User talk:TyrS

Landers

The full page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Landers.jpg - already explains that it's Lederer.

But readers shouldn't have to go there to learn who the photo is really of. Anyhow, I've edited the photo caption since then. It is odd that the photo of Lederer was captioned only as "Ann Landers" but this bit of oddness comes from the LoC.

What's been bothering me is whether there was ever a real "Ann Landers".

According to [1], it was a name randomly chosen by Ruth Crowley, using the surname of a family friend. So I guess 'no' is the answer.

DS (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

... and I only now noticed that the article has been expanded to include material about Ruth Crowley. DS (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the discussion page, for the sake of delivering the historical facts in an objective way, I strongly feel there need to be 3 2 separate articles, 2 1 bios ( R Crowley & E Lederer) and one "Ask Ann Landers (advice column)" article. Lederer's use of the "Ann Landers" identity seems to have gone beyond journalism and almost into the territory of performance, and lots of Americans still think of her (& feel affectionately towards her) as Landers. However, this belief/feeling doesn't really reflect the actual history or make for a clearly-set-out encyclopedia article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job in distinguishing Lederer from the column. Keep up the good work. (And I can see how to answer your question about Creme de noyaux, but not how to phrase it... gimme a little while to think.) DS (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DS!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to American and British English spelling differences

The unambiguous instruction in WP:REFPUN has "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, it is placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes". I feel a revert coming on. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I wasn't aware of that instruction. It's kind of a shame that that type of punctuation doesn't make any sense though (i.e. separating the reference number from the text to which it applies). That makes Wikipedia look kinda dumb (to me anyway). Ah well.--TyrS (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cinnabar & Dragon's blood

Cinnabar has certainly been used to make buttons (and almost everything right up to furniture) as China has a huge tradition of highly carved (mercury) cinnabar lacquerwork.

However this isn't dragon's blood, and dragon's blood doesn't have anything like the mechanical strength needed to be used in layers this thick. It's not even (AFAIK) used for relief carving. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy!--TyrS (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

True Blood

I know it's a bummer, but American quotation marks go outside the comma. Being English myself, I feel your pain, but that's the way they do it here! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Ravenscroft32, we don't use the American format for quotation marks. WP:ENGVAR doesn't affect that aspect of punctuation, so I've restored TyrS' edits. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ckatz. Ravenscroft32, the guideline in question can be found here: MOS:LQ#LQ (example 2).--TyrS (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See also sections

See also section are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The line of text is this one "See also: Avoid when possible; use wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end." Will bring it up a WT:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read (and understood) that, but my point is that I haven't created all of these See also sections, so I'm not sure if you have a problem with all of the See also sections in medical articles or just the ones I've created. (And if the latter, that requires more specific discussion.) Of course, feel free to bring it up wherever you want.--TyrS (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We should be trying to make them small and eventually get rid of them IMO not make them larger. But we will see what others feelings are.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries.--TyrS (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey TyrS how about creating a horizontal template to be placed at the bottom of the pages for Pregnancy related health problems such as the one for toxicology?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

With regards to Risk factors in pregnancy, could I point out some guidelines on the selection of reliable sources for medical articles? These are at WP:MEDRS. I don't think the Merck Manual is the ideal source for such a subject, and recent high-quality reviews or professional textbooks in the field are more likely to be useful. JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I'm working on finding better sources (as time permits, of course). :) --TyrS (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gender Word Order

Hello. Regarding the gender word order discussion: The conversation seems to have fizzled out, but I find it really intriguing. I am personally against balancing the word order of gender references in articles, and prefer the more "conventional" (for lack of a better word) approach. But if you feel strongly about this, then I think you could make a very interesting case for it, and I encourage you to do so; which brings me to my point: I have (as you can tell) been thinking about this, and would suggest that you could create a Bot that would scan articles and identify phrases such as "man and woman" "he and she" etc. The Bot could reverse the word order in every other case, thereby creating a balance of word orders. I, myself, have no idea how to create a bot, but you could probably reach out to the help desk page and find someone willing to do it. Then I'd take the operational Bot to the Villiage Pump and ask for a consensus to launch the bot. I can only imagine what type of discussion that would prompt. Anyway, that may be way beyond the effort you want to put in to this. Regardless, I appreciate the food for thought regarding the gender word order issue. Happy editing! The Eskimo (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS- Feel free to delete this from your page if it rubs you the wrong way. I come here in good faith, but I won't take offense. The Eskimo (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rights claimants

See Template talk:Rights. Do you want to help find a more appropriate subsection heading?--SasiSasi (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your username

Hi Sue,

I'm curious, is your username at all a play on "tiramisu"? (Or alternately, perhaps some subtype of Mary Sue, e.g. "Purity Sue", "Possession Sue", "Relationship Sue", etc?)

--Pfhorrest (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pfhorrest,

Yeah, it's a play on tiramisu, and I also had Calamity Jane in mind at the time (I got the idea for "Tyranny" as a name from the credits of a computer game, I think). I didn't know about all those Sues, though. :)  TyrS  chatties  10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Research survey invitation

Greetings TyrS-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rango

Hi, and thanks for discussing. Sometimes movies are written completely by one screenwriter or a screenwriting partnership. Sometimes one or more writers do the considerable work of creating the narrative, the plot and the major characters, but don't write the actual dialog. The latter are credited for "story," and that is at least equally important as the script. Logan wrote a wonderful script, but without the story by himself and two other writers, there wouldn't have been a script to write. None of this is new or original information; it's a very basic breakdown of how that aspect of filmmaking is done and, per both convention and the WGA, credited. If we credit one, we need to credit the other. In this case, because it might be unwieldy and because all the writers are credited in the infobox, I removed the partial credit and gave my note. I've certainly no objection to the entire bunch of names going into the lead if no one else does. Note, though, that generally in modern cinema the director is credited as a film's auteur. I hope this helps! --Tenebrae (talk)