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.

Random personal notes

• Spencer Carlin
• Frank Browning (author)

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)

Talkback

Hello, SatyrTN. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, SatyrTN. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join. Ikip 06:22, 23 February 2009

eggs for the missing satyr

APK bought you some Easter eggs, but he had some mayonnaise that was about to go bad. He decided to make some deviled eggs instead. APK is really sorry about eating your Easter present, but promises to make it up to you on Cinco de Mayo. (although he's likely to drink your present) Happy Easter.

Thank you

I was dreading an angry note about my articles for speedy deletion. I found your advise friendly and non-intimidating. Thank you! Kind Regards, AugustWind

Rocket Racer (Spider-Man: 1994 TV series)

Could you explain the speedy deletion request of Rocket Racer (Spider-Man: 1994 TV series)? I'm unsure what's being moved and why the redirect is being deleted? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I had requested the removal of Rocket Racer (Spider-Man: 1994 TV series) just as a form of cleanup. Basically, when all the episode articles for the Spider-Man animated series were created, they were all created with the format Episode Name (Spider-Man: The Animated Series). However, there began a debate about the true name of the series; that it was simply Spider-Man. However, over the time some of the episode names were moved, and some weren't, which resulted in episode names resembling Episode Name (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Episode Name (Spider-Man episode), and Episode Name (Spider-Man). Because of these multiple moves, there were a ton of broken links all over the place, and there were (and still are) a number of redirects in place.

I fixed the links, and moved all applicable episodes of the series to Episode Name (Spider-Man) per the MoS.

This lone episode, however, was once moved to a unique format: Episode Name (Spider-Man: 1994 TV series). Since nothing linked to this redirect, and it fit no other format, I'd hoped to do at least a minor housekeeping to kill this redirect.

It probably will cause no concern if it stays. I was just hoping to cut down the mess of redirects by 1. Jrh7925 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages per user request

I noticed you deleted User talk:Nightmote due to a CSD U1 request. User requests do not allow for the deletion of user talk pages. It says "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user."

User talk pages should remain intact. This is because someone could have their talk page deleted and thus hide a bad history. I think this is exactly what has happened here if you look at the deleted history. Do you object to me restoring that users talk page history? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Chillum! Sorry about that - my bad! I'll undelete. Thanks for letting me know! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of PhantomsRL page

Please give feedback on why this page was deleted after reasons for non-deletion were provided on its talk page. Thanks (PhantomsRL (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

PS. I think the page is written from a neutral standpoint (PhantomsRL (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Deleted article recreated

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the article which you deleted has been recreated by the same editor. Amsaim (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy vs. AFD

Someone else in the AFD called for a speedy deletion as well. I've been unable to find anything that says speedy and AFD can't overlap, and I see articles at AFD get speedied all the time (usually G3s, but a few A9s and G11s as well). It must be acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an undeletion

Hello. You appear to be the admin that has most recently deleted Lui Che Woo. It was deleted under G12. Would you be willing to undelete it? I have a ticket in OTRS with permission.--Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rockfang! The matter is being investigated - see User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Question_re_copyright_.2F_OTRS for details. Thanks for writing, and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Verified, undeleted, attributed and tagged for cleanup :) MLauba (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To SatyrTN: I've replied there.--Rockfang (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Arena Club Logo.svg

Hi, an SVG version of the logo is now available for this article Arena club MaenK.A._Talk 09:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Acrystal

Hello,

this night I wrote an article for the first time in Wikipedia, in a foreign language (I'm french)to talk about a very innovative product of high importance for human's health. I'm bored by teachers like you which instead of explaining what's wrong just take the power to "delete". Thanks for your help. Honestly, with your stupid position, you prevent people of the moulding industry to use for the first time in their life a SAFE RESIN. Over 100 tonnes of this product are sokd each year in Europe to full satisfaction of the users. What a responsability just having the power to say I don't like your style to play with other peoples health. Think about... Either you provide help or your take responsability. The future will be judge... Take a minute to visit our web : www.acrystal.fr and I'm sure you will understand the importance of this world innovation.

And please also explain we why you accepted the article "Jesmonite" which was the same product under a former name ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.211.144 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that my english is not of the level of yours to understand all the details of the "help" pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.211.144 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Best regards

Serge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.211.144 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Serge! I'm sorry your article got deleted. The issue you seem to be running in to is that not *every* product falls into Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. I recommend you read those before trying to create the article again. If you can come up with reliable sources that discuss Acrystal and why it's significant, then the article will be kept - that's about it. Thanks for stopping by! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN, sorry I will not make the effort to write this article again. You engaged your responsability by deleting. It's your responsability to put it again or to keep your readers ignorant of a product preserving health and environment. I mine mind it's a crime knowing everything we do about planet earth. By SatyrTN good luck. I'll not fight with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.211.144 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

