Talk:Catherine Yronwode

lowercase name

I recognize and respect the fact that the person who this article describes has chosen to write her name in all lowercase letters. However, it is my opinion that in sentences where her name is the first word (and perhaps in the article title, making the technical restrictions notice unnecessary), the first letter should be capitalized, exactly in the same way as any other generally-lowercase word. I would be curious if this is following a precedent (perhaps started by e. e. cummings) and hear some more opinions on this before I boldly change it, since someone obviously feels strongly about it. --Cromwellt|Talk 08:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't demand that my name be capitalized or not capitalized, no more than i demand that it be in a serif font or a san-serif font. That is a typographic decision entirely up to the discretion of whoever writes or typesets my name. When i write or typeset my own name, i do so in all lower case. cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That'd Be Me

I was surprised to find this page about me, so i edited a little bit. I use lower case i and lower case name (cat / catherine yronwode) but i do capitalize the first word in a sentence. Some folks who like me think i insist on all refs to my name must be in all lower case, but that is not so. Cat yronwode is my name and my name is cat yronwode -- first letter of the sentence is capped. Anyay, it's no biggie to me. What i would really like is a redirect page from Catherine_Yronwode, as more than 3/4s of my published writing appears under that name. Catherineyronwode 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done (and I added a Notable Wikipedian template).--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Arrived in Style

hi! I made it into the system and have even set about editing stuff (right here!!!) much love to you oh darling dear! bo-bo 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sacramento? Uh-uh.

Someone has added some very strange MISinforation to this page.Cat was not raised in Sacramento. Someone is either very confused, or is having fun doing the wiki-fantasy-biography thing. See the Cat Yronwode autbiography page for confirmation that she never lived in Sacramento. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.32 (talk • contribs) .

I believe I put that in there during my massive revamp. If it's incorrect, it was probably my confusion; there is a reference to spending time with her biological father, who lived in Sacramento. That doesn't seem significant enough to mention. I appreciate your work on the article, althoguh I'm unsure whether straight chronological order is always the best for an article. My organization leaned toward topical. In any case, please assume good faith. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Correa case

I took out these comments, one I made:

I believe, will need to verify if Eclipse was co-defendant

Eclipse was not involved; Correa was an employee of Friendly Frank's (owned by Frank Mangiaracini)\

My question, which was not answered by the sources available, was whether yronwode was an expert witness because of her knowledge of the comics industry, or whether an Eclipse product was in any way a party to the case. I made an assumption that it was the former, but someone with better documentation could correct that if necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"I knew deadline doom when I saw it..."

Cat joined the ranks of Stan Lee and Jeanette Kahn (EIC's who have appeared in their own comics) in the eighth issue of Eclipse's run of Miracleman, explaining why the ongoing MM storyline was being delayed and pointing out that she considers the two biggest sins to be "being dishonest and underestimating the public" (and revealed herself as a longtime fan of Doctor Strange). Asat 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for noticing that! cat 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Over-Zealous Cite-Tagging

When i saw the article tonight, i realized that an editor had put a cite-tag on a sentence that was already cited. He asked for a cite that i had written books for Kitchen Sink Press after 1981, even though a book i wrote in 1989 for Kitchen Sink was already listed in the Bibliography section and thus proved the sentence to be verified as true. Strange world... catCatherineyronwode 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Nagasiva article?

He's attracted media attention for serving as a "suicide guru," giving instructions to people intent on killing themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/17/nweb117.xml

I'd recommend adding this information to Church of Euthanasia and then seeing if it gains critical mass making it worth splitting off. As you say this is going to be controversial (as he crops up when there is an Internet suicide scare, as there is no and there was in 2003 when he also made the news[1]), so it'd be worth taking things slowly. His pages: [2] [3]. (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Any Wikipedian can create a page for him, if desired. He has recently published a book, "The Gospel of Satan: Commentary and Fatwas by Troll Towelhead (Grand Mufti of Satanism)" -- the ISBN is 978-1-4675-6720-6 and it is available at amazon. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (cat, not logged in)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like cat yronwode, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - easy pass. It has the potential to go higher but the WP:COI header will need addressing first. (Emperor (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Removing the COI banner

