Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

I just overhauled List of Ellen episodes, but I've never seen an episode in my life, so I'm constructing ep summaries from what I can find on the Internet. If anyone who has seen Ellen could look over my work, and correct or add to it, I would be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might try posting to Ellen DeGeneres and Ellen (TV series) as those have active talk pages. Benjiboi 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not amazingly active, but I did it anyway. Ta. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added mention of the press kit, the core topics, the website, the list of recources, deleted the list of core biographies (which I only put there to stimulate interest originally), and added a list fo basic tasks. The basic tasks could do with adding to, if anyone feels up to it. How's it looking? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

At today's NYC Gay Pride parade I took photos for the following articles:

• Charles Schumer
• Dyke (lesbian)
• Butch and femme
• Transwoman
• Pasties
• Transgender
• Celebrity impersonators (this article is essentially an advertisement)

--David Shankbone 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some great pics in there as ever - thanks David. And some interesting titles - Image:A Dyke on a Bike by David Shankbone.jpg. ;-) WjBscribe 23:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scribe. Wasn't sure how else to title that one - I mean, if ever a photo screamed that there was no OR involved, it is that one. Yeah...I declined to put a photo caption. I also was hit on by no less than three transgender/cross-dressers and two BDSMs. --David Shankbone 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone recently removed the LGBT Project banner and LGBT cats, saying it wasn't referenced. A quick Google search for +"Meredith Monk" +lesbian gives 779 hits, but the closest I can find to actually categorizing her is [1]. Can anyone provide anything better? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You might try these - Benjiboi 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The National Queer Arts Festival 2000 [2];
• 4 American Composers - Meredith Monk [3]
• A Fierce Finale: Dyke Night comes to a close after 15 years [4]

I found XXY (film) on the bot-generated list of new LGBT articles, and thought it was important to note that the movie is named after Klinefelter's syndrome but apparently depicts some form of intersexuality completely unlike Klinefelter's. Google turned up two sources that I think say this [5] [], but they're in Italian, and Babelfish is being even more glossolalic than usual (apparently one of the critics' titles is "Navy Self-confident"). Who can I say is criticizing the film? Do they say if the problem is just with the title, or if the same confusion occurs in the film itself? And do they explain what form of intersexuality is actually depicted?

Also, if anyone has seen the movie, the plot summary could use some help. —Celithemis 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oookay, my italian isn't amazing, but as far as I can tell a manifest has been published by the Comitato scientifico dell’Unione Italiana Sindrome di Klinefelter (Italian Scientific Comiteee of Klinefelter's Syndrome). Both sources refer to it and then proceed to explain Klinefelter's syndrome. In the manifest, they say the syndrome's clinical reality is gravely distorted in the movie, because they establish an inexistent cause-effect relationship on the biological plane, and a dangerous one on the psychological plane for the patients, their families and especially teenagers and mothers with prenatal diagnosed XXY phetus (Whew! That last sentence may bear furthe examination by someone else...). Cheers :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. What do you make of the next-to-last paragraph, where it looks like it discusses ovotestes and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? —Celithemis 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to translate it: 'A clinical condition completely different is hermafroditism (from the greek: hermaphróditos, name of the son of Mercury (Hermes) and Venus (Aphrodite), who tried to introduce himself/merge with the body of the nymph Salace), which is mentioned in Puenzo's film, which is characterised by the presence in the individual of masculine and feminine gonadal tissue: ovaries on the one side, and testicles on the other, which can coexist in the gonadical (gonadal?) structure if the testicular tissue is in the ovary (ovotestis). In this case this is determined in the fetal stage by an important alteration of the hormones AMH, T and DHT, which do not allow the correct development of the genital organs. As a result, the individual, genetically a male (XY), presents a female phenotype.'

Whew! :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one has submitted a Jumpaclass the entire time I've been away? Shame on you. Submit one, and enjoy the pressure it places on you to perform! Submit, submiiiiiiiit! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

She's back guys! Be afraid, be very afraid... WjBscribe 23:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could've put up Fox and His Friends...I also created a lot of pages about short stories by bisexual author Katherine Mansfield, though the plotlines aren't gay-oriented per se. But overall, a lot of people were probably in exam hell, as I was.Zigzig20s 09:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now is the time to get back in the swing of things, fellow examinee! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Gay Pride Day, people! :-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You know that little drive we've been having to add every LGB person to our List of LGB people? Well, our list of people who need adding was finally reduced by 20% today, after months of dedicated work from a tiny minority of the editors who post here regularly. Come on people, pitch in! We need those lists finished! Five minutes a day is not a lot of your time, but it would make significant inroads to our goals. I have plans for the finished lists, and it'd be nice to put them in motion before the end of the summer and the upheaval of leaving home... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is somehow too Nineteen Eighty-Fourish for me, so I won't. Sorry. Zigzig20s 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You think a list is akin to a totalitarian state? Do explain? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. We all know the nefarious reasons you are compiling this "list" Dev. Fess up! --David Shankbone 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First we list all the LGB people... then we can unleash the Sentinels. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahaha, I don't know quite who you are but will you marry me? :D ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be continuing to work on the "W" section. Single and available... =) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Once, gay marriage is legalised, I'll get to work on gay bigamy. Seriously though, I'll try helping with the to be sorted thingy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Category:LGBT theatre and Category:LGBT plays? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To me a play is a traditional theater form that can be simply read or acted. Theater is a broader term encompassing seemingly most theatrical presentations and I think includes movies. Benjiboi 09:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the hit-and-run here but I'm a member of the Bay Area project working on a number of biographies. I occasionally run across articles concerning people who are GBT, and wonder what the protocol and criteria is for adding them to the LGBT project.

Case in point, I just made some minor revisions to the article for celebrity chef Jeremiah Tower. Like a number of Bay Area chefs he is well known for being gay. As a (former) member of the high flying San Francisco social elite his relationships are the talk of the town and a big part of his overall career -- much as, say, the Mayor's. He writes about gender issues and his various relationships his memoirs; however, as far as I know his art is not about LGBT issues. It's cooking. So I'm not sure how much an appreciation of his status as LGBT sheds light on his cuisine or vice-versa.

So my questions are: (1) are famous people candidates for inclusion in the LGBT project simply because they are known to be gay, and (2) as a non-member of the project, if I come across one, how should I let people know? Sorry if this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it in a quick review of the project site. I don't want to add a tag myself if that would be overstepping. I don't have an agenda here, just hoping to help.

Thx, Wikidemo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikidemo! Thanks for dropping by :) Famous people should indeed be included in the project. We've been going through a hefty list of people and making sure they're referenced and everything, so this is right on time.

I would say there are three things to do/check. One, is there a reliable source that states the person is gay. If not, you can note a rumor in the article, but I wouldn't. If so, make sure it's in the article. Then check the cats - for your project, most people are going to be in Category:LGBT people from the United States, though they may be in a profession category as well. Third, add our project banner: {{LGBTProject}}. If you'd like, don't add a "class=" and someone will come along and add that - and probably check the rest as well.

Thanks again for asking! Drop by any time :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the page m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles is currently being considered for deletion at m:WM:RFD#Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Korg (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Someone is woefully humor-impaired. It's called satire. Aleta 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT ACTION REQUIRED: If Kahlo's article is not brought up to standard in 24 hours, it's not going to be featured tomorrow on Wikipedia's main page to celebrate her 100 birthday. They already have another candidate for tomorrow's main article. Is there any Frida Kahlo's fan whose English is top notch, and can bring this article up to standard in just a few hours?

The article is not up to that standard, and tomorrow already has a featured article. --AxG @ ►talk 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to make an article featured in one day, no matter how good it is. The review process takes time. I see that Kahlo will be appearing in the selected anniversaries on tomorrow's page, though. —Celithemis 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Overnight it seems lesbian author Joan Nestle's page has been deleted. It was a live link Tuesday night and now a blank one Thursday. Moni3 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

It was copied from another website, apparently. It wasn't very long to begin with so it should be fairly easy to get it back to the same stage. —Celithemis 09:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I started a stub for now; it's fairly lame, but I'll expand it more tomorrow once I've had a chance to read through more sources.

One of the interviews with her I found is OCRed and thinks she writes about butch-fern relationships. "You can't argue someone into being a butch or a fern", apparently. Good to know. —Celithemis 09:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't!?!? Great. Now how am I going to get rid of all this bracken!? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find a ref for the line in Jack Wetherall that says he's one of four openly gay actors on Queer as Folk? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Emiellaiendiay suggested the following articles on the Collaboration page some time ago (intersex and transgender removed):

• Heteronormativity
• Homosexuality in India
• Queer
• Religion and homosexuality

Does anyone object to these becoming the next collaborations, and would liek to suggest something else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we (as a group) do better working on the more specific/technical articles (like "heteronormativity" and "homosexuality in India") or on the more general articles (like "queer" and "religion and homosexuality")? Just a thought... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in working on the Queer and/or Religion and Homosexuality pages. I'll be sure to check back to see what the final determination is.BGMurph 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From my observation it would seem little content is actually added during a collaboration, the article is usually rearranged, copyedited, updated, occasionally referenced. Mainly cosmetic work. So if anyone wants to suggest an article that is long but badly written, the Collab is the perfect place for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really funny: http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194 When I was contacted I told them I mainly wanted Wikipedia as a resource for free media highlighted. --David Shankbone 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, the accolade is well-deserved. And thanks for your many contributions, now and forever ;) TAnthony 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you...Zigzig20s 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm blushing :-) It's kind of my hope people will try to get better photos. For instance, my photo on Catwalk was replaced by a better one, and my photo of Michael Stipe was replaced in the lead by a much cooler one. --David Shankbone 17:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've actually thought "What would Shankbone do?" when I'm at celeb events but I still have yet to figure out how my new camera phone works, LOL. TAnthony 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blushing is sexy (if I may).Zigzig20s 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's a hawt photo of you :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

lol. I had to overcome my timidity. I did several sessions working with Billy Name and when I told him at times I felt self-conscious he replied, "That's just suppressed vanity. Get over yourself." I repeat that in my head every time. I recently photographed at a party for Tony Award nominees that was given by my friend John Barrett, and it was daunting to go up to some people, such as Oscar Hammerstein's widow, Michael Cunningham and Zoe Heller. Low lighting made for some less than optimal shots. But, who the hell am I? I had to get over myself. I have a lot of photos of people I don't know who they are, but I know they have articles. I'll figure them out at some point. --David Shankbone 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)#