False copyright infringement

Hi, SatyrTN. Remember a long time ago when you deleted that page List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal) saying that it was copyright violation because the statistics were those from the europa website. I checked on the page of copyright problems, and it told me that "copying facts from a page isn't copyright infringement; only copying phrases, expressions, sentences or paragraphs". Technically, the only thing that was identical were the statistics, but since those are facts, it does not count as copyright violation. I then recreated the page, clearly stating that there was no violation, but it was thoughtlessly deleted shortly afterwords. I know that it's been a long time since, but I would like the page re-installed and that ugly violation message (actually, two messages) taken off my page. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive message. Yes, it is very true, copyright is a very fragile point in wikipedia because not only does it damage the encyclopedia, but it also can create serious legal problems outside of wikipedia. Just one thing. I will recreate the page as you said so, but is unfortunately protected, because some editors think I am constantly breaking copyright. This is totally untrue. Even though it may look like that, I know about all these laws and would never just copypaste a whole chunk of info onto the page. I only saw the statistics, rewrote them, and quoted the website, a thing wikipedia does all the time without any problems. It seems that the admins probably got caught in overzealous deletion and just dismissed the page as an infringement without even considering it. Anyway, please remove the copyright messages of the thing off my page and we can collaborate in recreating it. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will do so. In that case, does that mean that I am free of violation charges on this case? If so thank you (I probably think you've spotted, I'm suffering from severe copyright paranoia). I will do so. The only thing is that if I do upload it, other editors will still think that I'm violating the rule again. Also another thing. Since you have the wikipediholicism clinic, I was wondering if there was a copyright paranoia clinic, 'cause I seriously need help to stop being so paranoid about all sorts of copyright things (i.e. spotting copyright, accidentally violating etc.) Reply--Theologiae (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm getting really paranoid. I'm just so worried that every time a make an edit I might be violating copyright, also because I'm a child. Could you advise me on anything?--Theologiae (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for your help. I'm sorry, these must be the serious symptoms of the paranoia. I'll just ask you a last question. Do you know if there's a help desk or something in order to tell people your problems or something? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "DJ Pusspuss"

Hello, SatyrTN. As you've returned to active editing, it seems like the right time to ask you if you can explain this comment:

"Okay - you're getting close to wikistalking, Legionarius. Link one is totally not a reliable source, and links 2 & 3 don't even support your claim. And from personal knowledge, you're barking up the wrong tree."[1]

How could you have had "personal knowledge" which supported what we now know to have been a sham and a fraud perpetuated upon Wikipedia's readers, as well as your fellow contributors? I also see that you blanked this archive box with the (apparently) deceptive edit summary "Cleanup headers."[2] Since you're not only an administrator, but the deputy coordinator of Wikipedia's LGBT Wikiproject,[3] I consider this a serious matter, and would appreciate a candid and timely explanation.24.22.141.61 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Deesha Philyaw" deleted

Hello,

You deleted a page ("Deesha Philyaw") that was created for me, citing copyright infringement related to thefastertimes.com. A link to The Faster Times, a site I write for, was listed along with several others...how is this copyright infringement?

~Deesha Deeshaphilyaw (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Deesha Philyaw and it was a straight copy and paste from a thefastertimes.com article, without even a link to the site. As such, it was a copyright violation and was deleted under G12 of our speedy deletion policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yugoslav University Debate Network

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yugoslav University Debate Network, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugoslav University Debate Network. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank the Turtle

Dear SatyrTN,

I'm sorry that I deleted stuff on your projects. I was just mad that you deleted my project Frank the Turtle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan502 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Something we can agree on?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) I have only ever started one RfC and was just trying to put together how to do that. Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether you would review the "scope" that I've written for neutrality? I genuinely hope this can be a useful and fair way forward.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of singling out WP:LGBT like that, but in general that seems fine :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't wanting to single it out. I was wanting to honestly narrate where this had come form, and then say "let's now talk about the wider issues this raises". If you can think of better ways of wording it, feel free to edit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you managed it. I'm going to widen the scope a little in my View and bring in other WikiProjects, so I think it's probably fine. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry that i did stuff to your pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan502 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Placing a requirement solely on WP:LGBT is exactly that"

Who has suggested that? Not me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was Off2riorob's View that required a specific condition to be met for WP:LGBT on BLP articles. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You might take that up with him. I'm sorry, I'm just very sensitive to accusations of homophobia. I can assure you my reaction would have been the same with any other tag that seemed to me to imply something about the subject that they had denied or chosen not to affirm. You may strongly disagree with me, you may consider me an abusive admin, and a bad wikipedian, but I would ask you to assume my good faith in this regard.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You and I haven't run in to each other recently, so I found your initial actions (threatening to block, specifically) to be awful. But the more I read you, the more I hope you and I can work together. As I read your comments, I find that you're not evil :) I totally AGF :)

I also hope you understand I'm not calling you homophobic. My view is that putting a policy in place that restricts WP:LGBT and only WP:LGBT is, in fact, homophobia. It also implies, if not outright stating, that "these editors cannot be trusted to manage what articles are within their scope". But that's my feeling about the policy suggestion, not about any particular editor (at the moment).

Thirdly, as you may have noticed, this whole issue has touched some nerves - a whole passel of them. At the root of it is the assumption that "gay is bad", which (as a gay person) I grew up with and has colored my life. It's the reason that 1/3 of teen suicides are LGBT teens. It's the "Mother culture" view of homosexuality, which thankfully seems to be changing, but is still strong. So I understand you feeling raw about being called homophobic - it's the same rawness LGBT folk feel when they see something that smacks of "gay is bad".

