User talk:Bluejay Young

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Picture of the day
Territorial evolution of Canada

A map showing the territorial evolution of Canada. At Confederation in 1867, four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) were established from three British colonies. This nascent country continued to accrete new provinces and territories, including Manitoba in 1870, British Columbia in 1871, Prince Edward Island in 1873, and Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905; previously established provinces also expanded their borders. The most recent province to be added was Newfoundland in 1949; it has since been renamed Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since the cession of the Northwest Territories to Canada in 1870 and 1880, sections of the territory have been converted several times into new territories (Yukon in 1898, Nunavut in 1999) and provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), and transferred to expand existing provinces.

Animation: Golbez
ArchiveMore featured pictures...



Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try.

Fix spelling and grammarLearn how

Fix wikilinksLearn how

Update with new informationLearn how

Expand short articlesLearn how

Check and add referencesLearn how

Fix original research issuesLearn how

Improve lead sectionsLearn how

Add an imageLearn how
Translate and clean upLearn how


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 17:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, please make sure your articles are more than just a collection of external links. Wikipedia:the perfect stub article will give you an idea about the minimum necessary for an article. Angela. 00:52, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi - I've a little query about your recent edit to Paul Wittgenstein. Could you take a look at the bottom of Talk:Paul Wittgenstein when you've got a minute. Ta--Camembert

Hi. We had an edit conflict on Talk:Spiritualism in the "Blatantly POV" section. I put my comments above yours, I was just wondering if you thought I was right on my specific points. --Vaergoth 08:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (UPDATE) I wouldn't mind working on the cleanup for Spirituality, but you weren't at all clear on which parts you thought needed clarifying. I could make it my pet project, but since you placed the tag I'd like to know what needs to be done. Do it here or on my talk page.

Hi, I think you're absolutely right. This'll teach me to read/respond to Wikipedia discussions when I'm that tired & can't properly form my thoughts into words. I assume you meant Talk:Spirituality? I wonder if Maprovonshal confused spirituality with spiritualism. Which says he didn't really read it carefully perhaps! I need to work on the Spiritualism article also, it needs more detail.
On Spirituality, sentences need to be tightened up and clearer definitions provided. What Maprovonshal was objecting to as "Fox News style" is actually the use of passive voice ("the car was owned by George W. Bush" as opposed to "the owner of the car was George W. Bush"), which is considered very bad style nowadays by journalists as well as people in the legal professions. But this is easily remedied. Spirituality has several definitions depending on context.
Spirituality vs. religion - Generally, the word "religion" refers to organized belief systems and outward expressions. It's when someone else tells you what to believe, or tells you what to do if you believe. The word "religion" comes from a Latin word for tie or binding. This would have more to do with reinforcing our ties to a particular set of belief systems, or a particular society (cf. Fundamentalist churches with their emphasis on the American flag and "patriotic" messages). Spirituality in this sense is related to personal feelings about spiritual matters such as "is there a God?", life after death, etc. rather than an outward practice.
But people also speak about spirituality where the word "religion" is too narrow a term to describe what a certain group is doing. I have seen a lot of references to "Native American spirituality", for instance, referring to cultures where there is no separation between the everyday and the spiritual. Every act, even the most mundane, has spiritual significance of some kind, but there are also specific ceremonies that can be seen as religious. Even in societies such as the Plains Indians' where one's personal relationship to the Great Spirit is given the highest value, there are many group ceremonies, and again these tend to reinforce cultural norms or values.
When the article says "Those given to speaking of "spirituality" rather than "religion"", or "'Being spiritual' is often discussed as goal-directed," a good idea is to cite examples and sources, usually from weblinks or quotations from books. (There are lots of links at the bottom, but putting citations right in the paragraph where they are talked about, or at least footnoted, is good practice.)
It should be brought out that spirituality has several meanings and the tone of the article should be elevated so as to eliminate the idea that spirituality is merely another piece of New Age drivel. One of the things that bugs me the most about so-called "skeptics" is that they keep citing New Age as "proof" that all religious and spiritual ideas are unworthy of belief. I'll have to think of more later. Thank you, we'll work this out! --Bluejay Young 20:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bad day?[edit]

Holy cow!

That was pretty POV. Anyway, thanks for your help on Autism pages :). --RN 02:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. See my response to you on your talk page -- I was trying to be journalistic and point out what "critics said" based on what I'd read on no-cure pages which are critical of the cure-autism movements. But of course if it's inappropriate I'll fix / take it out.

And the Children Shall Lead[edit]

To keep a standard format to the Trek pages, I removed your edits from this episode because I think its "poor taste" when people mix all the "behind the scenes" and "blooper stuff" to a synopsis which was written in a third person point of view without trivia tid bits written into it. Stuff like that should always go into the Trivia section at the bottom of the page (like all the others) and so I have moved your comments there. Cyberia23 06:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mary-Sue Parodies[edit]

Tamara Raymond's "Clara," and Tuulikki's "Mary Sue Invasion" come to mind first. On, I only personally know Yu-gi-oh parodies, and the best of those are found in Tamara Raymond's C2. So, please review them, and see if they're fit to include.--Chercher E. 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Glad to be of help! Are you gonna work them into the article?? Chercher E.


Hi; you have requested some information on Hindu walk-in legends of yore. Hindus acknowledge many bodies: a physical body, an astral body, a mental body, a refined body of the soul, and so on. The only essence that is not a body, and therefore not tranferrable, is the Atman. So, a walk-in, as described in the book Merging with Siva by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, can take one or many of these bodies. This is a story turned legend of a yogi taking up to the mental body of a recently dead boy:

[1] Saint Tirumular's story is very interesting. He was an accomplished yogi, or siddha from the Himalayas in North India, and he was sent on mission from there by the rishis of the Himalayas to South India to spread the purest teachings of Saivism to the people there. Hinduism is a missionary religion. Everyone within it is on a mission or is purifying himself through sadhana enough so that he can be given a mission for the religion from some great soul or a God perhaps. This is the pattern within Hinduism, and Saint Tirumular's mission was to establish at one point in time the final conclusions of the Sanatana Dharma, the purest path of Hinduism, Saiva Siddhanta.

When Tirumular arrived in the south an extraordinary miracle occurred, a boon from Lord Siva to help him in his task. As Tirumular was walking through a forest he came upon a pitiful scene. A herd of milk cows were standing around their young cowherder who had just died for some reason, and it was evident from the lamenting of the herd that they had loved him very much. So touched was Tirumular by this scene that he was inspired to relieve the anguish of the gentle cows through his siddhas, or yogic powers, by bringing the dead cowherder back to life, if only for a short time. So he sat down in deep meditation, left his own body and entered the body of the cowherder, causing it to stand up again and carry on as usual. He comforted the cows and led them back to their village, leaving them there. He returned to the forest for his own body, but no matter how he searched he could not find it! It had simply vanished! Again he sat down in meditation to see what he could discover and by his spiritual insight he discerned that it was Lord Siva Himself who had taken his body, leaving him with the cowherder's body.

Tirumular accepted the will of Siva immediately and went on his way in his new physical form. This exchange had a real advantage, however, for he could now speak Tamil, the language of all of south India at that time, and he knew all the culture and customs of the South as a native Tamilian.

Best, Subramanian talk 14:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bernadette Soubirous[edit]

Hi. I'm afraid the only thing I've done to this article is make a small edit to the categorisation. I haven't had anything to do with writing the article. -- Necrothesp 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Laurel Rose Willson[edit]

Do you have a cite for the suspicion/allegation that Laurel/Lauren faked her own death? Given her past history of fraud and misrepresentation, it certainly seems plausible, but given my past history of mental and physical illness, it seems more than plausible that she died at the age of 61. I only ask because someone is bound to complain about a rumor in a Wikipedia article that lacks verification, especially considering that Willson/Stratford still has a very vocal (if only miniscule at this point) contingent that supports and believes her claims. - Chadbryant 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw what you said in my talk page about equating her faking her own death with Elvis' or Morrison's. The thing is she has a lot more motivation for it and I just wouldn't put it past her after all the stunts she's pulled. Again, until I get further proof, maybe that speculation should be taken out. -- Bluejay Young 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I also read the article regarding her death, and while I still agree that it is plausible she could have faked her death (as much as it's plausible for Elvis Presley or Jim Morrison to have done so), I personally would not have any reason to doubt her demise.
As an aside, I should also note that my grandparents (an ordained minister/teacher and his wife) knew her as Laurel, and a Google Maps search of one of her Bakersfield addresses listed in the original Cornerstone article revealed that she once lived less than a half-mile from the house where I grew up. - Chadbryant 17:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A friendly question.[edit]

