User talk:SatyrTN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot_III. Any sections older than 15 days are automatically archived to User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

edit

Archives

2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007

Contents 1 Random personal notes 2 Ray Foley Page deleted 3 Jonny McGovern 4 Cite templates 5 Bot request 6 Re: WPBannerShell and WPFilm 7 Banners 8 Newsletter 9 The Boys in the Band (play) 10 advice 11 Witeck Combs Help 12 Turtle Creek Chorale 13 Newsletter 14 Edit dispute 15 LGBT WikiProject Newsletter 16 LGBT WikiProject newsletter 17 Thanks! 18 Your bot 19 WP:AN 20 Thank you. 21 WP:LGBT to do list 22 Council 23 SatyrBot and LocateMe 24 Removal of link 25 Coordinates 26 Re: Film banner tweak 27 My RfA 28 SatyrBot and articles about London

[edit] Random personal notes

• Wikipedia:Database download and m:Data dumps
• Kirk Talley - both gay and ex-gay?
• Leslie Cochran - pronouns
• Lucy Liu - not bisexual
• Margaret Stumpp needs citations

[edit] Ray Foley Page deleted

hi i got a message about the notibality of the above mentioned ray foley... He is one of IRELANDS top DJ's, He has a prime time slot on Irelands No.1 Radio station voted numerous years in a row now... How can you question his notiability?????? What country are you from? just because you dont know him doesnt mean we here in Ireland dont know him!!! Come on please be fair and allow the Ray Foley from Today FM to have his page... other Today FM DJ's have pages here so why shouldnt he?????

thank you

Bogwarrior (talk • contribs)

[edit] Jonny McGovern

Gurl! THANK YOU SO MUCH for putting all that time and hard work into the Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern article, the fans really appreciate it and we know Jonny and the gang certainly do!... except Chocolate Puddin', she hates your friend Wiki, ROFL. :D thanks again!

-Joey JLo Lopez

[edit] Cite templates

They are incredibly fiddly and irritating to make changes, particularly if you don't know the parameters. Look at A-E. There are 430 references, and as they were mostly written by me, they are all set out the why I described - when someone uses a cite template, I have to manually change change it in order to keep the same format. They also usually take up obscene amounts of space in the editing box, which makes general editing hard too. They're really, really annoying and I dearly wish people wouldn't use them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. That's the point. The dates are differently formatted and the entire thing is rearranged (like the publication date being put at the end). My way also makes it much easier for new people to edit because they don't need to know the parameters - and people who do know them seem to regularly not bother to put in all the information, which is a pain to then change. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev, here. I think the templates are a pain in the ass, and frequently don't work. Even experienced editors sometimes have trouble with them. After you've inserted refs for a while, you get to know which items go in which order, and then it's easier just to type them. Jeffpw 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, once again I'm totally confused. First, Dev, the dates are formatted the way you set in your user preferences - since they're wikilinks, they'll get formatted instead of staying in APA (or whatever) format. But more importantly, why isn't the template formatting things in a standard way - APA, ALA, Harvard, or whatever? I thought it was - in fact, I thought that was the whole reason to have the template? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, your argument about it being easier for new people is silly - new people are going to have the same problems whichever way they do it, don't you think?

Jeff, why do you say they "frankly don't work"? I'm seriously confused and trying to learn, here :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes when you use the templates, they simply refuse to cooperate, and you get a reference that doesn't look right (instead of a pretty link, you get the http address with no name, etc). If you don't believe me, ask SandyGeorgia, one of the most experienced editors I know here. She almost always types them herself, because she finds the templates so frustrating. Given her ubiquitous presence in all areas relating to FA, if anyone's opinion on the matter counts, it would be hers. Jeffpw 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you decide on a method of replying and stick to it? This conversation is incredibly fractured now you've decided to start replying on this page instead of mine. And no, the dates look completely different to me. When I type them, they come out at March 23, 2007; on the template they come out as 2007-23-03. The cite templates are very irritating to use and fiddly to fill in unless you know the parameters - I suspect the reason that I find most cite templates not fully filled in is because people don't know there's a parameter for it.

