User talk:SatyrTN

I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise
Please watch this page if you comment

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot_III. Any sections older than 15 days are automatically archived to User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by .

Random personal notes

List of LGBT people pages: (on 2008-01-21)

Letter(s)	Size	Number entries
A	42K	140
Ba-Bh	36K	125
Bi-Bz	37K	136
C	47K	175
D-E	46K	168: (130 + 38)
F-G	47K	172: (74 + 98)
H	42K	149
I-J	25K	83: (19 + 64)
K	26K	82
L	32K	103
M	47K	147
N-O	35K	104: (61 + 43)
P-Q	49K	133: (124 + 9)
R	45K	133
Sa-Sc	28K	73
Sd-Si	24K	65
Sj-Sz	38K	110
T-V	48K	143: (82 + 4 + 57)
W-Z	59K	170: (148 + 2 + 8 + 12)

Bot-assisted tagging

Today I put a request on User talk:SatyrBot/WikiProject new pages, and only later did I realize that it's been almost a year since you've done that with your bot. I hope you still do. --Descendall (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Descendall! SatyrBot has not been very active lately. If I have time in the next few days, I'll see if I can clean the dust out of his vents and oil up his joints. Check in with me in a week? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if there is any possibility of doing it. --Descendall (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Descendall! I'm afraid I haven't had any time whatsoever to work on SatyrBot. You will probably have better luck checking in at the WP:BOTREQ desk to see if anyone there can help. Sorry! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT to do list

Is it possible to update it? looks like it hasn't been updated since 2007. Scarykitty (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. The bot used to do that, but it hasn't been working for quite a while. It might be best to just remove it for now... or update manually? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ended up on this page for the same reason) ... It sucks that it isn't working, the list looks pretty good (i had even included it on one of the new tabs on Portal:LGBT, but guess it will have to be replaced with something else (like links to Stubs, etc)) Are there any automated or special pages WP has that could somehow list all articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles that include expand tags, NPOV tags, or ____ tags, etc etc.? Outsider80 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, but it's been a year or so since I looked. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

featured lists

Hi, i was wondering if you could give me some pointers on getting "can never be truly comprehensive" lists to featured status. I notice you have done most of the nominating for the LGBT people FLs - were there and particular arguements that had to be made to convince reviewers of comprehensiveness?

I'm planning to try and get the List of lesbian science fiction and list of gay science fiction to FL (probably merged to a different title). I have a book that lists SF with LGBT themes up until 1990s, and can give reliable sources saying this is comprehesive. Since then there have been a number of awards that cover this area and a few specialist publishers. Do you think that would be enough? Or do you see different problems in convincing reviewers compared to with the people lists (Eg. Many of the books are only notable for the award nomination, so don't have articles on them yet)?

Thanks for any advice you can give. I asked at the FL criteria talk page, so any reply might be better there (so i can point people to it later :-)).Yobmod (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on that page was a bit general for my reply, so I'm replying here :)

IMO, the award winners + distinctive entries in the book (prior to the awards' existence) would probably work. I would have a concern about which of the entries from the '93 book get included, since (IMO) it wouldn't make sense to include all of them.

Another idea is to split the list into two: "prior to 1993" and "Lambda Sci-Fi Award Winners", or something like that.

You might also get questions about what constitutes "gay science fiction" - just having a gay character? Having a major gay character? Dealing with LGBT themes? That last one could be slippery - many shape-shifters could be considered trans - or could be considered as dealing with trans issues. "The Left Hand of Darkness" quite definitely qualifies as LGBT themes (IMO), but does Odo?

So, given that those questions are considered and argued sensibly, don't worry too much about a) comprehensiveness - set out the criteria and follow it, that's enough. b) future items for the list will be added as time goes on - but if the criteria are good, that should be easy. c) wikilinks - again, if the criteria are good, then whether or not the articles exist isn't too big a deal.

