Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 11

message: Shouldn't this article be tagged WP LGBT? I think it should since it includes several LGBT aspects in the article but, you know, I didn't want to be "overzealous" and tag it myself... ALLSTAR  ECHO 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather stunned that there is no project tag for this article. I would have thought Wikiproject:Discrimination would have included it. But there is a template on the right side that includes a link to gay rights. Because the core article for civil rights is really broad in scope, and it mainly explains what rights are (and this is a subjective idea), and why they are considered basic, I don't think we should tag it. --Moni3 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Human rights has it tagged. ALLSTAR  ECHO 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Below the contents? No wonder I didn't see it. --Moni3 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought, but then I noticed that the broad umbrella article human sexuality does have a project tag. Should it be removed? Dybryd 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch. Its all about the tough questions this evening. Well I'd have thought there was a much stronger connection to human sexuality - LGBT covers quite a spectrum of human sexuality, whereas LGBT rights/discrimination are just a facet of those articles. But it isn't a very clear dividing line. In the end it probably doesn't matter that much and people can excercise their own judgment on what should sensibly be included. Human would be going too far in my opinion however ;-) ... WjBscribe 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I recall a few days ago reading an article about some kind of sex fetish that was tagged LGBT. Tried finding it again but can't. I do recall thinking "umm, I'm gay and have never heard of this..". ALLSTAR  ECHO 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you've not read Wikipedia enough. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Civil rights]] 

message: Just a little note to say that there will be a meetup for LGBT Project participants in London on the weekend of March 1st. If you are interested in joining us, please put your name on the board. There are no actual events planned, as yet, so there's still plenty of time to make you wishes known. I certainly hope as many as possible will be able to attend, and that this is just the first of many LGBT meetups planned for around the world! Jeffpw 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki London meetup 

message: For every right-minded (but not right wing) LGB or T Wikipedian who is fed up to the eye teeth with the current regime in Washington, our dear SatyrTN has made a wonderful rainbow image to place on your user page. I display mine with pride, and can't thank Satyr enough for making it. Jeffpw 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITMFA 

message: Three articles, Sister Roma, Hot House Entertainment (where she apparently works) and Sister Boom-Boom each are getting repeatedly empty of info and then tagged non-notable. The anon IP is floating so blocking one account didn't do the trick. I've put in a request for semi-protection but no one's picked up the phone yet. If others could could keep an eye and simply revert as needed I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watchlisted them and will revert as necessary, but the admins at page protection have a point. Sourcing would certainly go a long way towards stopping the vandalism and getting the page protected if necessary. Jeffpw 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True that but we don't source every bit of information from the word go. And now I'm supposed to vet three articles because some anon has targeted them? Each one would have dozens of references; Sister Roma has been doing events and campaign for like 20 years and Hot House Entertainment is a porn company with dozens of actors in several countries and over a hundred films. This vandal deleted everything but the name of the bio. Let's do the obvious first. Benjiboi 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Point taken, and I said as much at page protection. Still, they need refs badly. I'm off the coming 3 days, so will try to add some. Jeffpw 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that. My goodness between this and Lara "Viney" Bran what a morning! Benjiboi 14:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking serious, ongoing vandalism here. It's a wonder Benjiboi hasn't had a breakdown from this. Somebody pass the Valium, please. Jeffpw 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I threw a massive hissyfit on both page protection and ANI, and they are all protected now for a couple days. Jeffpw 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you for getting that done! Aleta 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, we saw that :) Next time, just drop me a line and I'll look into it :) - Alison ❤ 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even my quick brush with this one left me queasy!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was starting an ANI write up when the anon messaged that it's been fun but they have to leave and then "Do zobaczenia w przyszłym świecie!" Anyone speak Polish? Benjiboi 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Electronically translated to: For seeing in future world. Jeffpw 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Their last message to me included several "honey"s like they were trying to insult me (I don't think it worked) and, as you know, they revealed it was religiously motivated as they saw Roma as anti-Catholic. To me what was most troubling was having to ask multiple times for semi-protection and that the user was pretty advanced while floating amongst multiple IP's rendering warnings and blocks somewhat useless. Thanks to everyone who helped, what a colossal waste of energy. Benjiboi 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism help 

message: An editor is repeatedly removing any reference to Robert Lentz's portrayal of these men as gay, and then removing the image that illustrates this.  (It's not fairuse without the commentary.)  I've restored both for now.  Aleta 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's removed the image and discussion again.  This time I have not, at least so far, restored them.  Her argument is that the artist is non-notable, and there is a free equivalent of the image available.  This was discussed a number of months ago (when I raised the fair use question - I got convinced by some of our other members!), and fair use seemed to be established because it is the only image that shows them specifically as a gay couple.  Does anyone want to take this on? Aleta 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saints Sergius and Bacchus]] 

message: Image:RuPaul by David Shankbone.jpg|RuPaul
Image:Michael Lucas by David Shankbone.jpg|Michael Lucas (porn star)
Image:Ari Gold by David Shankbone.jpg|Ari Gold (singer-songwriter)
--David Shankbone 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few recent Shankbone pics 

message: I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I have an issue to clarify with this map, which shows worldwide recognition of same-sex unions. The map draws no distinction between civil unions/registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. In itself, this is not a problem; however, some countries which only offer unregistered cohabitation are marked as offering "same-sex unions", while others, which offer the same rights, are marked as "No same-sex unions". More specifically, Colombia, Hungary and Croatia are placed in the same category as the UK, Sweden, etc. But, all the states of Australia, Brazil and Austria also recognise de-facto same-sex couples and offer them some rights. There are three possible solutions:
# We only mark states recognising registered partnership, with those that recognise only unregistered cohabitation placed in the same category as those who recognise "No same sex unions". That is, the colour of Hungary, Croatia and Colombia should be changed.
# We place both registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation in the same category of "Same-sex unions", thus adding Brazil, all of Australia and Austria.
# We make a new category for unregistered cohabitation, like on this map.
Personally, I believe that Option 3 would be the best, but it may also clutter the map up too much. Option 2 is the worst in my opinion, since we would placing countries with very limited recognition like Austria, alongside countries with marriage-equivalent rights and registration processes, like the UK. Ronline ✉ 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unregistered cohabitation 

message: I will be putting together the next newsletter this weekend, so if anybody has anything they wish to have included, please mention it either here or on my talkpage. Thanks, Jeffpw 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a Main Page WP:DYK for Ann Northrop. ZueJay (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a new featured list: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sj-Sz.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November Newsletter 