I've always wanted to know this. Why do you disregard DID, and yet believe in Asperger's? It would seem that one in your position must disregard ALL psychiatric dogma, and yet you identify yourself as Asperger's? This is not a personal attack, I just want to know what your views on Asperger's is. Battrarules

Hi, I'm happy to answer your questions but I wasn't sure where to put it so I put it on your talk page. --Bluejay Young 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
(Here's what it says:)
Hi, you asked me about why I refer to myself as having Asperger autism yet have done everything I could to detract the psychiatric view of multiple personalities, and indeed don't believe in most of what modern psychiatry says. I want to thank you for your question and hope this is the appropriate place to answer it.
I am not sure "autism" exists either except as a certain set of behaviors and perceptual variations which the non-autistic population seem to think are bizarre and in need of control (theirs). The dominant culture at least recognizes autism, and also recognizes, thanks to a growing publicity campaign by certain educators as well as people such as Amanda Baggs over at, that autism is not the life-ending tragedy it's been made out to be. Educational systems tailored specifically for autistics are already underway.
Multiplicity has a long way to go before it achieves anything like this kind of public recognition and quasi-acceptance. Have a look at this if you're interested; Multiple Personality & the Media
Because I have been engaged for ten years in trying to correct media and public misapprehensions of what is really a very normal experience, healthy multiplicity now has a very small web presence and there are a handful of people who know what you're talking about when you say it. It has its own wikipedia article, and so I figured I could create a userbox linking to that.
So I can say "healthy plural" or "healthy multiple" as an alternative to MPD, DID, etc.
However, autistic culture still uses the word "autism" to refer to the behaviors and variations labeled "autism" by the medical establishment, and until they come up with a better word, if I want to tell people what I am and have them understand it, I have to say autistic or Asperger. Please feel free to ask any further questions you may have. You can also reach me at ksol1460 at listen dot to.
Thank you, --Bluejay Young 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
(Here's more -- )
Your recent changes to healthy multiplicity
I do think these articles need some work, and thank you for volunteering your help. The difficulty with wikipedia is in the way you have to state things. As you know from the wikipedia guidelines, when there is a subjective experience under discussion, you can't state it as a fact. There's a difference between, say, "Astraea's system is made up of a group of aliens from a parallel dimension" and "Bluejay Young reports that he experiences multiple personalities, describing them as a group of aliens from a parallel dimension."
Things like other worlds, the forms people take, etc., probably belong in Controversies at this point. Actually I'm thinking of overhauling our FAQ to reflect that these are subjective experiences. I just think it needs more work. (By the way, the FAQ is referenced in External Links, so no need to reference it again in the article. Make a footnote instead.) --Bluejay Young 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadako Yamamura[edit]

On the Sadako page, you noted that she's referred to as "Japan's most popular psychic ghost". Do you have a citation or reference for that? I'm sure someone's going to ask about it. Thanks.--み使い Mitsukai 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer on your talk page. Unfortunately when I went to look for the reference the page had gone down. --Bluejay Young 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
(it says -- )
You know, I did have such a reference... it was on a website that provided an animated Sadako cursor (she follows your cursor around the screen). Unfortunately when I looked for it just now the page seems to have disappeared. Too bad, 'cause I was going to link to the cursor too. It's really cute. --Bluejay Young 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wa ha ha ha![edit]

I am the Alphabetize! Do you know why they call me the Alphabetize? Because I love to alphabetize things! — Hm no, it doesn't scan. —Tamfang 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have that put on a t-shirt. --Bluejay Young 07:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Send me a pic. —Tamfang 08:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Will do. ;) --Bluejay Young 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Tann[edit]

Well, I'm not completely guilty of wanting to delete the article ;-) ... The article was actually on the speedy deletion list, but I was not so sure that it applied, as a quick Google seemed to indicate that she had at least some notability. So I took the much less drastic step of rather putting it on proposed deletions, where "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." So, if I were you, I'd remove the message and put an explanation on its talk page. :-) Kindest Regards, Elf-friend 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiplicity userbox[edit]

Heh, if you can call what I did "work"... Anyways, just make the userbox/category for it, and see where it goes from there... be sure to prefix the category with "User", as in "Category:User Healthy Multiplicity". —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

chinese music userbox[edit]

Qin guzhuan.svg This user enjoys Chinese traditional music.

{{User chinese music}} as requested...Rosa 07:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Miracles at Lourdes[edit]

Hello, Bluejay Young! On the Miracles at Lourdes page we are having a problem with Barbara Shack reverting the page, a possible violation of the WP:3RR rule (you already know the situation). Do you have any suggestions? The dialogue is on both her user page and the Miracles at Lourdes talk page. JBogdan 10:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the Barbara Shack changes on Miracles at Lourdes. I know there is a great deal of controversy about the idea of including any mention of religion or what religions believe, on Wikipedia at all, and the Saints' Project (which I am not a member of) has come under heavy censure merely for existing. Wikipedia is heavily populated by so-called skeptics, who regard articles like Our Lady of Fatima as "sad and pathetic". I frankly don't even see why the Miracles At Lourdes article exists except that Ms. Shack created it after being told to keep her speculations off the Bernadette article. Talk to me more about this. Let's see what we can work out. --Bluejay Young 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to have the page as "Lourdes (apparition)" rather than "Miracles at Lourdes," and to move the part on St. Bernadette Soubirious' incorruptibility back to her page (where it belongs), while leaving the part on miracles, but adding the information about the apparitions also (I already have some of the apparition info there--unless Barbara Shack reverted it again!). JBogdan 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You asked me about moving the account of the Lourdes visions to a page especially for same, then putting Bernadette's incorruptibility back on her page where it belongs. It sounds fine to me especially since it would establish some consistency regarding the pages about Marian visions (e.g., there is a Our Lady of Fatima page separate from the pages about Lucia Santos and Jacinta and Francisco Marto). The page about the visions should be titled Our Lady of Lourdes and it should be start out "Our Lady of Lourdes is the name attributed by Roman Catholics and others to the young woman who they believe appeared to Bernadette Soubirous on Feb. 11 ... and who was subsequently deemed by an investigative commission to be the Virgin Mary" and on from there. (I say it that way because, unlike at Fatima, Bernadette never identified her "little maiden" as Mary until she heard the words "I am the immaculate conception", asked Fr. Peyramale what that meant, and subsequently decided her lady must be Mary). --Bluejay Young 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a great idea. Who do we need to contact to do the page change to "Our Lady of Lourdes"? I might not be available during the week, so I will put our reconstructed conversation on the "Miracles at Lourdes" talk page. JBogdan 22:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You asked who we should get in touch with to change the page to "Our Lady of Lourdes". Well, I think that it might be a good idea to create a new page and have a move, you know, a redirect. If that's the proper policy. --Bluejay Young 06:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to be patient, but enough is enough. Mediation requested. --Bluejay Young 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians[edit]

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fan Fiction page[edit]

Hi! A while back, I believe it was you who tagged the Fan fiction article for clean up (and rightly so - what a mess it was!).

