Jump to content

User talk:Hyacinth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.12.116.24 (talk) at 22:00, 20 July 2004 (reverting vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks

Thanks for mentioning the Stravinski composing in serial style in atonality, I had meant to add it later.

User:Stirling Newberry

No problem. Hyacinth 21:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth article(s)

Hi Hyacinth. As you may have noticed, I split the Hyacinth article in two separate articles: Hyacinth (mythology) and hyacinth (flower). I hope I changed all the links to the appropriate articles. I didn't know which one you want your user page to link to though. You'll have to do that yourself. -- Kimiko 09:59, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Move page

Hi - when you move a page (as you just moved bitonality to polytonality) could you use the "move this page" link if possible, rather than copying and pasting, please. That way, all the history of the page will get moved to the new location rather than being left behind. --Camembert

No problem, thanks for the pointer.Hyacinth 01:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Chinese

It doesn't matter. :D Are you learning Chinese? Do you know how to write them in Chinese characters(esp the Ts'ai-nü)? Romanized Chinese makes little sense to me anyway.... :( --快艇 (Talk)☺ 06:03, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't even know which romanization they are.Hyacinth 06:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gay cartoons

Hey, I am thinking about List of gay cartoons, any ideas? I would like to know some super gay heroes like that in spiderman or superman. ^_^ --Yacht (Talk)Q 02:58, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest List of gay comics.

Recipes

I noticed you've moved some recipes over to wikibooks, which I encourage, but you also made the pages at wikipedia into redirects to the wikibooks page, which is not so good. Interwiki redirects can be hard to find, as when you clikc the link in wikipedia you get sent to wikibooks, but the redirect page does not show up on the list of what links here at wikibooks. Thanks, Gentgeen 09:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see again that your linking to wikibooks, but you're doing it the hard way, by typing in the url. An interwiki link can be made by just typing [[Wikibooks:Module Name]]. Interwiki links are fine, just interwiki redirects are bad. Thanks, Gentgeen

Yo

[1] If you have a problem with me, and expect to recieve any sort of satisfaction thru policy, you have to talk to me and stuff. The guidelines actually say 2 people have to have contacted me about the problem, and I fail to be persuaded to stop violating policy. Not only was there so little in the way of policy violations that nobody commented on the comments page (what did I do, anyways? Those quotes don't violate policy) but even if I had violated policy, you would need to have complained to me directly about it first. I'm actually not such a scary fellow, just take a look at my talk page archive, you'll see that I'm known both for my candor and wit, as well as my engaging manner and thoughtful attentions :) I will warn you tho, if you read too much between my lines, you might find some things I didn't even say ;) This is a habit of those who get upset alot, I have found. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Policy #1: Avoid bias Policy #3: Respect other contributors
The terms "gay" and "straight" are biased terms. Paraphiliac is a clinical term, which is quite different. Jargon refers to terms specialized to a given community, which are relatively useless for use when attempting to communicate with those outside of said community. These terms are also not NPOV, but rather attempt to suggest that homosexuality is a happy condition, whereas heterosexuality is rigid and conformist. Therefore these terms are clearly unacceptable to many.
  • taking personally, other contributors as horrors.
I have not referred directly to any contributors as horrors, nor did I intend to. Rather I was referring to genital mutilation. The article suggests that society at large encourages transexualism. I made it clear elsewhere on that page that no matter how bizarre your paraphilia, mutilating your genitals is not the answer. Yes, I do find the concept of "heteronormativity" personally offensive, and yes I do dispute the accuracy and neutrality of that article. There is no policy violation in being either offended, nor in critiquing a particularly dubious article, as I continue to do. I will agree that this particular sentence could have been clearer, and that it is best to avoid topics that are offensive to me personally, which I have been trying to do, BTW. The requests for comment etc? is ment to bring in other editors, and I have long since removed the page from my watch list, although this is due mainly to the low level of debate on the talk page, and the innapropriate usage of reversion by some editors (you personally are not included in these complaints).
  • spelling
This is irrelevant, and if you think it is indicative of any general flaw in my reasoning or premises, that would be an ad hominem.
In conclusion, no, I did not find your communication on my talk page to be overly sassy nor distressing, spelling correction not withstanding. Feel free to contact me with further questions or concerns. I have made sure to put this thru a spell checker, for your convenience. A good day to you.
Sam Spade 19:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sure, gay and straight are biased terms, as is paraphiliac and all other clinical terms. Clinical does not equal true or accurate. Clinical does not equal neutral. Neutrality is not being engaged in any dispute or fight between these terms and their proponents (us and others). Whatever bias I may have, you're blanket urge to rid wikipedia of certain terms is not even attempting to avoid bias. (By the way, I don't think that "straight" is meant to imply rigid, it actually is meant to imply "straight and narrow" as in correct moral non-sinful.)
Refering to sex reassignment surgery as genital mutilation is inaccurate, refering to transsexualism as a paraphilia is inaccurate, and refering to transsexualism as a bizarre paraphilia is disrespectful, with a clear implication that transsexual people are bizarre.
Many people have commented on your "horrors" comment, I would request that you refrain from making such comments in the future. I would ask that you not cut true and accurate content, but rather, if you have objections, edit it so as to neutralize it. I would ask that you not try to impose your terminology and definitions on wikipedia. Having asked, I may now consider examples of the last two actions as vandalism. Hyacinth 21:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you find the term/concept of heteronormativity offensive as it seems the only way to do so would be if one believed that no one ever disregarded gay people and same-sex sexuality and that no one ever thought that gay people and same-sex sexuality were wrong or unnatural. Notice one can't actually believe this is unnatural oneself, as one would then have to grant that heteronormativity is correct, and thus nonoffensive. Hyacinth 21:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reject your conclusions. Your definition of vandalism is very far from the consensus, and I suggest you try listing me on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress if you think I am mistaken. Your dismissal of clinical terms as POV suggests to me that an encyclopedia, or other sources of learning are not compatible w your unusual POV. I certainly will impose clinical and other precise terminology upon the wikipedia. This statement "I would ask that you not cut true and accurate content, but rather, if you have objections, edit it so as to neutralize it" is too strange for me to be able to respond to. Your understanding of the ramifications of the concept of heteronormativity fail to take into account the whole of what has been said on that page, and thus commit the Fallacy of composition. Overall you strike me as confused/mistaken, and I advise you to review Wikipedia:Policy Library. Sam Spade 22:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Montana Democratic party