It is a "strong" tag and should be used sparingly but I have seen it used in a lot of circumstance where a creator has merely edited their own page (which is allowable within the limits laid down in WP:COI) when the notable wikipedian and NPOV tags would be a better option. They are easier to address the concerns and I have found that the COI banner tends to stick (like... mud to a blanket) and is difficult to address head-on (especially as some pages may have bits that aren't neutral that haven't been added by the subject). I have raised similar concerns on the tags talk page Template talk:COI#Usage and didn't get very far.

So I'd suggest I find another editor who can give the article a thorough read through with neutrality issues in mind and they can fix them or they can flag them and I'll address them and we can work towards removing the banner. Is this an acceptable plan for everyone? (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Sounds thoroughly reasonable :) I agree that the COI template's docs need expanding. I'll comment there later. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. ms yronwode's most 'recent' batch of edits add nothing self-serving (indeed, the two main additions are to early life and court cases) except maybe in trying to more accurately reflect the diverse output of Eclipse. The rest is sources, which is a fantasticly useful addition, and arguably very hard for others to track down.

Prior to that is this run, wherein there is an earlier mass of very helpful sourcing and un-{{fact}}ins. There are also some potentially un-neutral and biased additions, which are, broadly:

• Women in Comics - which was scandalously overlooked, and - despite the possibly-dubious word "pioneering" - is fine. It is notable; it was pioneering.
• Trading cards - similarly relevant and previously absent. Could, to a degree, be marked as 'Self-serving,' but no less true and accurate for that.

Prior to that is sourcing alone; but it's the earlier edits that presumably (may) warrant the COI tag. However, sheer common sense negates that reading.

The earliest edits do the following:

• Add in Eisner; e-i-c role. (Possibly self-serving; integral)
• Rearrange three brief sentences - Ironwood, Usenet, folklore - and expand them. (Clarifying hoodoo and giving examples of her previously-noted-as 'extensive' bibliography; downgrading "direct" to "indirect" over the Usenet point and adding clarification and a name; expanding and explaining "Ironwood".)
• Adding - neutrally - freelance credits.
• Adding bibliography
• Adding 'see also' and links
• Adding categories.

None of these are especially controversial edits. The selective nature of the bibliographic details introduced by ms yronwode does not imply self-servitude, but rather discretion and sensible selection; the links, expansions and sources all add to the depth of the article considerably and helpfully.

I judge (considerably-just) less than a third of the current article to derive from ms yronwode, and less than that to be solely her work. More importantly, it does not fit the primary criteria for COI:

::"When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

1. Her contributions show a considerable connection to what a general reader might wish to refer to the article for. If anything, it strongly downplays her role in the comics field, and does her a disservice on that front (which, in some senses, might be an unintential bias towards other pursuits... but that's stretching things).
2. Neutral: in whole and in part - I think so, yes.
3. Third-party sources: YES.
4. Unintential bias: ....maybe, but not really.

It needs sections. It needs tidying. Otherwise, this could be an example of excellent collaboration between subject and impartial editors. Rather than the COI tag silently condemning the edits, there should be a big "Thank You" tag, to maybe inspire other subjects to pitch in in similar fashion and bring more articles up to this fairly comprehensive standard. ntnon (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that's great - for the record I'm happy to go with ntnon's review (and his jumping in saves me having to ask him to take a look at it). It also largely matches my own opinion from reading through the article. I will go through it and see if there are any tweaks I can make (now we have got the COI issue out of the way). (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Quiddity is right - the use (and abuse) of the COI banner should be better explained and quashed. Indeed, although it was a flippant aside, the more I think about it, the more I'd really like to see some kind of in-house counter-COI acknowledgement that basically acts to say "the subject has seen and approved/clarified/helped source/otherwise signed off on this article." It could even act as a fantastically helpful 'free pass' (when linked to a particular version) for hard-to-source facts. Allowing someone to say "I have this suggestion, and it IS true" would be a massive benefit, providing bias and true conflicts of interests didn't lead to converse claims. I wonder if it would be workable or useful...? ntnon (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While possibly not a banner, I have worked with other subjects on their articles (most recently Michael Netzer) and, as long as you can make sure they bear the guidelines in mind (and you keep an eye on proceedings to make sure they stay on the right tack), they can make a very useful contribution - as they are, after all, the expert on themselves and usually have access to a good range of references (and are the best people to add a picture of themselves too). I'd rather we encouraged this (even if it is through them making suggestions on the talk page) rather than discouraged it with large "strong" banners when there are better approaches to addressing any perceived problem. (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