message: The Gender and Judaism article has been marked as within the scope of this project.
There is a related article Role of women in Judaism whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article.  A topic has been created to discuss this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism.  Best to all, Egfrank 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and Judaism 

message: My (now former) singing idol has written to me to complain about the article I wrote about him. He doesn't like it. He doesn't like that he is listed as gay (even though it's sourced). He doesn't like that we wrote he performs at gay venues (even though we have that sourced too). In fact, he doesn't like that we wrote he has gay fans (though...oh never mind, you get the point). Raystorm, can you read the Spanish refs again? And can others perhaps look for even more sources to support the already sourced content? I had the article vetted by several people before I even posted it, to ensure conformity with WP:BIO. And it was supposed to be an act of love to my (former) idol. I guess any thoughts of marriage will have to be abandoned....:-( Jeffpw 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's reverted his article, and the Spanish one, too. Wah!!! Jeffpw 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: he's all over the Spanish internet and gay magazines as being gay, even quoted about his "first time". Another editor said he must be worried that his straight (and English speaking) fans wont like this information. I'm massively disappointed. This is the Spanish Google, which has tons of gay content about him, a lot of it reliable sources. Thanks for your kind comment, Dev. you of all people know how crazy about him I was. Jeffpw 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be an unfortunate truth that talented does not equal enlightened or sensitive.  Aleta 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: After receiving a rather terse followup reiterating his demands, I thought it best to post this to ANI. Guy has removed any references to his sexuality, though sourced, saying he feels discussing a subject's sexuality in an article is "tacky". Guy does not speak Spanish and did not check the reference. I've asked him to update the ANI discussion to reflect how he handles it, but he indicated he was unwilling to do that. I have also written to Galisteo, saying he should write to OTRS with his concerns, and provided him with the address. I'm feeling rather enervated from this discussion, so shall leave it to others to decide what, if any, further action needs to be taken. Jeffpw 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so sorry Jeffpw! I had no idea you requested my help here. Next time ping me in my talk please! Do you still need help? Want me to check his Spanish article, talk with him, anything? I'm so sorry I missed this! :( Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I get is that he was "outed" (I do not know how, but here is says he was "forced" to come out, and also says he has resisted the moniker. Now he appears in bisexual scenes, and has "confessed" to being hetero. Go figure. Haiduc 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's so confused, Haiduc, can anyone blame us for being confused, too? Ah, youth. It will be the death of us all, one day. Jeffpw 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that our irc channel is being really helpful with this topic: members from the spanish and english projects are joining forces to hunt down refs hehe. ;-) Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That IRC channel is the Bee's knees! I humbly thank all on both the the Spanish and English language Wikipedias who have assisted me and supported me today. Jeffpw 15:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jose Galisteo]] 

message: Both Jeffpw and I seemed to be getting a stalker of sorts. This edit is from the same user who's upset that Jewish wasn't more prominent on (yet another) gay porn bio. And this all started with Sister Roma which we later discovered was problematic for the editor based on anti-Catholicism grounds; Roma is also a co-host for gay porn co. Hot House's weekly gay porn show. The anon is a floating IP so blocks and warnings have been somewhat useless. Benjiboi 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now posted on ANI. I'm too lazy to give the link. You all know the way :-D Jeffpw 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, will SOMBODY please provide a little support on the Sister Roma article? Even though I am reverting vandalism, I have done it 4 times, and don't want to risk a block. Jeffpw 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted. This guy's edit sumamries are hilarious, btw... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted. Btw, this may all be a little misunderstanding. It did take me a few secs to find where it said the 1991 hate crimes thingy, but using Ctrl-F, search 'hate crime' was very helpful. ;-) We might tip the IP on that. Cheers Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Appreciate all the help and no, I doubt this is a mistake or simple misunderstanding, it seems to be a sneakier version of deleting anything possible and spiraling users into circular debates (it isn't, it is (and now it's reffed), that ref is false, not really, yes it is, well it doesn't say exactly that OR!; actually it pretty much says that, etc). My retribution is to simply add more reffed content. Jeff and I might start a betting pool on who the anon is, my hunch is that they're a frustrated actor who (ahem) blew their chance at being in gay porn by either not being gay or nice (or both). Benjiboi 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI, Anon IP now seems to be stalking 

message: I'm having a two-sided discussion about how to improve the quality of the Lesbian article, now that it's been partially protected. We need as much feedback as possible. From anyone. Although the article is long in scope, I think it should be longer and much more extensive. It's rated as a B class, but there are very few citations, and the sections seem to be abbreviated. I think we need help. See our discussion here. --Moni3 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the quality of [[Lesbian]] article 

message: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Sexual orientation of non-heterosexual celebrities. 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump discussion on identifying gay and hetero celebs 

message: Anyone recall seeing an article on this guy? He's the first openly gay comedian to appear on the Tonight Show. Benjiboi 10:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Smith? 

message: I've never done this before. I nominated Ann Bannon for Featured Article. Raystorm supported it (YAY! thanks), but I don't know if I should post its nomination here, or what. So, school me if I'm doing something wrong. See the nomination here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the relevant section at the open tasks template (the one at the top of this page). :-) Next time (and I know there'll be a next time), you can list your FAC's there. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC [[Ann Bannon]] 

message: It should be noted Lara bran is not a "she" - "she" is a sock of the indef banned User:Vinay412, himself a sock of indef banned user Kuntan - see  and .
Just FYI for those wondering the latest. Benjiboi 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banned:-P Jeffpw 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I wonder what his next puppet name will be. It'll be fairly easy to recognise his editing style... --AliceJMarkham 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lara Bran update from ANI board 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Avram Finkelstein is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate opinions by the members of this project. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Avram Finkelstein 

message: Hey guys - I took some new Stephen Colbert photos and I'm holding a vote to see which should be used as the lead.  Anyone want to go vote?  You can also vote for the pre-existing one.  Talk:Stephen Colbert is where you can go to cast the vote.  --David Shankbone 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert photos 

message: Anyone have any experience getting a photo featured? I was finally able to add legitimate photos to the Barbara Gittings article. The New York Public Library, who now owns all of Kay Lahusen's photos allowed me only two. So I chose the one of her picketing, and instead of the one of Gittings making out with Alma Routsong (bummer), I chose this one instead: :Image:Gittings_Kameny_Fryer.jpg because of the gut reaction I had when I saw it. Being from a much younger generation, Fryer's disguise reminds me of Leatherface, and the image is comically horrific to me. I'm so impressed by the photo that I think it might actually have a good shot at getting featured, but I don't know how to do that. Any ideas? --Moni3 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured photo? 

