, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Xeltifon. Someone963852 is simply going by our rules on this. There won't be enough work that you can do to make it acceptable to mention in the lead that zoophilia is a sexual orientation. It has been made extensively clear on this talk page and elsewhere that it is a fringe assertion to call it a sexual orientation, per WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would also make this clear if this matter were taken there. Zoophilia either shouldn't be called a sexual orientation in this article at all or can only be called one with WP:DUE WEIGHT; it is already mentioned with due weight lower in this article. You saw where it is mentioned lower, as you added it in. However, such a sexual orientation mention was included lower in the article before at some point (different points in time).
 
And with regard to what you stated in this edit summary about the lead, that is not exactly what WP:LEAD says. Citations may or may not be allowed in the lead, but are usually advised to be in the lead for controversial topics. Zoophilia is clearly a controversial topic.

And regarding bolding the terms, alternative terms should be bolded in the lead. Sometimes, they are also bolded lower in the article at first mention. See WP:BOLDTITLE. I would object to your removal of the alternative terms from the lead, per WP:Alternative titles, but, also per WP:Alternative titles, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." And, as you know, there is a section in this article to discuss these terms. Still, it is sometimes best to mention the alternative titles in the lead as well, especially if one or more of them is very well known as an alternative title.     

And going back to this edit, forums are not WP:Reliable sources.   20:29