I've removed the COI banner based on the above discussion. Also, the editor who added the COI tag does not appear to be contributing to the discussion. A major banner like that should not be added casually; if someone has a COI concern, that needs to be clearly and directly addressed. COI is only an issue if it's an issue. If there is no evidence of editing to the benefit of the editor rather than the encyclopedia, then there is no COI issue. It's reasonable to note the editor's contribution with the talk page banner, for simple process transparency, but unless there is a problem with the article resulting from the situation, the distracting and accusatory COI tag should not be posted on the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for removing the COI banner. I have tried to maintain the neutrality of this article, while improving it, and i appreciate the assessment given. It is true that in my edits here i have downplayed some of the work i have done in the field of comics -- for the simple reason that i do not think it is my place to write of such things. I will gladly source information that need sourcing, and i can always suggest improvements, but this is not "my" article -- it just happens to be an article about me. What improvements would i suggest? Well, i would add the names of creators to the Eclipse titles as they are all wiki-links and should be of interest to readers; i would mention my role in Eclipse's early introduction of Japanese manga to America (in collaboration with Viz Comics); and i would fix the wrongly-titled San Francisco underground paper i wrote for to "San Francisco Express Times / Good Times" as the paper changed its name in the middle of its run. But, like i said, that's some other writer's job, not mine; this is an encyclopedia entry, not my cv or resume. Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of improvement, i hope

Today i made the following changes to the page, in the interest of improving it:

Adding Jewish and Sicilian (ethnic background), linking folk magic (in the lead -- it wasn't wiki-linked on first usage, strangely), correcting name of SF newspaper (Express Times / Good Times), rmv red link (nagasiva bryan w yronwode), typo fix (already slipped my mind, but the diff will show), adding names of comics creators (this had been mentioned as a possible way to improve the section on comic book editing as all listed titles were already wiki-linked, and the creator names are now too).

I hope this is okay with everyone -- it was not done with the intention of bloating the article, just with the intention of making it more interesting and more wiki-linked.

Cautiously,

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Usenet gateway

I removed a section discussing the closure of a usenet mail-to-news directory because after reading the original message, I believed it to be a gross distortion of the facts. I replaced it with a citation of the actual complaint that lead to the closure.

But I left a number of assertions about the effect of the closure made by the same editor because I don't know whether they are true or not. Is it appropriate to add three different "citation needed" tags to three difference sentences that make entirely different assertions, or should I have just put one at the end of the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkanoap (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a ref

Hey, it's me again. I just wanted to let folks know that i edited the page of which i am the subject -- by adding a ref from an article that the Wall Street Journal ran recently in which i was interviewed about the business side of being a hoodoo shop proprietor. It's just a cite; i did not quote from it or anything. Cordially, cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted material

Hello, this is cat, checking in on the state of this article. I was going to send it as a link to someone who wanted my bio, and realized that it has been seriously impaired of late.

The most egregious recent cut to this article was the removal of books i have written from the bibliography on the basis that they were "self-published." This is specious, as i have been a professional publisher of my own books and the books of others for many decades.

If all of my "self-published" books were to be removed, then the work i did for Eclipse would also need to be removed, since i was a co-owner of the company.

