WHEELER I m writing to thank you for your apology I wish to emphasize that you did a great deal of good work on the article creating the bulk of the present content and providing a great deal of references If any of my comments in response to your use of moderns was offensive to you I also apologize However after your apology you once again accuse me of ignoring history which is inconsequential what is important is if wikipedia ignores history I have not ignored history nor your edits I have simply added historical content to the article Simply because our sources seem to differ does not mean that either is more or less suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia it simply means that we are using different sources Further you have made a request for classical sources connecting effeminacy with gender gender roles or sexuality I am not ignoring this request but you must understand that it takes time to do research compose that research and add it to wikipedia You however have also ignored o have yet to respond to my question if effeminacy applies only to one gender or sex doesn t it inherently has something to with gender or sex One way of deflating this conflict which would be supported by myself and was suggested by Snowspinner is for you to create content on Malakos Do you have an objection to this Lastly if you find my sources questionable the best way and the only way in article space to question them is to find further references which directly contradict or question said references for instance a quote by Plato saying Effeminacy has nothing to do with gender sex or sexuality would effectively disable any secondary source to the contrary or you could find another modern classicist who describes the errors of my sources 22 17 30 Jul 2004 UTC