YAY David! Suffice to say I think both Wikipedia and the project would be much, much worse off if you weren't here, David. We all work our little cotton socks off, but how you manage it on top of everything else you do is just incredible. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Nigel Slater article, a user has been repeatedly removing the sentence that says he's gay, as well as the LGBT category. At first I was just reverting & warning the user thinking it was straightforward vandalism, now I'm worried it's more of a POV dispute. Eventually he made a comment on the talkpage saying that it's libelous. The source in question is an interview on AfterElton.com which says in the lead, "Openly gay food writer Nigel Slater..." Is this enough to keep it in the article? In his autobiography Slater discussed homosexual feelings / experiences but seems reluctant to discuss his private life as an adult. As a result I haven't found any quotes saying "I'm gay" or anything similar. Are the AfterElton article & autobiography enough? --Belovedfreak 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, AfterElton is a reliable source, and an autobiography is definitely one. That's "enough" to keep it in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick reply! --Belovedfreak 15:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected now, due to "legal problems". :( --Belovedfreak 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In this edit the Sheri L. Dew article had its project template removed by a member of this project. I had just added it to the article, as I sometimes do to articles that I come across which to me seem to fall within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies. Could someone comment on this removal so that I will get a clearer picture of what may not be deemed relevant articles for this project? __meco 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Meco! I took the LGBT project banner off because a) she's not an LGBT person, b) while her church takes a strong anti-gay stance, and while she made a homophobic speech, the article seems (to me) to place a really strong emphasis on that speech and it's ramifications, which seems a bit WP:UNDUE to me, and c) she's not in any LGBT cats. I'm open to suggestions from others on this, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It immediately comes to me that if only "LGBT persons" should be covered by this project the whole endeavor becomes very limited. The LGBT community doesn't exist in a vacuum, so that when a LGBT issue becomes a matter of public discourse or controversy, deciding to care for and look after only one side of it makes for entrenchment within the Wikipedia community with WikiProject LGBT studies "representing" the LGBT community instead of the wider aim which is currently professed in the project's stated goals. __meco 10:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found SatyrTN to be a good judge of what fits into the overall scope of the Project, be it actual LGBT individuals or just those involved in the "movement" to some significance. As he notes, I do believe that he would consider the article more relevant to us if there was more sourced information about the impact of Dew and her church on the LGBT community. I agree that the LGBT Project should not have an extremely narrow requirement for inclusion, and yet any person who talks about gays, any TV show that has a lesbian episode or any book that mentions a drag queen shouldn't necessarily be included either. As SatyrTN has said before, the project isn't about "tagging" everything gay, it's about organizing and mobilizing our efforts to improve and expand articles that have some importance or significance to the community. TAnthony 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would someone with some knowledge of comic book characters take a look at the discussion on Talk:Manga Khan and chime in? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 10:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Vogel is a founder of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, but I can't find a source anywhere that says she's a lesbian. Anyone have one handy? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is up with this article? I put a notable tag up on it, but a merge tag with Celebrity impersonator is probably more appropriate. And the User who created it is canvassing on Talk:Drag queen. --David Shankbone 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But there's an already existing article on Natalie Clifford Barney. Should a redirect by created?Moni3 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I created a redirect. --Belovedfreak 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The following are the individuals who were removed from the Transman article section titled #Notable transmen. There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability. Please add them to the article as articles are created.

If you see that an entry is bluelinked in the list below, please check Transman#Notable transmen to make sure the individual is included in the Transman article. Thank you! Joie de Vivre ^T 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Laurence Dillon is Michael Dillon with his forenames backward; I've created the redirect. —Celithemis 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Add items here only if they are bluelinked AND you have checked to see that they have been added to Transman#Notable transmen. Thanks! Joie de Vivre° 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Michael Laurence Dillon (1915-1962), author

• Alan Hart (1890-1962), physician
• Louis Graydon Sullivan (1951-1991), writer, biographer and founder of FTM International [6]
• Reed Erickson (1917-1992), Businessman, philanthropist and founder of Erickson Educational Foundation [7]
• Shannon Minter, attorney
• River Allan, activist, public speaker, photographer, subject of documentary "CurrentTV's River"
• Spencer Bergstadt, attorney
• Kylar Broadus, attorney
• Mauro Isaac Cabral, educator [8][9]
• Aaron H. Devor, writer and educator [10]
• Jacob Hale, philosopher [11]
• David Harrison, actor, performer and playwright[12]
• Michael M. Hernandez, writer and activist
• Zander Keig, Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer [13]
• Rocco Katastrophe Kayiatos musician, hip hop, performer, activist, writer [14]
• Del Lagrace Volcano, performer and photographer [15] [16]
• Blaine Paxton Hill, physics [17]
• Martin Rawlings-Fein, editor, writer, filmmaker [18] and activist [19]
• Mark Rees, activist
• Stephen Thorne, police officer
• Daniel Van Oosterwijck, attorney
• Jacob Nash, activist, educator, In Re Nash (Ohio courts)

There is a stub article on the Queer Student Cultural Center at the University of Minnesota, a GLBT student group created nearly 40 years ago (pre-Stonewall) and seemingly the first such group in America. (And one of the founding officers was the first gay marriage case ever litigated in America Baker v. Nelson.)

But it keeps getting deleted! The latest attempt is by somebody named VirtualSteve, who says: "A tag has been placed on Queer Student Cultural Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia."

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I don't know what to do here. I have added a bit more detail to the article. But what do we do to keep this guy from again 'wiping us out of (Wiki) history'? Any suggestions? T-bonham 07:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A good start would be to add references for each claim in the article.Zigzig20s 09:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the founding of the group from The Washington Post in 1969. That should satisfy the notability requirements, which is why it was deleted before. Can you provide the name of the founding officer? I seem to recall writing an article on him, but can't think of who it was at the moment. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack_Baker_(activist). T-bonham 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not add a reference for each claim if possible?Zigzig20s 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this - not sure where to put this or quite how it works (and I'm impatient, too! Reading about it doesn't audibly tell me how it happens...)

But I created several articles: Ann Bannon and her series of lesbian pulp fiction novels from 1957 - 1962 including Odd Girl Out (novel), I Am A Woman, and Women In The Shadows. I plan to write the other two articles for the books in the series within the next several days, but already Odd Girl Out got a Wiki Novels categorization as stub/low and I don't think it deserves it. Any assistance would be appreciated. (Now I have to figure out how to get back here to read any replies...) Moni3 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Hi, Moni! One thing I noticed right off is that the only source you have for the three books is Ms. Bannon's website. As popular as the books are, surely other references can be found?

Another thing to note is that trivia sections should be avoided if at all possible. Check out WP:TRIVIA.

The pages are looking good - I'll help out where I can, though I haven't read any of her work :)

Moved from the Jumpaclass page to here for more input -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've known about the trivia sections for a couple months now, and I tried my best to integrate what information I could into the articles. There's a "production notes" section for films - is there an equivalent for books? Also - Ann Bannon is still living, of course, and I actually wrote to her a year ago when I created her article and asked her to add to it what I could not (I totally had a piece of writing edited by Ann Bannon - I was titillated). She did, but her upbringing, early life, education, etc. are lacking in the article. She did not provide that information in the article (and actually only just last year started using her real last name along with her pseudonym.)

I also posted a picture of her, but I am unclear what causes a photo (I got from her website) to be deleted. Does it have to be a picture a wiki editor took of her and uploaded themselves?

I understand the lack of sources should be added to. It goes to how very little is written about the topic of lesbian writers and literature, particularly before 1969 - she is her own source for the majority of information on her. However, what caused me to post this initially is that her books are rated "Low" importance right now, and in the scheme of their role in lesbian literature and their use as a time capsule of homosexual life prior to Stonewall, I think they should be rated higher. Moni3 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Don't forget Beebo Brinker! :-P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gah! I'm writing them as fast as I can! I'm going to add Beebo Brinker and Journey to a Woman within the next couple of days =) 128.227.48.172 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Pictures have to be in the public domain, so they don't have to be by wikipedia editors, but PD images are hard to find.

You might try Google Scholar - it looks like there are some good references to her work there. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for the links! In looking at them, it occurs to me that there are many articles and papers written about The Beebo Brinker Chronicles. I anticipate no problems with finding articles about the books themselves (and they will almost all say what groundbreaking work the books were, or how they changed the author's life, or shaped lesbian life or literature after their publication). However, Bannon herself kept her public persona very much hidden from her private and professional life until about 2 years ago. I don't think there is much available on, say, her time in a sorority written by someone who knew her then, or her childhood, or much about her time writing the books except what she has provided in interviews or in the forwards of the books. In that case, is the article destined to remain a stub or start class article? Do other contributors to gay life also have this problem? Moni3 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Actually, the middle ground is the hardest. The earliest LGBT pioneers have biographies about them (Harry Hay comes to mind). But the ones shortly after that often weren't "out" enough for writing their own biographies and/or weren't "early" enough for other people to write ones about them. <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point...Perhaps I am destined to be her biographer...However, in attempted to update the images and include the blurbs on the backside (because the blurbs are HI-larious, I assure you) of the covers in the summary part of the image info page, someone has come along and immediately deleted the summary, claiming a potential copyright violation. The original book cover images and blurbs are no longer copyrighted since the publisher went out of business. Where on the image info page do I indicate that to people who do things just to piss me off personally?Moni3 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Ok clearly this is one of my pet projects. Would it improve the Ann Bannon or the book articles importance and quality rating if I included information about the context of the books in the repressive society of the US during the 1950s, highlighting sodomy laws, police raids on bars, city ordinances that banned women wearing pants in bars, etc? since the books are set in the gay bars of Greenwich Village? Bannon's books have also been criticized by some feminists for portraying gays and lesbians as barflies and alcoholics, and portraying butch-femme relationships as misogynistic. In searching for more material on Bannon, I found nothing, but I found a wealth of senior theses from Women's Studies majors discussing the books in both positive and negative lights. Senior thesis does not an authority make I think (neither do I, for that matter - although obsessed fan might). Any suggestions on weeding out the common and focusing on the authoritative historians? Oh, Journey To A Woman is up as an article and Beebo Brinker should be posted within 48 hours.Moni3 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Hi, Moni! A couple of comments... The company that originally printed the books may be out of business, but the covers are probably still copyrighted. I'm no expert, but copyrights are usually protected - they may have reverted to the original artists or they may have been snapped up by another publishing company, but they probably didn't revert to public domain. But, as I said, I'm no expert and I could be totally wrong.

As for Ann's article, I would look at what the senior theses say - they may not be experts, but they are (supposedly) well thought out critiques at the very least.

Also, don't be too concerned with the "importance" rating. That's been applied by a particular wikiproject and has more to do with their internal operations than it does to the actual importance of the article. The best way to increase the quality is to research what others have said and to report that along with references.

Hope that helps! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually had a mini-battle with a zealous copyright commandant today over deleting part of the images. I had to provide part of an email Bannon wrote to me to confirm that the first edition covers are no longer under their original copyright. He apologized and that was done...rather surreal, actually.