If all the "self-published" books written by other publishers were to be removed from wikipedia bibliographies, we would have a very flawed list of books here indeed.

Someone needs to understand that editors and publishers can also write books, and that even if they publish such books themselves, there is no wikipedia policy that would lead to the books being ineligible for listing in a bibliography.

Here is an example that does not involve my work:

From http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alexander_%28magician%29

Bibliography

• Alexander: The Man Who Knows, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, n.d. (c. 1913-1920).
• Personal Lessons, Codes, and Instructions for Members of the Crystal Silence League, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, n.d. (c. 1913).
• Crystal Gazing: Lessons and Instructions in Silent Influence With the Crystal, Written Especially for and Dedicated to Members of The Crystal Silence League, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California. (c. 1919).
• Alexander's Book of Extensive Astrological Readings, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, 1919.
• Alexander's Book of Mystery, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, 1919.
• The Life And Mysteries Of The Celebrated Dr. Q C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California, 1921 [also known as The Dr. Q. Book]. (Reprinted by Robert Nelson Enterprises, Columbus, Ohio, c. 1948)
• Alexander's Book of Mystery: Astrological Forecasts, Crystal Gazing, Practical and Advanced Psychology, Etc., C. Alexander Publishing Co. 1923.
• The Inner Secrets of Psychology Volumes 1 - 5, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California,1924.
• The Projective Branch of Crystal Gazing, Written Especially for and Dedicated to Members of The Crystal Silence League, C. Alexander Publishing Co., Los Angeles, California. n.d. (c. 1924).

Note that the subject of the above page, Claude Alexander Conlin, a.k.a. C. Alexander, wrote AND published all of the books cited in the4 bibliography, and yet those books have not been deleted from wikipedia as "self-published." Furthermore, to delete them now -- and to therefore also delete the hundreds, if not thousands, of bibliographic citations just like them in the bio pages of other writer-publishers -- would be to materially diminish the usefulness and completeness of wikipedia,

The above example is easy to understand, because the author used a variation of his own name as the name of his publishing company. But check out this wikipedia page:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson

I will not copy the lengthy bibliographies of William Walker Atkinson and his many pseudonyms to this page, but as a long-time antiquarian book dealer and an expert in the subject of New Thought publications who owns at least half of those books, i can assure you that Atkinson published every single one of them himself, usually under his Yogi Publishing Co, imprint, but also under other imprints. Like me, Atkinson was a book publisher who was a writer who published the works of many other authors as well as his own.

I understand the impulse to delete amateur material from wikipedia, but when a professional writer publishes a book, that does not, ipso facto, make it an amateur production.

As a long-time writer, typesetter, layout artist, graphic designer, printer, editor, and publisher in the book and magazine field, i can tell you that i enjoy doing the work of book-making. As a person who has performed virtually every task in the chain from writing a manuscript to shipping the finished products, i have decided that my skill-set enables me to earn the royalties of a writer, the wages of a typesetter, the wages of an editor, AND the profits of a publisher on my books. I have been offered deals with other publishers, of course, but i am not interested. I have more fun, and make more money, when i wear more of the hats, as it were.

Why do most authors sign away great potential profits from their books, accepting a small guaranteed royalty instead of becoming stake-holders in a possibly wealth-making publishing venture?

Because publishers bring things of value to the bargain too: Publishers have the capital to pay wages to typesetters and editors, the capital to pay for printing and binding and shipping to a warehouse, ownership or rental of warehouse space to store the books, a shipping department to fulfill wholesale and retail orders, a means of generating publicity on behalf of "their" authors, and a bookkeeping service that provides quarterly royalty statements and issues checks to "their" writers -- and most writers do not have those resources and/or are not interested in learning those skills. There is also the great matter of risk: Most writers would rather take a guaranteed small advance against a royalty than be faced with the prospect of sitting on a warehouse full of unsold books.

