Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 4

message: The article Adam4Adam has been deleted by the decision of a single administrator with no warning, discussion or observation of process.  The article was referenced to The Washington Post and asserted its notability well.  An avalanche of evidence could have produced to improve it if need be.  Being privy to this admin's personal info via a link on his page, his self-appointed role as 1-man judge, jury and executioner of an article with a GLBT topic is particularly bothersome. Please assist.  (Backstory: This article has no similarities to previous versions; I didn't even know about them). House of Scandal 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded on the deletion review page, and provided two NYTimes articles as sources, for the notability requirement. Jeffpw 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added it to the open tasks template. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel that as this site has been mentioned in at least two NYTimes articles, it definitely passes the notability requirement. I don't know many sites that've been mentioned in such a globally notable paper. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The same admin who deleted the article in violation of policy has taken issue with it being included in the LGBT page's "deletion discussion". I don't think he's winning any GLAAD Awards this year. Shaundakulbara 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaundakulbara, I have to take exception to your most recent comment because you seem to be suggesting that this is some sort of 'Gay' thing instead of a notability thing.  I ran a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual BBS for 7 years (1989 through 1996) in Oregon called the Antares Dawn.  Your tacit implication that this is a discrimination issue is out of line, and your liberal use of smearing does more to hurt the community than deleting any website advertisement could.  Between this and your personal attacks against me you've done yourself and your cause a disservice.  I've been civil and polite to you, and you have not responded in kind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict--comment not edited to take into account Chairboy's response): Are you insinuating that the deleting admin did so out of homophobic feelings?  I sure hope not.  As for his objecting to noting the article's deletion review on this page, while deletion notifications are not exactly against policy (and many WikiProjects have them), they do tend to skew the results of such "votes" in one direction and bring in people who are really not "voting" on policy considerations.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Help Please

message: The latest edition of the newsletter is ready to go (fuck me, it's long), and I will be sending it out in a few hours. If there is anything you would like added, say quickly, as the deadline's tight!  Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the great work. Parammon 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: So I'm looking at :Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States and wondering if it oughtn't go under :Category:LGBT rights organizations and be renamed.  Or is there a difference between "political advocacy groups" and "rights organizations"?  Almost all the articles listed in the former are "...rights" or "...equality" or such-like. Thoughts?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a difference between the two. I looked at the category, and many should be moved to the rights category. There are some PACs listed, and they should stay in the advocacy category. There is a difference between the two. Jeffpw 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question 

message: Does anyone know much about Shudo?  The category doesn't have a description, and only has 11 articles in it - one of which (Oda Nobunaga) needs major cleanup.  So if anyone's knowledgeable about Homosexuality in Japan, could you step up?  Thanks!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot answer for the articles, but I will write a short intro for the category. Haiduc 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Shudo]] 

message: Is that attention getting?  Keep your eyes on the main page.  I moved the "banjee" DYK hook to the DYK next update and it will appear on the main page in a few hours.  Unless someone puts the kibosh on it the half-naked guy photo that HoS took will be on the main page too.  I get undue perverse amusement from this and just wanted to share! Shaundakulbara 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <giggle> Yes, that got my attention :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Half-naked guy

message: The Collaboration has changed this month to Bisexuality. As we are working towards (oh so slowly) creating a FA a month from this process, I have put it up for peer review so that editors wishing to contribute can have some ideas to work from if they are stuck. Input to both would be welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration experiment. 

message: I never got a rainbowed eye from y'all, so shame on you. :( I've created the watchlist userbox anyway, so here you go. It's :
Hope you like. I wanted to make it gold and something else like the normal userbox is, but I just couldn't find a colour to match! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool beans! Nice work,Dev. I'll pop it on my userpage.  I'm more of a pink triangle guy anyway, so I'm perfectly at peace with not having a rainbow flag/eye. Thanks for the great work.ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is seriously cool. I love it. Can we add to the watchlist, if need be? Raystorm 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Smack me hard if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment contain the 'everything' list?  I mean, if you don't mind that it's subcategorized by assessment. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. But I think what Emiellaiendiay was asking for was a watchlist that would comprise every single LGBT project-tagged article.... WJBscribe 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. -Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, and I will get onto Ingrid and ask her to run Watchlistbot to give us a full watchlist. Be warned though, I'm not sure if it would be much help tracking the last 50 changes of over 4000 articles. We're gonna need two userboxes... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to, I certainly don't mind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist userbox 

message: And this is my final new section before I prise myself away from Wikipedia. Ze quilt zat was proposed has now acquired a form, with some well-timed aid from Coelacan. My suggestion is that we create a square for every active member and allow them to fill it at their leisure - as adding 92 squares is going to be somewhat time-consuming, I place the quilt for your criticism now, so we can change the colours/format it differently/set fire to the entire thing and never speak of it again, before I do anything else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks wonderful, Dev, and I can't wait to think of something to properly express myself here. Can we start adding to it while it's in the sandbox, or should we wait until you and Coelacan have finished working on it? Jeffpw 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it tricky to figure out where to add an image to it (hope you don't mind my adding to it... I wanted to see how it worked... I'm happy to take my fishie out again if you like).  My trouble might be just as strongly related to my general idiocy as to the format, which is groovy (and would look even groovier with lots of patches), and I did work it out after some thought. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it took me a few tries to add an image too, so you're not alone. :) I can take the image out if you want Dev920, I just wanted to test the quilt. I think it's awesome! Raystorm 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So, is your sandbox really a featured article candidate? :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks wonderful. Great work, again!-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My "two merged cells" idea works, but it's kludgy, and it does make it difficult to see what one is doing. I think it might be a good idea to add corresponding html comments to the spaces where one would add one's name and patch, and these comments can be replaced by cut out and replaced by contributors. This should make it a lot easier to work with the quilt without breaking it. I've got some work to do on the Commons: and around the house (eep!) tonight, but I can add these comments pretty soon if no one beats me to it. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The quilt looks great! But how did you guess my second favourite Oscar Wilde quote? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So anyone just picks the square number they want, or is there some kind of pre-arranged order? Raystorm 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If you dot it around, then it'll look more patchwork-like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. Just added myself. :) It does look patchwork-like I think. But there are more members than squares, isn't that right? Raystorm 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently. But many members are occasional users. When the quilt fills up, we add another 30 squares to the end. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, here we return to the eternal debate between form vs. function. I agree the contrast is nice, but on the other hand, it is awfully handy for anyone looking at our puzzleboard (quilt brings up some negative connotations for me) to be able to click on the name and go to the user page. I have no objections no matterhow it ends up, but that is something to consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn that bot is fast! Jeffpw 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Black links: Coelacan See? — coelacan talk — 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! :) Raystorm 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quilt 

message: Okay, it's ready to go at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt. I didn't copy over anyone's patches from Dev's sandbox, since I didn't know where anyone would put them on the larger quilt. There's a guide to using the quilt there in the comments, click on "edit" to see it. Improve the guide however you can, and go get started adding your patches! — coelacan talk — 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So anyone just picks the square number they want, or is there some kind of pre-arranged order? Raystorm 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If you dot it around, then it'll look more patchwork-like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. Just added myself. :) It does look patchwork-like I think. But there are more members than squares, isn't that right? Raystorm 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently. But many members are occasional users. When the quilt fills up, we add another 30 squares to the end. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, here we return to the eternal debate between form vs. function. I agree the contrast is nice, but on the other hand, it is awfully handy for anyone looking at our puzzleboard (quilt brings up some negative connotations for me) to be able to click on the name and go to the user page. I have no objections no matterhow it ends up, but that is something to consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn that bot is fast! Jeffpw 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Black links: Coelacan See? — coelacan talk — 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! :) Raystorm 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: quilt ready now

message: ... and fun! Wikimedia Commons is having a Picture of the Year 2006 contest; the winning picture is selected by community vote. The gallery of candidates is right this way and the actual voting is just over yonder (interwiki links are ugly)! Anyone with 100 or more edits on any Wikimedia project before February 1 can vote. If you don't have a commons account, you might want to make one, or you'll be voting by IP. Anyone who doesn't have 100 edits on Commons will have to post on their Wikipedia userspace, "I am the same person as XYZ on Commons" and then link to that diff in order to establish identity and eligibility to vote. Please follow the instructions, pick no more than 5 pictures (that's the hard part), and enjoy the show. — coelacan talk — 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  completely unrelated to this WikiProject... 