message: I went to Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry to try to get an extra sentence added to the policy to clarify a point relating to block evasion. What I found is a major proposal to fundamentally change the rules on sock puppetry.
I would urge all editors to have a look at what is being proposed and give an impartial assessment of the proposal. --AliceJMarkham 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed changes to sock puppet rules 

message: Recently Wikistressed User:Benjiboi had posted a graphics help request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Asian Lesbian Film and Video Festival Poster, which they can't seem to do because of copyright. I suggested to try and plug the image in at http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/perspective/en.shtml but Benjiboi is not around, so being a good sport I thought I would try it myself. I lack skills. *aargh* Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Chris 08:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tech-savvy? 

message: Hi. We're wondering (as part of the improvements to the William Gibson articles) if there is somewhere appropriate that the article Gender-bait could be best merged to? "...males who represent themselves as females online to elicit a positive response from other males". Is there a more official/standard term for this? Or is it already a recognized/notable term by itself, that warrants expansion instead of merging? Thanks for any suggestions :) --Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best I can suggest is to create an online section in the article Passing (gender). I'm not sure enough of the context to know whether that is the right place to put it. --AliceJMarkham 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-bait 

message: Would Debatepedia's wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Same_sex_marriage be a useful vent for those that seek to make arguments without NPOV on this topic?75.199.82.172 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debatepedia as vent 

message: I'm assuming good faith here, so will someone who has some knowledge on the subject review the new :Category:Gay superheroes, make sure the entries are right, and maybe rename to "LGBT superheroes"?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not T. Maybe "Gay, lesbian and bisexual superheroes" would be better, if this subcategory is to be kept. At the moment, it excludes supervillains and bisexuals (poor Poison Ivy!).~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be expanded? Aleta 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMNSHO, yes.  A subcat of "Fictional LGBT characters" would be Fictional LGBT characters in comics (or graphic novels?) Hm.  Wait a second.  :Category:LGBT characters in comics, which is up for rename discussion.  Curiouser and curiouser...SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Superheros 

message: Ludwig Wittgenstein has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney303 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! This is would be a nice one to get on the front page. Dybryd 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I commend your positive spirit, but, sadly, FA review is for removing FA status. :( I think the editor who initiated the review was right to do so, but I think we can safe Ludwig with a bit of effort. :] — xDanielx T/C\R 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludwig Wittgenstein FA review 

message: Very entertaining this month - thank you Jeffpw. One small thing, because it includes __NOTOC__ it has removed the table of contents from the talkpages its been posted to... Could we possibly fix that? WjBscribe 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I read the whole thing (for the first time)! Haiduc 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  Sorry about the NOTOC.  I don't know that we can do anything about it except manually removing them.  My bad!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for the compliments. I'll pass them on to Miss Julie when she gets out of the detox unit. Jeffpw 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: This article has been changed lately, by an anon IP and an unregistered user, to state that Dorothy Parker and not Judy Garland as "Dorothy" is the inspiration for the term. I have searched many times, and have never been able to fins a definitive answer. The unregistered user supplied a ref (incorrectly formatted, but that's of little consequence at the moment): Coming Out Under Fire, by Allan Berube, The Free Press (MacMillan Inc.) Does anybody happen to own this and can check it for us? Living in a non-English speaking country, it will be  abit difficult for me to get this information without ordering the book. Thanks. Jeffpw 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can look this up in the library (it's sitting on the shelf *right now*) but it's aaaaaalllll the way across campus. And I'm really lazy. Whatcha gonna give me? --Moni3 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a guy or a girl? :-P At the very least, Miss Julie will give you a mention in the Christmas Newsletter, and I see a shiny Barnstar in your stocking! Jeffpw 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I wha??? Can't you discern my Sapphist leanings from my witticisms and completely androgynous username? --Moni3 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, this is the internet. Like Reagan said: "Trust but verify". Hehehehhe. Jeffpw 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Androgynous username? Moni, your name never seemed androgynous to me... Google does *not* support the Dorothy Parker view - see  and SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled the term, too, Satyr. Pretty sneaky of that editor to actually use a book, eh? She must be a fossil to have something like that around the house. :-D Jeffpw 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I got the book and the phrase is not in the index, under "friend," "Dorothy," "Wizard of Oz," "Parker, Dorothy," "Garland, Judy," or "Baum, L. Frank." Y'all are going to make me read this freakin' book, I can tell... I'll give it a quick scan tonight. If I can't find it, my favorite linguistics professor just used the term in her last email to me last night. I may ask her. (She wrote a pretty cool article on the use of "gay" for homos, btw.) --Moni3 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks bunches, honey! Happy reading! And from your post, I think it is safe to rv as "sourcing needs checking". It has impacted two different articles: this one and Gay icon. I don't like it when people make uncheckable changes, especially when the article made it clear the origin wasn't clear. Jeffpw 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Its etymology traces back to Dorothy Parker, screenwriter and Vanity Fair critic. To keep the proceedings lively, Dorothy notoriously invited gays galore to Jazz Age social gatherings, and many of them told friends. During Prohibition, guys whose names weren't on the guest list crashed the gate as "friends of Dorothy," an idiom among Manhattan socialites referring to any unfamiliar character. To gays, a rendezvous with a "friend of Dorothy" meant a gay acquaintance in relative safety, in the era before Judy Garland's funeral sparked the Stonewall riots.(Either Way, Giuliani Is a 'Friend of Dorothy'; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 8, 2001. pg. B.20)  --Moni3 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So it seems as though we're back where we started, only this time with references. That is some progress, anyway, if not a definitive answer. I'll rewrite the article section later today, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. And by the way, ShirleyPartridge is damn mad at us for reverting her edits, even temporarily, and called us "young queens who don't know anything" on the talk page. 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Friend of Dorothy]] 

message: I created the article months ago and never thought it was that big of deal but now someone's got a bug up their ___ to get rid of it so any help appreciated. I'm still on break but came back because List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is under attack if editor's could keep an eye on that would appreciate it. I have to work now but will probably rewrite Fruit (slang) tonight with whatever I can find. p.s. Thank you Cruise director Julie for answering the comment on my talk as well as the newsletter. Benjiboi 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have both watchlisted now, and will help to address the ridiculous POV issue in the homosexual animals article. Ditto Fruit, which I have voted on at Afd. Jeffpw 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not Wikionary, therefore I think it should be deleted.Zigzig20s 00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same was apparently said about dyke and queer. Benjiboi 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fruit (slang)]] up for AfD 