Hope that helps - and I'll try to keep an eye on your lists! I tend to be interested in Utopian and dystopian fiction mostly, but I have quite a collection of sci-fi/fantasy to draw on :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people + writers

Why would this category tree count for some kind of special exemption from duplicate categorization rules? Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best (and simplest) approach would be to let any discussion about the use or deletion of subcategories run its course, and stick to the existing rules about duplicate categorization in the meantime. It really isn't all that difficult to switch the categories out with HotCat or AWB, if and when there's a consensus to kill a subcategory, so I don't see that there's a particularly compelling reason to prejudge the outcome by double-filing on the pre-emptive assumption that a dedicated subcategory will definitely get canned. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categorization means that you don't simultaneously apply a category and that same category's own parent categories to an article. It doesn't mean that you can't apply two distinct subcategories of the same third parent category which aren't subcategories of each other.

"Gay writers" does not duplicate "LGBT writers from Norway", because "Gay writers" links all gay male writers without regard to what country they're from while "LGBT writers from Norway" links queer writers from Norway without regard to whether they're L, G, B or T. They serve two distinct purposes that aren't redundant with each other, and neither one of them is or can be a subcategory of the other one. Whereas "LGBT people from Norway" is duplicating "LGBT writers from Norway", because the writers category is already in the people category.

If it's any clearer, applying "gay writers" + "LGBT writers from Norway" is like applying "American novelists" + "American poets": they're two different things that contain a few entries that overlap and many more that don't. While they're both subcategories of "American writers", they aren't redundant with each other, because not all novelists are poets and not all poets are novelists. Whereas applying "LGBT writers from Norway" + "LGBT people from Norway" is like applying "American writers" + "Writers": you're adding nothing to the category set that isn't already there, because the former is already a subcategory of the latter. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand categories. I also understand overcat. And I understand what you're saying.

I also understand that we (you and I) have been butting heads over these categories for quite a while. And that your solution is removing a category that I find to be necessary, just as my solution would remove a category you find necessary. So, rather than argue and wrangle over each article and why this one and not that one should be removed, can't we agree that *you'll* keep the ":LGBT people from Country" category, while *I'll* keep the ":LGBT occupation from Country" category. Neither of us likes the result, but until we have the category structure ironed out, let's live with the slight overlap. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm waiting for from you is an actual reason why you view it as necessary to have every single article sitting directly in "LGBT people from Country" without any form of subcategorization; so far all I've gotten from you is "because I like it that way". And quite simply, I'm not going to agree to overlook duplicate categorization, because that's basically creating an exemption from Wikipedia policy without an actual reason behind it. There's a process for deleting categories, if that's what you want to do, but what I still haven't seen is a reason why you think we're better off deleting them all — or a reason why we should skip the proper process and just slowly empty them out one "cat tweak" at a time. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look - I'm not trying to subvert anything, including guidelines (which are not policy, as I'm sure you know). What I'm trying to do is to find a way you and I (and others) can work together. And that has nothing to do with my desire to delete categories or not - simply a way you and I can work on categories without constantly reverting each other, or working at cross-purposes. I'm willing to follow process - I've never deliberately tried to go against it. But that's not the issue at hand.

Looking at the guideline for duplicate categories, the reasons *for* duplicating apply (IMO):

Makes it easier to find articles
Different category structures for looking up articles
Multiple taxonomies

Since users may be surfing through the Category:LGBT people by nationality and may not know a person's occupation, or may simply be interested in knowing *how many* LGBT people there are in, say, Costa Rica, it makes sense to have articles in ":LGBT people from country" as well as ":LGBT people by occupation". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hello. I just saw you have unblocked User:Benjiboi

without discussing the issue with the blocking administrator first

and

despite a request for unblock had been declined already.