I and a couple of other people have been working like mad on it, and I was wondering if you felt it was worthy of removing the clean up tag yet? I've got a vote on the bottom of the Talk page there. Regards, Runa27 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Me again! I rewrote the lead and have done some reorganization and tons of tweaks. What do you think of the improvements thus far? Runa27 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In reply to what you wrote on my Talk page (reposted here so it'll ping ya, though I did add something to clarify a bit):
You're more than welcome. :) When I put the article up for Peer Review, somebody suggested reorganizaing the subgenres and terminology into sub-groups by theme, and, well, obviously it was a good idea so I went ahead and did it! ;) I'm glad you agree with my decision on the reorganization, and that you liked the way I went with it. I still think one or two things may need reorganizing there (by which I mean, one or two terms may not really fit where I put them... for instance, Hatefic - is it really a "format", per se? For that matter, I've actually never really heard of it used in that context, if at all, should it even be there if it's not all that common a term?), but it's MUCH better than it was, that's for sure! Runa27 07:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I zilched "hatefic" a few minutes before I was pinged with your latest. I just haven't seen enough evidence that it's that necessary. I plan to get my ace legal terminologist in-house to take a look at the Legal Issues section and see if he can do anything with it. (All our contributions go under my username -- I'm thinking of changing the username to something that reflects the number of people who have been contributing to wikipedia from this signature.) --Bluejay Young 07:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Great Wikipedians think alike? :P I'm thinking of zilching "Suethor", since it's really not all that necessary compared to "Mary Sue" and certain other terms, and besides of which, is mentioned briefly in Mary Sue's main article. Good idea on snagging a lawyer in to look at the Legal Issues section; I was considering seeking out a few lawyers here on Wiki myself to do it! 'Cause I mean... I'm pretty scared to touch it, other than mild tweaks here and there for phrasing, and correcting that silly thing about for-profit fanfic dôjinshi being "totally legal" in Japan, when they're really not (they just are tolerated, is all).
Forgot to sign my comment! Runa27 08:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, he isn't a lawyer, he's a paralegal. We do have a lawyer friend on Wikipedia, and we may ask him to examine it also, although copyright law isn't his specialty. Also, we have two online friends who are presently students in Japan, who can verify the thing about dojinshi being illegal. I'm going to zilch "Suethor". I've never liked that term anyway, particularly since the time I was accused (in the discussion section of the Mary Sue article) of being one. --Bluejay Young 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, he's still closer to being a lawyer than I am, though. ;) But yeah, get as many legally-knowledgeable people as you can; we need it rather desperately over there.
Oh yeah! I forgot that was you that got accused of being a "Suethor". I don't mind the term in and of itself; perhaps it's because I've recently been theorizing that EVERY creative mind, especially one that's aimed at storytelling, goes through a "Suethor" stage, like a coming of age, as it were - once you start realizing that genuine flaws and limitations are more fun to write ito a character than a mostly-perfect character who is never disliked by a sympathetic character, etc., then you've sort of had your writerly Bar or Bat Mitzvah(sp?) and are on your way to being a "full-grown" writer who can create some truly appealing and interesting characters that older audiences can relate to. By my theory "Suethor" would be no inherently worse a word than "child" or "prepubescent" would be, it would only be a bad thing to use it specifically as an insult (as it usually is, similarly to how generally, calling someone a "kid" or "child" is often insulting). However, that's just my theory, and again, the term is covered in the main Mary Sue article, and it's a very minor term that really, isn't half as important as its mother term is for understanding fan fiction. ^_^ I created the entry there, but I'm perfectly fine with it being deleted from the page. Runa27 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Consult this link for Runa's own words and my replies.)

I can't really comment on your Suethor phase theory. Don't know enough about it. When I attempted to write fiction as a teenager, most of my characters were slightly whimsical private investigators (I was somewhat influenced by The Persuaders), or reformed villains who sought to right the wrongs they'd done. I never wrote fan fiction. I read plenty, but never saw any Mary Sue type characters. I've written on the Mary Sue discussion page about what I think Paula Smith was thinking when she came up with that story.
As far as my system, yes, we do have individual names. We are very real presences to one another. You can find out more about healthy multiplicity at our website, and you are welcome to email us with any questions you may have. My problem was in thinking that I'd be the only one of the group doing Wikipedia, and then Andy and Chris got in on it. There are a handful of other healthy multiples on wikipedia. --Bluejay Young 11:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my "Suethor phase" theory is primarily based on personal and anecdotal experience, combined with observing some of the personal evolution of amateur writers online. If you want to read more on my little pet theory, it's on my Talk page (I almost posted it all here, but then realized that would be kind of silly to really clutter up your Talk page with something available in full on mine). Runa27 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
So I'll proceed to clutter it up myself -- here is Runa's Suethor phase theory in all its splendor.
Well, my "Suethor phase" theory is primarily based on personal and anecdotal experience, combined with looking at the evolution of writers online.
From personal experience - my first handful of original characters were, while not completely flawless (there are varying degrees to which characters fill the full description of "Mary Sue", and it's primarily the "balancing factors", such as weaknesses and personality flaws and neuroses, that make a character seem like a "Sue" or not), well, let's just say they tended to be a bit too idealized, and usually kind of cardboard, and often had unrealistic skills sets... such as the 13-year-old who was nearly bilingual in English and Japanese (despite having only been learning Japanese for a couple of years of completely independent, tutorless study in my own home state of Florida, which has very few native speakers of Japanese), had a brown belt in judo and karate, AND had a whole bunch of psychic powers that ranged from strong intuition to all-too-conveinient premonitionary visions, AND was secretly the princess and sole heir of TWO fallen kingdoms in another dimension AND was one of the few humans to be able to survive frequent transportation between alternate universes, AND had the super-special magical Amulets of Pyros and Geod, which effectively allowed her to do practically anything with fire (including forming it into shapes such as arrows), immune to burning from everything ranging from a stove to a full volcanic eruption (lava and all! The Amulet absorbed all heat energy), AND able to create local earthquakes (at the time I came up with this, I never really gave a thought to how that might affect the rest of the Earth's not doubt delicate tectonic balance; she only had to worry about local property damage), oh, and she had a bishounen-like love interest who was a Star Trek-esque "empathic psychic", which basically all but made him the perfect boyfriend for just about anybody, since he avoided confrontation and upsetting people like the plague (HE was immune to electric shock, and has some weird light-based powers as well. And was a long-lost prince and sole heir to... you get the idea). Ahem. However, somewhere between the end of middle school and maybe Sophmore year in high school, I discovered the meaning of "Mary Sue", realized it was more interesting if the main characters weren't very "Sue"-ish, and starting delibrately trying to change characters who had seemed Mary Sueish into less Sueish characters, and found that they got better-developed and more interesting and, according to my "beta" reader (unofficial editor of sorts), more sympathetic and realistic. Again, that's my personal experience.
Anecdotal experience - that came mostly from my contact with the folks at Godawful Fan Fiction; almost all of the users there who're also writers seem to have at least once openly admitted to being a former Suethor or Stuthor early on in either their young adolescent writing or their pre-pubescent playground roleplaying and doll/action figure games. Interestingly enough, they still tend to fixate on the "scourge" of Mary Sues in fan fiction, which kind of reminds me of most former smokers. :P You know - once they know it's bad for them, they quit it and then get all derisive about the people who haven't quit yet. Heh.
Observational experience - I frequently - both anonymously and as a signed-in user - will give constructive criticism on stories on places like, especially when it's clear the author of the piece cares about grammar and spelling (this is usually a good way to tell the people who're in it for the "social" aspect from the people who're in it because they want to write good stories; well, at least it is on, and if I can see some potential for an interesting character or story. One of the most common problems amongst authors who really are just a little inexperienced but really do want to write well... seems to be Mary Sues, especially in fan fiction. Generally, though, "Sueishness" is fairly easy to fix. I've seen at least one or two people that went from barely knowing what a Mary Sue was supposed to be, to being well on their way to being able to craft a story with, despite a slightly cliche premise, a fairly well-developed character that isn't easily labeled a "Sue".
As you've noted, professionally published fiction tends to be far less heavy on the blatant Sues and Stus than fan fiction is - this is, as far as I can tell, because most people who have gotten to any kind of genuinely professional level of writing skill have learned to avoid creating truly annoyingly cardboard characters with Sueish/Stuish traits. Runa27 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
End of Runa's Suethor Phase Theory! And I replied as follows:
Ah, I see. Well, I never saw any of that in the 60s and 70s; I didn't write that way, and neither did anyone I knew. There definitely were fanzines back then and the different stories were reviewed, commented upon and thrown back and forth, and I'll never forget the way so many people found Kraith so exquisitely fascinating that they wanted to write Kraith stories themselves and were actually provided a "Kraith Creators' Manual" by the original author, just for that purpose. It's all online now at if you are interested... and, like I said in the talk page for the Mary Sue article, I think one of Paula Smith's sources for the idea might have been T'Rruel, while another might have been Sherrith McRaith. My problem is that I never saw the Sherrith story when it was first published, and that I did see "Spock's Affirmation", which is T'Rruel's story, and instantly fell in love with her.
What you were much more likely to see back then were stories about Spock getting in trouble in order to rescue Kirk, and I mean extreme trouble; powerful ladies in positions of authority, who did or did not have an affair with Kirk, Spock or whomever; followups to episodes (What happened in the mirror universe? Did McCoy ever get back together with Natira?) and stories like Ni Var, which was part of Quartet Plus Two. Those types of stories were the most common. The one teenage character I remember was a boy named Szrich, son of a Vulcan father and a Taman mother. This was in 1969 and '70 and the Tamans were not the ones who say Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra. They were much more like Gem's people. Szrich was apparently orphaned (it turned out later his mother was okay but in another dimension) and the Enterprise picked him up and he kind of gravitated to Spock in a mentor relationship for a time. He was not overly powerful, his problem was that he had abilities (both Vulcan and Taman) he had never been trained to use.
I wondered at first if the types of characters you describe tend to be more prevalent now because the age at which fans begin writing is younger, but I don't think this is true. The age spread -- from fifteen to about twenty-five -- seems to be just about the same then as now. In fact, the oldest writer was about fifty, and I couldn't stand her stuff. She had a tendency to confuse the ideas of "rape" and "ravish", and I shudder to think at her effect on young girls reading her stuff and learning that "all women feel a shudder of visceral pleasure at the thought." This was in the liberated 70s, no less. --Bluejay Young 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • NOTE: Some more extensive changes have been made to Fan fiction. Later today, I hope to seek out some sources to cite the theories and even terminology, perhaps, and possibly go on a "hey, would you please look at this for me?" spree amongst the Wikipedian Lawyers category. But right now, I was hoping you'd hop back on over and at least lemme know what you think of some of the tweaks I made today so far. For instance, I only today realized that in "Formats of", I didn't even mention regular, non-manga, textual-only, online-published (namely, webserial for serial works) as a format. If we're going to cover formats at all, we should cover all major ones, no? Although perhaps it would be more beneficial to cut down on the description for each format, since every one of them has its own main article, and they're formats, not genres or anything, right? For overview purposes, it might be just fine to delete all or most of the description for each. Runa27 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note - mind if I ask a personal question?[edit]