message: The Community Department is done. I place it here for your criticism before it goes "live" and gets added to the page, template etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that my little speech above about consolidation is still my view, and after this department, I intend to keep my ideas to myself this month. Too much too soon is harmful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one likes the community department? *pouts* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dig it. And I've rearranged it a bit. I guess the question now is how to advertise it prominently on the project main page. — coelacan talk — 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a little more quilt instruction. I think this talk page section is getting overlooked because the whole page is so busy in general. I would just put the link to the department on the main page and let people start discovering it from there. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community department is done. 

message: I came up with this in January, so my "keeping my ideas to myself" promise doesn't count. With the help of Ouro, I created an LGBT advertising poster last month, and have only just edited it in response to his criticism. Thus, I present it to you now. I have built us a website to host it, you can find it at http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). I checked the Foundation policy on my usage of a copyrighted image and they freely give permission for anyone to use their logos to promote Wikipedia, so I think we're OK. I was thinking we could put it up in LGBT reference libraries, centres and cybercafes, or just normal places which are situated in gay communities (so pretty much anywhere in Provincetown). What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I'd be more comfortable though if the poster made clear that edits should improve the quality of article in a neutral manner, not advance any particular LGBT agenda. We don't want to be blamed for an influx of LGBT POV-pushers into Wikipedia :-). WJBscribe 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good point. I have edited the poster accordingly. Now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me now. WJBscribe 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sent it to the Foundation Communication Manager, and she was delighted with it. She asked if she could send it on to the core PR team! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: :Suggestions/objections to the proposal or questions about it
:Comment/Question: Does a coordinator also act as a spokesperson for a wikiproject? Raystorm 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. They tend to because they are a likely port of call when someone wants to ask about the project or something the project has done. But that doesn't mean anyone else is unable to speak for the project, just that they're more likely to be asked. I wouldn't express the role as something as formal as spokesperson, and certainly the coordinator shouldn't say "the LGBT project think X". But there prob will be quite a bit of explaining the project and what it is about. WjBscribe 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not say a Co-ordinator could say "WP:LGBT think X" - we don't agree much on anything, as the various discussions below demonstrate. When I give interviews, or talk about the Project, I usually differentiate between what we have done and are doing and what I personally think of it and would like to do next. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the proposal itself

message: :Nominations ended. Result was Dev920 is the sole nominee. WjBscribe 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Jeffpw 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: About 4300. ;) No, really, I'm deeply honoured. I suppose now would be a good time to tell you that I'm now an official press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation and the "ComCom rep for GLBT magazines". :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominations

message: I've made the category, LGBT journalists. It's a bit sad at the moment, with only a handful of pages in it, but if any knows any journalists to add — or would be willing to search around a bit to find some (I've had trouble finding lesbian journalists, for example), it would be much appreciated. There's a page for LGBT people by occupation, and I think it should include some more occupations. I've also made a category for LGBT Muslims, but I think that will be a much harder one to add pages to. I was considering making other categories based on religion, such as LGBT Hindus, but even searching around I can't find anything to start with. The closest is hijras, but I can't tell if they're Hindu. LGBT Jews should be easier, considering there's a list of LGBT Jews to work from. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know, in case anyone wants to contribute. Thanks! — Emiellaiendiay 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality for guidelines on creating new LGBT categories.  LGBT categories should be significant, and not simply intersections with other existing categories.  Otherwise, they are likely to be deleted.  Also, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews.  It was proposed to delete the list and create a category, and after discussion it was decided not to.Samuel Wantman 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it through, and I think they're significant. -Emiellaiendiay 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the journalist category is significant, but I don't know what other occupations you are considering.  The intersections with religion are bound to be controversial, as they have shown to be controversial in the past.  My reading of the policy would take it to mean that if someone were classified as being a "LGBT Jew" it would be because they were known for being an LGBT activist in the Jewish community or something similar.  If they just happen to be LGBT, and just happen to be Jewish, it would not be a significant intersection.  In such cases it would fit the criteria for overcategorization.Samuel Wantman 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT journalists, Muslims, and Jews

message: :::::::"Queer" can be confusing for many straight people, too, who may not be familiar with the scope of the word. L-G-B-T-listing is self-explanatory, for the most part. So anyway, I've tried to synthesize all the different concerns here. The result is exhaustive and grammatically unambiguous, I hope. "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." I expect someone will feel this is unwieldy, and I won't jump to disagree, but I think that's preferable to being inaccurate or making accidental omissions. Thoughts? — coelacan talk — 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for those I offended by using that term... I'm aware that it isn't to everyone's liking. I like your synthesis, Coelacan, and wouldn't oppose it, but maybe it would be simpler still to say "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of LGBT identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions."
White hotel 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: White hotel, I believe that the breakdown that uses "same-sex ... relationships (etc.)" is worded that way to indisputably include Alexander the Great and Sappho, et al. LGBT terminology did not exist then as it does now and the exact natures of their relationships were quite different from modern understandings and so may not be encompassed by the scope of these terms, but "same-sex relationships" they defintely were. Haiduc is much better at explaining this than I am, but trust me on this one ;-) — coelacan talk — 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. — coelacan talk — 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scope proposal

message: The deletion debate regarding the article Adam4Adam contained a statement which several people regarded as an allegation of vote stacking by members of this project.  At Chairboy's suggestion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been established to discuss this allegation and related issues.  Shaundakulbara 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded to the charges in the RfC.  The allegation is disturbing and disapointing, but I hope that my response on the page will help answer any concerns.  Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both CaveatLector and I have submitted statements regarding the alleged votestacking. I can only offer one small crumb of cheer from this: three months ago no-one knew we existed, now they talk about us everywhere! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the sort of publicity I would have wished for frankly. And the issue of WikiProjects, XfDs and votestacking is now well on the agenda.... WJBscribe 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on the agenda well before, certainly back in my Islam days. What's more annoying is that we didn't actually votestack at all, but Chairboy's convinced everyone that we did. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do sort of see Chairboy's point actually. This post to this board is in very strong terms and looks like a rallying cry. He then sees a number of project members voice opinions- some without adding much to the debate. Its bound to look like votestacking to him in those circumstances. WJBscribe 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote stacking