message: Trying to write in my best Wikipedian voice here; A doubtlessly well-meaning editor (or multiple editors) has apparently made a mistake and added several entries to the list with a ref which doesn't check out. I don't mean the article doesn't glowingly call them a gay icon. I mean their names aren't even included in the article. Perhaps they misread and thought Martina Navrilitova was Lucille Ball. I don't know. All I know is that Lucille Ball, Mariah Carey, Kate Bush; Amanda Lear; George Michael; Liza Minnelli and Jimmy Sommerville are now about to get cite tags from me. This is the article used to identify these people as icons. That's just one ref I checked. God only knows what we'll find if the others are checked one by one. <sigh> Why does life have to be so hard, sometimes? Jeffpw 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gay icon]] has wrong refs 

message: But here's how I fixed it.  You need to replace the usual wiki section headers (two equal signs on either side) with a single semicolon before the text you wish to have as a sub-heading.  This way the contents will not suddenly expand people's table of contents.  Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter formatting made huge TOC list on my talk page 

message: Was he gay? The article mentions him going to gay bars and writing about homosexual characters, but I know very little about the man and I figured this is a better place to ask than the article's discussion page (because non-gay people are a little more afraid to label someone as "gay"). - Cyborg Ninja 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's on the list. But don't trust the list. Go find the reference and read it. --Moni3 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he's gay. My God! <shakes head> Young people these days..... Jeffpw 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a break. It has nothing to do with my age. I knew that he was married or it was common-law and obviously his shooting and killing his wife was more remarkable than being gay. - Cyborg Ninja 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William S. Burroughs 

message: I think there is an issue with phrasing on the page for Big Wednesday : "The film also examines the extremes which some young men went to during the Vietnam years to avoid being drafted and shipped off to war, including: faking insanity, homosexuality and all manner of medical ailments.". Although I get what they mean, I think the juxtaposition of the three terms makes it sound like homosexuality is on the same level as "insanity" and "medical ailments". How could we rephrase that?Zigzig20s 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, that's exactly how the military considered it: Section 8 (military). One might add context, though. "...to avoid being drafted and shipped off to war, including: faking insanity, homosexuality (which the military then equated with insanity), and all manner of medical ailments." ··coelacan 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant by 'I get what they mean'. Anyway I have added the suggestion. I will watch the page for a bit.Zigzig20s 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Big Wednesday]] - dodgy phrasing imo 

message: I just edited the article for Glee.com which previously had been a cut and paste job from the company's web site.  This is my first attempt at editing anything on WP, essentially in this case starting from scratch.
Can I get some constructive criticism on the thing from some of you more seasoned vets?  I'm not real sure of my WP skills so please feel free to point out any goofs and newbie mistakes.  Drop me a line on my page or my email.  Thanks, Jack    Jacksinterweb 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Jacksinterweb. You did fine. I just removed the "overview" heading so that the first paragraph becomes a lead, before the table of contents. Also, we need to establish that the website meets our notability guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (web). Is there coverage of the website in independent sources? ··coelacan 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes, I included  reference links to 5 unique, independent sources (CBS, USA Today, et al), each referencing a specific of what I wrote.  Beyond that, there is quite a bit more out there, it seemed a bit of overkill to list more than I did for such a small piece.  I am still unsure how much is enough to establish notability, and whether I am showing the independent sources in the right manner.  As it is now the only links that aren't independent are to the subject of the article, Glee.com and its parent company, both listed as external links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksinterweb (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh. Failure of attention on my part. Alexa doesn't count toward notability and blogs usually don't. But the CBS and USA Today links are good. I'm satisfied with that and I'll take down the  tag I put up. Any other coverage from independent sources on the site in general rather than the military recruiting incidence would also help, but the current sources are technically sufficient. ··coelacan 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks once again, I will polish that up tomorrow and work a couple more legit sources into so it can do more than squeak by. I appreciate your help and input.  Jacksinterweb 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help. I hope you'll become a regular 'round these parts. =) ··coelacan 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLEE.com 

message: The page has a bit about his homosexuality but it is not referenced. Further he is not categorised as gay and the project banner is missing from the talkpage. I have found this  but I'm not sure this site is absolutely reliable. What should be done?Zigzig20s 04:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Stack Sullivan]] - was he gay? 

message: Since the copy editing (Talk:BDSM/Translation) of the featured German article has reached its final stage (Thanks Jeff ;-) ) I would like to you to know that it includes major aspects on homosexual sadomasochism. </br>
It would be great if WikiProject LGBT studies would include it into the spectrum of articles it watches as soon as the update has taken place. Experience on German language Wikipedia shows that the article was often the target of homophobic vandalism.</br>
Regards. --Nemissimo 10:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version of [[BDSM]] 

message: Just got redirected to Dick Cheney. I reverted. Might want to keep an eye on it.. the vandal then came to my talk page and asked if I was a homosexual. Gee, whatever gave him/her that idea?? ALLSTAR  ECHO 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transsexualism]] 

message: I just saw the project tag on the above page and was wondering whether it really counts as being LGBT as none of the characters are officially LGBT. It's mostly just a parody on the kind of Anime girl-bond cliche that's often portrayed as homosexuality by Western conservatives. The again, if you count parody of perception of LGBT as being LGBT.....?
Let's just say I think that the tag is best reserved for pages with more serious or direct LGBT content. Spreading it too far kinda cheapens it.
perfectblue (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the article, I removed the bot placed tag. If anybody feels I made an error, feel free to revert me. From what I can see, the bot added the tag because the show had been categorized as LGBT related by an anon IP back in March. I removed the cat, too. Jeffpw (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the characters Futaba I think her name is. Is definitely in love with the protagonist, she's usually considered a parody on the character of Tomoyo Daidouji ... and that was all in the article wasn't it? --Tyrfing (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Puni Puni Poemy]] 

message: Freddie Mercury's article has been hit a few times today by vandals, I've caught a few of the hits, but I am not sure if I got it all restored.  Would someone take a looksee, I am new to WP so I  may have missed something, or not got it all put back to right.  Thanks  Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look back, and don't see you missed anything . You can always check by clicking the history tab and comparing versions. The "undo" button in history works wonders, too.:-P Jeffpw (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Freddie Mercury]] 

