Talk:Cyndi Lauper
|
|
{Could you replace the term 'gays' with something else? 'gay people', 'lesbians and gay men', etc.? In some parts of the US, 'gays' is offensive. (As are other usages of referring to people with an adjective-as-noun, like 'blacks' or 'crippleds' -- it implies that the characteristic isn't a part of the person, but *is* the person.)
Also, pedantically, the title of the song "The Goonies 'R' Good Enough" has an apostrophe both before and after the 'R'; I have the original vinyl single to verify this. This was correct in an earlier version of the page, but was since changed.}
--Heath [unregistered]
I am Easter Bradford. I was told by an administrator who had blocked my account that I need to specify if material was written by myself, because it was mistakenly thought that items had I added were copyright infringements. Thus the mention of that lengthy bio that parts of it were written by myself, Easter Bradford (and that some parts were there already.)
- Some of our administrators are a bit overzealous. You are of course welcome to post here, and this note is quite sufficient to show your intent to license the work even though it appears elsewhere under copyright. We just don't like credits on the articles themselves. I'll also put a note on your user page. --LDC
Removed: "It could be said she was The Spice Girls before The Spice Girls." -- not really, since she could actually sing. I've seen this same problem of referencing to current, ephemeral culture on fantasy books that are compared to Harry Potter. -- Tarquin
Corrected: Changed "The Goonies 'R' Too Good" to "The Goonies 'R' Good Enough". Added: She won an Emmy in 1995 for Mad About You. --Heath (not registered).
Nothing to do The Spice Girls she's a real songwriter. What about "Time after time" by Miles Davis ?
Ericd 20:53 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)
Isn't the "lovely" (as this article describes it) 'She Bop' a song about masturbation? soulpatch
What's with the "Parts by Easter Bradford...all rights reserved."? If that's really true, then we can't use his text here. Fair use is OK for images since they don't generally get edited, but the text of Wikipedia has to be editable and has to be licensed under the GFDL. If he really wants to retain his copyright, then we have to remove his text and create our own. If he wants to license the work to us under the GFDL, then there should be a note to that effect here in the talk page, and we should remove the credit from the article. We're not in the business of reproducing copyrighted work here. --LDC
Technically, by default under U.S. copyright law, ALL authored are by default automatically copyrighted by the author with all rights reserved, so there is no difficulty with Mr. Bradford retaining his copyright - in fact, by default, all of us retain our copyrights, and can be used by us, legally. It would be better if he also explicitly declared that it is being licensed under the GFDL. Currently in Wikipedia, the license grant is implicitly assumed when submitting work, which makes things easier for authors but since there's no mechanism in place for providing traceability to who gave the license grant, this may be legally iffy.
Please realize that there is an important difference between copyright and 'license. In order for something to be put under the GFDL, it must be copyrighted (or 'copylefted' as they say) by its legal owner. Doing this explicitly rather than implicitly is okay, and actually is better for Wikipedia in situations like this where administrators wish for traceability and assurance of no copyright infringements, as it helps absolve Wikipedia of those questions - Mr. Bradford is accepting the responsibility.
Anyway, this is a larger issue than just getting credit, and deserves further considerations, especially as it conflicts with the (worth rethinking, imho) tradition of suppressing author attribution for articles. -- BryceHarrington
- ???!!!Do we really want people slapping their names on an article everytime they update it???!!! -- Zoe
This issue has already been resolved; see the top of this page. And believe me, I understand the details of copyright law in intimate detail. --LDC
You know, I only wrote this entry because I super love Cyndi Lauper and wanted a nice detailed entry. Sorry for the controversy! -EB-
Dashes
Hi, Everyking.
- rv -- those are hyphens, and i thought it was decided they could be freely changed to dashes [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cyndi_Lauper&diff=4188967&oldid=4187494)
I know what they are. I put them there (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cyndi_Lauper&diff=1885932&oldid=1885868) and I don't appreciate them being "corrected" when there's no consensus on the correctness of the "correction".
Please read the referenced discussion. There's no "decision" there.
I tend to favour the following policy when confronted by ndashes in articles I have no other editorial investment in:
- Evolving language and the decreased reliance on print world conventions have led to the hyphen becoming an acceptable replacement for other dashes. Where hyphens have been used in place of other dashes, you are discouraged from changing these, in the same way that changing spelling forms is discouraged. (See #Usage and spelling). [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dashes)
If you'd added some new material (which is not to diminish your DOB fixlet) then I could understand that you might wish to see your dash preferences preserved (if you at least exhibited some familiarity with the debate, and pursued your policy consistently), but I fail to see why you waded randomly into this article to override the de facto Wikipedia standard.
You wrote on my talk page:
- I've never seen anyone defend hyphens being used incorrectly [sic] in place of dashes.
Again, please at least cast your eye over the linked discussion. Here are a few thought-nibbles:
- I've commented this out for now and just noted that the hyphen is commonly used in place of other dashes. I disagree that it should be "corrected", and I believe the safest option is to go with the same policy we have for spelling to prevent edit wars over this. I personally regard pages containing text such as "“”" to be highly unreadable. Angela. 02:33, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) uses regular ascii dashes in dates (1999 - 2005). I don't see what the problem with them is personally. It makes editing easier and looks fine when rendered to my eyes. The manual of style isn't compulsory, but it's the only guideline that should be applied to wikipedia IMO. If it's under debate then hash it out on the talk page and modify the guidlines if necessary when a consensus has been reached. fabiform | talk 06:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I must insist that we NOT use HTML entities in raw wiki markup. This is a barrier to editing to all the non-technically-minded people who do not know what — means when they see it in raw wiki text. Irrespective of what is correct typograpy, we must work with the tools at our disposal, and we must remember that this is a wiki and clarity in raw source is as important as clarity and accuracy in rendered form. -- Tarquin 16:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
&c.
chocolateboy 22:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Fine, keep the hyphens if you want. I think it's awfully counterproductive of you to revert a minor change that only made the article look a little prettier and more formal, though. Everyking 22:23, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Replace "formal" with "editable" and I think I could respectfully say the same to you. Either way: thanks for discussing it and thanks for improving the article.
chocolateboy 22:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, I don't know about all that, but I do know that I am seeing hyphens/dashes that are grammatically incorrect in both American and UK English, so I am changing them to commas. Pacian 10:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)