message: I would really, really, like to someday establish an LGBT presence on Wikibooks. The nearest we come at the moment is someone is writing a textbook on the work of Michel Foucault. What I would really like to do right now, though, is write a wikibook on LGBT history. I turn to your expertise and ask, if you were writing such a book, what would you put in it? Here is my table of contents thus far:
:Prehistory
::Archeological evidence of homosexuality
:Antiquity
::The Egyptians
::Homosexuality in Japan
::The Greeks
::The Romans
::Homosexuality and Christianity
:The Age of Empire
::Homosexuality and the Victorians
::Oscar Wilde, Robbie Ross and the aesthetic movement
:Modern times
::Slow decriminalisation of homosexuality
::Gay rights movements
::The AIDS epidemic
::Same-sex marriage
:The Future
You may have noticed there are massive gaps. Fill them in! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a history book with information on homosexuality in the Rennaissance. It being not exactly antiquity, I don't know which category it would fit into. Also, this list seems slightly Eurocentric. Perhaps if you separated it by time period, and then subdivided each into culture-specific time periods (e.g. Age of Empire, Victorian, Renaissance, Qing Dynasty, etc.) A WikiBook is an excellent idea. — Emiellaiendiay 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would hardly have said Egypt, Japan and Greece were in Europe, but I do agree with you. I used LGBT history as a basis, but that is horribly eurocentric, thus my turning to y'all for help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikibooks

message: Just to let you know, I signed up to WP:SPOKEN a while back, but had dreadful problems with my microphone. Having now dealt with that (I had to buy another computer!), once I'm done with my featured articles, I intend to set to on the LGBT FAs. If anyoen would like to join me in this, or would rather I didn't record an article you worked on, please let me know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPOKEN]] 

message: I expressed some concern on the talk page of this article about the lack of reliable sources, as many of its sources have been actively discredited, leaving a lone documentary with no DVD release (making it difficult to use as a source) as the source for this alleged sexual practice. Could some people have a look at it before I start trying to deal with the somewhat sketchy verification of this? Phil Sandifer 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bugchasing]]

message: I found a BBC article on homophobia and sissys. Cleara --Allyn 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be this diff for those who are wondering. — coelacan talk — 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added reference to Sissy page 

message: You are invited to the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln to discuss the issues. Wjhonson 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks the dispute stem from the fact this article needs a bit of work on the NPOV front, with a suggestion that the combination of sourced information may be OR. Jimbo has expressed a view here for those interested. Those with past issues with Knowpedia might wish to tread carefully. WjBscribe 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abraham Lincoln

message: We broke 100! YAY! But, I'm noticing only SatyrTN has risen to my challenge and invited five members. Come on, more people do it! *prods every member who hasn't done it* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried... and gave up. How do you find users to invite? I've browsed history pages of LGBT-related articles, but to no avail. — Emiellaiendiay 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I did - I picked a couple articles, scoured their history for editors in the past year or so, reviewed their user and talk pages, and maybe edit histories, and then made the invitation.  It's rather time-consuming!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are making me feel bad, not doing more than "keeping my eye on ya". hehehe. Let me know when 104 signs up, I'll be 105. Not before then - evens are unlucky numbers for me. ;) ZueJaytalk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit, it is more difficult than it used to be - unfortunately I seem to have recruited most of the  major contributors. :) But I'm still finding people, so I'm not giving up yet... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that again! It took me forty minutes to find three eligible editors that I could invite to join us... I would typically find the perfect contributor and see you'd already invited him/her (Wuzzy comes to mind). :) Cheers Raystorm 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I invited five yesterday, so good editors who haven't yet been invited are definitely still out there. And it's a shame Wuzzy stopped editing back in April. I'd email them, but they haven't got it enabled. I don't think there's an LGBT article they haven't edited.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: Ok, Ingrid created one at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles. I've created another userbox for it:
:
All Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, thank you, Ingrid, for making it! — Emiellaiendiay 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchall list 

message: Is the list automated? Or when we've got articles we'd like help on, do we just add 'em on? In particular, I started an article on Claire of the Moon which I've actually never seen. little man will have to be next (which I've also never seen - gee, think I get out much?), and then the bio for Nicole Conn needs work. So, anyhoo, help on these'd be great; and info on how to add to the "To-do list". Thanks, ZueJaytalk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's automated by Satyrbot. To activate it, make sure the article is tagged both with our banner and a suitable cleanup banner. Satyrbot should then add it to the to-do list when it runs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add to ''To do list''

message: This is going to sound like such a newbie question...I run across a user that asked why the LGBT template goes in a talkpage instead of on top of the article in question, 'so everyone can see it better'. I told him that's the way it's done, and offered some kind of lame explanation. Does anyone know exactly which policy says that templates should go on talkpages? Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the project tags are about the article rather than about the subject, they're put on the talk page.  Any article that has our tag on the talk page should already have some indication in the article itself, so the tag would just be clutter to the average reader.  But I haven't done any research in the WikiProjects docs to back that up.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A WikiProject and by extension banners, are an internal wikiprocess and meant to be used only by people working "behind the scenes". They have nothing to do with an actual encyclopedia entry, thus it would be as inappropriate to put our banners on the main page as it would be to hold a conversation on it. The templates which are placed on the talkpage, such as NPOV or cleanup templates, are there to warn a reader that the article is in some way flawed or unhelpful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That really helps! :-) Cheers Raystorm 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: :Voting now open on election subpage
After a brief delay, the subpage for voting on the first Coordinator for WikiProject LGBT (see above here if you have no idea what I'm talking about. In the nature of true democracy there is only candidate. Who appears to have been nominated by the user officiating over the election...
Anyway, if you want to show your appreciation for Dev920's work for this project and to endorse her acting as our coordinator in future. Please do so at: the election page. Yipee! If you would like to express contrary views, that is also the page to it. Happy voting- I've kept it to  5 days  7 days (per later discussion) as we have only one candidate and there seems little reason to draw it out. WjBscribe 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know this is just an endorsement, and not really an election, but maybe we shouldn't have such a short time limit for voting. I think it'd be better to give a real chance for all the members of the project to vote here. I mean, we're 100+ members. Getting more than 50% support from all of us will be the best endorsement Dev can get, and I'm not sure if just 5 days is time enough for it. I know it is not necessary for Dev to get more than 50% (right?), but I think it'd help to validate her position. :-) You know, so no one can complain about the democratic process (which you wittily pointed out) later. Does it make sense? I'm aware it can be a bit bothersome to draw out a bit the election period for everyone involved (especially Dev), so it's just a suggestion. Cheers Raystorm 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, um, could we have simple approval voting, without opposes or neutrals? Like MILHIST do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess we should- but not sure how that works with only one candidate... How long do people think the election should last? Should I make it a week? Longer? WjBscribe 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't get a bot to notify all members (as we've discussed elsewhere), I suggest about 10 days. Cheers Raystorm 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! Then I guess 7 days should be enough. :-) Cheers Raystorm 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we let it go five days as planned and see what proportion have voted? We can easily extend it if it seems necessary... WjBscribe 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. I was just thinking that some members may log on only on weekends when I proposed 7 days, but you're right, let's see how it goes now that everyone has got a notice... Raystorm 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS:The notice says 7 days. Raystorm 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we'll make it 7 for consistency (easier to change it here than on everyone's talkpages). WjBscribe 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinator Elections

message: I very much urge project members to engage in this discussion and contribute their thoughts.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already on the open tasks template and WP:DSSG. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD attention 