Improving and maintaining Bannon's article(s) is something I'll do over time. It will take me some in order to get it to a higher quality. Living persons who have spent most of their lives with an alter ego is going to be difficult to research. I'll take any suggestions anyone can offer. I appreciate it! Moni3 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Hey - there's a user who deletes the infoboxes for the 2001-2003 Cleis Press printings of these books. Is there a rule that states multiple infoboxes should or should not exist? They have different covers. ThanksMoni3 14:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Miranda 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. Where do you intend to put it up? I was thinking of gay blogs, that might be a start.Zigzig20s 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no...:-D See WP:BANNER. Miranda 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Where does it appear then? On userpages and user talkpages?Zigzig20s 11:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Based on the discretion of the user, only in userspace. Miranda 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Right...why not ask gay bloggers if they don't mind putting it on their blogs? I think that would be a good way of attracting more members. Don't you think? Zigzig20s 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Only to be used on Wikipedia userspace. Miranda 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But why? Is this some Wikipedia rule?Zigzig20s 11:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On people's blogs does seem like a good idea, if they will do it. Is it technically possible? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh hmm...Can't they just add the picture of the banner? (as in, screenshot, then cutting out the banner, and then they can add it perhaps?) Zigzig20s 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can be embedded fine, see my blog, but the image quality isn't good. Btw, anyone know how I can make it a hyperlink to the project? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that it was moving, a screenshot wouldn't do...Why is the quality so bad? It would have to look good for bloggers to accept to put it on their blogs I think.Zigzig20s 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind if the banner is posted on blogs (since I made it). All I ask is that you attribute the banner to me. Just, CC-BY-SA it. And to make the banner have full effect, just make it 480 by 60. Miranda 11:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

HTML markup. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LGBT"><img src="Qxz-ad48.gif"></a>. Miranda 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated my blog. Looks good, except for that whole falling off the isde of the page thing, btu that's probably my fault. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just switched permissions on my blogs, so my public one is now the sutiably titled http://wikipedian.blogspot.com/ Banner is now posted there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but you might want to link to my userpage. Format: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miranda">Miranda</a>. Banner resize: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LGBT"><img src="Qxz-ad48.gif" height="53" width="445"></a> Miranda 12:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Dev, what's a link to your public blog? Never mind. I just need to actually read conversations rather than skimming them. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? (banner changed again. I'm just crap at html.:) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm so...Can gay bloggers be contacted, is it fine now?Zigzig20s 09:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they attribute to me and link to my page. Miranda 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How would they do that?Zigzig20s 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If that cannot be done (which may be what your silence implies), then does that mean we need to find someone else who will make another banner and not care about having their name spread across the web? Or, can't you add your name in small letters at the bottom, on the banner itself perhaps?Zigzig20s 09:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Miranda gave the code above, and Dev920 has implemented it on her blog http://wikipedian.blogspot.com/ so go for it! TAnthony 12:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But it reads, 'Image created by Miranda ' underneath...Is that a requirement? (might not be too easy for bloggers to type that, if the banner appears in a corner or on a side column or whatever).Zigzig20s 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to create a banner that does not need attribution and can be linked directly to the portal. I can work on it later today.BGMurph 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That could be useful perhaps.Zigzig20s 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name of my blog. The banner can now be found here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 4, 2007, I responded to an AFA Action Alert entitled, "Hate Crimes Law: A Real Threat to Your Religious Freedom". Below is the text of the email I sent them:

I read the House version of the proposed "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) and I couldn't find any part of that act which made Anti-homosexual speech a hate crime. In fact the act in question does nothing that the AFA alleges in its Action Alert.

I'm appalled that AFA would use such deceptive measures to prey on the fears of people to further its agenda. Your Action Alert was DISHONEST and UN-CHRISTIAN, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

On July 9, 2007, I received the following response:

As with most legislation, especially with Senate Bill 1105, the words are such that it sounds good and right, but when you look closer you'll see where the threat to religious leaders and even the common Christian comes in. These three words: (actual or perceived), will make it impossible to read aloud Scripture such as: 1st Corinthians 6: 9-11 or Leviticus 18:22 without it being “perceived” as hate crime.

If you will note just below section 7, Section 249. Hate Crimes Act, the words actual or perceived are used at least four times, for example: `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person—

The other language in this bill that is very concerning is also found under Section 249, d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

So, even though your Congress person may state that freedom of speech is protected this one section clearly shows that freedom of speech is the very freedom that is at stake.

Yes, I sent another response and it is as follows:

Sir/Ma'am;

Thank very much for responding. I thoroughly understand your position, but I am curious as to what standard or procedure you are using to gauge the meaning of the words "actual or perceived" as they are used in Senate Bill 1105, Sec. 7 and House Bill 1592, Sec. 6.

I have re-read the House version and read the Senate version and I am unable to glean the same meaning you present in your email. Would your concerns with these bills be due, in no small part, to their extending hate crimes to ALSO include acts committed against gays, lesbians, bisexuals & trans-gendered persons; considering the AFA's anti-gay position.

The law also includes protection from hate crimes because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, or disability. What I don't understand is your opposition to including, as these bills state, "sexual orientation, [and] gender identity." Your opposition could lead one to think that extending such protections to also include gays, lesbians, bisexuals & trans-gendered persons should never be allowed and that such persons deserve nothing less than to have the crap beaten [out] of 'em.

The impression I have is that the AFA's position is that gays, lesbians, bisexuals & trans-gendered persons don't deserve equal protection under the law, don't have the right to live and work safely in this country.

Now if my impression is incorrect, could you be so kind as to explain your opposition to gays, lesbians, bisexuals & trans-gendered persons receiving equal protection under the law; as such impression can be easily gleaned from your Action Alerts.

Did I think I would actually change their mind? No. My purpose was to point out that their opposition to extending legal protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered persons can also mean that they have an implied support for hate crimes committed against such persons. If I get a response I'll be sure to post it here. --Avazina 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation covers people who are thought to be gay (which has got to be even worse than being beaten because you ARE gay) I fail to see how this supports the AFA's original assertion that they won't be able to twist scripture anymore. They sure has some mentally deficient people running their email department.

Having said that, I get why hate crime legislation is needed to send a "signal", but I really don't like its restrictiveness. If you commit a crime, why is it made any worse because you did it because you're a total tosser than because you were high? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see points to both sides of the discussion. Without getting furthr into it, I just ask, why are we having this discussion here? Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the place for it, whether in article space or otherwise. Aleta 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not discuss this in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies discussion page? The material is of relevance to the subject this Project deals with. It may invariably give insight as to the position of AFA and other like organizations, than just the mere opposition to laws relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. Now if my bringing this matter up here seriously offends you, that certainly wasn't my intention; after all I don't know of any online LGBT forum where by this topic can be discussed by people with similar concerns that DOESN'T COST. --Avazina 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Seriously offend" me? No, not at all. That's not the issue. It just seems to me that this should be about articles and what to include in them, etc. The discussion didn't seem to me to be pertinent to that. Now you're making a case that it is. I will say that I disagree, but if others think it relevant, I'll not pursue the matter. Aleta 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand "that this should be about articles and what to include in them," of which I'm not opposed. My understanding of using discussion pages also includes using them to discuss matters that don't necessarily fit into any article, but may have or do have some relevance. So for this reason I posted it here. If I'm out-of-line for doing so or have violated any rules I apologize. --Avazina 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does [20] count as a reliable source to say Marion Zimmer Bradley was lesbian? Aleta 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further question: someone has already used [21] as a source in the article. Do you all think it qualifies? It's certainly very POV. Aleta 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither are much use. The frst source doesn't mention her sexuality at all, and though I know the fact that she wrote loads of homoerotic fiction should point that way (though the fact that she was married twice would suggest she swings both ways rather than was a lesbian), like Abha Dawesar, we can't implicitly infer anything. It's a real bitch with some minor figures whose work is based on the fact that they are gay, so any publicity doesn't explicitly mention it at all, which is a right pain in the neck. The second source is worthless as a source, it's just some nutter having a go on the net.

Thus, to conclude, I think that article needs some work. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a Google search and I can't find any indication that she is anything other than straight. She just seemed to write in all genres - she wrote gay fiction as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just used the word lesbian because that's what others had used - I personall would have chosen bisexual. Nevertheless, since neither of us found anything convincing to support it, I've gone and removed the Lesbian Writers category from her page. It actually wasn't even supported by anything in the text (with or without sourcing), as the article didn't say anything directly about her sexual orientation. Aleta 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I need some second opinions on La Comay. It's not clear (to me) from the article, but evidently Antulio Santarrosa Acevedo dresses up in a costume as a puppet or doll that is female. Does that fit the definition of cross-dressing? Or transgender? Is the article within our scope spectrum? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this cross-dressing doll cross-dressing in the same way Milton Berle or Flip Wilson did? Moni3 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I think so... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it's done for comedic affect. If it's not done to insult TS/TG folks, and not done to express honest and serious gender issues, I don't think it's in the scope of the LGBT project. There's an HIV+ muppet on South Africa's version of Sesame Street that teaches kids what it's like to be HIV+, so that's serious. I've never seen this show, so I don't really know if it's serious or not.Moni3 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

From the article itself it doesn't seem like it's LGBT. Someone who speaks Spanish and willing to see if there is any references to LGBT issues might be able to make that connection but I don't see it. If the actors are gay or the doll is definitely a male doll in (female) drag then possibly as they do seem to be a national figure effecting culture and politics. Benjiboi 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did a bit of research, and it definitely looks as if he is connected with LGBT issues, but not in the sense you might think. According to this source and several blogs I read, this guy (who wields a puppet, not dresses as one as far as I can tell, although I *could* be wrong) uses the LaComay character to make fun of homosexuals, and he has in fact been sued for hate speech. So there is a LGBT connection, but... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, Raystorm. I'm all ready to say "Okay, kewl." and you pop in with that! Thanks! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

*Snicker* I aim to please! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is not an issue, but I created a new article that falls under the purview of this project, Stonewall Library & Archives, so I added the LGBT Wikiproject tag to it. If it is inappropriate, please let me know and I will remove it. Horologium t-c 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me... Aleta 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I've done some work on Slut Night and would appreciate some extra eyes to look it over as the article is up for deletion and I have to get some sleep. Benjiboi 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your supportive comments, my computer kept stalling and finally I had to give to sleep so I'm glad my narrative seems to work! Benjiboi 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are flying on Talk:Matt Sanchez (esp. from the subject of the article - who has a thing about the "gay jihad"). It would be nice if some others, esp. admins would take a look... Aleta 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

lol. I haven't yet gotten to the talk pages but the article read, for me, was worth it for the title of one of his porns - "Touched by an Anal."

