not even allowed to summarise numerous references that question the applicability of Western notions of sexual orientation on non-western societies as -- sexual orientation is not valid in non Western cultures. It is unfair to demand that I use exactly the same words as in the references, when nowhere is this practice followed on Wikipedia. You yourself said at one place that the citation should be relevant to what is written, and that should be enough.(Masculinity (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't know if you saw my comments in the two paragraphs above your most recent post - it apparently overwrote my comments, and I had to restore them. AletaSing 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your comments above, and it seems it happened while we two were posting at the sametime.
Aleta, the "you" is meant for some members of the LGBT editors here, and not you in particular (only as far as you condone these hostile editors).
I know, that you are neutral and open to other POVs, and have been going out of your way to give a space to voices other than the western ones. And that is why I come to you for help. However, Sometimes, I feel you are unwilling to take on people from the LGBT community, even when they do not show the restraint that is needed to make this exercise constructive.
I think it should be understood, that even though I am an outsider/ alien in this LGBT space. Some of those who 'control' this powerful LGBT space don't want me here, and would do anything to harass me -- which often takes the form of hostile, negative/ destructive editing. So, unless I get some support from the administrators, it is going to get extremely tough for me.
Like I said, constructive editing is always welcome. But there should be some check on hostile/ destructive editing.(Masculinity (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Traditional non-Western spaces mean spaces in non-Western societies which are not westernised. Some spaces in these societies have been extremely Westernised. They speak English, have western education, lead Western lifestyles, work in multinational companies and often visit Western nations or have lived there. I'll see how I can explain it here.(Masculinity (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
<<<As for the no gays in India comment, that was probably an overgeneralization on my part>>>
The problem is when you, being a neutral person, can over-generalise, the hostile editors can really harm when they overgeneralise, and act upon that bias. That is why editors like Agnostic have been deleting stuff and putting negative over-generalised tags, but when confronted to be specific and discuss, they become evasive. The problem can worsen for me, if they feel they can get away with it. There needs to be a solution for this. Editors need to take responsibility for their actions and carry it through (be willing to eplain them), otherwise what is the point of restricting editing to registered editors. (Masculinity (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hey!
Thanks so much for your kind message. Should I need any help from "above" I will be sure to contact you..Thanks so much for offering. Now and again it can be really handy to have an admin "available"...at least until/if I become an admin myself. I may ask you for tips nearer to the time of my Rfa. Good luck with everthing. regards --Camaeron (t/c) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me I am just some randomn guy but i think it is great that you are now an admin, congrads
Wannabe Wiki (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the smile and congratulations, Wannabe! AletaSing 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Easter
Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.
Interesting picture... hmmm. Happy Easter to you, too! :) AletaSing 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Easter 2008. We will not see Easter this early again in our lifetimes, most likely, unless we will live for another 152 years. From the article on Easter: The calculations for the date of Easter are somewhat complicated. In the Western Church, Easter has not fallen on the earliest of the 35 possible dates, March 22, since 1818, and will not do so again until 2285. It did, however, fall on March 23 in 2008, but will not do so again until 2160. Peace brother. — Becksguy (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brother? LOL! Thanks, Becksguy, I hope you've been having a lovely early Easter yourself! AletaSing 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A belated congratulations
I did not know until now that you had been seeking to become admin. Congratulations on your success. Wiki needs as many good admins as it can get and I suspect that you will be a good one. The way you conducted yourself during that whole mess with John celona, speaks volumes. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Albion! :) AletaSing 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your RFA
Congratulations. I apologise for being neutral, but it was more making a (unblued) point, and I am sure you will be extermly capable. If you ever need a hand on anything hit me up! Pedro : Chat 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I'm very glad to hear of your success. Happy editing and happy easter :-) Lradrama 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! (No need to apologize, Pedro.) AletaSing 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congraulations on your RFA passing. Hendry1307 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) AletaSing 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor you just blocked shows a strong similarity to user:Fiesta bowl who has been abusing sock puppets to make the same edits. See the comparison of contribs between Suckitlosers and Fiesta bowl (or his assorted socks). Extending the block to indef as a sock puppet evader would greatly help us with this fight over at the OSU Football article. Thanks! Baegis (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be correct, but I'm a brand new admin and not quite comfortable doing that yet. Let me get someone else to look at it and see if they agree with your assessment and recommendation. AletaSing 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. Congrats on getting the mop. Baegis (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I changed it to indef. "Suckitlosers" is a flagrant violation of the username policy, even if he were behaving like a perfect gentleman. --B (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for letting me know, B! I didn't think about the username itself. That makes sense though. AletaSing 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "Request for comment" on Gay talk page headed to
It seems nobody has anything more to say on this topic. So, what is the next step? (Masculinity (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I have a couple ideas to see if we can get some more comment. Let me think see if I can. AletaSing 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, silly Rabbit has deleted the short abstract I had put in in the omosexuality, after the discussion on that page. And on Sexual Orientation page as well. He wouldn't participate in the discussion. How do we tackle this? (Masculinity (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Please, have some patience. I have just posted requests that people participate in the RFC at the talk pages of the following projects: WP:SEX, WP:CSB, and WP:LGBT. AletaSing 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your RfA
Congratulations on passing your request for adminship! I am glad I supported, and I would give you a new T-shirt and a link to the new admin school, but it seems you have both already (thanks for this!). :) Good luck. Acalamari 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Acalamari! AletaSing 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Acalamari 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me too, Aleta. Have fun with the mop and bucket! :) --PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peace! AletaSing 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?