Look, even you don't agree with me, Jeff, Sandy or SlimVirgin on this issue, could you cooperate on the LGBT lists? If we're going to FL, the references have to be a uniform format, and I will only have to keep rewriting your edits to them if you keep on using the templates. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - since Jeff jumped in here, I stayed here. My apologies.

There's absolutely no requirement whatsoever that you rewrite the citations. While none of the Wikipedia guidelines agree on what a citation should look like, they all agree that you can use whichever method you like.

And furthermore, why should I learn how to format citations — especially when I can use the templates and they come out looking exactly the same? When I look at the references on F-J, the only way I can tell whether the template was used on to create the citation or not is because the dates are wikilinked on the templated ones. Look at the list and compare #26 and #75 - they're formatted exactly the same except for the wikilinked dates.

Sandy and I had a quick conversation, since s/he's traveling, but take a look at hir talk page and see what we said. Hir issues seem to be programming ones, and what issues there are certainly should be addressed — and I'd love to fix them. But if the template is filled out correctly (and I like to think I usually get it correct) I don't see why I should change. Can you show me an example of how the template produces an incorrect citation? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've set my personal preferences to one format - I wasn't aware that I hadn't picked one. I looked at the references again and the cite template puts the date at the end of the reference and most of the refs have the date after the author. While the guidelines don't care what referencing format you use, they do say you have to be consistent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out an example of where it's putting the date at the end of the reference? All the ones I've looked at put the "retrieved on" date at the end, but put the date of the publication after the auther. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

F-J, ref 42. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's cleared up, I guess I can't object to your using them, even though I hate them. Hate them! I have an FAC being disrupted at the moment because an editor insists I have to use the templates. Speaking of which, while I was discussing with him I found this in WP:CITE: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Does this not apply here? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) I'll let you know what I find out about "cite news". And yes, that guideline does apply. If you want citations on the list to be typed out, that's fine. But I resent having to learn a new way of putting in the citations when they turn out looking the same. <shrug> But whatever - I'm impressed at how the list is coming along. BTW, it occurred to me that, when this is done, it'll probably be the most comprehensive list of its kind on the web! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will be, surely you know by now I never do anything by halves? ;) That's why I've been hunting down all those lists of people that already exist - if we compile them all and add citations, we'll have the most comprehensive and accurate list of LGB people in the history of mankind, let alone the web. Neat thought, innit? :D I'm peer reviewing the list at the moment to clear up any other issues and get ideas for what to put on the front page - FLC is a real possibility I reckon. We just need to get another people to help compile it, all the editors so far have too much to do to get it all done by themselves. WP:LGBT are lazy sods though, so I was thinking we announce some kind of drive similar to WP:BIOGRAPHY's assessment drive at the moment. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's daunting to most people. What about having a sign-up for people who pledge to cite X number per Y time-period? Like, Coe would probably be willing to sign up to do one a day, Jeff maybe 3 a week, something like that. There wouldn't be any "prizes" or anything, but I find with a list that has **THAT MANY** entries, without some constant feedback and encouragement it's easy to get discouraged. And cross-posting to WP:Bio isn't a bad idea, though I think they're as lazy as we are :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I first started the drive I *did* ask that everyone do just one a day. Instead I have the usual crowd doing it all again. Cross posting to WP:BIO might be a good idea though, I'll go let them know now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

[edit] Bot request

Yes, SatyrBot does what I was looking for. If it's not too much trouble, could you modify it to search Caribbean related articles and make the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Small to-do list? Does the bot update the lists automatically every once in a while, and if so, how often? Thank you much. Jwillbur 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

You want the output to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Small to-do list, not to their talk pages, right?

That is correct, but it doesn't make much difference, so if it's easier to put it on the talk pages, then go ahead. As for frequency of update, I think once a week would be plenty. Thanks again. jwillbur^talk 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The lists have been created, but the bot seems to be collecting articles from both WP:CARIBBEAN and WP:LGBT. jwillbur^talk 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, it works now. Thank you! I was trying to make a list of needy articles by hand before this. jwillbur^talk 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For creating SatyrBot, a valuable contribution to WikiProject sanity. jwillburtalk 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! Let me know if you need anything else! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WPBannerShell and WPFilm

Do you mean outside the main shell itself? That's not possible, given how the templates are rendered; it would require the template to insert itself into two places at once.