"That aside shouldn't this be in the LGBT project for his gay films and "faggot" comment controversy? Benjiboi 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC) I now see that it's in the summary of projects. Benjiboi 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. WjBscribe 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you've done some clean-up work there. Kind of nasty, wasn't it? Aleta 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To his credit he's using the talk pages so I've left a few comments for him to hopefully contemplate. Benjiboi 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that BeckieCannons (talk · contribs) is the 1^st admin listed at Tranny International's "about us" page. Hence, their creation of the wiki article on Tranny International is a conflict of interest and I've just substed the COI warning, {{Uw-coi}} onto their talk page. I note that someone else already added a non-notable tag to the article. Is that web site any more notable than the dozens (hundreds?) of similar sites out there, or should we support the non-notability and let the article get deleted? --AliceJMarkham 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI Alexa.com provides website info and as part of the summary shows the the far majority of Tranny Int'l users are from the UK which would explain why they are virtually unknown is the US. [22]. I'm not personally familiar with them but a quick look [www.TrannyInternational.com] seems to show they are indeed credible and non-commercial and have thousands of user profiles so seems to be in that "actually a community" category. I suggest supporting the article. Benjiboi 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The creation of the wiki article strikes me as spamming wikipedia to advertise their site. I'm still not convinced that this particular site is more notable than the many others out there. Otherwise, U R Not Alone, tranny radio, etc would also be notable enough to justify wiki articles. I'm a little concerned that if this one scrapes over the line as notable, it's going to encourage a flood of other website administrators to create articles about their own sites to promote them on wikipedia. Oh, and I'm not in the USA, I'm in Australia. --AliceJMarkham 07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy-deleted, having been tagged NN-web - Alison ☺ 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked by Reg Domingo for an interview for SX News on the project. We're keen to get an Australian WP:LGBT member involved as well - is there anyone here from Australia that would like to appear? Do we even HAVE members from Australia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look up at the section immediately above this one. :) Hmm. Gay or lesbian. I guess I don't qualify... --AliceJMarkham 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

*Dev is officially a muppet. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but a hard working muppet all the same. :) --AliceJMarkham 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's not glamorous. I'm helping out with creating a virtual press kit for Wikimedia, and I thought it would be cool if we did our own one that we can release on Youtube and do other fun things with it. So, if anyone wants to be involved in the planning, or would just like to sit in front of a camera and be a talking head saying scripted lines enthusiastically, do let me know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

People might like to give their thoughts on this one [23] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 July 2007.

Nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. I have to say, it's the fastest open and close I've ever seen... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone here reads Italian, could you take a look at Emilio Colombo, specifically the referenced article here? And see if that's a reliable source? Thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Found an even better ref from L'Espresso of La Repubblica, where I think it was originally published. And yep, he's gay. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

hey'all, I've done some work on the Jeffree Star article(s) to help establish notability. The majority of material about him is unusable as his fame was created in blogs and continues to build there but I found several good stories that had a wealth of material. The article still needs work but I'm trying to preserve it from endless AfD'ing. Benjiboi 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone [24] has added a deletion tag to this article I've created. I don't think it should be deleted - it was shown at various film festivals [25], [26], even appears on the BBC website [27], appeared in Têtu (see reference in the article), and there is even a page on it on what I take to be Romanian Wikipedia [28]. Shouldn't the deletion tag just be removed?Zigzig20s 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

None of that info is in the article yet... But if it goes in, I'd just remove the prod. If the IP user wants to take it to AFD, they can't. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that better? Unfortunately the pictures on the Romanian page aren't on Wikicommons, so I can't put them up here...I tried to look at the translation page [29] in hopes that someone could ask them (in Romanian) to move it to wikicommons, but no such luck. It would be nice to have the pictures, maybe I should just ask them in English?Zigzig20s 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Better - I've rated the article as a Stub until we can get a bit more information on there, but at least now it's sourced. I removed the Prod. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this be added to the project as well?Zigzig20s 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem LGBT-related to me. Is it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen it, but the man dresses up as a woman. That might meet the 'T' requirement in LGBT perhaps? (I am much more of a queer-theory person.)Zigzig20s 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - do cross-dressers meet "T"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cross-dressers are within the T spectrum as T is for trans and cross-dressing its within that umbrella term. Benjiboi 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how I first noticed this guy's article but he seems to have acted in a bunch of films. Then it popped in my watchlist because an anonymous user deleted all the supplemental info (co-stars, studio info) from his films list leaving only the titles seemingly in a quest to gut the article. Now, presumably the same anonymous user is shooting for a speedy delete. When I undid the mass deletion of info I didn't cite a WP policy and the editor redeleted because I didn't - so obviously they are somewhat experienced user. I'm not terribly beholden to thinking the world will be worse without this article but it seems wrong and an abuse of the processes. Could some of y'all more knowledgeble with admin protocols take a look and see if 1. they did make sweeping edits that were out of line and 2. Is this AfD also out of line? thank you. Benjiboi 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does fail WP:PORNBIO. And not that big a loss, IMHO :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you reply to the idea of anonymously doing all of this? Seems suspect but maybe that's a standard way of getting rid of articles. Benjiboi 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anons can do pretty much anything - there are a few technical limitations on them, but changing content isn't one of them. Officially, we welcome their contributions and encourage them to stick around (and get an account). It's not all that unusual, but it's not the most common thing either. - Philippe | Talk 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No - not the most common. In fact, AFAIK, one thing an anon can't do is finish out the AfD process &mdash quote: anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion") -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the whole situation struck me as odd as the user definitely knows a bit of advanced editing but conveniently used a different IP each time so no talk pages dialog would have worked; didn't use the article's talk pages before deleting the majority of the article and then went right into AfD. Just seems an abuse of processes on top of a waste of time. Why go through the effort of gutting an article and then deleting it? For that matter why bother the article in the first place it was a stubby porn bio - who cares? Benjiboi 04:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. lol! Marco Rossi is also an Italian actor so that might explain the whole mystery. Benjiboi 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help noticing two sets of articles of Same-sex marriage and Civil unions for a lot of countries. I can't help feeling that these two sets deal essentially with the same subject matter. Is there any country that has both? Many of these pages simply serve to say that neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions exist in the country. The rest of the content being almost identical, or at least ought to be since it covers attempts to secure those rights. It is suggested that they should be merged, as a matter of policy, into one single set of articles (along with a single template) called for example:

• Rights of homosexual couples in...

• Same-sex marriage and civil unions in...

• (insert other suggestions here)

I say policy only because it would take some time. The single articles could deal comre comprehensively with the topic, avoid unnecessary repetition, deal with which if any a country had and deal with attempts to gain further rights. Caveat lector 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these articles present a looming problem (foreshadowing). Someday an editor will start to nom for AfD those ones that simply say "It doesn't exist here" as non-notable or some such. For New Hampshire LGBT articles, the main one is LGBT rights in New Hampshire with a main article for Civil unions in New Hampshire (both of which need expanding right now - hint hint). So the "LGBT rights in..." article addresses what legal rights, including partnerships, are and are not available with appropriate "off shoot" articles. I think it's a good idea to reevaluate the current organization of articles in these categories. ZueJay (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've put the AfD idea into my head. I've nominated Same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands for deletion. Caveat lector

I agree that this is a problem and it should be addressed. I suggest "Recognition of gay unions in ..." --Rye1967 17:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Caveat lector 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we rush to start deleting, let's think this through. I agree that for some tiny countries where the topic is not likely to be considered anytime soon, we don't need separate articles. However--civil unions/domestic partnerships are one thing, same-sex marriage is another. In some countries who started with CU/DP and then enacted SSM, there is a lot to say historically and legislatively on both topics, and perhaps we might want to consider whether the two topics are better kept in separate articles.

To give another example from an article I worked on myself: New Jersey passed a DP law in 2004 that extended to all gay couples as well as to straight couples over 62. In 2007, however, a new CU law came into effect; however, couples who are already in DP's are not required to change to a CU; the DP statute is still in operation. But new DP's can be formed only by couples over 62, straight or gay.

Unfortunately, an over-zealous editor from Germany quickly merged the NJ DP article into a new NJ CU article when the bill passed, not realizing that the old DP law continued to be in effect. I'm not sure that a reader would fully understand the legal situation from reading the NJ CU article as currently written.

But now suppose, as may well happen, New Jersey (or some other jurisdiction) starts to debate actual same-sex marriage, and a law finally gets approved. Chances are they could end up with 3 different legal relationships, all operating concurrently: DP's, CU's, and marriage. In other nations, like Quebec, CU's and marriage are also currently available options for all couples, straight and gay.

So my question is, would Wikipedia be better served by lumping all these different forms of legally recognized relationships together, by state or country; or by keeping them in separate articles? I'm just raising the question here for consideration; what do the rest of you think?--Textorus 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What might be worth doing is merging them all and creating "Same sex marriages and civil unions in..." where appropriate. It would establish that there they are distinct processes but also doesn;t create an excess of articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing of it is, though, in many places, CU's/DP's are NOT limited to same-sex couples; straight couples can also avail themselves of that status. So would it be right to lump them together with same-sex marriage? Probably a hundred years from now, this will all be a moot point; but right now, we are talking about two or three quite separate, distinct legal categories, with different rights, responsibilities, and requirements for starting and ending.--Textorus 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "Marriage-type relationships in..." is out of the question, but would something along those lines incorporate all 3 (?) subjects? Or "Legal definitions of relationships in..."? Just throwing out ideas. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then we get into the problem of finding one title that is broad enough to cover every conceivable government-sanctioned LGBT relationship, some of which also will apply to straight couples; whatever we pick, it's bound to be a mouthful, and not something readers would intuitively search on.

The more I think about it, the more I feel DP's, CU's, and SSM should be in separate articles for each state/nation they apply to. That's the simplest, cleanest way of organizing things (with, of course, appropriate wikilinks between them). And it perhaps will mean the separate articles will get better updates from interested editors as laws change in the course of time.

I don't feel a concern about any excess of articles here, when we are talking about ongoing, separate, distinct legal categories of relationships that are not identical. In fact, it could be seen as a way of keeping article size manageable and appropriate. See WP:NOTPAPER.

As a case in point, you might go check out the article I just created on Common-law relationships in Manitoba. I suppose it could be merged with Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, which is quite short at the moment; however, I'm sure a lot more could be written on the latter topic (e.g., more about particular rights, benefits, procedures, statistics of marriage in Manitoba as distinct from other provinces; although the federal government defines what marriage is, provincial laws govern a lot of the small details), and if so, do these two separate legal statuses need to be all in the same article?

And would anyone really argue that all this should be merged into Same-sex marriage in Canada, which at 51 kb is already a big, sprawling monster? LOL  :-) --Textorus 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My boyfriend suggests "Marriage-like substances in California". :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!--Textorus 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we merge them all with Gay rights in... unless there's a specific controversy or one of the processes is legal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go along with "Recognition of gay unions in ..." as per Rye1967. As far as reasons for the mergers go:

• Many of these countries have neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions. A single page on attempts to get right would be preferable. See for example the articles on Civil unions in the Republic of Ireland and Same-sex marriage in Ireland (which actually both deal on with the Republic of Ireland and not Northern Ireland).
• The distinction between civil unions and same-sex marriage isn't always as clear as Textorus suggests. For example the page on Same-sex marriage in South Africa says, "Samesex marriage became legal in South Africa on 30 November 2006 when the Civil Unions Bill was enacted." The article on Same-sex marriage in New Zealand says, "New Zealand does not allow same-sex marriage, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage".
• The article Civil unions in the United States deals with both civil unions and same-sex marriage and the article Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion says, "Many people make a distinction between same-sex marriage and civil unions, which would provide same-sex couples some legal rights. Although only about 3 in 10 Americans think gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry, there is larger support for permitting civil unions".
• The lead section of Same-sex marriage in Mexico, Same-sex marriage in Connecticut and Same-sex marriage in New Jersey all say essentially that: "Same-sex marriage doesn't exist in ... but civil unions have existed since ...".