I noticed that you work for the Montana Democratic party. I recently created lists of all the state Dem and Rep parties. Perhaps you like to write a little about the Mt Dem partySmith03 02:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)List of state Democratic Parties in the US

That one as adorable as Hyacinth should be gay-bashed at Wikipedia is truly deplorable. If Australia wasn't so far from Montana I'd do something serious about it. Also, why does Hyacinth have bits of the Darwin family tree at hsi user page? Adam 11:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Here was I thinking User:Hyacinth was a female (owing to a character on a British comedy show) when really you are this hot guy. I really should look at user pages more... - Mark 02:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Wikihate

It's a shame about that, it really is. I had a bit of a confusing run-in with someone when I attempted to put Grace Kelly in Category:Gay icons. While I wasn't called a faggot, I was mildly insulted and it's a shame that it has to happen here; you'd think people would be more open-minded, eh? Mike H 20:50, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks I mostly add links so I guess "add link" would work for the summary. gracias Arminius 21:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anon IP

I was in the process of adding a link in Response to the stuff I posted on the talk page. I had it under control, you know. Mike H 19:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Great. Hyacinth 19:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:-/ Mike H 19:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, good, that wasn't sarcastic. My bad. I had always thought you didn't care for me that much. Mike H 19:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Jesus! YOU thought HE never cared for you much? Mike, I think you overanalyze EVERYTHING that EVERYONE says to you, and always (possibly subconciously) look for malice in others' remarks to you. You sure did this when I questioned your reasoning for considering my Misdemeanor Elliott edits biased. The two of you (you & Hyacinth) have been backing each other up, sometimes ridiculously, on a number of different feuds with different people! It's a mystery why you'd think Hyacinth dislikes you! You two seem awfully buddy-buddy, IMO too much so!205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Luckily, I haven't been vandalized that much. I got one hit on my talk page, and I archived that, even though there were posts that suggested that my friend Jennifer (in the picture on my user page) was a transvestite and my gay lover. Mike H 19:56, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
LOL! I was the one who made the comment about your girl friend being your gay lover. It's called irony--"ironically" enough, just today, a friend of mine who's in California pointed out that iron, sarcasm, and the like is not understandable in certain parts of the country. I was not aware of this. Maybe you live in a place where sarcasm is not used, and that's why you've had problems with people for stupid reasons.
I called your friend your "gay lover" because you suggested that Rienzo's comment about "your 'friend' ;)" was some sort of "gay bashing". Unless the girl's a transvestite (which she does not appear to be, but, hey, ya never know), then harassing "your 'friend' ;)" cannot be considered some sort of homophobic slur, as you've alleged against Rienzo. That was my point--I guess you just have a culture where some of this stuff is lost on you, for whatever reason. I should be more patient.205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It hardly seems worth putting a picture up if it isn't JUST you (and most of my pictures aren't). BTW, you seem very intelligent, and both you and your boyfriend are very attractive individuals. Mike H 20:30, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to flatter him to win his approval.205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anon, please do not post personal attacks on my talk page. Hyacinth 05:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Again, I don't know what the hell you mean by "personal attacks". What in my comments above is a personal attack and whom is this "attack" being directed at? I am honestly stumped. Either you, too, are misunderstanding my writing--I thought I offered a more-than-sufficiently-clear explanation of my sarcastic comments above, legimitate comments that Mike is attempting to write off as "gay bashing". Explain yourself! You have the right to dictate what can and cannot be posted at your own page, yes, I agree; as I have my right to dictate what is stated on my pages (a right that some people here seem insistent on violating). However, I also have the right to defend myself from slander or libel wherever it occurs. As Mike has misrepresented--giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say "misunderstood"--comments of mine, I am standing up for myself against Mike's apparent confusion. Now, are you still confused, or are you simply going out of your way to create trouble with me?68.36.175.254 16:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All users

