User talk:Moni3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Moni3, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Patience and Sarah, reply

Hi, Moni3, no problem! I usually look for new novel articles that need tagging and/or template work, and let me tell you, for a new article, yours is a pretty good start for a stub. Kudos on using the infobox and including the image, as well! I haven't read the novel, but I've heard quite a lot about it; so good on you for including it on Wiki. I see you've joined WP LGBT, which is awesome. If you're interested in starting many other novel/book articles, perhaps you should look into also joining WP Novels. If not, it's still worth a look to see how book guidelines are handled, in case you're curious over format and what not. Anyway, welcome to Wiki, hope you like it here, good luck, and yay for Jax! :) PS: to sign your comments on talk pages, just stick four tildés (~) at the end so people know it's you. María: (habla ~ cosas) 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just now figured out how to reply. Doi. Moni3 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bb2001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bb2001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Daisyfaycover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Daisyfaycover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Did you know...

On 22 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patience and Sarah, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay! You are cool and you are now my best friend!! Moni3 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Joining Florida WikiProject

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Florida you asked how to join the project. All you need to to is go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Florida/Members and add yourself to the bottom of the list. The project is not terribly active (as a group) right now, although some of the editors are somewhat active, improving Florida-related articles on their own. BTW, I am also in Gainesville, and at least one other editor is in Ocala, so we're not alone up here. (grin) Horologium t-c 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense RfC initiated

Please see Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Thanks. --Yksin 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Imawoman1959.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Imawoman1959.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 14:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Journey1960.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Journey1960.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oddgirl1957.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oddgirl1957.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shadows1959.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shadows1959.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Novels peer review

Think I have fixed the Mockingbird elements now. Please check though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! I'm learning little by little. Maybe next time I won't turn into a technophobe, and actually accomplish something. Thanks again! --Moni3 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Kingsley Plantation

Thanks for adding the pics! By any chance, did you get any of the plantation house that you could upload? Does it even still exist?

See, I'm hoping you can help maybe in a project I'm working on. Which is getting pictures for all the Registered Historic Places in Florida. B/c pictures are so much better than maps in infoboxes, imho. This is the list I use to keep track of things. Any help you could provide would be muchly appreciated, and versa visa. :)

I also see you're from my old stomping grounds. I live in the next county down, so we're practically neighbours. Cheers! --Ebyabe 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I take hundreds of photos every year of places around north and central Florida, primarily looking for art projects to do (I'm a painter in my spare time), so yes, I have many photos of the owner's house at Kingsley as well as other places around and about. I'm also waiting for my copy of the Homosexual Agenda (the conservapedia article on that is hi-larious, by the way). Moni3 19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Sources for additions to Ann Bannon?

Thanks for adding to the sketchy Ann Bannon article. It would be helpful if you have any reliable published sources you can cite for the comments about her work overall. (I did see that you mentioned the Cleis Press editions re: her own response.) The more Wikipedia serves to distill verifiable existing sources rather than our own comments, the better it gets. Lawikitejana 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found reviews of her republished Cleis Press books that were written as if someone took press release information written by Bannon, or found it on her website, and put it in article form. It all traces back to Bannon as the source of the information. It's difficult to write a well-balanced biography on someone who kept her private life so very private for so long. I hope that eventually people will take an interest in this article and add snippets of information to it where they can. I appreciate anything you or anyone else can add to it, even if it's an article you found - a direction, anything. Thanks! Moni3 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

References at Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

Hey, I saw the great information you added at the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings article, nice job! I noticed, however, that some of the refs need to be correctly formatted, especially the duplicates and internet links. For multiple references to the same footnote, instead of repeating what has already been used, you can use the <ref name=""> command, which is explained here. The correct way to format websites, and everything else you can think of, is at Wikipedia:Citation templates. What I've found to be useful is just to keep a few of these templates (the ones I use the most) listed in my sandbox so I don't have to go searching for them each time I need them. I hope this is of some help to you, and again, great job on expanding MKR! If you have any questions, just let me know. María (críticame) 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was wondering if anyone cared enough to pay attention to references. I wasn't deliberately trying to make them messy, and I know there are some pretty lame edit wars on punctuation in references, but never assumed the articles I expanded would appeal to these sticklers for APA style formatting. =) I'll work on this throughout the day. Feel free to give me pointers - I'm still fairly clueless. Thanks, Maria! --Moni3 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