message: Greetings everyone, I'm fairly new to the WikiProject LGBT Studies.  I have yet to make any contributions to the articles as I have been reading some of them to try and get a feel for the general mood in LGBT.  To further assist me in this I have frequented the discussion pages and made a small number of contributions there.
If anything I am cautious when it comes to things related to LGBT concerns.  Admittedly I am a Transexual, although I have yet to begin my transformation from m to f, nor have I had any contact with other transexuals.  This is due, in no small part, to the fact that I live in rural Central Louisiana not far from Texas.  In this area people such as myself are social pariahs.  We literally walk on eggshells around here. 
When it comes to transexuality I understand it from my own perspective and research on the internet.  While I don't claim to be an authority on the subject at large I do claim authority as it pertains to me.  Also, I have gained considerable understanding as on the subject of transexuality and the bible. My faith has always been important to me and only recently I was able to find a balance with it and who I am. 
Now all I have to do is strike a balance with my parents.  My mom is beginning to accept me, but only as a homosexual and not transexual.  My dad, well we don't talk about it, its pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude with him.  At any rate that is the no frills version of my story.  I look forward to when I am able to make good and accurate contributions to LGBT Studies.  --Clay 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the project, Clay. =) I see from your user page that you're also Episcopalian. Might you be interested in helping me add some content to Bishop Gene Robinson's article? I just added a photograph there and noticed that the coverage is heavily slanted toward scandal. I'd like to add positive citations, like about his work fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and whatever other stuff got him promoted to Bishop. I'll be picking over the article in the next few days and I could use a hand. — coelacan talk — 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be, I'll have to do some research on Bishop Robinson.  All I really know about him is from what I've read in my diocese's newspaper and tv news.  All of it was less than flattering.  The American Anglican Network of Churches (of which I'm on their email list just so I know what they're up to) has steadily been gaining ground.  Their endorsement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his condemnation of the ECUSA seems to indicate he is prepared to recognize the AAN as the "successor" (I guess you could call it that) to the ECUSA.  The Anglican Communion is so slanted against LGBTs it would seem they want to promote excluding us altogether.  At any rate look forward to cooperating with you in this endeavor.  --Clay 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm New 

message: Someone has added a "Discussion" bit that seems inappropriate to me. Do we have to leave it, archive it, or can it be dumped. Please check it out at the bottom of the page here. Thanks ZueJaytalk 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...precisely a minute after I asked this, someone removed the section citing "no useful contribution" to the article and/or article discussion. Guess that's resolved. ZueJaytalk 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that removal. Pure trolling. No suggestion whatsoever about how the article should be improved. Just someone's personal rant about issue related to same-sex marriage. WjBscribe 17:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not related.  Green cars?  AIDS?  Hmph.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Took me a minute to realize someone had already gotten rid of it, but I agree with the removal.  It was just someone venting their slpeen. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And promoting a personal webpage. Sheesh. Raystorm 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ZueJay, for your future reference, the relevent guideline here is WP:TALK, specifically "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." That's useful for determining what to remove as well as to cite when someone whinges about the removal. Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. That doesn't mean that every single piece of off-topic blather must be removed on sight, but if anything is detracting from the actual discussion of improving the encyclopedia, it's cartainly fair game. — coelacan talk — 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thanks, that's what I really needed to know. It's not always easy to find the relevant policy guidelines without reading every single bit of WP:MOS. I'll be adding WP:TALK to my shortcuts list. ZueJaytalk 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Same-sex marriage]]

message: I've just tagged She's Real, Worse Than Queer with the tag for this project. Currently there is a deletion nomination for this film, so if anyone knows about it, chime in at the AfD discussion! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone besides me and Coelecan check the open task template and deletion sorting page? That AfD has been up there since I nominated it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of puts the lie to the WP:CANVASS and wikiprojects issue, doesn't it? :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only looked today, Dev, and then I went and voted against you. That puts the lie to votestacking, too, apparently. :-) Jeffpw 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: SatyrTN, are you saying I am canvassing? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know canvassing if it bit me in the canvass. :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why it's still important to figure out some clear guidelines on this. =) WjBscribe proposed some up the page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Notification of AfDs etc... I'm directing everyone's attention up there to try to get some more discussion. By those proposals, I would say that Twas Now was not canvassing, but anyway I'd like to see something finalized and plastered in the appropriate places. — coelacan talk — 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's Real, Worse Than Queer 

message: Okay, um, this doesn't really have anything to do with LBGT studies, but, User:Dev920 has been nominated for a Wikihalo, and you can vote here . . .  WereWolf 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am honoured. :) You're such a nice bloke, WereWolf. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, sorry for the stupid question...but what's a wikihalo? What is it for? :-) Raystorm 11:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Community Award. Basically, it's like a Barnstar that everyone can vote on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Like a bunch of people voting to give you a barnstar. Um, wouldn't you rather receive a barnstar from each of those people instead, and hoard them on your userpage? :-) Raystorm 13:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be easier, but this is an award that shows that the user who won it is one of the best Wikipedia has ever seen. This "barnstar" is one of the best awards a user can win. WereWolf 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Announcement  

message: Just to let you all know, I haven't randomly vanished during Coord elections, it's halfterm and I just got two guinea pigs! I'm doing some work behind the scenes - contacting the Comms manager and LGBT mags and suchlike. I'm still religiously checking my watchlist, so if you need to contact me go ahead.
In the meantime, I notice we have only gained 23 members this month! So I renew my challenge (except to SatyrTN and Emiellaiendiay, who rose to it!) - go find 5 LGBT article editors to invite to the
project! Go forth my pretties and fly! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did invite 4 or 5 editors too, with such poor results that I'm gonna accept the challenge again. :-) Dammit, I'm gonna get at least one to join the project! Raystorm 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and challenge 

message: I am trying to get this article to be neutral. It is full of information gleaned from biased homophobes, like Scott Lively. The article has changed drastically since I edited it but I hope to make it better, it's still in need of some work. --Revolución hablar ver 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone mind if we made this May's COTM? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea, Dev. I actually read it a month or so ago and found it fascinating, if a bit problematic. I didn't have the patience to improve it, but as a collaborative effort, it would be ideal. Jeffpw 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Racism in the LGBT community]]

message: Just to announce the (unsurprising) result of the LGBT project coordinator elections: Dev920 is now the project's coordinator. Congratulations! WjBscribe 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, more work! Hehe, no really, I'm honoured that you have such trust in me, and thank you to everyone who voted. I just hope I can keep up! In three months time I've no doubt we'll be needing assistant coordinators... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinator

message: This template goes at the bottom of article pages and is intended to replace the present  and  templates which tend to clutter article pages. There is no need to change every article immediately, but as you visit articles that use the old templates, please consider whether its readability will be enhanced by switching to this template. SatyrTN will be adding usage notes shortly. For the template to include all possible elements, use   (the different resulting formats can be seen here). The idea is that further detail is given on depending on the article. E.g. rights articles link to other rights articles etc. WjBscribe 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footer template

message: OK guys, check out User:WJBscribe/Drafts. Please improve it- I just wanted to make a start. All comments welcome. WjBscribe 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another version is available here.  The difference being a parameter for each of the sections "rights", "history", and "culture".  Those sections can be turned off or on for individual articles.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First attempt