I hope that explains a little bit of the ire that this issue seems to have raised :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. I guess I started here from the naive assumption that, in a neutral encyclopedia, the sexuality of an editor should be irrelevant, as should their moral views on other people's sexuality. Providing we edit in a neutral way and don't use prejudicial or discriminatory language, we'd all get on fine. I oppose POV-pushing of every type and find it particularly distasteful when the biographies of living people are used for agenda-pushing. The last vested group I opposed were anti-fascists who were violating BLP on the articles of a bunch of people who'd have made my skin crawl. But even in disagreeing with them, none accused me of fascist sympathies. I many be a "BLP extremist", but I've always played it ....(I was going to say "straight" but lets go for...) neutrally.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You did notice that the view you endorsed said "the editors whose prejudices led to this RfD should be deeply ashamed and should spend some time thinking about their own anti-LGBT issues.". OK, thought about it. And, I'm not ashamed and am confident that my personal views/prejudices on "LGBT issues" (which are as irrelevant here as the question of whom Johnny Weir chooses to sleep with) didn't enter into it at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but you still came from the "gay is bad" camp with your actions. In a different universe, the Weir article with only one (non-)sentence about his sexuality could have been discussed and *not* tagged, and I (and others) would have been fine with that. But to have the entire discussion removed because "gay is bad" triggered the sandstorm. After all, we weren't discussing whether or not to include a statement in the article - we were discussing the scope of the WikiProject and this particular article. In fact, proponents of tagging the article were almost all in the camp of "less is more in the article", though we wanted to watch it. And within the past week Weir has been in the news because some CBC broadcasters questioned his gender, which would argue that the Project could be of more help on the article.

I'm not saying anything new here, so I feel I should stop. My biggest concern about your actions is that deleting the discussion of whether or not to tag the article severely hampers one WikiProject. And to do so claiming BLP violations seems heavy-handed and implies that everything gay is bad. Can you see how that would bring about the (over-)reactions of some of the members of the WikiProject?

I recognize that your personal views probably haven't come in to play in your actions - you're trying to uphold what I view as an essential part of Wikipedia - WP:HARM. In my personal editing, I've done countless hours of research on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, bringing seven of the nineteen to FL status. Most of the work on those lists was researching each person to find WP:RS that state their sexuality. So I fully support and understand BLP - and I support your work. I just feel that in this case you may have used a sledge hammer when a pair of tweezers would have worked :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I don't take the "gay is bad" inference. In Wikipedia "gay is neutral" as is all else. However, when an individual doesn't want to discuss their sexuality, we need to tread with care. There's nothing verifiable to say about his sexuality, and he doesn't want commentary. I think there those working on the content are pushing it with their concept of "notable and verifiable speculation" - but I didn't ever comment on the content and at no time tried to interfere with editors discussing what was, or was not, appropriate there. Content matters - it is what we are about. Wikiproject banners are trivial at best. Discussing his sexuality with regard to content decision is, I suggest, as "necessary evil". It may be intrusive, but we can't establish what is and is not intrusive and appropriate without discussion. However, to have an extended discussion about Weir and his sexuality for the sake of establishing something as inhouse and as trivial as a banner is inappropriate. If "err on the side of the subject" means anything, then when someone suggests that a banner might be read as implying something which is not a verifiable fact, then it is time to exclude the banner, and certainly the trivial and meaningless inhouse discussion of the subject wrt a banner. I fail to see how this implies anything about being gay. The lead I take is from the subject - he doesn't want to be labelled as gay (or as straight). It may be that's a disappointment to some people - I really don't know. But if we respect our subjects, we start there. We only then do what's definitely neutral, verifiable and strictly necessary for an encyclopedia article. As I say, people may disagree with that view, but it gives them no right to accuse me of homophobia or assume anything about my irrelevant attitudes to sexuality.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is how it looks to me:

• On the one hand, discussing the banner is trivial. If that's the case, severe measures to curtail it are inappropriate.
• On the other hand, discussing the banner is a BLP violation. That means that discussing the WP:LGBT banner is a bad thing, because being gay is bad. In that case, one specific WikiProject is stifled because being gay is bad.

That's from my perspective, anyway :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand that. The banner is trivial it in its utility to the project. Therefore there is no justification for keeping it on the talk page, or for a prolonged discussion about it, when both tend to draw us into discussing, implicitly commenting, or drawing attention to the sexuality of someone who has preferred not to comment on his sexuality. Nothing is stifling any content work here whatsoever. Views of "gay" don't come into it - only the fact that the subject has declined to identify as such.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello SatyrTN, please can i know why did u remove my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubai Man (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I'm just starting to learn Wikipedia and I'm curious why my page was deleted "Shaun Rieman". I'm a LGBT business owner and though I know i'm not famous, why would my story be removed? I'd had a previous conversation with "Singlish_speaker" about my page and I was under the impression that my page met the requirements for Wikipedia. Please advise. Thank you! Webshaun (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)