No problem, I'm glad to help. As a librarian, I can quite honestly say I'm anal about referencing, but it's such a pain to learn all of this wiki-markup stuff. I'm afraid that when I'm typing research papers, I'm going to start ref tagging my footnotes! Anyway, if you need me, just post something at my talk page. María (críticame) 12:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I did it right. Thanks for the tip. I worked on Rosewood massacre last week, and expanded it quite a bit, but was unable to come up with any other references except what is listed. The document given to the Florida Board of Regents supplied most of the information for the article. I'd like to include more references, but I don't know if any exist due to the nature of the incident and the unwillingness of historians to record it and the victims and descendants to speak out. Any tips? --Moni3 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)MOni3

Hm, that's a difficult one, but a very interesting topic. Few books seem to exist regarding the incident, but there may be more journal articles available, especially in Florida and/or African American journals and syndications. Have you looked through Google Scholar or maybe the Florida Heritage collection? María (críticame) 13:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on the Ann Bannon cite :) Did she give you that herself? How's the pic search coming along? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Praise me, please for my objectivity in writing Bannon's article. I'm virtually her love slave. Well, not really, but I'm a total freak for her books and I tell her so. In fact, to honor her I painted this and sent her an email to tell her. She loved it, so I sent it to her. It's hanging over her fireplace. *That* is otherworldly. I wrote her for the first time in 2003 to tell her what a raving throw-my-panties-at-her fan I was. And again when I created her article last year. We trade occasional emails now.

I had to write a conventional letter to Kay Tobin Lahusen to ask her for information about the photos I want to use for the Barbara Gittings article. I included the article in the letter. I haven't heard from her yet, but I'm hoping I do soon.

Thanks. It's been an interesting journey for me puttering a year or so ago in a pseudo-fansite to probably one of the most comprehensive articles on Bannon that exists. I was surprised to see I have 26 sources for the Bannon article. Rock on. Doing that has led me to doing a whole bunch of other stuff, and it's actually quite fun. And thanks for what you do in the project! It has a lot of life for what you and a few others do. --Moni3 03:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Hey cool! Congrats from my too! Thanks indeed for creating the articles on her & her books! Patience and Sarah too -- d'you know that's the first lesbian novel I ever read (or maybe the second? the other being Rubyfruit Jungle, & it was also one my partner & I read aloud to each other when we first got together, so it always has a sweet good place in my heart. --Yksin 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I don't know how I had the incredible good fortune to find Patience and Sarah in an independently owned bookstore in Jacksonville, Florida when I was 19, but reading it just 2 weeks after coming to grips with admitting what a big ol' homo I really am was a huge happy jolt to my brain. I loved that book, and I still do. I kick myself every day when I think I should have written to Alma Routsong when she was alive to tell her what an impact that book had on me. That was part of the reason I wrote to Bannon in the first place. Although when I wrote to Bannon the first time, I pondered that it was probably good that I didn't read The Beebo Brinker Chronicles until I was much older - with all its drama, extremes, hot women making bad choices, and relationships that were way too close to reality, I would have come unglued. The LGBT Wikiproject gets more fun every day. Good stuff! Thanks so much! --Moni3 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Fair use disputed for Image:Beebo Brinker Cover 1962.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beebo Brinker Cover 1962.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Beebo Brinker Cover 2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beebo Brinker Cover 2003.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spring Fire 2004 Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spring Fire 2004 Cover.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

That was not vandalism by any interpretation and If you mislead editors with false edit summaries as reverting 'vandalism' again, I'll report for doing so. I removed the images because the images don't render properly on every Internet brower, and thus they need to be removed until that is fixed. — Moe ε 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't vandalism. Notice, please, that I reverted your deletions by undoing after the first rollback. I do apologize for jumping the gun a bit in declaring the first undo a vandalism. If you take a look at the history of those threads, however, they're vandalized several times a day, just the way you just did - mass deletions, among other bothersome insertions.