Do you think I should remove this from ASE's page? It seems like a rant from someone who has been recently blocked for disruption. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you just beat me both in reverting the rant from another page and in warning him! :P AletaSing 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user did it to several userpages. By the time I reported it to AIV, someone had already blocked. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how people move so fast sometimes! AletaSing 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, You could certainly go with APK's suggestion. Whether you use it or something else, though, people tend to look less askance at edits from registered users than ip's (fairly or not). (It also just tends to be easier to talk to a name than a number.) AletaSing 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Gross at AfD
Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Gross, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Gross. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification! AletaSing 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually leave either {{GBlock}} or {{GblockIP}}. This editor knows and doesn't care, but any random editor that tries to use the same computer during the block should be warned. Also, I recommend using "harassment" as the reason for this user. That's an automatic block, whereas technically vandals should be warned a number of times. Just some FYI =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That makes sense about harassment as opposed to "mere" vandalism. I'll go add one of those notices as well. AletaSing 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the length of time? IP's can change so quickly - and this guy has used several just in his harassment of APK today - that a long time doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I'm seeing people block IP's for much longer times. AletaSing 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a believer in 31hrs, but this person seems to be able to move around, so I don't know that anything more that 12 is needed. But it probably doesn't make much of a difference =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aleta - would you mind protecting this article from unregistered users for five days? The "Gay Jewish 72.76 Vandal" continues to put an inappropriate photo on the article. Thank you. --David Shankbone 13:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-starting editing on the Yarrow page. I think making some progress via collaboration on issues unrelated to the 1970 incident can only help create an atmosphere conducive to useful mediation. Of course, we haven't yet seen any intervention by the primary belligerents on that issue, so my optimism may be misguided.
Unrelatedly, congrats on your recent be-mopping. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've done anything terribly controversial there with these edits, but I agree with you that it can only be beneficial to make improvements in a friendly and collegial manner.
Thanks for the congrats! :) AletaSing 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page
How do I create a good talk page? I see some of them with information in boxes. please help me. Sugarlandfanatic (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly coming to you as Admin this time...