message: Please put it on your watchlists.
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to A-Class and FA-Class on :de I wonder which steps might be helpful to move it from b-class on :en. It would be great if the project could support me in doing so.--Nemissimo (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no time now to make links, but you can always submit for Peer review here on LGBT, or a broader peer review within the entire community. The League of copyeditors can also give it a looksee. If you feel connfident, submit it for a good article nomination. I have tomorrow free (thank the fucking lord! and will give further suggestions on your talk page. I have a lot invested in the article, too! :-D Jeffpw (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version of [[BDSM]] online 

message: Anyone have this book  on their shelf?  Or, next time you go to the library, can pick it up?  Specifically Redl@nds597198 and I are checking in to the sexuality of Charles Wourinen.  Any help is appreciated!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the library but I'm babysitting my nephew tonight. Will take a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're awesome!  My tiny little library  doesn't have it :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh. Mine  may have a few more books, and quite frankly, a ginormous gay section. (Thank you, Barbara Gittings.) I'm reading that book about gays in WWII. I haven't come across the origins of Friend of Dorothy yet, but it's a pretty good read. --Moni3 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gasp! Are you feeling alright, Moni!?!?  Reading a book - for enjoyment's sake!  And enjoying it, too!!! <insert dramatic, queenly gesture here> ;)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah. Hm. Um. Moni, could you see if they have the "New Grove II", published in 2001?  That one's supposed to have a whole section on LGBT musicians...  Sorry - should have specified.  My bad!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dangit! Ok...if I get off work early today I may be able to stop by the library. If not, I'll probably, sadly, be in the library on Friday furiously trying to edit my TKaM article for FAC...--Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad news. No 2001 edition. Only 1986 as the last updated one. And still no mention of his sexuality in that one. Bummer, dude. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music book needed 

message: I have an IP edit warring on this page to include the Catholic Church's moral objections to homosexuality.  This article should focus on the psychological aspects of homosexuality, not on organizations who "think it's a disorder" unless they are, in fact, psychological organizations.  We already have religious aspects of homosexuality articles, and moral articles, etc.  Can I get another editor to join in here somehow?  --David Shankbone 03:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The post-war section needs to be improved. Evelyn Hooker comes after the Kinsey Reports, and in between there should be some mention of Irving Bieber and Sandor Rado. Plus there seems to be no mention of Charles Socarides either. I shall try to improve the article when I have more time.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang - look at Zig throwing the history around!  Nice :)  Personally, my eyes glaze over at the mere thought of editing an article entitled Homosexuality and psychology.  Or maybe that's the turkey... :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also perhaps it would make more sense to broaden the article to psychiatry too. They are often intertwined in the history of homosexuality.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Homosexuality and psychology]] 

message: I have provided a source on James Ist of England which states quite categorically that he had male lovers.  I have added a subheading to this effect.  Others, are trying to remove both the source and the heading.  []  Any input from people who are not anti-LGBT would be welcome as I suspect the motives of those concerned thus far. Thanks! Marcus22 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've piped in a bit, send up a flare if it gets out of hand again. Benjiboi 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are just intransigent in their insistence that homosexuality should be excluded from people's bios. It wouldn't surprise me if Quentin Crisp's bio was reworked to make him straight. That said, I had a look the other day at the King James article, and it seemed impeccably sourced on this topic. I'll watchlist it and revert as necessary. Jeffpw 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, just...wow. The editors there are actually saying we should be satisfied that they gave us a footnote in the article. Seems typical of the marginalization of LGBTs throughout history, doesn't it?Jeffpw (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually,between the "Favorites" and "Personal relationships" sections and the separate article on personal relationships, I think we have pretty good coverage.Haiduc (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: HAD good coverage.  Almost all of it has been expunged, though no-one has a valid reason for that.  If this continues much longer, I'm taking this to RfC or something.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of RfC also. Just re-added additional sources, although I don't think they will be interested. — Becksguy (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! Input required (Re: [[James I of England]]) 

message: There is a category :Category:Queer theologians. It is the set of theologians who espouse queer theology. I had thought until today that people were accidentally misinterpreting it as "queer people who have studied theology", because one or two people repeatedly add Gene Robinson to it. On these grounds, I was thinking of requesting a name change to "Theologians who study queer theology" or something". (Today I saw that users who have done so have also been blocked for homophobic bullying (  ...) and I suspect that they think "queer" in the category name is an insult; I think a rename might help with that, too.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two of those were blocked for WP:ATTACK, I suspect, and the third one for being a sock-puppet.  I doubt changing the category name will help in either situation :)  I, too, considered a name change when I saw the anon keep at Gene Robinson.  But the repetitiveness of "Theologians who study queer theology" bothers me.  And "People who study Queer Theology" is too general.  I think I'd rather just leave it alone.  Anyone else?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the intro text for the category can be rewritten to clarify what the category is supposed to list? I think just adding, "This category lists academics and religious scholars noted for their study of Queer Theology." TechBear (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that for other theologian categories, such as :Category:Atheist theologians, the name denotes theologians who are atheists. Same thing with :Category:Fictional theologians. There should be some kind of standardization, as "Queer theologians" does imply theologians who are queer, not people who study queer theology. I don't think merely adding text to the category page will help as you don't see it right away. - Koweja (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Hm. I didn't realize that about the other cats.  So is there a similar cat?  Maybe something about Feminist Theology? Liberation theologians doesn't have the problem. Grr - this ain't an easy one :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should be brought up at WP:CFD as the scope of the issue extends beyond the scope of the LGBT project? - Koweja (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Queer theologians 

message: Two IP editors (the first with that as his/her only edit) have removed the statement that Jónsi is gay in Jón Þór Birgisson. The first claiming that it was irrelevant, the second with no edit comment. I restored it the first time, added a note to the talk page about it's relevancy, and requested discussion before deletion, but I don't want to run up against 3RR or get into an edit war. This article had been vandalized in the same way before, apparently multiple times. See comment on previous vandalisms here from this talk page's archive. They also misspelled he as hei.  Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Becksguy!  First, have you considered joining the project?  Not absolutely necessary, but we'd love to have you as part of the project :)  Second, I find there's no need to waste time on anon IPs.  They *regularly* remove LGBT material, etc, and leaving notes or warnings does absolutely no good unless they're repetitive harassers.  Simply revert and spend your time on more productive pursuits :)  That being said, I'll watchlist the article and keep an eye on it.  Thanks for your help!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I had the article on my watchlist since August. Agree about not wasting time, but I try to be a good faith editor regardless, although much of the time I feel like I'm fighting the barbarians at the gate, rather than writing, which is what I came here for. As to the LBGT Studies group membership:  Since that was your second invite, I thought it would be rude to not join (although I'm also a world class procrastinator) and also since I have been working on a number of LGBT articles. So I'm official as of today. Plus I thought the first invite/response was quite funny. So when can I join the gay cabal, or do I have to be invited to that separately? :-) Seriously, thanks for the invite, it's an honor. — Becksguy (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jón Þór Birgisson 

message: I'm trying to gauge whether there is interest in forming a WikiProject Feminism. My initial proposal states: "A WikiProject for creating, maintaining and improving articles related to feminism and biographies of important feminists." If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Feminism and sign up. Even if there aren't enough people to sustain a WikiProject, we'll at least get to know other editors with interests in this area. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to start as a sub-project (or task force) of WP:SEX and/or us?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest in a WikiProject Feminism? 