Or do you mean outside the collapsed one-line banner (but still inside the main shell)? That would be doable, although frankly I don't really see the point, given how large the box is. Kirill Lokshin 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I'm not qute sure what the point of having it in a separate box is, though; those instructions are implicitly related to WP:FILMS, so I would have assumed that they would be better placed directly in the films banner. (See, for example, the MILHIST tag on Talk:AGM-114 Hellfire.)

As for wanting to have it full-size by default: as soon as projects start claiming exemptions from how the template functions—for huge blocks of not-very-important instructions, no less—the whole thing becomes pointless; every project will start clamoring to have parts of its tags fully visible, and we'll simply be back to the old full-tag system anyways. (And the result will likely be having {{WikiProjectBanners}} shoved down everyone's throats, or something even worse.) Kirill Lokshin 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banners

Please, don't take this personally. I can just see this being seen as some kind of gay-hate thing and blowing up in my face. Even if we disagree, I want you to know that I have the same feelings for WikiProject Dogs and their fictional coverage, WikiProject (name a city) tagging anyone who was born in that city, but didn't necessarily have any significance to being in that city, etc etc. It's needless over-tagging. It's great that you want to help these articles, but the organization of collaboration doesn't make sense here. You'll defocus the core elements in the WikiProjects, which is the whole point of having a scope, or simply leave a bunch of banners around and have no real relation to the article. And for anime characters.. being gay or not is hardly a big deal. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Little pisses me off more than when someone says that I cannot have a say in a WikiProject simply because I did not list myself as a member. WikiProject memberships are completely open, and listing one's self as a member is always optional. "Members" do not get a greater say simply by being members (but likely do get a bigger say for other semi-related factors), even in how their own project works. That's the way things are done on Wikipedia. We are not closed off like that. I stand on equal ground with you in this discussion, and you have no right to push me aside because I'm not in your click of editors. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to come off that way. My intention in "taking it to the project" was to get more input from project members on whether the articles belonged, and gauge the project's reaction to editing anime articles. Please forgive my causing offense - it was unintentional.

I disagree with removing the banner from those articles for three reasons. First, project members should know about the articles to help edit and improve them. While they may not know much about the animation, they will be able to add to the article's content when it comes to reception within the LGBT community, within the straight community, and how the character is portrayed.

Second, the articles definitely fall within the scope outlined by the project - same-sex attraction and societal reaction. You say "being gay or not is no big deal" in anime. That in itself (its acceptance) is a societal reaction that should be noted.

Third, I know that Wikipedia is an open community, but people who are active participants in a WikiProject should have more say about the activities and scope of that project, wouldn't you say? It smacks of ownership to say "I edit this article, and I don't think you can say it's within your scope".

I truly welcome your input, but seeing that you'd removed the project banner from so many articles really raised my hackles, as I can see yours are :) Thanks for talking this over. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, I might be over-reacting.. There's no need for me to jump in and remove the tags like that, because that'll just piss you off and make you less likely to consider what I'm trying to say. It's just a pet peeve of mine to see projects starting to get nutty with their scope and with their tagging. Regardless of if the articles are in the scope of the project or not, my behavior isn't appropriate. I'm sorry for that. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm jumping all over articles leaving notes. Maybe we can continue this discussion here? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - after a good night's sleep, I decided to review the articles in question with a fresh eye. Here's what I think:

1. Tomoyo Daidouji — There's a full four+ paragraph section on her relationship with another woman. The article should stay in the project for that reason, IMO.
2. Tsukasa (.hack) — There are some transgender issues present, though it's subtle and not strong. Could be within the project, maybe not.
3. Yukito Tsukishiro — There's a bit of talk about their relationship, including the fact that it was removed in Cardcaptors. I think that's significant enough for inclusion.
4. Toya Kinomoto — Hints that he's bisexual. Probably doesn't belong either in the Category:LGBT characters in comics or in the project.