Aleta, when I get stressed on the Dixie women stuff, I stray and work on other pages. Worked a bit tonight on Cris Williamson's page, which seemed neglected. However, an older woman I once worked with when I was a kid, a "'70's wishful lesbian musician" has been adding (as an editor) pages about herself. Yes, she wanted to make it in the SanFran women's scene in the 1970s but the group couldn't get along enough to produce anything of note. Isn't this against Wikipedia policy? Her real name is Pamela Pollet, nickname is Tiik, (editor name Poettiik), and if you check the entry for BeBe K'Roche she created the page. O God, she's flooded Google now with all kinds of supposed "merchandise" that is mysteriously out of stock, or are her alternate blogs and websites. I really wanna keep my name out of all this, hell, the last thing I want is lack of harmony and edit interference and all the bad junk I read about. She even lives somewhere in the city where I am. I didn't want to bring it up, but she is very ambitious in this kind of way. Was why I thought of it, and checked, and Bingo. Only I don't want to have Bingo. Thanks. Please don't mention me; you are kind and can perhaps persuade her to follow a wee bit closer to guidelines? I mean, if she's familiar with the lesbian rock roots scene, as she has said, then why am I adding to the Cris Williamson page?! Told you I'm a chicken. Bawk! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta-- would this help for the BeBe K'Roche page?: Template:Nn-userfy Perhaps if I am right about this article about this user, there's a way to be kind --you know, the don't bite the newcomer or whatever the phrase is. Someone was pretty snitty with me when I first came to wikipedia, so much so I erased most of her post to me, though I wrote her back asking to tell me what it was I had done wrong, so I wouldn't repeat my mistakes. She softened some then, at least in print. So... this here is a woman who probably has a lot to offer. I think I kinda jumped, just seeing two articles by and about her, is all. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS- OH yeah, does anybody have a chicken "gif" for my userpage?[reply]
Hey Leah, I've been away from the computer for a few days (weird feeling!) but I'm back now. I'll take a look at the page and see what I think. :) AletaSing 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it allowed by Wikipedia policy
Can an editor remove a link to a Wikipedia page, however controversial that page is, if the matter on the original page itself is not disputed?(Masculinity (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sure. People can and do remove links all the time if they think they aren't appropriate for some reason. AletaSing 02:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been deletions on the page by people who had not signed in. I would like to restrict the page only to signed editors, because this article, I feel, has been targeted by people who believe in a particular ideology. (Masculinity (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
He means me - Please check the history of the article and you will see that all of my edits have been a) attempts to bring the article in line with the MOS and b) an attempt to remove a source that has been rejected as unreliable. It is not that I am "not signed in", it's that I don't have an account (and I don't plan to get one). You can see from the talkpage of that article that this editor has various WP:OWN issues (commented upon by multiple long-term editors) that need to be dealt with. --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about the UN document is still going on. Also, we are still involved in the discussion on the Talk page, so we haven't had the time to discuss the changes on the above mentioned article. If meanwhile, people who know nothing about the issue keep editing the page at their whims and fancies, it will defeat the purpose. The page is of course open for changes, but if the 'gay' page can be semi-locked, this page too should be locked, considering lots of people delete the information because they don't like it. (Masculinity (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Masculinity and IP. I've been away from the computer for a few days. I'm back now and will take a look at the situation. AletaSing 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Masculinity, the general answer to your question of how to get a page protected is either (a)ask an administrator, which you did, or (b) ask at requests for page protection. Having now looked at what's going on, I'm not going to protect the page. You all are having a content dispute, not a vandalism issue, and anonymous editors have the right to edit and participate in these disputes. It looks like consensus is going against you on using the "Masculinity for boys" paper, Masculinity, and so you may not be able to use that as a source. (I am staying out of the question of its reliability either way.) AletaSing 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
which clearly means that even if you are not a party to it, wikipedia works in a way, that the powerful gay community will have its way, because of their sheer majority here. which in effect means that it is not really a matter of citing valid references, but that of who's the majority here. If that's the way it is, I can't help it. I'll try some more and then go my way. The lie may have its way today, but it can't rule forever. (59.178.118.16 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree. I believe a number of the editors criticizing the reliability of that paper are not affiliated with the LGBT project, and there is no reason to assume they are part of the "powerful gay community". Please try not to attack others just because they don't agree with you. AletaSing 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the IP is registered in New Delhi, India. Hmmm, I wonder who that could be? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aleta, I'm not only talking about the response to the book Masculinity for Boys, although, it seems unreasonable to dispute something published by UNESCO. I mean had it not been something threatening the Gay community, it'll never have been disputed. What authority do people have to dismiss a credible source as UNESCO.
I'm referring to the aggressive deletions, while the discussion is going on, and your helplessness to deal with it. There is certainly a strong gay agenda here, and this is not the only Western place it is obvious in. I have been banned at several gay sites and one mainstream western site for saying the same things -- sites that were willing to put up with terrorists who threatened them with murder. GAys simply don't want to even listen to this stuff, because they know their ideology is faulty and it cannot survive being questioned in this manner. I've had enough of this. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade, when I see such flouting of rules and control of information by a powerful group. An injustice is an injustice. You can now proceed to delete the page I'd created as well as whatever information I'd added. I can't fight the consciousless gay mafia with the few support I have here.(Masculinity (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