message: I've expanded LGBT to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) on the portal list. If other folks would also watchlist I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT at [[Portal:Portals]] 

message: For anyone interested in The Core Contest, here are the articles they're judging that are part of our project:
# Alexander_the_Great
# Francis_Bacon
# Marlon_Brando
# George_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron
# Rachel_Carson
# Simone_de_Beauvoir
# Emily_Dickinson
# Marlene_Dietrich
# Sergei_Eisenstein
# Epic_of_Gilgamesh
# Michel_Foucault
# Emma_Goldman
# G._H._Hardy
# Homosexuality
# Langston_Hughes
# Human_sexuality
# Frida_Kahlo
# John_Maynard_Keynes
# Madonna_(entertainer)
# Thomas_Mann
# Michelangelo
# Edna_St._Vincent_Millay
# Zeami_Motokiyo
# Marcel_Proust
# Sappho
# Socrates
# The_Holocaust
# Andy_Warhol
# Walt_Whitman
# Oscar_Wilde
# Ludwig_Wittgenstein
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note Eleanor Roosevelt is not on the list. If Moni3 has time, I would happily collaborate with her on that article. After we are through, she would then be eligible for our project tag. :-P Jeffpw (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the talk page, see if VanTucky wants to help. And Mrs. R. needs our banner, for sure.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you want it added, just drop a note to Danny and he may oblige. He's already added articles on request. BTW, I'm going to steer clear of editing contest articles (esp. LGBT ones) as I'll be judging :) - Alison ❤ 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrs. R. is already on Danny's list.  She's just not on *ours* (yet).  I didn't realize the Alison judging was *our* Alison!  Neat!  Feel like rigging the votes? JK!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to collaborate with anyone on Eleanor Roosevelt, however I am currently rasslin' with TKaM, that I foolishly nominated for a featured article, that won't make it, and that I don't have the heart to de-nominate - or re-nominate in the future. Once I get the WWF smackdown on that one, I'll be free to read up on Eleanor. So, give me a couple weeks for that... --Moni3 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  :-) - Alison ❤ 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Contest 

message: So I'm working on THE LIST.  And I run across Man Parrish.  After spending an hour searching the web, Google books, etc for a source that actually says he's gay, I've decided we need a new criteria.  After all, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the man that created this wasn't gay.  Can't I add him to the P-Q list with the reference "Duh!"?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be something in the two interviews here, personally I think anyone who was the tour manager for the Village People would be gay by osmosis. Benjiboi 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  Listen to 43 minute and 60 minute interviews? There are three written interviews there as well, but there's no reference to where the originals were printed.  Osmosis - if only! :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criteria??? 

message: Not really LGBT related but I nominated this new article for DYK and if it gets on the main page I anticipate some juvenile vandalism. I'd appreciate any help I could get in keeping an eye on it. Thanks! :) AgneCheese/Wine 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesbian wine]] 

message: An anonymous IP user has prodded Southern Voice for no assertion of notability.  I'll see if I can find something to add to this stub article.  Any help is appreciated. Aleta (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - an editor prodded and deleted Houston Voice. We should probably keep an eye on Dallas Voice and other LGBT newspaper stubs. Queerudite (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a further FYI, The Houston Voice ceased publication almost a year ago, and exists only as a web mirror of other Window Media publications like Southern Voice.  Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I currently have NY Blade, HX, and Next (magazine) in my userspace because they were prodded and deleted. Did Houston Voice have the project banner on it? I guess you can't tell now, but I'm just curious, cuz the Bot should have seen the prod :(SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that it did, along with a Houston banner.  I  looked at the article within the past month or so, at the time it was maybe two or three sentences.  Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did.  They changed the system so Prodded articles have a different category than they used to.  I've updated the bot - thus the 4 new prods at the top of this page :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Southern Voice]] 

message: LGBT studies project members might like to cast an eye on the article about this LGBT activist from Gibraltar. I found it in the articles in need of wikifying. It is not very encyclopedic as it stands and I found it difficult to see if the subject is notable enough for an entry. Thanks in advance. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link on his talk page with possible references, I thinks he's plenty notable. Benjiboi 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Felix Alvarez]] 

message: Regarding drama from a couple days ago (I had no idea that it was going on until 10 minutes ago!) Here's my comment on the COI/N discussion which is closed (I believe without merit).
* Comment. Wow. Well I'm hardly perfect and certainly make mistakes but this is special indeed. I'm happy to make any corrections or recheck references but let's put it on the talk page of the article please and assume good faith. For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part. I do make mistakes and I do try to correct them. I'm sensitive to mischaracterizing sources and statements and I'm happy to correct those as well, especially if civilly pointed out. As been pointed out I've had a few attackers (or at least one incredibly chameleon-like one) so have chosen to avoid situations that are more stressful but will happily dig through any constructive comments that will improve articles. I've read through this once and care not to relive it but if anyone, anyone, sees something in the article that hasn't been addressed please feel free to message the article talk page. Even though I've found several pointed barbs at me a bit bruising the end result has almost universally been that articles have greatly improved with the Sister Roma article being a decent example of this. Thanks to all who've helped sort through this and here's to better articles for all! Benjiboi 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We were pretty sure that was your stalker :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiboi, you don't have to do anything at all. We looked through the article purely to fix refs (which are a pain in the ass, on the best of days) and trust you completely. This guy is just out to get you. But at least now many admins are completely aware of the situation. Jeffpw (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! This is just like that Will & Grace episode where Kevin Bacon confesses that once you no longer have a stalker your relevancy is gone! Ahhhhh! I'm melting!!!!!! Benjiboi 12:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[R Family Vacations]] drama 

message: Hello all, just popped an article on your "new article" list and spotted the above list also.  Should Mr. Lady Records be in that list?  I'm not sure what the requirements are. Neil ☎ 13:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Good articles 

message: It looks like these have been merged.  Does anyone know what happened here? Aleta (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles & Articles recently tagged 