I had previously never heard of "healthy mulitiples", and 'til now had never met someone who was (or at least said they were) a multiple. So, if you'll excuse such a somewhat brazen-ish question - do the different "yous" go by different names, either in your head or outside of it? Just wondering. Also, I'm probably going to add my email to my User page, if/when I do, feel free to email me some time if you want to talk about psychology stuff, or anything else especially if it's not particularly Wiki-related, I'm always interested in that stuff (I just haven't found a little User button yet to denote an interest in psychology :P). Runa27 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as my system, yes, we do have individual names. We are very real presences to one another. You can find out more about healthy multiplicity at our website, and you are welcome to email us with any questions you may have. My problem was in thinking that I'd be the only one of the group doing Wikipedia, and then Andy and Chris got in on it. There are a handful of other healthy multiples on wikipedia. --Bluejay Young 11:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that answers that question! I'm not surprised that more than one of you is interested in Wikipedia, though. It's surprisingly addictive. ;) Runa27 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I thought I was the only one who thought of multiple personalities in that way (well, my "other" and I). The S 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. See your talk page. --Bluejay Young 11:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Those websites were most useful. Thank you! By the way, I (the only one who is a Wikieditor - my other - you can call him "The X" - only reads Wikipedia), might be able to clean up the healthy multiplicity article so it's a bit more NPOV, but that might not be for some time. I've got a lot outside of Wikipedia to do as of now. I also see you're a fan of The Ring :D The S 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Take your time, the article doesn't seem to be going anywhere. As far as The Ring, I'm much more interested in Takahashi Sadako, the woman on whom the story was based. She was the subject of study by a parapsychologist in the early 1930s to see if it was really possible to project mental images on film. --Bluejay Young 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking cats article[edit]

Somebody called Weregerbil tagged the talking cat article with 'notability' and 'unsourced' tags, sticking a great big box on the top of the whole thing. I'm a bit boggled, myself, as the source is the darned video itself! How are you supposed to report on a semi-influential internet meme if that's not proper? Not everything's going to be as obvious as All Your Base, but "Oh Don Piano" is hardly obscure.

Also, random cat butt.

--Flatlanders, 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask your question on the talk page of the article itself, please. I'm dying to see what he says. Also, the "loveyaloveya" kitty was being scritchied in the same spot that Leslie INSISTS, LOUDLY, YOU WILL SCRITCHY ME NOW EVERY DAMN MORNING AT 7 A.M. and various times throughout the day. She is very stiff and has trouble grooming herself back there. She wants you not just to scritchy her but to COMB her in that spot. She doesn't talk while we do it, but she clearly enjoys the hell out of it. She talks at other times; besides all the "raa", "quack" and "aaa" stuff, if I hold onto her food dish too long while I'm mixing her glucosamine pills in it, she yells "NOW!!!" --Bluejay Young 16:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

More changes to Fan fiction[edit]

Fan fiction has had even more changes, mostly to the history and introduction - not me, mostly (I went in and cleaned it up for readability and in some cases to remove unnecessary statements, is all), but it's still had significant changes. It's also had the Formats section revamped, though not necessarily in the best way possible, last I checked; I think someone added a whole new section that incorperated some of the previously-listed terminology for formats, but not all of them.

Also, in perhaps the most signficant change, (well, actually... the history would be the most signficant, in my opinion, because it's actually sourced this time, thank God, but, the most instantly noticeable is still that) the Legal Issues section has been seperated into its own unique article.

Thought I'd let you know. :) Runa27 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan fiction terminology is now its own, seperate article. :) Thought you'd want to know, especially since I'm considering moving the subgenres from the original fan fiction article to either that article or their own article as well.
The Formats section also has apparently been revamped and become more integrated by another user, though I am still in the process of reading it and going over it as we speak to see how well it was done. I'm thinking (nay, proposing) that we should aim to have the main fan fiction article be about the history, formats, major theories about the genre and varied definitions of the term itself. I.e. it should be a jumping-off point of sorts, with the related major issues and terms being optional jumping-into points from the main article. Considerig how (to use my own words) "massive the concept is", this may be the only way to achieve a relatively concise, accurate article on fan fiction in general that technically covers everything without being so big as to be overwhelming for the reader. :)
Anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you'd help out over on Fan fiction terminology or join in on the discussion on Talk:Fan fiction, down at the bottom under the heading "Recent tweaks" where I detail what I've done today and plan to do in the next few days. Runa27 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Fiction nominated for an Article Improvement Drive[edit]

I figured you'd want to know that the fan fiction article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive. :) Runa27 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Axis of Evil[edit]

Hey, man it's Wi-king, sorry, I thought that it did not really fit into the article all that well, but if you feel it's justified, go for it and repost it, and I won't touch it ever again. I'm the man, spread the word. Wi-king 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Lily Sloane
D. C. Fontana
Steffani Brass
Cure Autism Now
Mozart and the Whale
Clive Revill
Spencer Daniels
United (Enterprise episode)
Joseph Pevney
Jasmine O'Neill
Daniel Travis
Michael Patrick Jann
Roger Holloway
Helena Cain
Tim Ahern
Sam Flagg
Legacy (TNG episode)
Tim Van Patten
Rett syndrome
Mark Geier
GIR (Invader Zim)
Biomedical intervention for autism
Rise of the Empire
White Trash (LEXX episode)
Add Sources
Autism Awareness Campaign UK
People speculated to have been autistic
Leonard McCoy
Jean Little
Cimarron Strip
Julie of the Wolves
Ideomotor effect
Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Our Lady of Lourdes[edit]

Howdy! As for your recent edits, I understand the NPOV status you are trying to reach, but it needs to be in the proper format. When "reported" is used, who was it "reported" to? If Bernadette and everyone else was reporting their sightings to the local newspaper, we would write "Bernadette reported to the Lourdes Daily that..." If it was to the government or to the ecclesiastical committee, we might used "testified." Usually we use "reported" to mean that the person actively wanted at least one other person to know and usually it also means that it should be made public. According to the recources I used, Bernadette did not want to tell her friend and sister in the first place, but when they continued to pester her about the matter she finally told them, but told them to keep the matter a secret. When they got home, the secret was betrayed to Bernadette's mother, and when she found out...well, you probably know the rest. So, in at least one instance, I had used the word "admit" rather than "report."