Just to let you know, I did review every article before putting the banner on them. I did it under my bot account because it was highly repetitive (especially in Category:Gay porn stars :), but each article was reviewed, so it wasn't just slapping a banner on every article in a category.

Thanks for being reasonable and for hashing this out. I'll remove the banner from Toya Kinomoto and wait to hear your thoughts on the others. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to collect my thoughts on this and take a little break from Wikipedia for a day (for many reasons), but I should have something for ya tomorrow. I am starting to better understand your position on this. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaks are good :) Let me know what you think when you get back. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, getting back to this, my feeling isn't really about "how gay" the characters are, but rather.. the character being gay doesn't make it a gay article topic. Same with almost any given WikiProject, except for those who are actually about fictional elements and style issues. It just seems like a "nab all the articles ya can get" and that seems misguided. WikiProjects shouldn't be too narrow, but they shouldn't be so broad that they're including articles that don't need to be under their scope. WikiProjects help people finding articles, and articles finding people, and people finding people to work on articles. I don't really see someone going to the LGBT WikiProject to find an article that's about a fictional character in an anime. It's possible, sure, but you can make almost any connection between any article and a WikiProject, but that doesn't always make for a logical and efficient scope.

I feel this same way about most WikiProjects (that aren't about fiction related topics) when they start tagging these articles. Only rarely do I see a situation where one could argue a reasonable connection to such projects. I tried to tell WP:DOGS something similar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Movies, Cartoons, TV Programmes,Comics. I've removed a good many WP:WPCAT banners from fictional cat articles.

Because WikiProjects are about getting work done it's not always useful to go by raw categorization. I've removed WP:DIGI's banner from many voice actor articles, because even if that voice actor had major involvement with the show.. our project isn't going to be of much help. It makes more sense to have the BIO project tag the article, or even WP:JAPAN. Being in the LGBT categories means it makes sense to navigate those articles as a reader, but not necessarily as a collaborative project that has a special focus.

I do see your point though that I should probably bring this up on the project page for everyone to consider. I'll probably try to do that tonight, and type what I've been saying so it makes sense for those who likely have not been following our discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

Everyone gets the full newsletter by default. If they want the link they can put their names down here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. And with the development of the collapsible newsletter box,

it's easier to just receive the whole thing. Why did you want to know, btw? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Damn, that means I've actually got to go write it at some point. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, did you get my email about Wikimania? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't leave it too long, I have to get a three hundred word plan together! We are good though, aren't we? :) I deliberately didn't invite anyone this month to see what our recruitment levels would be like, and while we've only gained 18 members, two of which are returnees (so I hope that teaches everyone that recruitment can't just be left to people drifting in when they see a banner), the fact is that's more people than when we were recruiting hard back in November last year. ...I'm just so upbeat about everything, aren't I? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Boys in the Band (play)

Satyr, would you mind taking a look at the edit history of this article and telling me what you think? I got a message accusing me of vandalism, which is the last thing I'd want to do, or think that I have done. :( Aleta 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like there was a mixup in reverting. I don't think anything you did was vandalism - in fact, you improved the citation needs nicely. If you'd like, I'll help out. See above for some refs I found and just haven't put in the article yet. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Satyr. I knew that I wasn't vandalising the page, but, still, to be accused of it hurt. It's nice to hear from a "third party" that it didn't look like that. Your recent edits have definitely improved it. Aleta 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aleta, I've been following the interaction on the talk page of the article, as well as your edits to the article itself. You in no way vandalised. Shall I go slap the user silly who made such a vicious, mean-spirited, totally unwikilike comment???? Just say the word and I'll release some aggression, babe. Jeffpw 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Jeff!! Thanks for the laugh and for the offer. I guess let's just see what that user does/says now. Maybe s/he was just having a bad day and threw it at me... You and Satyr have definitely improved my day.  :) Aleta 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is anyone supporting Aleta for removing the reference I added to clarify the section re: Natalie Wood? Perhaps not with rancor, but definitely without thought, he reverted the article to an old edit without checking the consequences of his handiwork. I believe a responsible editor makes sure all pertinent, valuable, and/or necessary info is retained instead of simply cutting and pasting an old version of an article. At the very least Aleta should have been reminded of this. SatyrTN, thank you for fixing the references as you did. SFTVLGUY2 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it looks like a mistake was made in all the revertions. Mistakes happen - that's no reason to WP:BITE. And I'm supporting Aleta because I'm assuming good faith - s/he *did* help improve the article, after all. As did you and as did I. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake when I reverted SFTVLGUY2's edit, inadvertently removing the Wood reference. I missed seeing it there. I was not trying to damage the article. I also can assure you that I have a belly-button. Aleta 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] advice