message: I was looking for the "pink vote" on wikipedia today, but was surprised that there isn't an article on it. I could find soccer mom and NASCAR dad, so it appears that election target groups are given articles. There is an article on the pink dollar. Should we start on on the pink vote? --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[pink vote]] 

message: I'm a bit busy at the mo', but noticed that there isn't an article on A Boy Named Sue (film). The imdb page is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297034/. It's a documentary about a woman transitioning into a man. If somone could get a page started, with the film box, etc., I'll take care of the summary, etc. samwaltz (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article: [[A Boy Named Sue (film)]] 

message: I guess more of us need to put Portal:LGBT/Intro on our watchlists.  An anonymous IP editor blanked it back in September, and nobody reverted it.  I caught it today when someone else put linkspam there, and reverted it back to the pre-blanked state. Aleta (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:LGBT/Intro]] 

message: If you want to dive into another stub that was instantly sent to Afd Chicken (young gay) is on the block. Benjiboi 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chicken (young gay)]] AfD 

message: - AfD closed as No Consensus. ALLSTARecho 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion at [[trans-bashing]] 

message: How come all tagged articles don't show up on the watchlist? Given that our articles are disproportionately targeted, it would make sense to have every LGBT tagged article on the watchlist. Is it just a question of entering the names on the page? if so, I will do that. Jeffpw 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a watchlist of high vandalism articles, and a watchall list with all of our articles on it. The two userboxes for both should be on the main page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, hon. I overlooked the watchall one. I'll plaster that on my page, too. One more question: is there any way to automatically make our articles appear on my watchlist? Jeffpw 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I don't know. Is there a script for that anywhere? Satyr? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist 

message: Okay, ladies, gentlemen and undecided, I have been bold and changed our collaboration from LGBT literature (which should be FA standard given how long we should have been working on it. :) to Sexuality in Star Trek. As an added incentive, the article is also currently on AfD. Go, my copyeditors, go! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember watching the ST:TNG DVD's and in the extras, Gate McFadden admitted that The Host had (very light) LGBT undertones, and that they got some backleash for that. They also got some positive feedback. And she talks a bit about LGBT issues in the ST world. I wonder in which DVD she said it? *Starts digging in her ST DVD collection* We can use DVD commentaries as sources, can't we? And I definitely remember the Voyager issue; again, I need to remember where I saw it. XD The actress playing Seven of Nine definitely didn't want to play a LGBT character, and said so in an interview. But Kate Mulgrew was always supportive of the idea. But the info is definitely out there, we just need to boldly acquire it people. XD Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article, think it's great, and have made a very minor (but important to me) copyedit to it already. I will gladly work on this one, but can't really begin until Thursday, as work is interfering with my editing time (boo, hiss!). Jeffpw 12:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the episode of TNG where that alien race wasn't allowed to express gender? That was the closest theme to gay there was back in the day. I remember my college gay group got together and watched it, like 15 of us in someone's apartment. The irony of that episode I guess is that everyone playing the alien race were all lesbians. And there has to be some print source that says the hottest lesbian fantasy was for Captain Janeway and Seven of Nine to hook up... --Moni3 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely Moni3! There has to be at least ONE! XD J/7 forever! XDDD Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: As we head into the winter slump (personally, I'm almost off my chair), an idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while seems worth possibly considering now. One of the main problem people have faced in getting an article up to FA standard is the prospect of a daunting FAC. Admittedly these do happen, I'm sure many of the people here who have written an FA have suffered at least one harsh reviewer, but generally passing an FAC is an achievable goal. So what I was thinking was that anyone here who has got an FA through and is interested in helping others do the same "buddy up" with someone who's just starting out on that fun journey, offering them moral support, tips etc. If successful, we get FAs, more experienced and happy editors, oh, and a snowball effect which means we can kick MILHIST's butt (we only need 199 more FAs - we can do thaaaat...). What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Fact is, I'm mentally gearing myself up to get Number 2. :-P So yeah, why not? Let's duel together at the FAC arena. XD Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great idea, but I don't know if I would solicit the help or give it... --Moni3 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify that, Moni3? It sounds like you're saying you think it's a great idea but won't support it. This proposal is sort of the essence of Wikis. I'll happily give moral support to someone going through the process (reading the article, fixing what I can, offering tips, etc), though I don't feel like nominating and defending an article in FAC, myself. My stress levels are just too high to participate in that area right now. Jeffpw 13:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would totally support it. But the combination of having gone through only one and a half FAC processes, and the haphazard way FAC's are supported or opposed - I don't really know what good I could do. And some of the articles I'm building to go through GA review I'm kinda stuck like I need help myself. I'm baffled by the FAC process. Does that explain my apparent ambivalence? I'm not really ambivalent, just a bit overwhelmed. --Moni3 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely. Sounds like we're thinking along similar lines. Jeffpw 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely understand where you're both coming from. What I was thinking was that it's a buddying system, not a mentoring one. It wouldn't be like adoption, where you're overseeing someone, telling them what to do, more like being assigned someone to encourage when they're disheartened, support them when they're doing the FAC, NOT write the article for them, but possibly say "Hey, your lead is one sentence long". Be a wingman, kinda. I'm sure we all do it for our friends, this would make it a bit easier for people without those connections to know that they're not one man against an army of faceless meanies. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a *fabulous* idea!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA buddying 