message: OK, Satyr has converted the template I designed into the all-singing-all-dancing version that can be changed depending on the article its used on: User:SatyrTN/LGBT footer. The following questions now arise:
# Do people like it and should we move it to projectspace so it can be used on articles?
# Are we abandoning the old templates?
As to point (2), my suggestion would be to slowly phase them out. Each time we visit an LGBT article with the old templates on, we have a think about whether it would be better to unclutter the article and use the LGBT bottom boxTM instead and change if necessary. Be bold though. There doesn't seem any reason to run around now changing every single article, but in the long run I think its best to keep these sorts of portal-style templates at the end. WjBscribe 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In Australia, the term queer is an very derogatory term for a gay male, which is often associated with homophobic violence. The majority of cross dressers are heterosexual males, some of whom are very vocal in trying to distance themselves from homosexuality. If you attach the word queer to anything related to cross-dressing, they take it as a personal insult. The same applies to some transsexuals. It can get very ugly at times, with such people arguing that transgender has nothing to do with LGB "because it's not about sexual orientation like they are". Based on those experiences, I do not use the word queer anywhere near transgender subjects! --AliceJMarkham 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, that's clearer. Has this been discussed before as it seems kind of important? The present title on those boxes is "LGBT and Queer studies series". According to Wikipedia, Queer studies is "the study of issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity". If the term queer is nonetheless controversy to some areas, is it necessary to have a reference to queer studies in the template? Why not call the new template "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender series"? WjBscribe 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Alice - Queer in the United States was also a very derogatory term.  It was adopted in the same way as the word nigga was adopted in the black community here - to take the sting out of it, we used it ourselves.  The histories and reasons may  not be exactly parallel for the phrases to have been co-opted by the communities.  That said, I see no reason it needs to be there.  I don't know many gay people who say "Queer studies" or queer anything.  It's mostly used for political force, in my experience.  --DavidShankBone 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like the word Queer.  It's second meaning on wiktionary is "non-heterosexual", and the etymology is "off center".  And that's besides the reclaiming aspect of using the word.  But that's just my $0.02.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes,  see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Footer template. WjBscribe 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the Lambda Legal gay portal, but left the rights box.  Put bottom box on Evan Wolfson.  I think the right-side box looks better on the nebulous Gay and Lesbian pages.  But on ones like Freedom to Marry I think the bottom box looks better.  --DavidShankBone 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What now?

message: Did we decide to introduce them to appropriate articles?  --DavidShankBone 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,  see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Footer template. WjBscribe 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the Lambda Legal gay portal, but left the rights box.  Put bottom box on Evan Wolfson.  I think the right-side box looks better on the nebulous Gay and Lesbian pages.  But on ones like Freedom to Marry I think the bottom box looks better.  --DavidShankBone 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the 411 on the bottom boxes?

message: Some of you may have noted a recent problem with deletion of LGBT and gender studies templates from articles and their talkpages. I believe that the IPs doing this belong to a blocked user (User:Nkras) who was indefinitely blocked for his disruptive behaviour (mainly on Marriage and related pages) see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#Nkras. He now seems to feel he needs to remove templates because the two Wikiprojects are "inherently POV pushing". The following IPs seem to have been used by him:
:::*Rather than let this list grow and grow here, it has been superceded by
::::User:Coelacan/socks and
:::::Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nkras
If anyone is or becomes aware of other accounts making the same sort of edits, could they list them here? It may be necessary for further action to be taken if this pattern of edits continues. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, is that him? That makes sense. Have any IPs been blocked yet? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top three are all on 24/31 hour blocks. My basis for believing it to be Nkras is that a number of them have early edits quibbling with Coelacan as to whether the Nkras block was a block or a ban and that the article edits around the deletions are the same as those he used to make. If he carries on, I'd like to have as much evidence as possible to request indef blocks of the IPs (it doesn't look as if they're shared). WjBscribe 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Nkras vandalism

message: I'm having a head to head in Jumpaclass and I've just nominated Trembling Before G-d for GA status. The backlog at GA is quite long though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could review for GA status today if possible, as today the head to head ends. Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm not involved in this jumpaclass head-to-head and have done some GA reviews in the past, I shall take a look at it. WjBscribe 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review completed. Sorry but I couldn't pass it (see the article talkpage for my full review). Excellent work on the article and a very honourable 'B', but I don't think its hit the GA mark. WjBscribe 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, the second time I ever apply for GA and it fails. I have a better hit rate with FA... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't approve of GAs being reviewed by us within the community. As a member of the Project, I feel that some cynical Wikipedians with an agenda against us will say we are passing our own articles. It lends fire to accusations of bias, even though I feel none of us are biased. Best not to use this avenue in future. LuciferMorgan 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Given WJB failed it, I don't think that's likely. And I also think we need to stop fearing the homophobes. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering and all that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I tend to disagree, too. For example: the biography project goes around assessing biographies. They have a large assessment department for that task. Nobody accuses them of bias in passing bios as GA or even A. If someone were to accuse us of that, I would tend to think they had an agenda (WP:ABF), or were truly confused about how Wikipedia projects work (WP:AGF) Jeffpw 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I thought hate leads to the Dark Side.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I disagree also.  I think this plays into assuming good faith in fellow Wikipedians, and that includes assuming they are doing what is best for the articles, not for the individuals.  People will use any line of attack when challenging something, meritorious or not.  With all the work that needs to be done, we have to remain objective.  And assume the good faith in each other that this is the case, until proven different on an editor-by-editor basis.  --DavidShankBone 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day GA reviews can easily be challenged at Wikipedia:Good article review if someone objects to the outcome of one. WjBscribe 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The GA review page says, "It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status."  That seems to indicate that it isn't a problem if members of the project review articles within the project's scope, as long as we do so with integrity and in accordance with the criteria.  Does anyone know what other WikiProjects do? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MILHIST has a really cool internal process for reviewing articles -getting an A there, for example, seems to be really difficult. I guess that later helps for a smooth FAC. Raystorm 23:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea of Projects handing out GAs to articles related to their own Project, despite all the above arguments. It's irrespective of homophobia, I just think it's bad practice. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community, not just within one Project. Also, I wouldn't go by anything the GA review page says since it's a total shambles, despite efforts by others to fix it. An article placed there can be there forever :( Well anyway, I've spoken my opinion. I guess the Project wholly disagrees - oh well... LuciferMorgan 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not to fond of the idea, either.  And we did have a bit of discussion above that's sort of contradictory with what's been said in this current conversation.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not saying this issue is exactly parallel, but in law there are strings of cases that were brought arguing that black people can't sit on juries involving other black people (because of inherent bias) or that a black judge can't sit on a case involving a black defendant (for the same reason). All of these cases found that there is no inherent bias, and the notion itself shocks us today, but I find the logic parallel.  There is such a wide breadth of topics in LGBT articles that topics such as Lambda Legal are only tangentially related to an article such as At Swim, Two Boys.  Few of us are approaching all of these articles with one common view, mindset and agenda.  Mostly, are agenda is striving for objectivity in how we relay the world around us.  But, I can say that we are the most knowledgable on the subjects.  It would be difficult to expect, for instance, WikiProject Science to receive decent reviews to their articles from people who aren't knowledgable in the finer points of the topics and the issues inherent to each, right?  When we review our own articles, we can more easily spot what is *not* there than those outside the projects.  I just don't think it's an issue until....it's an issue.  --DavidShankBone 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA reviewer needed

message: Can someone please tell me why this list's reference extermal links have randomly decided to break halfway through, and more importantly can anyone tell me how I can fix them without having to do it all manually? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Dunno what caused the problem but it was introduced by this edit: . So I reverted to the previous version and readded the entries under 'S' in the correct format. WjBscribe 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid list *kicks rock*. 