Please do not carry on conversations with other users on my talk page. That is why you all have talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. But please explain your accusations against me. Where's there a "personal attack" on this page?172.130.99.47 22:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Waiting for an explanation--my so-called "personal attack" against Mike H was given as reason for one of my many unsubstantiated bannings. I am pissed!205.188.116.23 17:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see your talk pages:

Thanks, Hyacinth 21:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Attacks against my person

I don't understand why the guy is so bent out of shape. From what I've read, he got angry when I didn't acknowledge his apology. I read it and thought it was very nice of him. I don't understand which flaws he wanted me to admit to, though. Can you make heads or tails of it? Mike H 17:21, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the two of you pressed Wiki charges against me and got my account banned, simply because you didn't like that an "anonymous" person was contributing so much. We agreed to move on (or so I thought), yet you went behind my back and continued aggression against me! To date, you are still continuing your aggression against my person by removing my comments from pages and fucking with my talk and user pages! Oh, so I guess it's OK for you to do whatever you want to do to anyone's pages now? I was harassed for using Hyacinth's page to ask him a question. But, you're above the laws, I see, and think you can't get in trouble for fucking up others' pages...64.12.116.24 04:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Consensus, including among members of the Arbitration Committee, seems to be that since that IP has been making death threats, the user can be safely hard banned.

Better to be safe and hard then to be unsafe and limp, like your dog is whenever you try to fuck him.

Which makes your request for arbitration both redundant and a magnet for him to keep attacking and vandalizing. So if you want to delete it, you should. Snowspinner 02:44, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome

welcome --Drbalaji md 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to send notes

Hi Hyacinth, thanks for letting me know how to use summary (will try to better myself from now on). Question: how do you send these internal messages like you sent me? (I got one from Dysprosia a few days ago too)? Recently I performed changes to:

Would be very glad to know reactions on the content of these changes/contributions/remarks (e.g. also on the Vexations Midi-files I published on that page - is that an acceptable way to do that?)! --Francis Schonken 21:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-> Thanks for your answer, I kinda figured out it worked this way. btw, regarding User:Hyacinth#Top_Nine_Pieces: "3 gymnopédies orchestrated by Debussy": Claude Debussy only orchestrated two of the three Gymnopédies, changing their numbering. ;) --Francis Schonken 07:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On intercourse

"All vaginal intercourse is sexual intercourse, but not all sexual intercourse is vaginal."

Yes, that's how I originally meant to deal with that section of Sexual slang, but in my latest edit(s) I forgot, since 'Anal intercourse' was not a subtopic of 'Sexual intercourse'. I'm going to make these changes:

  • Sexual intercourse
brief preamble here
  • Vaginal intercourse
all current 'Sexual intercourse' terms here
  • Anal intercourse
'Anal intercourse' terms here

- dcljr 04:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, BTW, Hyacinth: might I suggest you move the quote "merged 'Sexual intercourse' and 'Vaginal intercourse': no difference!" underneath the Intercourse heading on Talk:Sexual slang? I think that would make more sense to readers. As it stands now, it (initially) looks like an isolated quote with no comment or attribution; it's only after one reads the next section that one realizes why it's there. Oh, and thanks for your remarks about my edits. I kinda went wild on it yesterday... - dcljr 00:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I think if you check the Talk:Sexual slang edit history you'll find that something went terribly wrong in your latest edits. I have reverted that page to the version that was current when I posted the message on this page immediately above this one. (My first-ever revert!) I also switched the quote and 'Intercourse' heading (not sub-heading) as I was talking about above. I do think that's best. Finally, I included your latest comments about the term sex-worker. As they were not signed in your edit, I left them unsigned. I hope this all meets with your approval. - dcljr 06:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please provide an edit summary, thanks. Hyacinth 20:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hehe, I think you will find that when you have been doing Wikipedia as long as I have that you learn where to put an edit summary and when not to trouble the recent changes list. Unless they are substantive changes to articles which I am driving, most of my edits will fall under the category of minor adjustments, and therefore probably not even worthy of note. Edit summaries are largely a matter of style: a quick scan of my contributions reveal that I use edit summaries in > 50% of cases and about 30% of the remainder are part of rolling ongoing edits; possibly 5% are borderline maybe should have edit summarised.

However, as a matter of concern, you should consider refactoring your talk page: it is in excess of 30k and this results in strain on the database servers. Sjc 09:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My talk page has been refactored as you suggested, thank you.

Everything on wikipedia is a matter of personal style, still: "Always fill the summary field is one of Wikipedia's guidelines. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. Summaries often pique the interest of wikipedians with an expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but (e.g.) "fixed spelling" would be nice even then."

Hyacinth 19:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lol; a quick scan of your contributions brings to mind a phrase containing the words pot kettle and black. If you are going to criticise someone, do at least try and make sure you have your own house in order. You end up looking such a prat otherwise. Sjc 04:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyacinth&oldid=4758428"