Caveat lector 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Y'all can do what you like, and I agree that some articles are at present unclear about the legal situation in various places. But I still say that marriage and CU's/DP's are separate categories of law; in point of fact, legislatures and parliaments have gone to GREAT lengths to make that clear. (Of course, they are being buttheads about the whole issue, but that's another discussion, lol.)

So is really a good idea to throw everything LGBT-related into the same pot? LGBT civil rights history and legislation is one thing; the history and legislation and regulations and procedures for CU/DP is another thing; the same goes for the ongoing debates in many places over SSM.

If you put these apples, oranges, and bananas into the same bowl for each jurisdiction and mash them all up together, it's just not going to be very appetizing, I'm afraid. You are going to end up with LOOOOOONNNNGGGGGGG articles that are very difficult for general readers (and us editors!) to navigate.

What IS needed, I think, is for someone with better wikiskills than I to create a quick-and-easy-to-read table for LGBT rights in North America, like the beautifully formatted, highly informative one at LGBT rights in Europe. This would provide a "jumping-off" place for separate articles on the various topics I've just mentioned, plus things like gays in the military, anti-discrimination laws, etc. I'd do it, but I just don't know how to set up the table.

Now I've said my piece as cogently and politely as I can, and I'm going to leave it there, and go back to generating some good content. Peace, y'all.  :-) --Textorus 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Duh. It dawned on me I could just copy the European table and edit it, so I'm starting a sandbox project now. I have some urgent real-life business to attend to today and tomorrow, but I think I'll try to develop a full table for North America in the next week or two. Anyone who wants to help with this big project can see what I've started at User:Textorus/Sandbox.--Textorus 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just created this page Oyster. The eponymous character is bisexual. However, I am not adding the LGBT tag because mention of his bisexuality is very scanty - his first description goes along the line of "epicene", and the other mention is when Mercy is told Brian is a favourite of Oyster's (at this point the word 'bisexual' is used). However, that didn't strike me as the backbone of the plotline or anything. Perhaps a queer theory analysis would lead to another conclusion though - feel free to browse through jstor if you have access to it!Zigzig20s 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fudgie Frottage article (not my creation) was pretty messy but I added a lede, etc to assert notability. Could some folks take a look at it and make suggestions for next steps? I'm familiar with Fudgie's work but as it's quite extensive I don't have time to do all the research so I'd rather focus on what's needed to avoid deletion for now. Benjiboi 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the AfD is worthy of attention but the information doesn't seem to be in the main article. Benjiboi 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would that be deleted?Zigzig20s 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a trivia collection, has only delete and strong delete votes so far, I figured I was missing some obvious point. AfD page - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Whitman in popular culture. Benjiboi 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We said two and a half months ago that I would continue as Coordinator until August and we'd elect some Deputy Coordinators to get some people experienced in what I usually do, and reevaluate the situation towards the end of July. Well, we're coming there now, and I think it's time to evaluate.

I have been acutely and embarrassingly aware of my lack of reliability and irregular work over the past two months - obviously I couldn't help having exams and being dragged off to hell for a month, but all the same I have felt somewhat ashamed that despite having the caretaker role, I haven't been doing all that much caretaking. Kudos to everyone else who took up the slack, especially SatyrTN. I have all of August to get back in the swing of things but from September 4, I have a full time volunteering placement at Bradford University for a year. I ensured that I have broadband Internet access (well, actually, I told the supervisor very firmly that if I did not have Internet access I would not be volunteering with them, no matter how much pain the disabled were in), but my schedule sounds somewhat hectic and irregular, so until I feel I have regular time online, I don't think I should continue as the somewhat distant Coordinator, holding the fancy title but not really deserving it. I therefore offer to step down from the role, knowing that I may not be able to do it or you all justice.

So, the project now has several options:

• Elect a different Coordinator and Deputy Coordinators for August through October.
• Abolish the positions altogether.
• Keep me as Coordinator and hope that it'll all turn ok.
• Something else.

It's really up to you. I'm happy to go with whatever the project wants to do - I've got lots of ideas for WP:LGBT, but I've got lots of ideas for other WikiProjects on Wikipedia and for elsewhere online too. None of it requires me to be a Coordinator at all if you think housekeeping should be left to fate or someone else.

We have come such an amazingly long way since November, and there's a real community of people here - we've not gained that many FAs, but I think it is obvious to everyone that our article quality has been on an upwards curve. What direction it takes next is your call. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't upset the system too much why not add a third person who can be introduced to the process and glamour of the work and you can swoop in superhero-like as time allows? Benjiboi 00:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's been virtually no response to this, so I shall remain as a distant Coordinator until someone objects. The title is very handy for dealing with the press. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No objection. WjBscribe 07:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association is not currently tagged for this project; it might be within scope of this project under the "societal reaction" dimension like Westboro Baptist Church and Jerry Falwell. I leave it to experienced project members to decide. AUTiger » talk 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• If American Family Association is in scope, so is Australian Family Association, which I found because it is linked from Straight pride. --AliceJMarkham 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently discovered the wonderful world of irc channels. :-) Does this project have its own irc channel? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I suggested it, but no-one seemed that interested. Might be worth doing now though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be a blast. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have mIRC, I use a java application so I don't have to deal with it, so you'd better set it up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. :-P I'll ask at the Spanish wiki channel. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the LGBT Project tag be added on the talk page, given that he was 'the first French politician to be fined 3,000€ for his homophobic remarks' last year? I would tend to think so.Zigzig20s 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good point of info for homophobia article but famous homophobes aren't automatically included in the LGBT category. Benjiboi 02:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is mentioned here [30].Zigzig20s 11:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting this [31] as the next monthly collaboration. It would seem very important and urgent imo. Of course this would entail more than one page (so many red links yet), but we'd have a whole month and I suspect that some of us have more time because of the holiday...What do you reckon?Zigzig20s 11:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We can... but I'm not sure that it would be improved much. The collaboration seems to tidy up articles, not really write them. But we can give it a go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a good start might be to know where to find the info. It's relatively easy to find info on lgbt rights in the uk, not so easy to do so for most african countries - mostly because they don't get much media coverage. Also, for african countries, it might be sensible to add a section on how colonial rule may have impinged on lgbt rights...Zigzig20s 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. I dunno about Africa, but certainly India's anti-gay laws only came in when we conquered them and imposed our legal system (mea culpa). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post this link on the relevant article pages, but then noticed your project page and thought you might prefer if I announce it here first.

As part of our coverage of the fortieth anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK, Advances in the History of Psychology (an academic blog run out of the Department of Psychology at York University) has published a set of bibliographies that you may find useful. The link will take you to a list of high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss the history of homosexuality from a psychological perspective, including numerous documents detailing how conceptions have changed in psychotherapy and by region. And, as trained historians, we thought this resource could be useful for your project; our unique contribution to an important online endeavour. JTBurman 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooooh, that can go straight onto our list of resources. Does anyone have access to the journals themselves? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to sound unduly picky, but in 1967 homosexuality was not decriminalised in the UK. What happened was that homosexual behaviour among males in certain circumstances (IIRC, the parties had to be 21 or over, it had to be in private only, not more than two people could be involved, etc., etc.) was decriminalised. --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (just passing through)

Yes, and gay men had to draw their curtains tight because some neighbours might go looking to see if they could see anything and could have them arrested if they did. But even if it did subsequently take another 30 years to equalise the ages, it's a fairly psychologically significant date. "Yay, we can have a relationship with a consenting same sex partner now!" sounds better than "Yay, we can have sex with sixteen year olds now!" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Check it out. :-P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll take this as a good thing, as it's given me the motivation to start working on an essay on my userspace that might hopefully turn into a guideline at WP:GAYCABAL. Anyone interested in helping? CaveatLector^Talk 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if there were a gay cabal, we would say that, wouldn't we? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So ... do we get cute outfits and a members card? And a discount on mimosas? Benjiboi 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong to want to design members' cards now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, he's inspired. X-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God Dev, that was brilliant! X-D *High fives Dev* Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might like that. ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Dev, that was hilarious! Aleta 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the Christian Voice archives today, and found "Christian Wins Wikipedia War Over Police Lies". It appears that Christian Voice have announced to all their members about this 'war'... which is actually a stupid edit war that no-one seems to have even noticed. Here's the history. I haven't actually looked at the edits yet, but seem pretty subdued from the summaries (it's late at night over here). I think it might be a good idea to keep an eye on a "Christian Voice activist" - take a look at his contribs - all edits seem to have a POV motive to them. Sorry if you've already looked at this. I still find it hard to believe that a prominent group like themselves would post that over an edit war :) Archer7 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be largely editing articles relating to himself and his activities. I just removed an email he just posted on one, so we might want to keep an eye out for OR. But he isn't actually harrassing any of the editors he's warring with, like NARTH did, so it's just another day at work for us. Not sure it merited a press release.

Btw, the Advocate article has finally made it into Findarticles.com!

