Jump to content

User talk:Gleeanon409

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gleeanon409 (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 8 March 2021 (→‎LGBTQ Nation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome

Welcome Gleeanon409!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,766,328 registered editors!
Hello Gleeanon409. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Scope creep, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:
  Introduction to Wikipedia
  The five pillars of Wikipedia
  Editing tutorial
  How to edit a page
  Simplified Manual of Style
  The basics of Wikicode
  How to develop an article
  How to create an article
  Help pages
  What Wikipedia is not
Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
  Do be bold
  Do assume good faith
  Do be civil
  Do keep cool!
  Do maintain a neutral point of view
  Don't spam
  Don't infringe copyright
  Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
  Don't commit vandalism
  Don't get blocked
If you need further help, you can:
  Ask a question
or you can:
  Get help at the Teahouse
or even:
  Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
  Fight vandalism
  Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
  Help contribute to articles
  Perform maintenance tasks
           
  Become a member of a project that interests you
  Help design new templates
  Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

  • Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
  • Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, scope_creepTalk 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)[reply]

Template:Z164

Too many references

Hi @Gleeanon409: I think your putting too many refs into this tiny article per WP:REFBOMB. There is policy called WP:CITEKILL. I whole lot will need to come out. scope_creepTalk 11:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of them can be combined? I only added when new information was introduced that someone would question. Desmond is certainly notable so it’s not there is something to prove. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed until this morning how many there was. Every sentence could needs a ref is the standard. He is eminently notable so I don't think there is any problem with them removing at least 30 of them. Removal of duplicates is the ideal. It is 33k so not a huge amount, a couple of dozen. scope_creepTalk 11:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing any refs is a very bad idea, none of those guides really state that what we have is a problem. And this is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. There are multiple cases of the same ref being listed multiple times, maybe those could be combined? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: Yip, I don't think there is any lack of references. It is wikipedia policy. It unusually one ref per fact, I think. I got called up for it, in similar situation donkeys ago, so it is genuine thing, a real policy. You can use ref tags as <ref name="john">jim</ref> and then apply <ref name="john"/> to another location and you only have one reference location, but it linked multiple times. There is only seven areas where is needs to be done, e.g. Drag performances section. I don't mind cleaning it up. Are you planning to stick around Gleeanon409, once you finish this. There is plenty of other articles that could do with some work.scope_creepTalk 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we only have one ref per fact, some statements had more than one fact. Right now I haven’t figured out how to see the underlying code, I switched editing display so I could add full refs and I don’t know how to switch back. I’ll see if I can figure it out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a combiner tool Reflinks, it worked! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: did you notice that's not a policy, but actually only a WP:ESSAY? MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon Hello Gleeanon409, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Gays Against Guns have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

help please - Redirect

I want to edit GuRu (book) but the redirect is preventing me from getting to the page to start the article. Could someone remove the redirect code so I can start? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect doesn't need to be deleted. Click the link in your message above and you will be redirected. Right under the article title, you will see this text:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from GuRu (book))

You'll notice that "GuRu (book)" is a link -- click that to be taken to the redirect page, which will suppress the redirect. You can then edit that page directly. --Chris (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t work on my phone, it only keeps sending me to RuPaul. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link at the top of the article and it will take you back. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I’ve stated that doesn’t work, I don’t get a link to go back on redirects apparently just a brief pop up that tells me what happened but no link in the pop up box. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, try going to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GuRu_(book)&redirect=no or you could also temporarily switch to desktop mode (There should be a Desktop link at the bottom of the page next to Terms of user and Privacy) then the link he is talking about will show up - Scio c (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It worked! Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to mark the question as resolved for now since multiple people have responded and the &redirect=no should work for all devices. If it doesn't work, feel free to restore the template. You can also create the page anywhere else (e.g. at Draft:GuRu) and ask it to be moved over (replacing the redirect) when you're close to done, if that would be easier. Alpha3031 (tc) 04:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to edit but I couldn’t delete the redirect. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone delete the redirect from GuRu (book)? There’s an article there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is no longer there, you've converted it to an article now. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need to rename Camp; Notes on Fashion