Also, did you know that this article is on both and, along with virtually all the Wikipedia articles? And to top it off, although the articles are occasionally updated (I saw some of my more recent edits to the Moses article on the sites also), it cannot be edited like on Wikipedia and the article is listed with other articles from professional encyclopedias!JBogdan 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Night Flight (TV series)[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Bluejay Young! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HI I reverted your readdition of the link because I don't think a livejournal page is going to add anything to the article. If people want to find communities than they can use google. If it is any consolation, I also removed all the other links for advertising, copyvios and membership only groups and your link was the most appropriate of the lot. If you disagree with my decision please feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. In case you hadn't seen it, we have a policy on external links. Regards --Spartaz 06:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Every seven years?[edit]

I'm not sure if in Amok Time they said Vulcan males endure pon'far every seven years, but I know for a fact Lt. Saavik said they did in Search for Spock. I'll have to wait to see "Amok Time" again to make sure. What seems odd is in "Amok Time" McCoy said if a Vulcan doesn't mate, he'll die - but apparently that is not the case, since Spock at the end of the episode never mated and still lived, likewise in Search for Spock the young Spock underwent pon'far and lived although Saavik sort of eased his pain - doing the caressing fingers bit - which I think in a non-canon source said was similar to humans kissing. Cyberia23 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix this somewhat. Thank you. --Bluejay Young 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

License tagging for Image:Elsie - lg.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Elsie - lg.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't profess to know a great deal about User:DreamGuy. The only place our paths really cross semi-regularly is on WP:AFD. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg[edit]

About Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg, from what you tell me, probably the best template to use on it as far as I can figure would be Template:Attribution. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Frost King merger[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in support of merging The Frost King article in with Helen Keller. If so, can you guide me through the process? So far, there has really only been one objection. --Umalee 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove the merger tag on The Frost Kings. The merger tag on Helen Keller was already removed and frankly, I am tired of being worried and thinking about it. Maybe when everyone has calmed down, we can try again? I'm assuming a month is more than enough time to have a general consensus? I never knew this would be so controversial, but it was. --Umalee 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wounded Knee[edit]

I appreciate your work on the Wounded Knee Massacre. You made several improvements. Do you have an ISBN for the Flood book? Ideally you could use this if you have the book in your posession:{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }} Thanks --Appraiser 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Do you know what happened to the Healthy multiplicity page? (btw, are y'all celebrating New Year's Wednesday? :> ) --Renice 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Renice, and thank you for your inquiry after the Healthy Multiplicity article. Unfortunately the powers that be voted to delete the article because it was considered to not have sufficient sources to back it up. They were right, too, we don't have the kinds of sources that are considered reliable and verifiable by Wikipedia terms -- it's all anecdotal so far. I've been saying for years that we need some kind of a bigshot on our side, preferably a singlet bigshot with a psychiatric degree, if for no other reason than to reassure the general population that we are people with a genuine but subjective experience -- like spiritualists for whom conversing with the dead is a daily fact of life as well as an article of faith -- and that we're not all Sybil, let alone psychotic axe-wielding maniacs.
The problem with multiple personality in general, "disorder" or not, is its subjective nature. I experience many persons co-existing in (actually near) my mental space, who take turns using this body, but since there is no objective proof (never mind those so-called "brainwave tests" -- those were MRI scans done on one individual without a control group) there is really no way to verify my experience or that of any other group. --Bluejay Young 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Re voted to delete the article because it was considered to not have sufficient sources: I think the article should discuss it as a cultural phenomenon, at the very least. It is an accepted state of being in other cultures, and WP should at least document that, in addition to the growing 'rights' movement here. (Sorry I'm 'late to the party': I'm struggling with some health issues. I want to thank you for boldly pointing to multiplicity resources, btw -- your pointers/links have been a big help. :> )
I want to thank you for your ideas and suggestions as to how to legitimize the article on healthy multiplicity. I don't know, at this point, if it will do much good, since it appears that all the articles mentioning the idea that multiplicity might be a simple fact of some people's lives are being edited to "remove nonsense" and the very concept wiped off of Wikipedia by skeptics under the aegis of NPOV. While I can definitely see some of their point particularly where it concerns the original research, I think what we need at this point is a singlet, disinterested and hopefully "professional" advocate. Or several. I liked the philosophy ideas you proposed and wonder if you would be interested in writing an article or two about this either for your own website or for ours.
This is part of what's happening -- we run the largest resource page for non-disordered multiplicity on line and contribute to two others, so it makes it look bad if we link to those sites.
What I wish is that people would contact us, as you did, either through our talk page or through the discussion pages of the articles in question, to negotiate with us and help us make such articles more NPOV rather than simply editing them to remove "spam" and so on, or wiping them out completely. Too many people get to thinking that NPOV=skepticism=complete disbelief of anything nonmaterial and therefore snarking and "hipster" behavior are warranted. (I'm not necessarily saying that's where DreamGuy is coming from, although he has expressed impatience in the past with "true believers of alters".) I don't really know what to do at this point nor do Sethrenn. If you want to continue this conversation through email I'd be happy to -- use the form on the website, and give me an address. --Bluejay Young 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, there's a fascinating article in a recent Newsweek -- unfortunately I can't find it or the book it's discussing anywhere online yet (and I read the mag in a doc's waiting room so I don't even have that). The article has excerpts from a new book put together by Robert Faggan -- it is a publication of Carl Sandburg's notes to himself. The name of the article, and possibly the book, is "The man with two brains". Y'all might find the way Sandburg wrote in 'different voices' to work out his art as riveting as we did.
Now I understand that there are both science-types and religious-types, in Western culture, who try to explain the phenomenon in ways that exemplify both 'good and bad faith' (nice duality, eh?), so I think the article needs sections (I can't see what was there before, sorry) for each of their explanations: science, which sees it as a disconnect in translating btwn input/output areas of the brain in which healthy multiplicity can be a benign coping mechanism, or else a disruption; and some religions, which can blindly disregard their own guideline of 'judging them by their works/intentions' and literally demonize the state. And then there should be sections exploring other 'names' for the state in other cultures and other fields of study....
Actually, I wonder if 'Healthy multiplicity' couldn't simply be a section under Multiplicity (philosophy). That article could be expanded to include 'a multitude of sins', so to speak -- see google search. Healthy multiplicity could then redirect there... ?
Sorry if I'm just 'talking out loud' here. I hope to be able to do more than that in April or May. (By the way, do y'all use a lunisolar calendar? I just realized yesterday that we/I have been following one without knowing. It seems to me that today's astronomical phenomena, just before the vernal equinox on Wed, make it a pretty big new year's day... ? We're preparing for a trip to the Grand Canyon to celebrate [as well as see it before one of us is gone].) --Renice 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the discussion of this on LJ and came here to see what on earth had happened, but I can't find the AFD for Healthy multiplicity. Do you know where it is? If there wasn't an AFD, why was the page deleted? Vashti 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[here's what I said on her talk page:]

It's like you said about Raddicks up there -- who was doing research on covens, or otherkin, or something for school -- there's no independently verifiable published scientific report, so until there is the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Any multiplicity (MPD/DID or non) is a subjective experience, and until there is some kind of objective proof either that it exists or that someone other than people who have experienced it have even noticed it, it's going to be considered a non-article, or at least non-notable. As far as I know there was only one article ever written, in a British magazine, about a group that had decided not to integrate and were living in a cooperative arrangement. I know you may have heard talk about "brainwave studies" but it was not a study and was not conducted with a control group in empirical format. What I hope for the future is that people would contact writers of such articles (not just on multiplicity but any subjective experience) directly and give ideas how to make the articles more NPOV, more Wikipedia-suitable, etc. (aside from just loading them with "criticism" sections), instead of just deleting them. Thanks, --Bluejay Young 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I guess what I really want to know is, technically speaking, did it go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and if not, who deleted it and why? There are procedures for this kind of thing, and I can't imagine that it would have been prod deleted. Vashti 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You might take a look at this. Really I think there is nothing that can be done at this point and we'll have to wait until we have some big shots -- singlet big shots, not people who themselves claim to be multiple, no matter where they're presenting their academic papers -- it will not count until it's considered notable by people outside the community. I've said for years we need singlet doctors or other scientists to weigh in on this as other than a "these people are obviously delusional" or "some adults keep their imaginary friends" perspective, and this is why. --Bluejay Young 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking at that, it does look as if the delete result is iffy, but without sources people will consider reliable a deletion review is unlikely to be successful. Oh well. Vashti 08:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. King Lopez Contribs 09:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnes of God was the page that you blanked a part of it but I undid it. Please test it on the Sandbox first if you are not sure. Thank you. King Lopez Contribs 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[Here's the complete discussion from his talk page:]

You left a note on my talk page asking me not to replace articles with blank content. I have never done this intentionally, and to the best of my knowledge, unintentionally either, and if I had made some kind of mistake I'd revert it at once. In fact I know blanking to be vandalism. The problem is that you did not tell me which page I have been accused of blanking. Please let me know so this can be cleared up. Thank you, --Bluejay Young 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. King Lopez Contribs 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You must have been looking at Agnes of God right while I was in the middle of working on it. I tightened up the quotes section. Nothing was blanked but I deleted a good percentage of what was there (3 quotes is enough and a whole scene didn't need to be quoted, especially since the script is online and linked from the article). Could have made it look like blanking. Check it now. --Bluejay Young 09:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks Good. King Lopez Contribs 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting hashes[edit]