As a publisher myself, who has spent a lifetime working as a writer, typesetter, layout artist, graphic designer, printer, editor, and publisher, retail and wholesale book-seller, and, yes, even a book-packer, i do have all of those resources and those interests, i am an entrepreneurial risk-taker, and i can hire people to handle the chores for which i do not have time -- so i write, typeset, and publish my own books. This is different than what is called "vanity" publishing (if that old term is even used in today's world), and so, with respect to those who deleted material from my bibliography as "self-published," i am re-listing these two books.

One of the books removed, "Hoodoo Herb and Root Magic," is now in its 5th edition and has been in print for 9 years, since 2002. The other, "Hoodoo Rootwork Correspondence Course," is in its second edition and has been in print since 2006.

These books are professionally printed on web presses in runs of multiple thousands per edition (i.e. they are not print-on-demand and they are not run off at a local photocopy shop); they have ISBN numbers; they are sold wholesale by the case to retail book-sellers around the world and sold retail by hundreds of book-dealers, and they have been mentioned and cited in third-party sources by other writers in magazines, newspapers, and books published by other publishers.

If any editor wishes to delete these books again, please discuss first, and perhaps we should get a mediator involved as well, because there are issues involved in this matter which extend beyond my mere bio and reach into the entire concept of "what is 'publishing'?"

catherine yronwode 70.36.137.246 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please discontinue your self-promotion. Your books are self-published. Your sites are commercial. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your online profit-making activities. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo -- in this case the person is notable largely BECAUSE of what the "self-published". I agree that Wikipedia is not for promotion of commercial activities, but I do not think an accurate list of the publications of the subject of an article falls into that category. Infrogmation (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale removal of material added by the subject of the article. It didn't look spammy to me in a quick reading; it looked like sited additional biographic material and listing of publications. Yworo, if you have problems with some of it, could you please specify what you consider the particular problem is in individual cases rather than just removing material in bulk? Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This person is notable for comics. I am not the only editor that has removed this material as self-serving. Yronwode is not notable for these activities and has been using Wikipedia for self-promotion for some time. She is not notable for her self-published material, only for her comics career. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if the person's notability were due entirely to their work in comics, that is not a reason for deletion of basic biographical information about the person nor for a listing of their publications. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article. I see nothing "self serving" beyond an attempt for accurate listing of facts. I don't really follow your reasoning for repeated unilateral wholesale deletions of content. I'd be happy to get input from Wikimedians in another forum than this talk page if you wish. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Infrogmation on this one. The way this material was talked about, I assumed it was heavily self-promotional and would have to be trimmed to be included, but when I looked at the diff all I saw were a couple of paragraphs with a number of secondary sources and two additions to the bibliography. This is I think a modest and appropriate addition. The articles of many notable figures include updates of their activities once they departed from the spotlight of their notability, this one should be no different. Gamaliel (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see I'm not the only person who finds the self-congratulatory WP:TONE of this article to be problematic. As I noted in my edit summary when I added the "like resume" and "neutrality questioned" tags, this article is filled with WP:PEACOCK terms, and while it's heavily footnoted, the tone of the article has an unmistakable promotional spin. It reads like a very long biographical blurb that you would see in a press release.

It needs work in order to read more neutrally. And the subject of this article needs to keep an appropriate distance — her contributions should by and large be limited to fixing vandalism or clearly objectionable material, and to alerting other editors here on this talk page about issues of concern. I can see from her lengthy post above that she appears to exhibit a proprietary claim on this article, which runs afoul of WP:OWN. I'm not talking about any one specific fact, and I've no objections to a bibliography including self-published books; I'm talking WP:TONE and spin.

Before I invest time in trying to work on this article, I wanted to state my intentions; ask anyone who objects to anyone touching this article to please see my Wikipedia background in writing comics-professional biographies; and to ask what specific concerns other editors have. From what I've read above, I'm not the only editor who feels this way. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Improving the tone to better comply with NPOV is a different issue, and that goal I certainly support. Laudatory adjectives should be replaced by neutral descriptive language (unless they are direct quotes from cited sources such as third party reviews). Infrogmation (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links

I would argue that Southern Spirits, being an oeuvre edited by Yronwode, is a pertinent external link as it demonstrates her work; conversely, I would not argue this for Arcane Archives, as it is simply a collection of BBS and Usenet postings variously sourced, and only maintained by the Yronwodes.

