Hello, Tuxedo junction! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zhuangzi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Flyguy649talk20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! You can easily undo any of your edits by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the page. Then either click "undo" beside the last edit, or click on an older version of the article (where the date is) then click edit (there will be a warning that you are editing an earlier version), then save. Please remember to add an edit summary. -- Flyguy649talk20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TJ. I undid your correction of the spelling in the notes to the article ('reminiscenses' to 'reminiscences') for the sake of historical accuracy. I was quoting an article in the NYT (1907) and that's how they spell it in their subheading. Just in case you think it's me that can't spell. RLamb (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statue is all about hermaphrodites, unable to see the actual sex, that is what it is about, the official name of the statue is hermaphrodite, that is the whole point, why would there be a picture of a woman in the lede of the hermaphrodite article? I had changed it to simply a person, people without sight that are wanting to get information about hermaphrodites will understand person or we can just add a hermaphrodite laying back but this is actually not clear as alt text so imo person is ok, what do you think? Have another look and are you sure it is a woman, it could just as easy be a male...Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have it as this now..Marble statue of person lying on a bed, back to the viewer, the persons legs are entangled in cloth. which I think is correct with policy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, would you agree to "person looking externally like a female" or something like that? Saying the statue is a hermaphrodite meaning nothing to someone who can't see the picture and has never knowingly seen a hermaphrodite. What do you want the person who cannot see the statue envision that it looks like? Do all hermaphrodites look like women on the outside, with no sign of male parts? Or do some look like men on the outside? Perhaps that text of the article could clearly explain that they do. How about that? If some look like men on the outside, there should be pictures of them in the article. Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it looks like a female, I would say it could be a male or a female or a hermaphrodite, which is what the article is about. A hermaf is a bit of both, could be a man or a woman, a merging of the two sexes in one body, you can't say this looks like a woman because you can not see any breasts or any sex organs at all. Is there a noticeboard for alt text? if there is I think I will ask for wider experience opinions regarding this Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Marble statue of a person of unclear sexual definition, lying on a bed, back to the viewer, the persons legs are entangled in cloth.Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to ask at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images. There they are discussing alt text, but they don't get questions about specific examples. I think this is an interesting example and I really don't know what the correct way to go is. You could ask the question, entitled "A question about a specific example of alt text", or something like that. I would like to find out what the general consensus is, as it would clarify what alt text is supposed to do. Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a interesting example but not especially about ALT, just one of those special, rare cases, lets ask there or somewhere. I will ask there and see if there are replies, regards. What do you think about the last offering just above? of unclear sexual definition?Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everything the alt text people have said so far is that the alt text should be descriptive of the image, and not interpretive. I believe that I am not unusual in assuming the figures are female when no context is presented. But definitely the alt text should not perpetuate untruths. So I would really like to know what others think. Plus it could be helpful to the alt text people to get a concrete example to discuss. I would like to see you ask there. I would do it, but I don't know enough about it to present the situation accurately. Tuxedo junction (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not captions. Please learn the distinction between alt text and captions. I am trying to add alt text per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. My edit was not a mistake. I was trying to add alt text for the cover, a la the wonderful example set by the article on the single If U Seek Amy. Please consider before you label an edit vandalism. Perhaps you can correct the error on the page of Ice Ice Baby, where there is no alt text for the album cover. Tuxedo junction (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I said above that I know what alt text. You're basically calling me stupid, or ignorant, I'm not sure which, and therefore you are being a jerk. Woogee (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, give me some idea of how to characterize goatees. You want to give some flavour of the individuality of the subject to the person who doesn't see the image. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuxedo junction. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, and that editing here may be confusing and difficult for new users, but please bear in mind that you are solely responsible for the edits you make, regardless of the tools/gadgets you use. I'm not sure if you know this, but when editing with automated/enhanced tools such as WikiEd, you accept full responsibility for your edits you make while editing with these tools, just as if you were editing normally from your internet browser. If the tool isn't working out for you, don't use it. I hate to tell you this, but your errors with WikiEd are becoming rather disruptive. If you don't know how to use it, please stop. Consider this your only warning. If you "mess up" or blank a page again, I will not hesitate to block you from editing. Kind Regards, FASTILYsock(TALK)22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not using the automated functions of Wiki Ed. I am not even sure what they are. I was only using Wiki Ed because it highlights the text and makes it easier to read in the edit mode. For each of the two mistakes, the mistake did not show up in the preview mode. Is there no tolerance here at all for human error. Each time I self reverted immediately. Are you saying that I should not use Wiki Ed for its ability to highlight text in the edit more? Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am not harassing Dusti but merely responding to the talkback template he leaves on my page.
And I do know how to use Wiki Ed. I don't use it for any "automatic features" so I am asking you what you are talking about. I don't think there are any "automatic features". Anything extra makes a browser crash more easily. Does that mean no one should ever use any edit aids? There seems to be tolerance for the occasional error other places. Someone just accidentally blanked my page and self reverted. Should he receive a warning template? Tuxedo junction (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A formal notification
I would like to apologize for any confusion that may have taken place previously, and any feelings that may have accidentally been hurt. Welcome to Wikipedia, DustiSPEAK!!00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all those alt texts, much appreciated! It's been on my list for ages, as I do want to get this to FA eventually. GedUK18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Please unblock me. I am sorry for anything I did wrong. I must not know the rules. I will try not to do wrong again. Kindest regards. Tuxedo junction (talk) 7:41 am, Today (UTC−4)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Van Gogh
There were several errors in your changes to the article, and I have reverted them. Please use the talk page and achieve consensus before making so many corrections. There were multiple spelling errors, multiple minor WP:IDON'TLIKEIT type alterations - multiple veteran editors have been working on this article for many months, wholesale revisions should be discussed first. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