  1. Numbers 'one'
  2. numbers 'two'
    not numbered
    not numbered and bold
  3. numbers 'three'
  4. numbers 'four'

I noticed you had trouble with that, not your fault - the problem was in the previous lines to your edit.--Alf melmac 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks... I even went in the sandbox to test if I was doing it properly. Couldn't figure out why it worked in the sandbox and not on the page. --Bluejay Young 10:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

userbox requests[edit]

Hey there! I saw your request at the Health section of userboxes and made my own. They're very simple, but I figure we could improve them together if you would like. My sandbox is what I have so far. I included the last one as an attempt at upholding the WP:NPOV, though I do not believe in it. Any input on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. I would like to make them templates later, but for now they're just prototypes.--JUDE talk 05:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[so I said -- ]
Continuing with what I was saying on the sandbox, this is the more personal part. I was resistant to using the infinity-rainbow because it is associated most strongly with AspiesForFreedom; 1) their very name suggests that they are Asperger-only oriented (my autism really isn't of an Asperger type), 2) the amount of in-fighting and polarization that go on at AFF, and that Aspies occasionally bring here to wikipedia, make me disinclined to use AFF symbols even while I admire what they are working toward. (exempli gratia)
The only reason I put an Asperger userbox on my info page rather than straight-ahead autism was that at the time, the only alternative said something about disorder and I'm not disordered. Seeing arguments like that makes me disinclined to call myself an Aspie or Asperger autistic on wikipedia, or anywhere else on line. (I mean, notice what people say about wanting to delete them all, and the reputation that Aspies now have.) Most important, it is not true to who I am as an autistic person. I therefore look forward to using one of your userboxes. Thank you! --Bluejay Young 08:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response on my talk page! I think the hardest part about having autism isn't "coping" or "struggling", which we do not do, as you well know, but the way that everyone seems to want to divide themselves. "High functioning" and labels as such make me cringe slightly. I haven't been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, however it's likely the I have it. My official diagnosis is "Mild Autism". Do they put "Hot", "Medium", and "Fire" on other Autistics? Somehow I don't think so. I don't buy into being "disordered" either, though sometimes I feel pressured to explain myself and it's very tempting to say. I think the people who have "extreme" autism, are misrepresented often and it's up to us to communicate their needs. You're right about it being a very controversial topic, and I hope to be able to appease anyone who would like to use the userboxes, so thank you very much for sharing!--JUDE talk 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Request help, ABA article.[edit]

I'm involved in an edit war on the Applied behavior analysis article, and could use some extra assistance from autistics.

What Dreams May Come[edit]

Thank you for your input. After much thought, I have deleted the section on differences between the book and the film, because there's an identical section in the article on the movie. But before deleting this section, I transferred the changes you made to the article on the movie. marbeh raglaim 13:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shapiro acquires Night Flight, plans relaunch[edit]

Saw your additions to the Night Flight page about Stuart Shapiro acquiring the rights and planning a relaunch of the show. This is great news. I am in the process of trying to confirm this. Can you tell me where you got this information? Or where I could get confirmation of this news? -- 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo and Livejournal both have discussion groups for Night Flight - Yahoo's is It is much more active and the announcement was made there. --Bluejay Young 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms[edit]

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian Head test card[edit]

A year or so ago, you added some info to this article I wanted to follow up on. You wrote that the test card was sold as a night-light. Do you have any idea where they are sold? I did several web searches and came up with zilch. Thanks, Jeffpw 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I'll be happy to fill you in about the test card night light - I still have mine and I can take pictures if you'd like to see it. The night light with the Indian Head test card design was sold as one of a set of three test pattern night lights by the Archie McPhee company in Seattle. It was item #10480. I spoke with Mikki at Archie McPhee's Customer Service (425-349-3009) this morning, and she verified that these were created by the company -- not obtained from an outside source -- and sold from January 11, 1999 to June 17, 2005. They've been discontinued for now but with McPhee who knows, they might decide to make them again if they get enough requests. I'll crosspost this to your talk page. --Bluejay Young 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Bluejay Young! I am User:Ruennsheng! I am also a user with autism. I only learnt to talk when I was 5... this shows that my autism must be quite serious! But surprisingly, I did well later in life and now I am a normal High School student. I hope to hear more from you, and if possible, I hope to keep contact with you through MSN and email.

Don't forget to drop by my user discussion page! I hope to hear from you soon there! Zero (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Dear, User: Bluejay Young I made a comment on the Son-Rise talk page. Please respond when you get a chance. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Huang Qinfu.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Huang Qinfu.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino[edit]

Hi. I made some minor changes to your revision on this article and wanted to explain why. The first was to remove weasel words and phrases, such as "some", "by all accounts", and "said to be". These are words and phrases that carry a caution as they beg the question "who said this?" and tends to make the statements more ambiguous. The other change I made was to remove the word "Caucasian" in the sentence "At the time, the major Caucasian male star was Douglas Fairbanks, with a fair complexion, light eyes, and an All American look, with Valentino the opposite, eventually supplanting Sessue Hayakawa as Hollywood's most popular "exotic" male lead." Using the word in this way is very iffy. One reason is that although Valentino's appearance was exotic and "dark", he nonetheless would technically be considered Caucasian by most definitions of the word, as opposed to Hayakawa, who would not. Beyond that, the sentence could be interpreted to imply that while Fairbanks was the biggest Caucasian male star, that Hayakawa, or someone else, was actually the bigger. Fairbanks was the biggest male star of that time, period, ethnicity not a factor. By removing the word, it says what the sentence is meant to say. Thanks for your contribution! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[my reply:] I have never been certain about the proper place of "said to be" and so on in Wikipedia; I have been cautioned that they must be used in some situations, because of NPOV. You can't say "John Lennon was the greatest rock musician of all time", you have to say "Many people name John Lennon as", or better yet "In 1990, a poll in (insert name of respected newspaper or magazine here) named John Lennon..." and hopefully give a citation. There were a number of superlatives about Valentino and without crediting somebody, it could look like original research. These are all things I have been warned about, or seen warnings about, on other articles. (I am still looking for documentation stating that Our Lady of Fatima is one of the best-known apparitions of Mary, because someone (not me) had said that on her page and it had been called into question with a citation-needed tag.) So thank you for straightening that out.
About the 'Caucasian' thing; You're right, it was kludgy. Valentino, of course, was Caucasian, he was just Mediterranean. He was most popular in exotic roles such as The Sheik, but that was beside the point. My purpose in changing those sentences was to get Hayakawa's name in there for fairness' sake, and I knew there was a way to do it. I have seen a number of interviews by experts in Asian-American film (you can guess where I saw them) and there is a book out about his career, where we are reminded that he actually preceded Valentino as the first 'matinee idol' women fell for, and that his exotic foreignness was a big factor. (The female equivalent, of course, was Anna Mae Wong.) Thank you for your help and messages. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "some," "by all accounts" and "said to be" removal: I think in the paragraph of which we are speaking, the frank statements of "Women loved him," "men were less impressed," and "was seen as a threat" are used as lead-in to the clarification resulting from the street interviews, so at least in this case, it isn't a case of sweeping generalizations without qualification. Thanks for your note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Blue Lagoon (1923 film)[edit]

I just checked the history of The Blue Lagoon (novel) and saw that you were the one who added this here. It sounds interesting, and I was curious how you came to know of this, and the source of your research regarding the stars. I would like to discuss the creation of this article, and of articles for all of the actors in it. Currently none of the actors have pages, nor can I find any reference to these people in the disambiguation pages for their surnames. I would also like to add a link to this film's article in 1923 in film which I have discussed on that list's talk page. I have also discussed on the (film) Talk page that if this was indeed the first film, the 1943 film should not deserve the priviledge of having that name and get moved to The Blue Lagoon (1943 film) in which case (1923) could have that spot, or in my belief, that page could list all the films and (1923) could stay at the place you have directed it to be. Thoughts? Tyciol (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Study[edit]

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mobiuslweb sm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MBisanz talk 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Remarks on edits to "The People (Zenna Henderson)"[edit]

Hi Bluejay,

Nice expansion on the page. I hope you won't object that I tightened up a few things to gather-together some add-on remarks and expansions of yours which probably need to be gathered together. I also checked sources and made a few additions/deletions editing to conform to source or to allow quotes from source to make the point.

Best wishes! Thardman22 (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Later Remarks on "Final" Article[edit]

As of Jan 12 2009, this looks great. I can't think of any way to improve or change it, unless maybe a "new" Zenna Henderson story comes to light and alters our view of The People.

On a note outside of wikipediana, you might enjoy finding comparable themes, though with a rather different treatment, in Pamela Sargent's Watchstar.