Thoughts? DS (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A Different Photo?

I'd like to propose a different photo which is newer in part because the author herself uses it promotionally and prefers it to the one that is currently at wikipedia. I can easily secure permission from her to use this new one. It is located at http://www.luckymojo.com/cat1980s.gif -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please! Here are the procedures for doing this. The simplest thing is just to put a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA notice where the photo is posted on LuckyMojo.com, but if that's not desired, there are some alternative ways of doing things (at the link). -- Visviva (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh great, I'll upload it here and fill out the proper forms in the next few days. Thank you kindly.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done so and you may now find it at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Catherine_Yronwode%2C_at_the_Oakland_Comic_Book_Convention_in_the_1980s.jpg -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been 24 days and that image is still marked fair-use. I've reverted to the free one. Please don't change it back until the other photo is free-licensed.—Chowbok ☠ 00:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not informed what was needed and that "marked fair-use" would be required. I asked the individual if they would release that photo to fair use, and they agreed. I am their legal representative. I do not know how to change the replacement photo file and have tried to update it without success. can someone please do that for me and replace the photo or inform me of the proper procedure? thank you very much. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• [unindent] On Wikimedia/Wikipedia, free licensed images take presidence over copyrighted images with restricted reuse under US "fair use" laws. Images with Creative Commons, or other attribution but no other restrictions, licenses are preferred. -- Infrogmation (talk)

Added to the Bibliography

Since there is a running bibliography of my work in this article, i come here to add new titles as they are published. I just added the latest book, "Paper in My Shoe," along with its ISBN. -- cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, because there is a running bibliography of my work, i have added the most recently published title, the restored and revised edition of "Legends of Incense, Herb, and Oil Magic" by Lewis de Claremont. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

One more time, because there is a running bibliography of my work, i have added the most recently published title, the restored and revised edition of "This Amazing Book - Hoodoo Herb and Root Medicine - Opens the Door to Better Health" by Sunrae Products Co. -- cat yrowndoe, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The bibliography is not up to date, as books from 2018 - 2019 are not included. Unless someone objects, i will do the work myself, as i have the data on my hard drive. cat, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Added cites and refs

Hello, this is cat again. Today i restored some deleted information and added cites and refs in support of the deleted material, as had previously been requested. Also, i removed one cite request that was already answered in the article: a cite was requested for the existence of the Glozer's Booksellers, but one of the books to which i contributed was published by the Glozer's Booksellers. I am sure no hoop-jumping was intended, but rather that the fact-checker had a moment of carelessness in reading the entire article.

If anybody wants more citations, just ask -- you can reach me through Facebook for fast responses. I am at https://www.facebook.com/catherine.yronwode

Thanks for all the help, and, as always, i remain a happy, productive, and eager-to-collaborate Wikipedian.

cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you requested changes here on the talk page rather than editing the article yourself. You have restored the sentence "She is a cousin of the composer Franz Reizenstein and the economist Otto Eckstein." with NO reference and in any case the detail is irrelevant to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have messaged you on your talk page. Further to the point, i have asked for collaboration on this page in the past and not received it. Because i was being asked about this page by someone who wished to use it as a reference source, i came here and realized that it was not in good form, and that some cite-tags dated back to 2011 (4 years ago). As a professional editor with 35 years experience, i took the job on myself.

I shortened the article considerably tonight, fixed the broken chronology, removed a lot of cruft and peacock language usage, rewrote and provided citations and refs for innacurate material, and added all references and citations that had previously been requested.

Yes, i added back the fact that two of my cousins are notables on Wikipedia. It is commonplace to link people in a family to one another on Wikipedia. In fact, just today i linked the previously unrelated pages for Donald Marron and Donald B. Marron Jr. -- without a citation.