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That has got to be the saddest thing I have ever seen. A politician editing his own page on Wikipedia.....what has this site come to?--Amadscientist 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to wikify 'law enforcements concerning homosexuality in France and in the United States' on my current Jumpaclass page, Giovanni's Room. Should I just link them to LGBT rights in France/the US, or is there a better page with strictly historical info regarding law enforcement and subsequent decriminalisation?Zigzig20s 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (Write it. :)). Linking both LGBT rights in France and US (I managed to spell every word in that sentence wrong first time round - what is wrong with me?!) is probably the best option. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The original article that I picked, "Straight pride" has been re-written by admin. It may or may not stay as I nominated it for deletion based on the old article. Should it stay I cannot take credit, good or bad for it's current form. So I decided to take a look at "Gay pride"...guess what? It's a start class article as well with only 3 references! Shame on us! So that will hopefully be a better project for me.--Amadscientist 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It would brilliant if you could improve that - it has more pictures than words at the moment (though the pictures are very pretty). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am a bit responsible for the overindulgence of images. Some of them are mine from SF pride parade. But since Gay pride parade has it's own article, I now understand why they may not be appropriate.--Amadscientist 21:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Elagabalus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Our peer reviews are starting to get backed up, if people could cast an eye over 'em I'm sure their submitters would be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are they? or can several be listed here? Benjiboi 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They are all currently listed at the top of this page in the tasks template, or alternatively can be viewed here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I know how to move an article but can someone point to info about renaming an image file without deleting and reloading? Benjiboi 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about renaming images, but if you did, wouldn't that make the image NOT appear on all the other wikipages where it currently does?--Textorus 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would until you fix those article's links. Benjiboi 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's fine if you want to go to the trouble; hope it's not an image that's already on several dozen pages, tho. --Textorus 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way to do it is to upload the image again with the new name, replace the old image in related articles, and then tag the original image with {{duplicate|Image:NEWNAME.jpg}}. This marks the original image for speedy deletion, referencing the new duplicate. If you are the uploader of the original image, you can use {{badname|Image:NEWNAME.jpg}}. TAnthony 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just alerting everyone to today's mass-nomination at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Sexuality Related User Categories. TAnthony 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find this article to be in serious need of a non-biased rewrite? The section on Baden-Powell's sexuality is replete with insinuations of a connection between gay male sexuality and pedophilia. I'd really like to see this language changed, and I'm interested in building a consensus on the matter. Popkultur 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, he was a paedophile, most likely, so I'm not sure how far you can get with that. If the two are being conflated however, making a distinction should be fairly easy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is sad to see homophobia alive and well even here. B-P was a homosexual in the uranian mold, whose desire for youthful men and adolescents would certainly be accommodated by modern laws. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to daub him with the "pedophilia" tar-brush, only personal purposes that would best be left out of this project. Haiduc 11:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says he was interested in boys. Boys. Not men, not teenagers, boys, and that, as I recall, is defined as paedophilia. Now, if this is not the case, I suggest by all means that you should change the article to say that he was only interested in adolescents, but I'm starting to get tired of you accusing me of being homophobic because I think that men being attracted to young boys is wrong. It is. As is men being attracted to young girls, women being attracted to young girls and women being attracted to young boys. So if objecting to a metal disorder as defined by the APA makes me a bigot, I am at least an all-inclusive one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was gay, and a pedophile, then these issues should be explored separately. As it stands, though, the two are indeed conflated and the article jumps back and forth between the two under the heading "sexuality". Since one aspect of his sexuality is legitimate and the other disordered, I think a clear distinction is necessary! Popkultur 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you can, the entire section could do with fleshing out, the spinoff article is very long but the section in the main article only contains two sentences. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dev, if you insist on making it your business to sling mud, do not complain if I point out that you are only soiling yourself. And as for claiming that attraction is "wrong," allow me to point out that thoughts can only be wrong in some authoritarian's nightmare. Actions can be wrong, but thoughts are just that. Only thoughts. You may get the thought that you would like to wring my neck, but as long as that remains only a thought, let me be the first to encourage you to think it without any feelings of guilt whatsoever.

As far as "boys" being verbotten, or love of them being "disordered", sixteen year old boys were quite legitimate love objects in England, last I checked. There is no foundation for anyone jumping to conclusions of pedophilia just because B-P liked boys. Men in the uranian mold seem to have appreciated the attractions of teenage boys, some younger and some older. Haiduc 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, I'm not going to get into this again. You clearly didn't read my comment where I said there was a big difference between sixteen year old adolescents and boys, and if B-P wasn't into boys as the article implied than it needs to be changed. I have told you over and over again that whatever my personal discomfort with pederasty, it's a perfectly legitimate expression of sexuality, but is entirely distinct from paedophilia, which is a harmful paraphilia. Your persistent refusal to ever recognise that there is a difference, and more particularly, that I make a difference is frustrating and your forthcoming book will suffer for it. If we've reached the point where you aren't even reading my posts before accusing me of being homophobic and authoritarian, then there's no point talking anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dizzy from too much indent. I was not aware that you restricted the use of "boy" to little tykes. As a man old enough to need reading glasses I see all male adolescents as boys. Let's restrict the use of "pedophilia" to clinical examples as per the DSM definition and all will be well (and I might even send you a desk copy of my next book). Haiduc 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A linguistic misunderstanding then. Problem solved. (And I would be delighted to read your book). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that groups like NAMBLA have for the most part been condemned by all major LGBT groups, but I was wondering if their are any major LGBT groups that actively campaign against pedophile groups. The reason I am asking is there is a major POV struggle going on over certain articles relating to articles on child sexuality. Their seem to be two extremes that are constantly at war with each other. The one extreme side seems to constantly compare themselves to how LGBT people were and to a large extent still are oppressed by society. The other side seems to go to far out of its way to attack pedophile organizations, using questionable sources. Although I am practically opposed to everything organizations like NAMBLA (I don't even believe in trying people under 18 as adults because I think they lack the full judgment an adult would have), I think that all article should be NPOV and that organizations like NAMBLA's platform speaks for itself without having to engage in questionable spin tactics. Thanks, Jmm6f488 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of any. If there were evidence of GLBT children being targeted by pedophiles then that might change but hate crimes and legislation to gain equal rights seem much higher on the agenda. Benjiboi 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the best place to post this, but I get dizzy trying to navigate the labyrinth of wiki Help/Policy/Guideline/Discussion pages. But maybe some of you know somebody who knows somebody who might ultimately get a Big Somebody to consider the very awkward, frustrating methods we presently have for citing sources in an article.

The easiest way, of course, is just to put brackets around a URL and let it go at that. But unless you type in the author, work, date, etc., it doesn't tell the reader much about that source unless he/she goes and looks at it. Also, as someone pointed out to me several months ago, if an article ever goes for GA or FA status, the Powers That Be Cabal (lol) much prefers to see citations done with ref-ref around them - which makes a much nicer, neater reference list at the end of the page.

Typing up each reference that way would be way too laborious for this editor. I did somehow stumble across this fabulous citation generator, which though flawed, is a great help. BUT--when you add 10 or 20 references into the article that way, golly what a friggin' MESS it is to edit then! Like with an article I recently edited

I know nothing whatever about wikisoftware (and I'm told by a contact at the Grand Software and Planetary Mastery Cabal that the less I know, the better off I'll be); but still, when I look at how we type info into articles, it does seem a bit, well, so last-century. (Sublime masters of the GSPMC, if you're listening, which of course you are, please note this is not a criticism, just a humble observation.) In my untechnological imagination, I can see how much nicer it would be, say, if there were a drop-down or pop-up box where we could quickly enter a citation's info; then return there and just click on that entry the next time we want to insert that same citation, and so on with the rest of them.

But no doubt this would involve weighty discussions with and supplications to the Grand High Supreme Universal Domination Cabal, and I don't even want to know who they are. Just throwing out an idle thought, bread upon the waters.--Textorus 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not what you're after, but you could just ignore cite templates completely. . I hates 'em. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like part of the problem is using a ref more than once. I've modified someone else's ref style to suit myself and it is similar to one that we used in school so it is quick and easy. If using a ref more than once, you can go <ref name="Lo">Lo, Malinda. (1 August 2007) [http://www.afterellen.com/TV/2007/8/jekyll "Jekyll" and the Civilizing Influence of Women] ''[[AfterEllen.com]]''. Accessed 2 August 2007.</ref>. Then when you want to reuse that ref later, you type in <ref name="Lo"/>. Such that now you might have:
"The lesbian couple in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde brings a bit of normality to the show.^[1] The couple is portrayed like any other and 'is one of the spines running through the drama.'"^[1]
Then do your typical ref display; I typically use {{reflist}} because it is easy to remember. Now you've got:

References

Does that help? ZueJay (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Zuejay! Didn't know about "nowiki." Didn't know about the refname thing. That would help some, I'll try it.--Textorus 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, so you understand, Zuejay used "nowiki" on this talk page to make the code show in his comments and not create a footnote. You would just use the "refname" portion for multiple refs to the same work. This is so gay that I know this, but a nice clean example of this at work is in the 1st season descriptions at Dynasty episodes. TAnthony 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "ref name" portion is the wikilanguage I though you'd find most useful. ZueJay (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. The Dynasty page shows the operation nicely. Thanks, y'all!  :-) --Textorus 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply copied a reference that was short and edited out the information and stored it on my page.--Amadscientist 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a lesbian couple in Jekyll?! How did I manage to watch four episodes of that and not notice? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Dev, I have no idea. And I could be wrong as I only skimmed the article - who watches those Brit things anyway ;) ZueJay (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I emigrate, I don't really have a choice. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it, Dev. We have 5,487 channels, but there's STILL never anything good on to watch . . .  ;-) --Textorus 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No kidding! I watch mostly reruns lately, but will admit to watching certain other shows like this and sometimes this and possibly this, and I'll admit I even once watched this. Ahhh! Terrible. ZueJay (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Masterpiece Theatre. I miss Alistair Cooke terribly. But you know, I just read a BBC article the other day that says that despite civil partnerships and all the new gay rights legislation of recent years, gays and lesbians are still all but invisible on British TV - except of course, as the butt of all the usual stereotypic jokes. Hmm, sounds like an article on Portrayal of gay and lesbian life in British television programmes, not to mention outright homophobia ought to be on somebody's to-do list . . . But not my area of expertise. --Textorus 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Way to make it heavy, man. Think though, when I started watching those as reruns on American television, I was like, what, 12? Now what I see on TV is frustrating, no matter the country - with age comes recognition, on so many levels!
Perhaps a title of LGBT life portrayed on British television - those POV-pushers might not like the "outright homophobia" part ;) ZueJay (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be an interesting article, but I guess whether television is homophobic depends on what you want to see with gay people in it. I rarely watch any television except documentaries and the odd film, so I am entirely unbothered that most soaps are devoid of gay characters (although there are gay characters in Hollyoaks, Sugar rush, and Desperate Housewives, to think of series I have watched lately on tv). But there's a fair number of documentaries on LGBT life. Channel 4 just had an entire week devoted to their "gay season" where I saw a documentary on gay sex and a discussion panel on homosexuality today, and there were dramas on Clapham common and Peter Wildebloode. In the same week BBC 1 ran a documentary about a transsexual undergoing SRS. Stephen Fry appeared on a psychiatrist's couch two weeks ago to talk about his life and he's doing a doc in the autumn about his friends who died of AIDS in the 80s. Simon Amstell hosts Never Mind the Buzzcocks and is totallly open about being gay, John Barrowman, I swear, is on EVERYTHING these days (including NMTB, which was an unbearably funny episode because him and Simon kept trying to outgay each other: [32]) and God knows he's gay. I guess if you're after portrayals of LGBT life in 6% of all programming as befits our demographic, it's inevitable you would be disappointed, but I don't think it could be said that we're completely absent from British telvision. Having said that, maybe I'm just too worn out from working here all day, but when I go offline, if I switched on the telly and every drama had a token gay coming out/civil partnership/hate crime I would explode. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey y'all, I was just making a little joke, lighten up!  :-D But Stonewall, THE big LGBT rights outfit in the UK, is NOT joking. I found the article, which among other things says:

• Gay people and their lives are five times more likely to be portrayed in negative terms on the BBC.
• Gay life is most likely to appear in entertainment programmes, and is rarely featured in factual programmes, like documentaries and the news.
• BBC programmes frequently use gay sexuality for making jokes or as an insult, and rely heavily on clichéd stereotypes.