Hoping for a high-quality film/video treatment of "the People" someday... Regards! Thardman22 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I agree with you that the Lourdes text needs to there. I set up a new page. Please feel free to enhance it. A page on Marian Miracles may also be a good idea at a later date. Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for paying attention to Marian Apparitions. I was feeling left alone fixing that page, and it was in poor shape with many junk links before. You are making good edits. I think teh page itself has good material now, but a few of the recent approved apparitions have pages that are very brief. Cheers History2007 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Key question now: is The Lady of all Nations really approved? EWTN seems to say so. But someone else added something to Immaculate Conception saying that the bishop's letter had been revoked. He seemed sure, but I am not sure. Do you have any idea? Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what I think (which is that the Amsterdam apparitions are not true), the most solid reference in favor of Lady of all Nations seems to be EWTN. And Unity publishing does not have any evidence that the Bishop was fake or that the letter was rejected. Catholic planet probably does not pass the threshold for Wikipedia, and neither does Unity in my view. So based on Wiki-policies it needs to remain as Bishop approved, Vatican not approved, as is. There are many statements against it, but all on less than EWTN quality blog-type websites, which are an absolute no-no in terms of reliability. I think These are not true, but they have a reference and need to remain based on Wikipolicies. Cheers History2007 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the page is quite clear on that issue. It says:

A Roman Catholic approved Marian apparition is one that has been examined by the Holy Office either based on the criteria listed above (or internal procedures in place before that) and has been granted approval either through the local Bishop based on the direction of the Holy Office or received a direct approval from the Holy See.
Although a local bishop may provide a preliminary assessment (and allow the devotion to proceed forward), formal approval can only be provided after detailed analysis by the Holy See. For instance, although the apparitions at Our Lady of Laus were recognized by the local diocese in 1665, they received approval from the Holy Office centuries later, in 2008.

I think this is as clear as one can get. History2007 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The main problem is that when a page gets long, people don't even read it. The only thing we can do is to do some interior design so this important issue becomes more prominent. I will think of a way over the next few days. History2007 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your positive comments. Now that I am retired, I may get around to a book. The problem is that most of the books that I read on apparitions are not very critically written and don't seem to keep any objectivity about the subject. In my humble opinion, only a small fraction of apparitions are genuine. That is the problem that church authorities like the Bishop of Leiria have. Most of what they see is obviously delusional so they are torn between their propensity to believe in the supernatural and the clear prevalence of nutters among those professing supernatural experiences. Every once in a while an apparition comes along that warrants serious study. Fatima is clearly one of these and it fascinates me. God almost always stays out of our direct sight and hovers on the horizon of our consciousness. Every once in a while, however, we can catch him out of the corner of our eye. Fatima is one of those occasions! Best Toroid (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"I AM" illustrations[edit]

Mr. Young! I saw your comments on the Talk page for Elizabeth Clare Prophet and found them to provide clarity and sanity where there is usually too little around. So maybe you can help: the person who I think is the source of the illustrations for ECP's movement and many related ones is, I think, Charles Sindelar- and so, years ago, I started a stub article on him, because that art is unique in its style and content. But since in Wikipedia no good deed goes unpunished, the article is now being considered for deletion.

Here: The RFD.

Can you weigh in on the matter? Citations maybe? I have two thin volumes of stuff from early "I AM" folks, and I count them among the strangest things I own; but whereas I just look at the books and am dumbstruck, I'm hoping you can be more articulate, in this RFD. Maybe even just citing the volumes I have would be enough, but I'd rather just go to the dentist every day for the rest of my life than learn and apply WP's current citation standards and formats. And this sort of arguing, this contentiousness, very effectively stops me from contributing anything to Wikipedia ever again. But you seem much more patient, and maybe you know something about Sindelar. Sean M. Burke (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(Later) Oh hey, there's more! RFD for May_DaCamara!! I don't know how anything ever stays in Wikipedia. Ever since my favorite entry got SPEEDY-deleted just because I didn't hear about it soon enough to point out its obvious Notability... It makes me tired. Sean M. Burke (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I said:
==Regarding your request for input on RFD on Sindelar==
Oh, for God's (yeah) sake.
As you said on my talk-page, one would sooner eat barbed wire than mess with a Wikipedia criteria discussion.
Most of my research into said groups and their illustrations/effigies came in the course of trying to convince a certain member of my immediate family of the inauthenticity and indeed fraudulence of said groups; that the reason their messages had the "ring of truth" to them was simply that said family member had studied similar doctrines in the past (from saner sources, I might add) and that ECP, etc. were saying nothing that hadn't been said before.
However, I was very fond of the illustrations themselves as poster art, never mind whether any of it was supposed to be real or not, and I tracked down Da Camara's name in order to find more prints by her.
What I do know is this. "THE CHART", otherwise known as "Your Divine Self" or "Your Real Self", was created by Charles Sindelar for the Ballards' I AM religious scam, and was ripped off by Elizabeth Prophet.
Also -- have a look at this (scroll down a bit).
I have inserted a bit of news about the mail fraud trial into the Sindelar article. I'll look at the RFD discussion, but I don't know if there is anything I can do. Thanks for the heads-up. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
==Oh That Flossing==
At my last trip to the dentist, 1) he advised flossing with something just short of barbed wire! And I said I was trying to get into the habit of flossing while waiting for the bus-- when alone, not in public, not if there's other people there at the bus stop!, but 2) he said "OH, I FLOSS IN PUBLIC!".
And that's where Wikipedia comes from! Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you immensely for your work on not only keeping, but amazingly expanding, the Sindelar article. I had no idea about his odd stuff with menu design, or all sorts of things there. I can't thank you enough. I've burning myself an ulcer since the whole thing started, and finding any excuse to not look at how the argument with Ash was, uh, "progressing". But I just said to an arty friend of mine that he should have a look at the wikipedia entry on... and I let Firefox pull the URL "" from its history, and I winced and hit Enter and wondered if there'd be anything there, and... the amazement! You have the transfinite appreciation of your new absolute biggest fan in the whole southeast Alaskan archipelago! BTW, take a look at [this bit of fun]. Sean M. Burke (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
About your congratulatory message
Thanks! *takes a bow*, but I don't deserve all the credit. That stuff about the menus was put in by someone else. Judging from the name, I'm pretty sure it's Hilarion Lynn, who does The Year of Obedience website. I just hope that all this information that is there now is enough to get old Charlie from getting knocked off the radar. Stay in touch, --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Secrets of Fatima[edit]

I updated Three Secrets of Fatima in response to something you wrote on Talk:Three Secrets of Fatima patsw (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, FYI Rosary and Scapular. History2007 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bell Jar[edit]

Hi Bluejay Young, Apologies for deleting your Bell Jar citation. I saw the audio snippet only on the cited site, which has 30 secs of interview only and doesn't, itself, 'signpost' to any info on the book or Plath. Looking closely again I see that the full interview is accessed underneath by registering on the site. I'm moving too fast these days. I've replaced the citation. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks. What exactly is a "signpost" anyhow, for further reference? --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I meant it more as a verb - to signpost - that is "to point to". I couldn't see a link or a redirect to the full interview on the page or in the clip saying "go here next". The clip seemed to be all there was, not apropos of Plath. Hope that makes things a little clearer. Maybe not :0) Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahha, so it isn't some particular Wikipedia thing I should be aware of. Okay, thanks! --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia "thing" (smiling) called the Signpost. See WP:Wikipedia Signpost.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, I saw an interview with Albert Speer on a cable TV channel in which he mentioned the "fire in the skies event" and that Hitler interpreted it as a sign God approved of his plans. Sister Lucia, witnessing the same event, interpreted it as the sign a second greater(than WW I)war would soon befall mankind, as per the Fatima message. Does anyone know which film this is, and where I can get a copy? Let's also remember Pope John Paul II was shot on a Fatima date. Bougie, 9/11/10 -- (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the May 13 shooting of JP2 is mentioned several places on wikipedia. He definitely believed it was significant. Now I don't know which film you're talking about but I know he talked about it in his book Inside The Third Reich. Maybe some of these clips are related to what you're looking for. If you find it, let me know. Thanks, --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Metropolis (film)[edit]

Hello. According to WP:FILMPLOT, film plot summaries should be 400 to 700 words. The plot summary for Metropolis is already over 1000 words. Please do not expand already overly-long plot summaries. Yworo (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a new rule. But certainly a plot summary should be complete. It usually the inclusion of too many minor details or overly wordy descriptions that send these summaries way over the line. Yworo (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mariette-beco.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Mariette-beco.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Film Invitation[edit]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Film? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Erik (talk | contribs) 01:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

re Elsie Paroubek[edit]

Thank you for creating this article. It's a fine article and an interesting, useful, and worthwhile subject to bring forward from the dustbin of history, in my opinion.