You are correct that i did not cite a ref for my cousins Franz Reizenstein and Otto Eckstein, but you are incorrect in assuming that my family DNA and my upbringing did not play a part in my development; my family contains quite a few writers, scientists, performers, and the like -- and placing this knowledge on a biography page is commonplace. In fact, i was just about to note that another cousin of ours is Heinz Hopf.

My relationship to my cousins is no different than the sort of information one can find on celebrity and scientist biographies such as those of Tom Cruise and cousin William Mapother, Francis Galton and half-cousin Charles Darwin, Philip Glass and cousin Ira Glass, Lenny Kravitz and cousin Al Roker, Sofia Coppola and cousins Jason Schwartzman and Nicolas Cage, Kyra Sedgwick and cousin Edie Sedgwick, Brooke Shields and cousin Glenn Close, Rip Torn and cousin Sissy Spacek, Warren Beatty and sister Shirley McLaine -- in short, it is more than a factoid; it points out the way that DNA and genetics mould and shape the characters and professional interests of family members.

I would be glad to provide citations but i am unsure how to do so without simply pointing you to a family tree. The information is available through Geni and other online family tree sites. Suggestions welcomed.

cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that it is relevant, Wikipedia relies on what the secondary sources say about a subject and much of the article is already referenced to primary sources without adding more. I'd be interested to hear what others say. As a senior editor here also, I'm happy to help you improve the article given that the sources are out there I've added a few more references and links as a start. Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear TheRoadIsLong, i am still trying to deal with the latest round of cite-tagging. I would like to note that what i consider over-zealous cite-tagging had plagued Wikipedia for years and is not restricted to my bio page, nor do i take it as a personal affront. A request was made that a citation be supplied for the fact that i edited Scott McCloud's comics. In the past when such cite-tags were applied to the article, i was told that the printed mast-head credits of the comic books themselves could not be used as evidence that i had edited them because that would constitute "original research." Then i was told that my own statements about my editing of comics could not be used as evidence that i had edited them because that would be a "conflict of interest." In this instance, i found a brief ref in the Atlantic Magazine, in Scott's own words ("my editor at the time, Cat Yronwode"), but i suggest that in the future, before adding a cite-tag to any comic book professional's bio, it would be a simple matter to look such editorial credits up in the Grand Comics Database or another generally acceptable repository of indexing. A google search at the GCD web site phrased like this (with the name of any editor substituted for mine) will return the information requested. https://www.google.com/search?q=yronwode+grand+comics+dtabase&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:www.comics.org+yronwode+editor+grand+comics+database Thanks! cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, my only concern is for a better referenced Wikipedia. I'll leave you to it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catherine Yronwode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060912133322/http://www.cbldf.org:80/research/biblio-80s.html to http://www.cbldf.org/research/biblio-80s.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Yronwode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926153720/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org:80/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=comix to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=comix

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Lesser Book of the Vishanti

Why is this not mentioned? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Add it if you have sources. DS (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still staggered, especially since the subject is an active Wikipedian. But after scouring the Michigan State library index and establishing that it cannot be bought and that the chaos on OCLC can't be remedied, I found a sufficiently impressive source and it's there now. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not like that big ol' list of newspaper articles...

...especially as they're not clickable. I feel any that substantially reference Yronwode would belong here and others in the trading card section of Eclipse Comics but a but without knowing what exactly is in the articles it's difficult to know what to do with them, and that I'd hate to outright junk them. Thoughts? Theories? Death-threats? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The basic Wikipedia Library access includes some major newspaper archives, and the rarity of the name "Yronwode" makes it easy to search for. DS (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I had literally no idea that existed! Splendid, I shall look into it once I've either finished pepping up the Airboy page or died; at the moment it could go either way. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Added a cat ... and why

It's me, cat, and since someone thoughtfully added me to the cat "21st Century American Jews," i felt that Vulcan logic demanded that i go back in time to add myself to the cat "20th Century American Jews," because i was born in 1947. This is not COI. It is mathematics in action! Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)