message: was blocked by Ryulong last night for legal threats, blanking his talk page and claiming Ryulong was a homophobe. He claims to be a gay man and part of a campaign off Wikipedia to disrupt it. From the way this guy is acting (going from simply being annoying to screaming ACLU court cases and homophobic hate speech in one exchange), he could prove to be a major problem if he starts disrupting LGBT articles (he accused Jacobshaven of being a  self-hating gay man for reverting his POV edits to Heroes).
Just a heads up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up. 

message: :And also List of transgendered people
WP:BIOGRAPHY currently have 206,393 people tagged. Assuming, per latest research, that 6% of them are gay and 2% are bi, that's 16,511 individuals we need to be adding to our list (though this doesn't take the closet into account) - we currently have a little under a thousand, by my rough estimate. If anyone would like to help in this little mission, there are people in the LGBT categories who have not been added to the list, and there are LGBT lists (though somewhat spurious ones, so good sources are needed) here, here, here  and here that we can use as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP. This is a good opportunity to make sure entries in :Category:LGBT people are properly referenced. If you come across people who aren't on the LGBT lists but are in the category add them to the appropriate list if their LGBT status is sourced or remove them from the category if it is not. If you can find a source that's even better! WjBscribe 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, definitely. Once we've got the lists as they stand straightened out (so to speak), I was going to ask Satyr to use his bot to create a list of people who are tagged and categorised as LGBT but not on the list. then we can either add them or remove the tag. It seems to be the perfect way of creating a comprehensive, referenced list (and no-one so far seems to have created the definitive list as yet), but also ensuring that we don't have anyone cated that shouldn't be. We can also tag everyone on the list, which will improve our assessing. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of LGB people 

message: I've made extensive revisions to reparative therapy over the past few weeks, and have nominated it for GA status.
As a side note, I can't find a "Current GA candidates" list in the project page... maybe we should have one? Fireplace 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, no-one can really help you with GA noms, and if someone going to collaborate on an article, it may as well be on an FAC. GA reviews vary wildly in consistentcy, so there's not really any point. That's how I've always seen it anyway, my personal view is that GA status ought only to be sought for articles that will never be more than a few hours away from an edit war, like homosexuality or circumcision. If something's good enough to be a good article, you may as well take it to FAC. GA was started to recognise good quality short articles, but with the promotion of Hurricane Irene (2005) it seems to have been rendered redundant. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reparative therapy]] nominated for GA 

message: I voice my strong dissatisfaction with the inclusion of NAMBLA as somehow related to the studies of the LGBT people and community.  This is an organisation that advocates ssex between adults and minors of the same gender.  This is nothing to do with the LGBT community.  The most poignant argument for this is that children are non-sexual beings and a man (or woman) may molest a minor without any purpose to the gratification of their sexuality-preferred desire.  The inclusion of NAMBLA or any paedophilic organisation as somehow relevant to us (LGBT) as a people does a great disservice to our cause of inclusion, credibility and equality.  I resent this inclusion and I know that I am not alone, and I call on other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual people who value us as a community to speak out against child abuse and justification of it as part of our umbrella. Enzedbrit 09:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh> Here we go again. NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Love Association) is most definitely covered by the LGBT project. Your diatribe against this organization is clearly POV, and has no place on Wikipedia. Our job is not to defend or condemn any group, but merely to document them in a neutral manner. That's what an encyclopedia does. It's clear this article is part of our project, and it shall remain so. And by the by, I have undid your revision to the talk page of the article. Please do not change the classification of articles without first discussing this on the talk page of the article, or the project page. Thank you in advance for your understanding on this matter. Jeffpw 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enzedbrit's diatribe and POV is probably shared by the vast majority of editors here. I think you've been a little too stern, Jeff. Objections and misunderstandings certainly do have a place on Wikipedia. The thing to keep in mind, Enzedbrit, is that the  tag is not an endorsement of the subject. It is simply part of a tracking system for articles that fall within the scope of this project. Whether the NAMBLA article discusses same-sex relationships, or same-sex rape, both are within the scope of this project's coverage. This project is not intended to promote any "cause of inclusion, credibility and equality"; see Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#What this Wikiproject is not. The project's only purpose is to improve Wikipedia. I don't like the fact that NAMBLA is within the scope of this project. But, it is. Sorry. — coelacan talk — 10:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Enzedbrit, I don't exactly relish the idea of being associated with that group. Since when does LGBT have to encompass all the extremes?  These extreme groups are what give the rest of us a bad name.  While I do understand that group makes a distinction between pedophilia and what their position is (no pun intended), everyone else sees them as a group advocating pedophilia.  I can't help but make the connection that by associating LGBT with them we are essentially giving our seal of approval to their position. Jeffpw, I understand that our job isn't to defend or condemn them, but by including them within the LGBT sphere people are going to assume that we approve of what they stand for and it won't matter how neutral we profess to be concerning NAMBLA. --CC Proctor 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like NAMBLA.  I wish they would just go away forever.  But they seem to be within the scopoe of the project, and keeping them on the list allows us to more easily monitor the page for changes by editors who would associate them with the mainstream LGBT movement. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like that idea even less than you, Avazina, but we have no choice if we want to maintain editorial integrity. One might as well object to the articles about barebacking and bugchasing, if the goal were to polish the image of the gay community. Another way of looking at it is that both Enzedbrit an your comments come from the perspective of personal preference and political expedience. Those are not a valid foundation for making editorial decisions. Haiduc 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is true I'm not talking about making editorial decisions, what I'm getting at is that perception is everything and as it is LGBT isn't sufficiently distanced from this group with its current article tagging system.  LGBTs have enough problems with people's perceptions of their moral sensibilities. Surely a change in tagging where NAMBLA is concerned is in order here. --CC Proctor 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my tone seemed stern, I apologize. However, it is because this debate has cropped up more than once. Frankly, it seems silly to me to say "This is an organization about men who are turned on by boys, but it is not gay". I don't think we as a project can cherry pick what we cover. We are not here as a project to enhance the image of the LGBT community. We are here to document all aspects of said community. This is one of them, whether we like it or not.Jeffpw 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While, as I said earlier, I believe that the project tag belongs on the article talk page, I also believe that inclusion of the article itself in :Category:LGBT organizations gives undue weight to a POV that is not widely shared among LGBT people. So I'm removing that category from the article. I understand I'm reverting Jeffpw without prior discussion, but I think that for the accuracy of the article, it's best to err on the side of removal unless and until an opposing consensus develops. — coelacan talk — 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *And this discussion is now going on at Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association#categories again, for anyone who'd like to weigh in. — coelacan talk — 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the message you left for me Coelacan (after the fact). I have responded on the talk page of the article, so will not readd my comments here. I will say, though, that I find the post revolution anglo-saxon hysteria about this issue as distasteful as many seem to find the group itself. Jeffpw 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi, chill out and watch your civility. Not all of us of Anglo-Saxon stock agree over this category being removed. And your comment about "post revolution" is uncalled for: this is an issue about paedophilia, not gay rights. Argue nice, eh? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it's post-revolution, Dev. The article makes that perfectly clear. It was only after gays got a measure of civil rights, and a backlash occurred from the heterosexual conservative community, that the LGBT community began to worry about its image and decided to marginalize NAMBLA. I'm old enough to remember what the mid 70s were really like, when lowering the AOC was seen as a logical next step of liberation. I'm also young enough to remember what it was like to be a horny gay teenager. So, to paraphrase Maurice Chevalier in Gigi, I'll close by saying "Thank Heaven for dirty old men". Jeffpw 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, I'm not interested in duking it out over NAMBLA - they've got less members than the KKK now, so I'm not going to worry about them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAMBLA 