Hey I had a quick question. I've gotten involved with the "sexually transmitted disease" page, and it gets vandalized up to 10 times a day. What's the best way to initiate protection on a heavily vandalized page?--Coryarlo 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thankyou--Coryarlo 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witeck Combs Help

Hello! My name is Kevin... you have been helping to edit my page on Witeck Combs. I am hoping to branch out on the whole Gay marketing section and add a few new pages on such things as the Human Rights Campaign's corporate Equality index. Anywho, this has been my first wikipedia page to create. Perchance, do you know why the article Witeck-Combs is not showing up when I search for it? Also why can I not get to the page when I click on the web address for it from... say my gmail? Its says that there is no such page. Do I just have to be patient and allow the database to update itself to show these changes. Thanks a bunch! -Kevin-

[edit] Turtle Creek Chorale

i just wanted to bring to your attention something i saw today on the diff page for the Turtle Creek Chorale with this in the comment: ‘Removal of LGBT template as the Turtle Creek Chorale board does not want this as a part of their Wikipedia entry’

....can they dictate that? --emerson7 | Talk 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunh. I wouldn't think they could require that be removed. An editor could remove it, but any editor could put it back, too. I'm not very well versed in that aspect of Wikipedia policy, though, so I don't know the answer. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in - I'd like to know the answer to this important question. I'll look into it. MusicMen 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This one's actually not really difficult, policy wise: it's a conflict for them to dictate what they want in their entry. I'm sorry they don't like it, and they can register their dissatisfaction on the Talk Page, but that tag applies. Philippe 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess somebody needs to put it back :-) Jeffpw 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I was at it, I added the tag to San Diego Men's Chorus. Jeffpw 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. :-) Philippe 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> It came off the article again, this time because there's no evidence in the article that they're a GLBT org. I readded it, pointing out their membership in GALA (which is listed in their associations sectin). I also began a section on the talk page, in hopes of shutting down this edit war and building some concensus. Philippe 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

Should we add Andrew Van de Kamp as a LGBT FA? It is a gay (or bi) fict character... What do you think? Raystorm 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've looked at the newsletter as it stands now, and nothing in particular occurs to me that needs adding.  :) -Aleta 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit dispute

Would you please weigh in with your opinion at Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story? Thanks for your opinion either way. -- Ssilvers 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue V - April 3, 2007 Monthly Challenge: Article News Three articles were promoted to Featured Article status this month: Homer's Phobia (2007-03-26), Trembling Before G-d (2007-03-15) and Andrew Van De Kamp (2007-03-30). Congratulations to Gran2 and Dev920 (twice!) respectively for all their hard work! Three new articles appeared on the Main Page as Did you know? items: Classification of transsexuals (2007-03-02), Steve Stanton (2007-03-08) and Melbourne Gay and Lesbian Chorus (2007-03-23), started by Lwollert, Yksin and MusicMen, respectively. DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page. Project News There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing. We have a list of people categorized as LGBT whose articles need to be checked for reliable sourcing. This effort is necessary and urgent, to comply with Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Please take a few moments to source one article; if you've got time, do another. SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr! The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs. Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage. If you see any articles for deletion or any other deletion discussions related to LGBT topics, please remember to add them to the deletion sorting board. Thanks! Member News Our membership continues to expand. 22 new users have joined the WikiProject: Garik, Esrever, mlbedwell, Jet123, Welland R, Auriel, DaliJim, queerpeace, SUIT, Mentality, Nukleoptra, LeaHazel, lindleyle, Justin Eiler, Bylandl, Brent Calderwood, PC78, Gekedo, polymathematics, Coryarlo, Ziji, mcgarymi. Please make them feel welcome! To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

SatyrBot 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

This is very late but you deserved some recognition.