If you do not provide a very good explanation for your course of action, I will have to consider this to be wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aitias - I'm commenting at WP:AN3. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote there your course of action is absolutely inappropriate and constitutes blatant wheel warring. If you don't reverse your action immediately this will give cause to take appropriate action (WP:AN/WP:RFAR). — Aitias // discussion 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley has been around for a long time and has made a large number of very bad decisions as an admin. Among those who watch the watchers, he is infamous. Don't let this false accusation of wheel-warring intimidate you. That's their only goal. Spotfixer (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Home-Made Barnstar is awarded to people who do a lot of work in difficult areas and do it well. Recipients are able to think outside the box...and their interventions are always, or almost always effective in resolving or progressing difficulties and disputes. This barnstar is awarded to SatyrTN. Thank you so much for helping retain editors who contribute so much to wikipedia, and helping restore faith in the project. Thank you for restoring hope to dozens, maybe hundreds of wikipedians the belief and hope that sometimes there are fair hearings, that sometimes editors who are not admins don't have to be bullied. Thank you for making a tough decision in the face of universal disdain and condemnation, this is the hallmark of a true leader. I have never known an editor to deserve a barnstar as much as you do right now. God bless you SatyrTN. Ikip (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Spotfixer (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sentiment, though I'm not sure how much I deserve it - or how effectively I've resolved any disputes :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I am honored to award you this Barnstar for continued acts on Wikipedia that serve the ultimate good of the project, whether its to unblock and allow a "second chance" or stepping in the middle of a raging tempest to quiet the storm. Keep up the terrific work! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For unblocking Benjiboi! A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Griffith.png image

I noticed you uploaded this image. I wanted to make a cropped version for the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards article (which still needs !votes at FLC). AFAIK, the liscence allows this, but just wanted to tell you in case you start seeing the altered image around.Yobmod (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - no problem at all. I'm reasonably sure the license allows for cropping. Nicola was pretty kind about letting me upload with the GFDL license :) I wouldn't mind meeting her some day! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sheer curiosity

Since you're from Tennessee, I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating a page on the Tennessee Equality Project; one on LGBT rights in Tennessee; also, if you'd be interested in taking pictures of places around the state [1].Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge

Hey-o. See Perceived sexual orientation. Could you do the merge per the discussion consensus. I'd do it but it's easier if an admin did it, in light of the edit warring from the sole opposition to the merge. Lemme know. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a little leery - on two counts. One, I haven't been involved in creating either article, so I don't know what information from the one needs to be put where in the other. Two, I'm not that good a content person, so my first instinct is to simply cut and paste the info, which probably isn't the best solution. Aleta is a *great* writer - maybe get hir to put it in there? Sorry - I'm a wuss about content most of the time :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the complement, Satyr! I had been hesitant to make the merger myself since I participated in the discussion. If no one else wants to do it though, I could take it on. Aleta ^Sing 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heehee, APK! OK, I went ahead and did it. Folks, please look at Sexual orientation#Perceived sexual orientation, and edit as needed! Aleta ^Sing 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bond

In this edit summary, what exactly is your definition of "central"? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Mr. Bond, so I'm going with what's in the article. There are four sentences, tucked at the end of the section on his career. That doesn't seem to correlate well with WP:CAT, which says that "Categories are for defining characteristics." If you were to talk to Mr. Bond's best friends, would "LGBT rights activist" be included in the first paragraph about him? Since it doesn't seem so, I felt the category was out of place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You have an amazing number of userboxes :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of Vodka Party

Hi SatyrTN, I've been offline for a few months (due to computer death) and I noted that the article for the Hobart Band Vodka Party that I penned has been deleted. I would like to discuss the significance of this band as a link between bands that are already on Wikipedia (Nation Blue, Sea Scouts (band), etc...) and other bands that I'd like to include in my work regarding Tasmanian Music 1994-2005 (50 Million Clowns, The Stickmen, Little Ugly Girls, etc...). Can I re-write the article to better assert its importance, or should I try another angle? Thank you for all your help. --E. Swann (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, E.Swann! You're welcome to try writing the article again, if you like. But I urge you to read WP:MUSIC, which details when bands are considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards. The article that got deleted indicated that the band had *not* signed to a major label, had not received any awards, and the references provided did not meet "reliable sources" standards. Furthermore, the Wikipedia guideline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is notable here. But I know nothing about the band and am not generally involved in band-related articles, so I probably won't be involved in any decisions about the this one :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SatyrTN, I'll have a look at the link and reconsider the article. I appreciate the help. Catch you 'round. --E. Swann (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]