message: Does the project have any kind of guideline (or just as good, ad hoc opinions formed now on the spot) regarding organizations that push for LGBT rights, but are definitely not LGBT organizations? I'm thinking of things like People For the American Way and The Interfaith Alliance. Tag the talk pages? Come up with a categorization scheme? Make a list? Ignore them? — coelacan talk — 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame our tag doesn't say "supported by" or "within the scope". Then I would have said tag the articles. But saying "This article is covered by..." sort of makes a case for a stronger connection than a simple alliance of philosophies, so I am not sure. Could we make an alternate tag saying "supported by" for articles like this one? Jeffpw 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we were voting on changing it in December, but the discussion got archived before it finished so I think everyone kind of forgot about it. Koweja 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That keeps happening. I'll go change it to supported by. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ally orgs 

message: Note: The Peisistratus article had too many Peisistratuses (or is that Peisistratae?) in it, so has been split up. The Athenian leader who promoted pederasty can now be found at Peisistratos (Athens)note the "-atos" rather than the "-atus" latinizationI doubt that any of the other Peisistratuses were the focus of the wikiproject so you may wish to move the tag to the correct page. I would do it were I a member here, but I'm not and perhaps you have some other reason not to move the flag. Keep up the good work. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peisistratus]]

message: What happened to the gay flag icon in the user boxes, and other info boxes on the wiki pages?? jtowns 01:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind....I'm on crack or something....I restarted my computer and emptied my browser cache and everything returned.... jtowns 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay flag

message: What is the process for rating an article as A-class?  Does it have to go through peer review?  Can anyone assign an A-class rating?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was looking over the higher ends of the assessment this morning and thinking the same thing. I think we need to make sure that all A-class articles have achieved GA status. I know I have misslabeled a few articles as A-class thinking that it was under GA-class. Certainly, there may also be some GA-class articles that could jump up to A-class, though I think they probably should undergo an official peer review with this project before that is changed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just given Evan Wolfson a glance. The article looks like it wouldn't need much work to nominate as a GA (thus raising its assessment). I'll give it a through once over and make some suggestions on the talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So silly me didn't realize A was above GA.  Doh!  So B-class articles should next go through GA nomination to raise them any further.  Gotcha!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was in the same boat until yesterday. I think that bottom-oriented infobox discussion has been distracting me the past few days. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a good question here. Assuming that an article is already GA class, in what circumstances do we rate it as A class? Should a project member do that themselves, or do we need an peer review? I would prefer the peer review route. If we're thinking of rating something A we should be thinking about nominating it for FA so it should have a rigorous examination from a number of editors. Once the peer review criticisms are addressed, we rate it A and go for the FA nom...? WjBscribe 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right.  A "Good Article" is one that the members of the WP community have reviewed and labeled good, while an "A" class would have the WikiProject (presumably "experts" in a subject) reviewing it, and then FA would have the additional review by a broad range of WP editors.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I feel a guideline coming to fruition here... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this need to be followed up? WjBscribe 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment and A-class articles 

message: Boring procedural point here, but a lot of talk goes on on this talkpage (which is a good thing). But I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a Bot take over the archiving. The main advantage is that a Bot can easily see which threads haven't had any answers for a certain number of days and archive them, whereas a person usually just works from the top down. I'd like to make a request for EssjayBot II to archive this page. To do so I need an indication of consensus so could people please say 'aye' or 'nay'? I suggest threads inactive for 7 days be moved to archives but feel free to suggest a different timeframe. WjBscribe 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I've changed the format of these sections. First, I've expanded them to fifteen articles, since they're moving faster now (especially the newly tagged) with all the new members. Second, I've changed New articles so that new articles are added to the bottom, like Articles recently tagged. The two different formats were causing problems, with new articles being added to the bottom and then being taken off in a couple of days when someone else added one to the top. This happened to Alfredo Ormando; it might have happened to other articles but I didn't check the whole recent history. Now that both are going the same direction this should hopefully not be a problem once everyone's used to it. I chose add-to-the-bottom since more users are already familiar with the faster-moving Articles recently tagged. Also, I notice that some articles have been added to the tagged list without having their talk pages tagged. I added a note regarding this. — coelacan talk — 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That all makes sense to me.  I've thought for a while that 10 articles was too few, esp. in the rapidly-moving "recently tagged" list. Aleta 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - Dev's not gone for long and you jump in and make changes!  Just wait til your mother gets home, missy! :) :) :)  Honestly, though, sounds good to me!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto. What, is Dev on vacation? By the way I went through and tagged the ones that weren't tagged, one of them is likely to be controverial, so fire up your watchlists. — coelacan talk — 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  Yeh - she's on a small WikiDrama Break™SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yarr, we all need one of those now and again. — coelacan talk — 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was curious about why Saint George was tagged. I glanced at the article and nothing immediately said "gay". I can't recall ever hearing or reading anything that suggested he "sings in our choir." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had another look-see and did see the section about the Coptic tradition and St. George. Still, this section definitely needs expansion, though the source from E. A. Wallis Budge is about as reliable as one can get. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it since it was within the "recently-tagged" list without a tag. It does need expansion. Ideally every article should have a decent explanation put into the article itself that makes it obvious why it is tagged. However, when I tag non-obvious articles, I use the "explanation" parameter of the project template. See Talk:Saint George; the template includes information on why the article is tagged. — coelacan talk — 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: =) But of course. — coelacan talk — 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Koweja, I think that's a good approach when adding several very closely related articles. — coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a bad idea - I'm sometimes surprised at the articles that are NOT tagged. I try to be selective on the ones I actually add to the list(s). ZueJaytalk 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds like a good idea, although then there's the possibility of the lists getting too long. I'm adding this little yellow attention-grabber to get more input, as this topic is starting to scroll up the page. — coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we group related articles (like I have been doing when I tag all LGBT characters/episodes for a tv show) then it'll help cut down on the size.  Koweja 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to ''New articles related to LGBT'' and  ''Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT'' 

message: Instead of doing x number of articles, let's do a certain period of time, say 7 days. Quite often someone will go add numerous articles at once (I just added 8 today), which might mean some articles only get listed for a few hours before they're removed. Koweja 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea - I'm sometimes surprised at the articles that are NOT tagged. I try to be selective on the ones I actually add to the list(s). ZueJaytalk 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds like a good idea, although then there's the possibility of the lists getting too long. I'm adding this little yellow attention-grabber to get more input, as this topic is starting to scroll up the page. — coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we group related articles (like I have been doing when I tag all LGBT characters/episodes for a tv show) then it'll help cut down on the size.  Koweja 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea 