Go read the article and related reports here, if you like. Stonewall IS taking it very seriously, as well they should.--Textorus 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, I read it when it came out, but I think that they aren't quite seeing the silver lining, if you know what I mean. For example, while BBC programmes may use homosexuality as a point of humour, the jokes are actually funny and not insulting now (unlike, for example, the Ace Ventura joke I watched today about Jim Carrey unintentionally kissing a man, whch actively made me uncomfortable. Given it was made in 1994, it's astonishing how fast times change). The last stupid homophobic slur/joke I heard actually came from Rupert Everett, so it's not all doom and gloom. I am determined to stay optimistic in the face of anything. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know more about BBC programming than I ever will, so I'll take your word for it. I've always wondered, though, what happens if you don't pay your license fee? Does a bobby pop round and yank your TV set out of your flat until you hand over some quid?

And apropos of nothing, Dev do you know any UK government website that is an *official* source for the 6 percent gay statistic? I've googled all over and found various newspapers reporting the stat, but no actual government site that says so.--Textorus 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, for most people who don't pay their licence fee and ignore the threatening letters, nothing happens. You could potentially end up being taken to court though and/or have your belongings impounded if they decide to pick on you. Inspectors might turn up on your doorstep and ask to search your house for a television (though they sometimes don't and get embarrassed - they took one old guy to court for not paying his fee where he revealed he had never owned a television).

I just went a-hunting and the document referred to by the papers is here. Page 20 in Acrobat. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for the *official* source. I've bookmarked it, will make a great ref for lots of articles.--Textorus 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just tagged this for unencyclopedic tone. Needs a good bit of clean-up, but I'm not interested enough in the topic, I'm sorry to say, to do it. I've got a bunch of other, closer-to-home topics on my personal to-do list that I can't seem to get around to as fast as I'd like. Real life just gets in the way, you know what I mean?  :-) --Textorus 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a note on the SGpedian's noticeboard for some help. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Textorus 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just downgraded this from GA to Start-class. (How it ever made GA, I have no idea.) It's a great topic, but all jumbled up and terribly incomplete. See my review of it from six months ago here. The original editor has left Wikipedia for good, and having read her reasons on her userpage, I can well understand her feelings. (I've become a disciple of the Sublime Truth and Serene Self-Mastery Cabal myself, for similar reasons.) But I do hope some kind soul who's a good writer and researcher will take this poor orphaned article to heart, and give it a good home. And work back up to a truly-deserved GA status!  :-) --Textorus 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - A nagging suspicion led me to do a little peeking in the GA guidelines, and wouldn't you know, I have messed up on the delisting process. Well, FMTT. It's dinnertime here, I'm starved, I'll see about correcting it later. Maybe. --Textorus 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I delisted it (minus the waiting period). We'll just have to see if anyone pitches a fit. BTW, I had to pull out ye olde urban slang dictionary for FMTT. If that's what you meant, well then, just, well, Ha! ZueJay (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you got it. ;-) Though the dictionary def is not right. Among gay men in the South, at least, I can tell you authoritatively that it is not at all "interchangeable with LOL, ROFLMAO," etc. Rather, it would be a vulgar equivalent of something like "That's amazing" or "Wow, I can't believe I/you/he/she/they did that." Or among the teen generation, perhaps the most current equivalent is "WTF." Hey, thanks for fixing my screw-up with the delisting. I hope you and other editors will make a really fine article out of that piece.--Textorus 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a handful of articles on my "To Do" list, so I hope others jump in with at least a toe! And that Urban Dictionary's all I got to go on when you youngin's start whipping out these abbreviations - you know how long it took me to figure out "rotflmao" the first time I saw it? Thanks for the clarification, though, good to know its not interchangeable - that dictionary also appears to be user-edited. ZueJay (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all know the problem with "user-edited" content, don't we? Ha. There are some days I don't know why I bother contributing to Wikipedia. I guess the only real reason is, it's just fun to create something good and see it appear instantly, and available to the whole world. A great way to pass the time and feel constructive, instead of passively watching TV or something. But of course, all your good work can be FUBAR by anybody at any minute. So I just do what I can for my own enjoyment and keep repeating, DGAF, DGAF . . . --Textorus 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Straight pride has a huge problem of with references. There is an overuse of the website "Straight Pride Wear" a T-shirt site that sells the "Straight Pride" shirts, also known as "Straight pride.com". It also has a single editor that refuses to allow any changes to the article. the member Cheeser1 has been reverting editing out my contributions and I am beginning to suspect it has to do with my having the LBGT Studies tag on my user page and this person may be apart of the website. This is speculation however it has escalated to the point that I have had to go to Admin with the problem. Cheeser1 has changed nearly everything I have attempted. If this page is apart of this project can something be done to allow it's member the ability to not face harassment in editing! Please help! I am seriously beginning to get upset!--Amadscientist 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to have literally gone away. I clicked on the article, looked at it then went to look at its history and it was gone. :) The article was not really notable, but I'd suggest watching it in case it gets re-created. I've added it to my watchlist. --AliceJMarkham 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted? (Doesn't it usually take a few days for an article to get deleted at least?)Zigzig20s 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a "Speedy Deletion" Tag to it tonight as I was fed up with all the references to the "straight Pride Wear" website and claims that it was an official website. I had removed them or replaced them several times as well as attempting to make several other improvements by discussing the small grass roots movement but they were all deleted or reverted by the single member. The speedy deletion tag was removed several times as well but i kept putting it up as the article was obviously a thinly veiled attempt to promote a single social political website. I was about to give up myself when.....poof it was gone. I guess admin agreed it was an ad. I am always watchful for such articles, but this one was really just guarded to well by a single member to be anything but propaganda and advertising. Seriously got my dander up people. Thanks for the support! I hope to be able to contribute more!--Amadscientist 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for jumpaclass...Zigzig20s 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we score someone getting their jumpaclass article deleted? :-) WjBscribe 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought about any points. I was looking to improve the article until I encountered the Guard at the door. If I have to take minus points for it....so be it! Worth it just to be rid of a major Wiki problem as far as I am concerned.--Amadscientist 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd rate at least one positive point for its deletion. No article at all is an improvement on what was there. :) --AliceJMarkham 08:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's back. This is weird...Zigzig20s 10:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that the admin who speedy deleted it decided to undelete it and take it to AfD. If you're not familiar with the AfD (Article for Deletion) process, have a read of the info in the AfD box at the top of the article. --AliceJMarkham 10:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I believe it should be deleted and suggest everyone go to the AfD page and vote as you feel, I don't think any page should be allowed to front as an article that merely tries to propagate and encourage a single website in the guise of a movement. Gay pride is not propaganda. It has a history of nearly 40 years. There is no official website that sell t-shirts. (although the parade itself has tons of vendors. I stopped and asked one if he was gay and he said no, but he was a capitalist! That was too funny!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 July 2007

Just so y'all know, it is considered bad form to 'recruit' for help 'winning' an edit war on a WikiProject talk page, or anywhere else for that matter. Next time, inform us of what's going on if it concerns the project, and contact the cabal....if there were one.... CaveatLector^Talk 03:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Just so YOU know, it's even worse form to make assumptions and put words in peoples mouths. I asked people to vote the WAY THEY FEEL, not the same way as I did or to remove the page. But thank you for accusing me of edit warring. Perhaps I shouldn't be apart of the project. That was highly uncivil of you. Perhaps you were unaware of Wiki guidelines that states that help should be sought at the project page? Here is what is said about third party envolvemnet on the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution page;

Wikipedia works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience. Options for doing this include:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes
• Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors

*Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue.

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for problems with uncivil editors

If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. Continuing to escalate the conflict with competing edits is likely to aggravate the dispute. This is also important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward. --Amadscientist 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blink....Blink.......OK...that was a little weird. I offered a friendly suggestion about how to handle these matters and you jump down my throat? Who is being uncivil here? The topic you chose for this section of the talk page was: Desperately in need of help! Member is reverting and editing out my contributions to Straight pride article. Please Help!. The wiki guideline for seeking help is not about seeking help to advance your position, but about seeking help to improve articles related to the topic. The dispute the way you describe it also fits the description of an edit war to the T, and I never said you were a bad editor or project member for edit warring. I mean, honestly! Chill the fuck out. CaveatLector^Talk 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing friendly about that sir. First of all you did it again. Putting words in my mouth. I didn't want help in advancing my position, just being able to edit the page. Second I did not jump down your throat, I pointed out that you were incorrect that my coming to this page for help was somehow improper. And last....your final response proves my point. Thank you very much. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?--Amadscientist 05:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Paron me, but fuck, shit, cock, and goddamn. You'll have to learn at some point that Wikipedia is not censored, and it would probably do you well to learn the difference between profanity that is used to directly insult someone and that which is used for emphasis of a point. If you view all profanity as 'uncivil', well that is your point of view, and as medieval as it is, you're entitled to it. As to this idea that I am somehow 'putting words into your mouth', I copied and pasted YOUR OWN talk page section title to show that you were clearly attempting to garner 'support' for an editing dispute. How on god's ever-growing-less-green earth is that putting words into your mouth? Beyond that, you clearly 'jumped down my throat' when you called me uncivil, in a tone that was at the very least less than civil itself, because I gave you a completely friendly suggestion. There is NOTHING of malice or anything of that sort in what I wrote to you. I mean, honestly, I even made a cabal joke to lighten what I said even more. So, as I suggested COOL YOURSELF DOWN, and this time, if you didn't before (and it seems you didn't, because it seems you missed the entire point here) click that link and read the very helpful essay that my 'Chill the fuck out' suggest was TRYING to point you to. Christ almighty. I AM NOT YOUR BLOODY ENEMY, not in the Straight pride article, and not anywhere else! CaveatLector^Talk 06:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this in terms you can understand. If that was friendly, I am NOT your friend pal. You are wrong about why I brought this discussion here and are wrong with using such uncivil language. If this is the response I am to expect on this project let me know right now and I will remove myself from it. I do not need stupidity of this nature in my Wikipedia experiance and would walk away from a person like you in real life.--Amadscientist 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate to break in on your misunderstanding-cum-deathmatch, the grammar gremlin within does require me to point out to both of you it is "incivil" not "uncivil". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you....I think.....no I'm pretty sure.....I think. LOL!--Amadscientist 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD vote has removed the article. It has again been deleted. I was wondering what people thought of adding some of the referenced material to the "opposition" section that was previously deleted from the Gay pride article that I am currently working on as my new Jumpaclass project. Not all information just some of it. Also the "death match between myself and CaveatLector has been resolved. He is a good person with a great deal of passion. That can only be respected. I just react negatively as I was already to hot under the collar from the whole situation on that page! Thank you sir for accepting my apology.--Amadscientist 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea - the section needs expanding and it is logical to include well-referenced Straight Pride movement attempts made by College Republicans and others. ZueJay (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