Hi! I must have made a typo. Can you please rename Camp; Notes on Fashion to Camp: Notes on Fashion? The punctuation was wrong. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. For future reference WP:Requested moves is a good place to ask for page moves. Huon (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I’ll keep the page move in mind if it happens again. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the article. Do you think you could possibly make similar articles for their earlier exhibitions? They don't have to be as detailed--if you start then, others will add to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was trying to get it into good shape as the exhibit is already open. Two of the articles are already done but I’ll consider doing the other two. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Nice start with Sweet Tea: Black Gay Men of the South—An Oral History Keep it, add more references and feel free to ask me if you need any help regarding improvements. I can help you in finding references, getting research articles/books too. thanks

QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QueerEcofeminist:, I would love any reference you can find. I did as much as I could but now paywalls and subscriptions have stopped me in my tracks. I know there is at least five journal reviews, and countless books that talk about Sweet Tea but I can’t seem to access them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gleeanon409, Send me your email address on sureshkhole.com@gmail.com , I can give you a few more reviews. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:RX If you know the source but can’t access it.

Tip of the Day

Articles for Creation (AFC) process

When you create an article through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process, it creates a draft in the Drafts area. The purpose of AfC process is to help new editors learn how to write better articles.

If accepted, your draft can be a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is over 17 years old and has well over five million articles. The vast majority of those articles never went through AfC which is only a few years old.

AfC works as a peer review process in which registered editors can either help create an article submitted or decline the article because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page. The AfC process allows others to review the draft when you are ready, and also to create the article for you, if it is suitable.

See also:
To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

In appreciation

The LGBT Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your timely and articulate opposition to the erasure of historic LGBTQ relationships. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody is trying to erase anything, Gog the Mild. The nominator hasn't even responded yet! It simply may be a case of the nom not even realising it. To say this was an "attempt" to erase such an important issue is assuming bad faith. CassiantoTalk 00:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was intentional or not, the net effect is similar to cases where prose is changed from ‘Foo realized he was gay at six years old’ to ‘Foo discovered his sexuality at six years old’. They might mean the the same thing but to me feel miles apart and purposely erasive. One can always claim innocence but after a series of similar edits all erasing LGBQ sexualities a pattern emerges. I just happened to stumble upon a case like that last year. This case may be well innocent but the ease at which all LGBTQ categories were just plucked off was a bit chilling to me. If they really don’t belong then all is well but two women who marry feels like it’s an LGBTQ relationship. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We simply cannot be accusing someone of bigotry when they haven't even had the chance to answer for themselves. The use of "attempt" conveys the idea that it is premeditated, when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is homophobia. Ok, so there have been a few edits that have been questionable, but we should be assuming good faith until such a time when it becomes apparent that they they are being homophobic and that is the time they should then be reported. CassiantoTalk 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, cheers! Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated edit clash. The debate is over whether the LGBT category tags should be/have been removed. They have been erased. It is not an ""attempt"", it is an accomplished fact. Gleeanon409 objected, promptly and civilly, to this. I commended them for it.
I am not sure why you are throwing around words like "homophobia". We are simply having a civil debate as to the threshold of evidence required to support a particular cat tag. ABF is not helpful.
As I said in the FAC "I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on." Not surprising - from the main author's nomination statement "Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements." (Girth Summit by the by is one of the most sensible and considerate editors I have come across.)
I agree with your opinion that category allocation is not a FA criteria. But that is our opinion. The Rambling Man brought it up as part of their FAC review. We can seek consensus that it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't, IMO, unilaterally remove part of a review; still less should we remove just the subsequent discussion attempting to reach consensus. Personally I have no problem with TRM's comments, other than thinking that they don't belong in a FAC and disagreeing with their suggestion. That's a run of the mill content dispute, being settled by reference to policy. I am even defending TRM's right to keep his comments on the FAC, despite disagreeing with them.
It may well be that I am misreading my own comments, but if there is any lack of AGF by me, then whoever points out just where will receive a fulsome apology. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am throwing around words like "homophobia" as in my view, making an "attempt" to erase LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships, whether it be in the form of prose or tags, suggests homophobia. Simply erasing LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships, whether it be in the form of prose or tags, may not be homophobia. It is your use of the word "attempt" in the barnstar above that I object to as it suggests malevolence when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is the case. I am in no doubt that your intentions were honourable, let's make no mistake about that, but we enter dodgy ground when we start making indirect allegations of bigotry when that may not even be the case. CassiantoTalk 07:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: Thank you for so clearly isolating your area of concern. Even with that I struggle to so how it is a tenable reading. But I claim no expertise in the nuances of English, and if a reasonable reader, such as you, can find the word "attempt" so loaded, then it is probably best if I remove it.
Gleeanon409, I am extremely wary of altering anything on your talk page, even if it is my own words and within a barnstar citation. Can I ask for your forbearance in this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Gog, and thank you for your understanding. CassiantoTalk 11:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gleeanon409 - I don't want this to become unpleasant, and I'm not here to have a go at you - indeed, I think that your comments at the FAC discussion have been fair, reasonable and helpful. Having just seen something you've written above though, I want to make one thing entirely clear: I have no wish to erase lesbian history. I wrote the article from scratch (in collaboration with another editor) because I found Macpherson Grant's story so compelling - I was attempting to expand our content on the history of gay people, not to erase anything. I think it was my collaborator, rather than myself, who added those categories, but I was perfectly happy with them being there. You say that you found their removal 'chilling' - please let me explain exactly what happened from my perspective. First, an experienced reviewer said that he was not sure the categories were appropriate because of the lack of sourcing explicitly confirming her sexuality; in doing so, he suggested that we remove them temporarily and put it to WikiProject LGBT Studies for comment, and that he would be happy with whatever the consensus was. So, I acknowledged his concerns at the FAC discussion, I removed the categories with an edit summary referencing that discussion, and in my very next edit I posted at the talk page for WikiProject LGBT Studies asking for editors with knowledge of this area to comment. How you can see that as chilling escapes me - what could I possibly have done to be more open and collegiate about this?