message: I've discovered several categories about "pederasty", all falling under the general rubric of . Does anyone else find this word pejorative and NPOV, or is it just me?
:::--DrGaellon | Talk 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what wrong with the categories on pederasty? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word ITSELF is pejorative. I wonder if there's a more neutral word to use. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no more pejorative than "homosexual" or "gay", which can be pejorative indeed, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In brief, it can either be used descriptively or pejoratively, and here we are obviously using it as a neutral scholarly term, which it most certainly is. Haiduc 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm POVing. I'll shut up now. :) --DrGaellon talkcontribs 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. It raised my eyebrow the first time I saw it too! But it does seem to be the best word for course of conduct being described. WjBscribe 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, no? — coelacan talk — 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederasty categories 

message: That thing I came off Wikibreak for? Well, I was contacted by a friend of John Glines, who asked me for help with his article. There was a copyright issue, but that has now been resolved and I could do with your help. The article needs referencing, NPOVing and general tidying. If anyone is willing to help me with this, I would be grateful, as Mr. Glines is the founder of the world's oldest gay arts production company and also is very nice. :) Cheers, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Glines 

message: I just finished adding the infoboxes to the last 3 LGBT films on the To Do page!!! Good job to everyone who helped with this effort! --DrGaellon | Talk 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, may I commend everyone who worked on this! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Infobox Project 

message: I've created the next newsletter draft here. Any news I may have missed out? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: I've changed the WP:GLBT redirect to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. It seemed odd to me that two shortcuts that were essentially the same thing except for a region variation go to two different pages. I've created WP:LGBT/N and WP:GLBT/N to go to the notice board instead. Koweja 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I think the noticeboard predates the project page. WP:LGBT used to redirect to it as well. I guess changing the WP:GLBT redirect didn't occur to anyone. WjBscribe 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GLBT]] redirect 

message: Wondering about a possible change to the LGBT-stub tag...The text reads: This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Can we make it something like: This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender related issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Or create a second stub for articles related to but not necessarily about LGBT issues? ZueJaytalk 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Aleta 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Also, if you want to start fiddling with stubs, then you have to deal with WikiProject Stub Sorting - and they're called WP:SS for a reason... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were. They probably realised what a bad shortcut they were saddled with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. I see WP:Summary style is now blessed with that shortcut. If anyone is feeling brave with regards changes to stub categorisation, they should raise the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. WjBscribe 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub tag 

message: Talk:Queer Eye is currently marked with "This article is part of the "Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia." Is there still a Gay Pride series, or is the tag something that's now outdated since we have the LGBT Project tag? Koweja 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an old question and response that suggest these are leftovers of a previous attempt at a WikiProject. The template itself seems to have been deleted and wherever you see it subst'd, it can be deleted. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll go ahead and delete them then. Koweja 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia. 

message: I've been working on a merge and clean-up of Straight acting and Homomasculinity. The new combined page is on my user page here. I would appreciate some feedback and/or editing if you feel so inclined. Thanks. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: First I was working on Annie on My Mind for JAC. Then I thought I might as well add Lesbian teen fiction. Then I discovered Gay young adult novels, which is close enough so I added it to my list of current projects. I soon realized that it really needs work. Let's put it this way: If you thought that the article LGBT stereotypes in the early versions was a mess, you should see Gay young adult novels. So if anyone would like to pitch in, and make this article decent enough for Wikipedia's quality standards, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay young adult novels 

message: I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing this, but I would like to put together a small task force of editors who would like to focus their attentions on a particular sub-set of articles in this WikiProject. I've noticed a large number of stubs that are all one or two lines for a variety of LGBT publications that say 'X is a publication in such and such place for the LGBT community' or something to that effect which is a real shame considering the vivid LGBT media landscape that exists not only in the US, but around the world. The reason I think some sort of task force seems approriate is that in doing some work on The Washington Blade recently, I noticed that in sources I and others found, they link several different publications together as though they are all intertwined and it is hard to go through and only edit one publication when really the same source could be used on multiple pubsbut there are so many that a small group of editors could tackle more effectively than a solo editor. Only reason I think we need to expand these articles (aside from the standard arguments that putting knowledge into the Wiki is a great thing to spread...) is that I noticed in this talk page discussion  of Anderson Cooper that the notability and significance of the Blade was called into question because the article was bare bones and lacked any sort of explanation of why this might be a worth while source even though mainstream media relies on it and many other LGBT publications to gain insight into the LGBT community... So does this sound like a reasonable proposition...and there may already be a model to set up a small task force like this, but I couldn't locate anything anywhere about something like this... Let me know your thoughts...and any volunteers to help? jtowns 10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a *fabulous* idea!  I'm over-committed so can't volunteer, but I support it wholeheartedly!  I found two "task forces" I thought I'd bring to your attention as far as organization goes.  The Dutch MilHist Task Force has a great organization and seems to be active.  The Bio/Science & Academia TF also has a good organization, though they don't seem to be too active.  You may also be interested in WikiProject Media, who don't seem to be active, but may answer questions or provide resources.  Good idea!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me. If a few editors are interested in participating in this task force / working group we can easily created a suitable project subpage. WjBscribe 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dev! jtowns 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Publications 

message: I want to bring this up again, because we've recently tagged some articles that I really don't think are covered by us. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? V for Vendetta (film)? Why do we want to add these? Specific Buffy episodes, I can understand, but the entire series? What did all of Buffy have to do with LGBT? So V for Vendetta had two gay people in it, does this warrant our splashing our banner all over it? Are people likely to edit the article specifically for its gay content? No? So why do it?
I think we're getting far too liberal about our banner being placed on articles only tangentially associated with our project. We tag to help people wanting to edit LGBT articles in finding them - I do not see how adding every series with a gay person or storyline ever in it helps in any way other than boosting our stats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. — Emiellaiendiay 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we're being all that liberal.  There are ~334 cats under "LGBT" with ~6,600 articles.  That's about 0.4% of Wikipedia.  But if a particular article doesn't belong in an LGBT cat and/or doesn't fall under our scope, remove the banner.  As for Buffy, I told Dev I believe it belongs not only for the major character who's a lesbian (and a couple minor characters who are LGBT), but also because the way the show dealt with LGBT issues over time, and because of the way the LGBT community responded to the show.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that light, should we tag Xena: Warrior Princess? I just checked, and it's not, so far. Aleta 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now it is.  :) Aleta 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about these, but please make certain that all non-obvious taggings use the "explanation" parameter of  — coelacan talk — 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that makes sense.  I'm glad to have learned about the explanation parameter; I hadn't known of it until seeing it in the St. George tag.  The Xena article actually has quite a lengthy discussion about the possible lesbian subtext and related matters; so I didn't think an explanation was needed for that one.  If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to add one! Aleta 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Buffy should be included. It had at lest two entire seasons with major gay characters and LGBT topics, such as coming out and showing a lesbian relationship in a positive way on prime time. It's not The L Word, granted, but I think that at the time it was the closest thing anyone could ask for. V for Vendetta, I have more reserves. The lesbian character was important for the plot (it was quite a beautiful story), but... Raystorm 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think V probably qualifies - asWjB points out, the discussion of homosexuality, etc. in the film goes beyond "there's a lesbian in it" -although, admittedly, LGBT issues are much more prominent in the graphic novel than in the movie. Carom 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree. :-) It's much more light in the movie. Still, it could be included. Raystorm 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope. 

message: Hi, I just wanted to let you know a bot tagged film Talk:Boys Life 2 with your WP template. That's only part of a series of 5 articles, so you might want to tag the rest as well. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Hoverfish!  The tagging is a manual process assisted by the bot, and I got tired last night so didn't finish the Boys Life movies.  But I'll get to them :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot tagging