And not only that, but -- and while I recognize that this is not an encyclopedic reason to have an article, although the article is worthwhile on its own merits -- it's nice that this poor girl has been remembered; she couldn't be rescued, but at least she can be rescued from oblivion. Henry Darger, whose story I find quite touching, would have approved. Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(So I said...)

Elsie Paroubek[edit]

I want to thank you for your kind words on my Elsie Paroubek article. I worked my tail off on it, and it'd be twice as good if I could lay hands on the Chicago Daily News articles about her. I have submitted it for approval to Wikiproject Illinois, so we'll see what happens there. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:1907 Lillian Wulff.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:1907 Lillian Wulff.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Looks OK to me. I get a lot of whitespace in it, and I've always tried to avoid that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One Grecian Urn[edit]

Grecian Urns

Two Grecian Urns[edit]


A font[edit]

Trickle trickle trickle.

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In People-first language, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jim Sinclair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Histories of Pliny the Elder, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bluebottle and Eccles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Status_of_this_article_-_clarification_of_my_position. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I must decline. I really don't know enough about what has been happening. I don't follow that article, haven't worked on it in years. Also I'm not well enough acquainted with the editors involved. It looked so confusing when I started to read it, I wondered if you should call in arbitration. You're welcome to email me though. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVAS, I'd really rather you didn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom's invitation is not inappropriate, as you would most certainly be aware if you read WP:CANVASS. Also see here: Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#Canvassing. —danhash (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't going to accept anyhow because the discussion in question looks very confusing, I don't know the people involved, haven't worked on that article in ages, and I have a boatload of other things to do. But I want to thank you for thinking my input would be valuable. Maybe it would be but at a later time. I am curious about the idea of an editorial "consensus" for an article. I wasn't aware such a thing was possible. Isn't that a kind of POV? --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a longer reply on my talk page, but in the case of two or more groups of editors who disagree, consensus is when everyone agrees to disagree and that the current page at may have issues that they disagree with, but at least they are sourced adequately. This is why I keep emphasizing that sources are important because they should determine the weight on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's too early for arbitration, and everyone needs to agree to dispute mediation. Plus, I think DR is getting unnecessary - people are starting to focus on the right things (sources, policies and guidelines rather than editors). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank ghu for that... It looked like Tom Cloyd and ty and the rest simply didn't know how wikipedia is done, and didn't want to learn. They seemed to think I would agree with them because I'm multiple myself. I don't like when DreamGuy says snarky things either, but I agree with his rationale. He once did me the courtesy of looking for an appropriate "notable" type reference for non-disordered multiplicity. He just couldn't find one, any more than I ever have. I just assume that it will take time, and when one is written and published it'll be allowed in the article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, I am surprised at the juxtaposition of your comments and your userbox. But life's full of happy surprises.
Re: non-disordered multiplicity, sources are reliable rather than notable. If there's an org that promotes or aggregates this sort of thing, I think it's worth noting in the society and culture section that there are proponents for healthy multiplicity. Not everything on the page has to be a MEDRS, particularly if it's not making medical claims. Any online news stories about it? And if not, that's pretty surprising... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've hesitated to respond to your questions, because ... well, frankly, there isn't that I know of an .org that promotes or aggregates healthy multiplicity, but there is a .net -- it's Astraea, but I cannot suggest or promote it, because I (and my group) run it. There are also other discussion groups and blogs by non-disordered multiples, but I believe those aren't considered reliable sources. This article from the Spartacus World Times might or might not be acceptable, but I always thought it wouldn't be, because it's online and no one's ever heard of it. There are other multiples on wikipedia, and perhaps the suggestion should come from one of them. The real problem is that multiplicity is a subjective state. I can sit here and tell you I experience persons beside myself sharing this body, but there's no external evidence. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Magic in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daughter of Darkness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Heavenly Creatures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anorexia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Flappers (etymology)[edit]

Hi Bluejay, you may see I just altered your contribution on the etymology of the word flapper? The idea the word derived from the footwear fashion is so widespread it ought to be noticed; but it's a false etymology all the same, as "flapper" predates the fashion by at least a couple of decades. (The "galoshes" explanation was chewed over once on the talk page, but it's archived now.)RLamb (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Neverwas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodore Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanitarium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creativity and mental illness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User autistic[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:User autistic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User autistic[edit]

Template:User autistic, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User autistic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User autistic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clementine Hunter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grantee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Autistic Self Advocacy Network symbol.gif)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Autistic Self Advocacy Network symbol.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Custom CSS - color change[edit]


I saw your edits to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 111. However, I doubt many other people saw your question, since very few watch archive pages (people do not expect archives to change).

If you want to continue an archived discussion, start a new discussion on the parent page of the archive (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) in this case). It is helpful to start with a section link to the archived discussion, to allow others to refresh their memories.

In this case, I might be able to help you. Redrose64 was pointing out that you had the same values after color: and background-color:, causing the text and background colours to be the same. Use just background-color: to set the colour of the background, or just color: to set the colour of the text. If you want to change both colours, use a different value for each.

The "Talk", "Preferences", "Watchlist", etc links across the top are called "Personal tools". They are part of the page header, which also includes the "Edit", "View history", etc tabs and also the search box when using the Vector skin. I've included examples below of how you can set the background colour of the personal tools or the whole header, along with PrimeHunter's example of how to set the article background.

/* Set the background of the "talk", "watchlist", "preferences", etc line. */
#p-personal {
  background-color: #FFD6AD;

/* Set the background colour of the whole header (Vector skin only). */
/* (You don't need the bit above if you use this.) */
#mw-head {
  background-color: #FFD6AD;

/* Set the background colour of the header, footer and the area at the left. */
/* (You don't need either of the bits above if you use this.) */
body {
  background-color: #FFD6AD;

/* Set the background colour of articles. */
#content {
  background-color: #FFD6AD !important;

If you'd prefer some other colour, change the #FFD6AD above to the colour you want. If you have any further questions on CSS, please ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Eleanor Farjeon, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[My reply on his talk page:] Is her own autobiography not a reliable source? The game was also described in Eleanor Cameron's The Green and Burning Tree (Little, Brown 1985) -- should I use that instead? Until then, I'm putting that information back in and using A Nursery in the Nineties as my source as planned.
By the way, you're supposed to add the "citation needed" tag to things that need them on articles, rather than delete the part you think needs the citation. Please check the Citation needed page, it tells how to use it in case you weren't aware of it. More on fact templates & how to use them here. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the added paragraph, the main problem was that it did not include a reference (see WP:V, WP:CITE). Please ensure such content is traceable to a source; secondary sources (e.g. Cameron as you mention) are usually better than primary (autobiography) - although it may be ideal to reference with both. Dl2000 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the things about Wikipedia is that people will put stuff in, then find the book or magazine it was cited in and come back and re-edit their entry. I am by no means the only one who does this. A simple "citation needed" tag is all that is necessary when you find uncited material. You don't have to go to all the trouble of deleting it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (cc to his talk page as well)
Understood... however, another thing about Wikipedia is that it has a clear verifiability policy. Therefore, it is probably best not to put stuff in until the reference material can be quoted. Now from WP:BURDEN, "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Now it would probably have been better in this case to tag for citation (allowable since Farjeon is not WP:BLP), although editors should expect that their material is sometimes "challenged or likely to be challenged" (to use the WP:V phrasing). Anyway, I'll assume the added paragraph with the references you've indicated is verifiable at this time, and we can get on with things. Dl2000 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Egypt Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lara (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adventures of Superman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Old radio station KFAC[edit]

Regarding your mention several years ago that you heard an old KFAC announcer in the Inland Empire, I guess that you heard a broadcast from KUSC, which employs a few people who once were associated with KFAC. Their signal is strong in most of the IE. Their style today is reminiscent of KFAC's and they have all their library. KFAC is often mentioned. If you now live or work too far away, you might care to listen on-line at which streams 24 hours a day their radio broadcast. I don't work for them, and I went to the other school (UCLA). My bias is in favour of good classical music, and they provide me with much pleasure. Cheers. Eugen Hamerle (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elsie Paroubek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Joliet and Lockport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paracosm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Hawking may have broken the syntax by modifying 8 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • him, but his children volunteered to accept the challenge on his behalf. Hawking then nominated [[Ian Blatchford[[, director of the Science Museum, and [[Lord Sainsbury[[ and Professor Sir [[Leszek Borysiewicz]], Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of [[Cambridge University]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Hawking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Sainsbury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)