Now, however, I don't see any constructive purpose in the mass deletions of the photos. If they don't show up on your browser, would it not be more constructive for you to suggest ways in which they could, instead of deleting everything? Doesn't it help Wikipedia as a whole, reduce the invitation for edit wars and keep WP:LGBT Studies from assuming you're doing it because you wish to decrease the quality of threads these editors have worked very hard at building and maintaining? --Moni3 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

In fairness, the LGBT project and related articles are well used to vandalism and someone who comes along with no prior discussion and simply deletes images that have been in use without debate on lists that are well researched by experienced editors stating remove images; makes a large ugly white space in other browsers easily could be interpreted as vandalism. And your comment here stating If you mislead editors with false edit summaries as reverting 'vandalism' again, I'll report for doing so seems, well impolite at best and potentially bullying. If you had simply stated removing for the time being or taken any other pre-emptive attempt at discussing this issue your edits probably would have been seen as constructive. Benjiboi 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm testing using preview to see if there is something wrong with the images being formatted, the table itself or in what order it's listed, so I should have a definitive answer after testing. Removing them has no harm for the time being. — Moe ε 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears the problem was that the size of some words, which couldn't be altered for the image rendering, made the table stretch out furthur (on whichever browser your using), and on the specific browser I'm using, that made the images go one a top the other with the table going below that completely. I'm going to reduced the size of the images slightly so that the images can still appear (and be correct on other browsers). — Moe ε 02:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion why not put them gallery style horizontally? Benjiboi 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. You may want to bring that up at the LGBT noticeboard and discuss there. — Moe ε 12:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Remember the AfD discussion for List of GLBT people?

You made a really good comment in it: "Comment Actually, how fortunate that Monnitewars voiced this opinion. In doing so, he's illustrated quite beautifully the necessity for these lists. Imagine growing up listening to an opinion like that one's whole life, from parents, friends, classmates, and siblings. Would that be all there was to keeping someone from being gay, I'd be straighter than Fred Phelps (who is probably pretty gay). These lists go to show that not all gay folks are as rare and un-noteworthy as Monnitewars would have us believe. The people on this list, and compiled in this list show gays to be diverse and notable, serve as an informational tool for both the kids who have to listen to opinions similar to Monnitewars', and others like him. And for those who just can't stand to be on the same internet with such a compilation of notable gay people, that's why God invented the back button." There are so many uninformed people out there like Monnitewars, including the nominator himself. I think their point of view comes from an internalized jealousy toward people who are famous, who don't qualify as being notable in their point of view (i.e. not George Bush, the creator of Halo, L. Ron Hubbard, etc). And of course homophobia. But they would never admit that. Instead, they continue to ignore other people's comments and reiterate the same tired, defeated arguments over again. Something should be done about it. - Cyborg Ninja 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. --Moni3 13:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Image source problem with Image:Mary McLeod Bethune Cabin.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary McLeod Bethune Cabin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bloodzombie 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Daytona School with Bethune.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Daytona School with Bethune.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bloodzombie 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Daytona Normal School in 1919.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Daytona Normal School in 1919.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bloodzombie 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bethune at White House 1950.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bethune at White House 1950.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bloodzombie 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kerouac

I agree with you, Jack Kerouac should be in the category of a bisexual writer and a bisexual writer from the united states. Irish Guy doesn't know what he's talking about and is biphobic. Also, the biographer he is talking about actually did say that Kerouac was bisexual, he was referring more to Kerouac's sexual orientation in his youth in the quote below than his actual orientation.

Let's try to get him into that category since that's where he belongs and it's a biographical fact.

http://www.glbtq.com/literature/kerouac_j.html

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy#Jack_Kerouac_at_WP:LGBT

I'm nonplussed. I find it inappropriate for an editor who is not a member or participant of WP:LGBT studies to determine what should be within the scope of the project and what should not. There is evidence enough for Kerouac to be a part of the project simply because a biographer has documented instances within Kerouac's life of his having same-sex romantic relationships, his intense internalized homophobia, as well as Alan Ginsberg's admission that he slept with Kerouac. Whether you or I believe or disbelieve the sources is irrelevant; they are about Jack Kerouac and they are reliable references. Kerouac falls within the scope of WP:LGBT studies for this reason; his willingness to be out during his life is irrelevant. Many of the biographies in our project cover people who were not comfortable or safe enough to be publicly gay or bisexual. I cannot imagine going into a project of which I had very little interest and dictating to them what they shouldn't cover. I don't understand why you would do this. --Moni3 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

   There isn't evidence enough. One biographer made claims that he even prefaced with rigid divisions such as hetero-, bi-, and homosexuality do not fit reality, certainly not Kerouac's, and should not be used to label him. IrishGuy talk 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 

PS-Sorry that I put this up here but I wanted you to read it and I'm new to wikipedia.71.175.84.209 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)