I'm also troubled by your mention above of a series of similar edits all erasing LGBQ sexualities - no such series exists in connection to me, I'm not aware of ever having removed categories like this from any article in the past, and I don't understand why you've raised this. I appreciate that you are naturally and rightly concerned about the possibility of biased editing in this area, and I thank you for your vigilance; please also recognise that even the suggestion that one might have homophobic motivations can be deeply unpleasant. Saying This case may well be innocent is not sufficient - this case is most certainly entirely innocent, and I'd thank you if you'd be kind enough to acknowledge that explicitly. Please feel free to examine my contributions history thoroughly to satisfy yourself about that. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have felt, it’s a thing these days, “triggered”, to see such a quick removal of all the categories, easily I might be just too sensitive on the subject. For me it brought up instances I’ve witnessed on Wikipedia before of purposeful anti-LGBTQ erasure. I may have been using short-handed explanations as to my concerns so please accept my apologies if that caused problems.
The issue is being looked at and pretty much universally it’s been explained no harm was meant. That’s good enough for me. Thank you for taking the time to check in.
@Gog the Mild:, no worries, do whatever is needed, I trust you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these words - that's also good enough for me. No harm done all round, thanks for taking an interest in the article. GirthSummit (blether) 14:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shantay, you stay.

The RuPaul Barnstar
For your work on List of Rusicals and other articles related to the show, congratulations you're a winner. APK whisper in my ear 20:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I’ll do the tour and sign every autograph! Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@APK: I think you meant condragulations :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
or (in my best Raja or Raven voice) SHOOT! APK whisper in my ear 23:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was Toot! Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best ones get a SHOOT and Raven is known to be a lot pickier when giving that honor. APK whisper in my ear 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Thank you! I was just headed to your page ... Gleeanon 13:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival

On 18 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival celebrates LGBTQ culture with Wigstock events for drag queens, a bear fest, athletic events, and an art festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your comments here about tone and casting aspersions. You are working to help improve the civility of the community. Thanks again, Right cite (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome! We’re all volunteers here trying to share knowledge, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Gleeanon 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wish more editors behaved the way you do! Right cite (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you very much for your attempts to improve tone and civility on Wikipedia! You are valued! Right cite (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you! You’re valued too! Gleeanon 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, see user page

Orphaned non-free image File:FirehouseTheater.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FirehouseTheater.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Gun serial number

On 8 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gun serial number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a gun serial number can be any random set of numbers letters or a character string? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gun serial number. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gun serial number), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

LGBTQ Nation

@Mz7:, FWIW, I have no intention of socking whatsoever. Gleeanon 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]