up for speedy delete Benjiboi 23:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete on grounds of non-notability, lack of independent verification, and self-promotion. Looks like a small student group at U of Cinn, about 20 members. But where is the delete discussion happening?--Textorus 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question though - grassroots movements and local resistance. Those things probably won't matter much when we have equal rights - but we don't - so I think a section on their actions would be good. BTW, do LGBT societies in American universities belong to a (nationwide) umbrella organisation?Zigzig20s 10:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are not from the U.S. Nope, this is the "land of the free," anybody anywhere anytime can start any group they want and call it what they want. College students, in particular, are famous for organizing all kinds of small groups that might or might not last till the end of the next semester. I'm not aware of any "umbrella organization" for LGBT college groups, though perhaps there is a national organization of some kind that does support some groups. But even if it were a chapter of a national org, that's not enough to be listed separately on Wikipedia, as I understand the guidelines. The problem with this article, as I said before, is that there is no independent souce establishing the group's notability, as outlined in the guideline at WP:ORG.--Textorus 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the questioning of GenderBlocs need to be included. GenderBloc is a relatively new organization, however in the time it has been in the works it has become partner to many national organizations, including working directly with governmental candidates on national policy. And, since the group is young, it still does not have a long list of bells and whistles to promote it, but especially in the next year, that will change. It may seem ludicrous to compare the GenderBloc entry to GenderPAC and the HRC entries because those groups are so large and nationally recognized, but I feel they are very similar. Grassroots movements and radical groups may not have the funding or press to be nationally recognized, but that does not mean that they are not well known and prosperous. There is no 'umbrella group' for collge organizations and there are so few ways to gain information on what groups are out there, as well as what ther are doing. I feel that it is partly because of this that no 'umbrella group' has been formed. There is no communication, or even a way to communicate or acknowledge existance, between college groups and between college and national groups. I added GenderBloc here so that people would be able to find a description of it if they were looking for it. If it is not notable enough yet, then I understand that it will be deleted and then perhaps when it is notable enough I can add it again. --Jakku Ari 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

His publications include

• Bridge, N.C (1982). Baron of Harwich. Report of an inquiry by the Right Honourable Lord Bridge of Harwich into the appointment as The Queen's Police Officer, and the activities of, Commander Trestrail; to determine whether security was breached or put at risk, and advise whether in consequence any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable. HC59 (November). London: HMSO.

And this has what to do with us? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry ...edit conflict.. I was adding. Gay Police Officer - This is not a core interst of mine but I would be interested to know whether Bridge is held in a positive or negative light by LGBT participants Aatomic1 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He might be of interest to us if he were gay, but he's not. No tags, cats, and this in his personal life: "Bridge has been married to Margaret Swinbank, daughter of Leonard Heseltine Swinbank, since 1944; they have three children, two daughters and one son." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Commander Trestrail would be so tagged; lol I'd better put it on my To Do listAatomic1 10:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research and, for the benefit of everyone else, what this user is talking about is that Lord Bridge wrote a report on some guy named Trestrail who was revealed to be picking up rent boys. "Findings of investigation conducted into the security implications of the disclosure by a male prostitute that the former Queen's Police Officer, Commander Trestrail, was homosexual. Trestrail was forced to resign as a result of this revelation. ... However, also argues both that the "double life" Trestrail was forced to lead and which exposed him to the risk of blackmail, and the fact that he resorted to prostitutes, made him an unacceptable Queen's Police Officer." [33]. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's late and I'm not feeling very civil and mentory-ish. Could someone sort this out[34] and see if the asexual cabal is on the loose? thank you Benjiboi 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you Dev! Benjiboi 22:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The asexual cabal: "we're not coming for your children". :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

ROFL Dev--Textorus 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED BY POSTER SINCE IT WAS OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!! Avazina 00:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting these videos and your reply to them. While that video may well be downright stupid (personally I laughed at the bit where the guy said he loved gays but then compared them to murderers and the part where they claimed that all gays worship the devil. Btw, does anyone look more stereotypically dykey than that woman?), this is a talkpage for our efforts to improve Wikipedia, not a general chat board. Getting offtopic sometimes is okay, but if you want to make a running commentary on stuff you've seen around the Internet, start a blog. Don't post it here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for offending you. I certainly won't do that any more. Avazina 00:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Avazina, I don't think it was terribly offensive just off-topic enough as to be seen as not helping this project improve articles. YouTube has an endless supply of homophobic videos but YouTube is not a great resource for helping WP articles. Benjiboi 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not offensive, just not relevant. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking I could perhaps take a picture of the latest Têtu issue with my webcam. However, is that fair use?Zigzig20s 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe. It's akin to a screenshot. Make sure you use a fair use rationale though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I will do it as soon as I know - for sure - which licence to choose from. There are lots.Zigzig20s 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Magazine cover - and if you could scan rather than photograph it that would be better. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a scanner. It will probably look a tad rubbish. But better than nothing, don't you think?Zigzig20s 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be doable - see Image:A919x300.jpeg. The license to use is {{Non-free magazine cover}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well basically when I'm there [35], which licence do I pick?Zigzig20s 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The magazine cover one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not really answering my question. There is no mention of 'magazine cover' in the list on that page.Zigzig20s 11:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because you're trying to upload a fair use image to the Commons which doesn't allow them and unsurprisingly doesn't therefore have fair use licences. Use the upload file button that is to the left of your screen in the box marked "toolbox", and you will find the licence I am talking about. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, it would look really bad. Turns out taking pictures of Camargue red rice with a cam is fine, but that's that. Oh well...Zigzig20s 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried looking on the internet for a picture of a cover? If you downloaded then uploaded that it would still be fair use, you'd use the same licence. Don't know if there are any out there though... --Belovedfreak 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a picture here: [36] Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy about the copyright thing.Zigzig20s 12:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently I came across this video on YouTube called Homosexuality in Ancient Greece I'd like several of you to view this video and post your thoughts (either here or there). If you think it is inappropriate, tantamount to hate, then let me encourage you to flag the video as inappropriate. Avazina 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not hate, it's just silly. I mean, my knowledge of homosexuality in the Greek world is not amazing, but I can tell you that that video was riddled with misleading information and outright lies. Using the term "broad-ass" in a public performance of a play meant that there was no way any of the audience could have been sleeping with men? Drivel, all it means is that people who were passive partners in anal sex were mocked. Zeus never engaged in homosexual relationships? What was Ganymede? Outright lie, as is the claim that no Greek gods are depicted as indulging in homosexuality - Apollo was the gay icon of antiquity. To take that video seriously is just pointless.

What's bizarre though, is that the author's contention, that homosexuality was not tolerated in Greece, is true, if one is talking about egalitarian relations. Known homosexuals in that sense were punished/mocked/looked down on. If the guy who put together that video simply said that, we could make no comment. But the fact that pederasty was widespread means that the author can't speak the truth, because this doesn't fit his agenda of denying ALL homsoexual expression within Greece and so he has to make a lot of stuff up and question people's scholarship because of their sexuality.

Thus this video is simply, to be it bluntly, bollocks. And I suspect that the guy who made it is probably Cretanpride, who tried to AfD Homosexuality in Ancient Greece sometime ago. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, in fact would you object if I posted them to the comments section for that video? Avazina 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Crap like this video is why I like contributing solid, verifiable facts to Wikipedia. That video is frothing-at-the-mouth homophobia, a collection of distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies. I wouldn't call it hate speech so much as the worst kind of homophobic propaganda - a prime example of the Big lie. And a piss-poor job of research, not to mention spelling.

I started to make a quick, short list of rebuttal points here, but of course that got out of hand real fast. Anyone who wants to read my very disorganized, unedited list can see it on my sandbox page here. There must be some kind of article I can make out of this material. But this is NOT for quoting anywhere; it needs extensive rewriting and reshaping and citing.

I've included a bunch of quotes from a book every brother and sister should read: Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2003. I can't praise it enough. All the gay history you were never ALLOWED to know about. Dr. Crompton is a fine writer, and Emeritus Professor of English at the University of Nebraska. Doesn't have a wikipedia article yet; I may work on that. He certainly deserves one for this monumental work of scholarship.

BTW, Dev, there were indeed age-equal gay couples back then. You can read in my notes what Compton says and cites about that.--Textorus 05:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There were same aged couples, Textorus, it was just generally looked down upon. Oh, and I understand that you'd like to create an article on this, but it would probably do better to improve the Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Homosexuality in ancient Rome articles, without using language that is too over the top or insults the critics (however silly) of these facts. CaveatLector^Talk 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Now CaveatLector, you can easily pull up my work over the last 12 months on Wikipedia and see the quality of it. You've probably already seen some of it. Do you really think I'd put these very POV notes into a mainspace article? That's why they are in the sandbox. I'm sure you meant well, but I don't need a nanny, thank you very much. I'm pissed, frankly, that you reprimand me in a sly way instead of perhaps giving just a little praise for a good bit of solid, documented research and a helluva lot of typing that I've just spent over 5 hours working on in this sandbox - material that might be useful to any number of articles, not just one. But hey, it's Wikipedia, and frankly my dear, that's why I WP:DGAF any more.--Textorus 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to all: my apology to CaveatLector can be seen here.--Textorus 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Textorus I just finished reading your list, it is great. Very well researched and lots of great information. Wish you could parley it into a Wiki article. Does the LGBT Studies have a "FILM REBUTTAL" section to debunk any lies being spewed by such anti-gay films as the brief video on YouTube? Alot of people visit YouTube and many get much of their information, especially on political issues, from YouTube. Would it be possible to create and post a VIDEO REBUTTAL to this video? Avazina 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a "film rebuttal" section would be within the scope of a Wikipedia project. See the Five Pillars and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We can, however, ensure that verfiable facts are included from all points of view in articles, but then the subject of the article would have to meet the guidelines for notability. I'm not sure any YouTube videos are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yet.--Textorus 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

While a video rebuttal is certainly possible, it will not be WP:LGBT who will be making one. Any videos we produce (and I do have plans...) will be on Wikipedia, not the rantings of some Greek. And this is getting waaay off topic. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of a Discussion Page is that it is also for subjects that don't necessarily fit into an article, but have relevance to the topic. If you don't like the topics I bring up on this discussion page you are under no obligation to read it. (Have a nice day!) Avazina 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then your understanding is flawed, and per WP:TALK, "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is perfectly clear since that is how I have observed the use of discussion pages elsewhere since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago. And the subject I brought up here pertains to gays since the issue concerned furthers erroneous historical information that relates to homosexuality in antiquity. How is that not relevant. It may not fit into a specific article, but it certainly has relevance for those of us concerned with LGBT topics. (Have a nice day!) Avazina 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this is not a discussion forum for people interested in LGBT. It's a page for coordinating our work on Wikipedia. While you may have seen random discussions on other pages, that doesn't mean it's acceptable. We have Template:Notaforum for a reason. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then Discussion/Talk pages should be called something else since their title is deceptive in that it implies that a free exchange of ideas not designated for articles are to be carried out on such pages. (Have a nice day!)Avazina 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)