		The Basque Barnstar of National Merit
		I, Joebengo, award you this barnstar for your help in adding the Basque WikiProject template to hundreds of Basque article talk pages with your Bot. Thank You! --Joebengo 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Man - thanks :) And that's a cute star! Will look good with my collection :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your bot

Hey SatyrTN, just letting you know that your bot has been leaving inactivity messages on Ambi's old talk page [1]. In May last year she renamed her account to User:Rebecca. Cheers, Sarah 06:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll check on that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

FYI: discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#LocateMe_bot. Tyrenius 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thanks for your message. Please drop me an e-mail, if you like. Andy Mabbett 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LGBT to do list

It does not do it for stubs with the WikiProject LGBT banner, does it? Leo Bersani had those two things for a while and wasn't on the list, hence my assumption.Zigzig20s 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It should. If the article talk has the LGBTProject banner and the article has a cleanup tag, it should show up on the full list. Bersani doesn't have any cleanup tags on it, so he doesn't show up on the "Needing xxxx" lists. Stubs aren't automatically put in any of the cleanup sections, no. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did u remove Leo Bersani, Alan Hollinghurst, The Line of Beauty and The Swimming Pool Library from the to-do list? They need to be expanded! Zigzig20s 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would need to add this {{Expand}} then, is that correct? I wasn't familiar with this tag...For me a stub tag would seem to hold the same meaning...Zigzig20s 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Since there are so many stubs, and since they're easily found in their own category, I didn't include them in the bot's run. The bot lists the articles that editors have expressed a particular interest in by putting on a tag. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that tag makes a page look ugly though? Not to be an annoying aesthete, but...Zigzig20s 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's a stub, it's already ugly in one sense :) Seriously, though, I'm not all that fond of the cleanup tags, but they do serve a purpose and there sure are a plethora of them! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council

Yeah, they're active. They're here: WP:COUNCIL. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot and LocateMe

Thanks for your message. I have not manually moved any of the LocateMe tags that SatyrBot applied (although others may have), figuring that it's a good task for a bot. Obviously I can't speak for anyone except myself, but I think that moving the tags from articles to talk pages would be well received. Best, --MCB 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link

I added a link to the Portsmouth NH page and you removed it. How come?

Before adding the link, I posted a comment, "Proposed Link," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portsmouth%2C_New_Hampshire in mid-February. I left it there for well over a month without a reply, then went ahead and added the link. You removed it the next day.

The link, to PortsmouthNH.com, is highly relevant to the topic and provides lots of free information. The commericial-free purity of Wikipedia page does not seem to extend to the newspaper websites, which have much more advertising and in some cases less information. How is "old media" superior to "new media"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zpinhead (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Coordinates

How exactly do you workout the coordinates to a location and the apply them to Wikipedia? Simply south 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Check out WP:GEO or Andy Mabbett. My bot was only involved in adding the banner for the project. Sorry I can't be more help :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats OK. Thanks Simply south 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Film banner tweak

That looks much nicer than the current version, and I think the project is likely to agree to having it done that way too. The only suggestion I have is shrinking the header font down a bit so that it doesn't look quite so huge in comparison to everything else. Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I am just stopping by to let you know that I have a RfA and it would be great if you could put in your two cents about me.--Joebengo 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot and articles about London

SatyrBot recently placed maintenance notices asking for precise geographical coordinates on a large number of articles about London places, such as individual buildings (e.g. Electric Ballroom, Dorchester Hotel), city squares (e.g. Soho Square), parks (e.g. Dulwich Park), and other articles. Consequently, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Locate me tag where a couple of us think that these tags are overkill. At the very least, precise geographical coordinates are of little importance in most of these articles. For example, all that really needs to be said about Electric Ballroom is that it is located at 184 Camden High Street in Camden, London. Latitude and longitude would be overkill.

At the very least, could you at least comment at the discussion at WikiProject London? Also, could you consider at least stopping your bot from tagging more London-related articles until some consensus is reached at WikiProject London on these tags?

Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)