message: I don't know what to do with this;  I watch Jim Sinclair as part of the autism-related articles.  I had never encountered the term intersexuality before today, so I really don't know how this is handled.  Someone added Jim Sinclair to the :Category:Intersexuality and added text; I reverted per WP:BLP and requested a source.  Now I find that Google coughs up this, but I have no idea how to handle the (apparent?) difference in Sinclair's (apparent?) definition of intersexuality and the article's definition.  He seems to indicate an exclusively female anatomy, while the article indicates the definition is biological characteristics of both.  How does that relate to transgender and what do I do here?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My (crude and very quick) understanding of it is that intersex is the more common term for hermaphrodite - someone who has partially or wholly sex organs of a male and female. Transgender is someone who has the sex organs of one, but feels s/he should be the other. We have a discussion in archives asking if intersex should be part of our scope. I don't know if that ever got resolved. --Moni3 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: hi Sandy. While s/he does not wish to be classified as either male or female, s/he self-identifies as intersexual. I would include him/her in the category, with this as a ref. Jeffpw 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, having read the link you posted, Sandy, I agree with Jeff.  Since Sinclair self-identifies as intersexual, that should be stated in the article with the reference cited and the article should be in the Intersexuality category. Aleta 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would be OK because he self-identifies that way, even though his definition apparently (?) doesn't jibe?  Just checking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems an issue WP:MOS didn't think to address. Though it is akward, if I were editing thearticle, with this as a ref, I would write s/he and him/her. It looks bad, but it is neutral, and s/he says s/he is a neuter. Jeffpw 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Tony1 tried his hardest to get gender neutrality addressed at MOS and I supported, but he encountered resistance (he's not fond of s/he). Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language I think I fixed it by work-arounds; would you mind having a look at the article now?  Jim Sinclair  Thanks!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a gift, Sandy! It doesn't sound awkward at all. Much better than s/he. I'll go poke my nose into the gender-neutral language page now. Jeffpw 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nicely done.  I would not use the term hermaphrodite though, especially, as Sinclair does *not* use it in the essay.  I think that really does mean having genitalia of both sexes, and Sinclair has neither. Aleta 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my gift; I'm still struggling to learn from Tony1 !  I'll go remove the hermaphrodite; that was the text originally added by the IP.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call! Please do remove the 'hermaphrodite' term as it's deprecated these days and can be considered quite pejorative to many intersex people, esp in a BLP-related article - Alison ❤ 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance on [[intersexuality]] 

message: Due to overwhelming demand, Miss Julie has finally agreed to start a little advice column for the newsletter, helping troubled Wikipedians through their sticky wickets. Unfortunately, since she is once again in rehab, questions should be submitted to me via email. I have already received one from "Wikiworried in Waikiki", and there may just be room for one or two others! Jeffpw (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New year, new challenges 

message: I found this lonely and unloved article in WP:CLEANUP. Seems worthy but the article is in need of some care. I linked it to this WP and hopefully it will find someone to show it some loving. Manning (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmph.  I'll look for a ref later, but unless we can cite something, it looks like a WP:NEO to me.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's still a neologism as it's been around a while. Google books and scholar each have a handful of sources. Benjiboi 12:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, Benjiboi.  Google books has eight hits, one of which is referring to a Gendér player and the other seven referring to groups of multiple genders, not a person who spans gender.  This may be a tough one to pull off :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pangender]] 

message: If anyone feels like taking a look at Keeley Hawes, her sexuality is in a bit of dispute.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy smokes! Keeley Hawes! Kitty Butler is a tramp! (Let me peek at some sources today.) --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - now *that* was a different reaction than I thought I'd get! :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeley Hawes 

message: Terribly cute actor Jay Brannan keeps having his sexuality removed by an IP.  I've finally gotten the IP to talk about it on the article's talk page, but would appreciate a second (third) pair of eyes and some people's thoughts there.  Thanks!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated the "openly gay" phrase, and Dev920 and I both added comments supporting it's inclusion. — Becksguy (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jay Brannan 

message: The article on William A. Donohue, of the Catholic League, seems to have been sanitized of most references to his anti-gay views and public comments, except for one comment where he blames homosexuals for the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals in that subsection. The anti-Semitic remarks have more prominence in the article, within one large subsection. However, there is zero mention of his comments about Asians or Blacks. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the target, and I think this article needs some major work to restore WP:NPOV and balance, as well as to make it read better.  Benjiboi was concerned about mass deletions several days ago. Additional comments to follow on the talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original material was deleted as it came through Media Matters which the editor, a Catholic lawyer I believe, readily deleted as POV, however all the media matters material has the corresponding original material. I simply haven't had time to re-ref and reinstate. Benjiboi 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Don't stress out over it. I tagged the article  &  in the meantime, same as the article on the Catholic League. — Becksguy (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Donohue 

message: Soon up for deletion, they seem plenty notable but article does little to demonstrate it. Benjiboi 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesbian Association of India]] 

message: When I went to break out the Hormone replacement therapy (trans) article into Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) and Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female); both were almost immediately tagged as copyright violations of T-Vox's HRT article!  I had to delete everything.  These articles need to be rebuilt!  Photouploaded (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm - that's because the T-Vox one is almost entirely based on ours. I just checked. Look at the edit histories and revisions on both articles and you'll see. It's quite okay for them to copy ours as it's GFDL licensed, they just need to mention that - Alison ❤ 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  My userpage popped up with two giant red YOU MADE A COPYVIO!!! templates, and I didn't want to get slapped with a lawsuit.  Looks like someone else has restored them now.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Had to delete an entire article as a copyvio! 

message: Do we want this tagged for LGBT and/or do we care if it's merged into Bukkake? Benjiboi 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it. Unfortunately, I also read it. Do what you want with it, so long as I don't have to read it again. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! It frightened me, too. Technically, it should be tagged, but practically, we all know anything having to do with "lesbian" and "porn" isn't really under the scope of this project, except for a stub someone should create called The Extensive and Hopeful Search for Quality Pornography Made By and For Lesbians Instead of This Hideous Nonsense We Have Now. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of good lesbian produced porn out there and if Santa hasn't stuffed your stockings yet you could try Good Vibrations - a "clean and well lit place to buy dildos." Of special interest might be the Antique Vibrator Museum, perhaps Miss Julie has a few friends there! Benjiboi 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ordered a couple of videos from there a few years ago. I still stand by my article idea. They sucked. Antique vibrator museum? That is a good alternative to lesbian porn?? *sob* --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Try CyberDyke or Pink and White. Photouploaded (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good vibrations carries Pink and White as well as SIR Productions. A moist world awaits! Benjiboi 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesbian bukkake]] 

message: I'm about to add some controversial info to Larry Craig and would appreciate many eyes being kept on the article. News has broke of more men describing sexual encounters with Craig. See . ALLSTARecho 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All four of my eyes are on it, and I already piped in on "describing" vs "alleging".  BTW, I just promoted myself to an "established editor". Or do I need consensus on that? — Becksguy 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the related Mike Jones (personal trainer) as he's one of the 5 that have come forward. I guess he's popular, having bedded Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard now. I've been listening to the recordings of the interviews with these 5 guys and it's riveting to say the least. I don't see how Larry Craig will still be a Senator after tomorrow. Amazing stuff. ALLSTARecho 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this thread just reeks of Schadenfreude....I love it! Jeffpw 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it was Avenue Q but someone did a song called something like "It's Schadenfreude". Benjiboi 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Craig 

message: Hi,
* List of animals displaying homosexual behavior
* List of birds displaying homosexual behavior
* List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
Have been vastly improved and the reference overhaul (every item referenced and all refs converted to one format) has been completed. Although there is more work to be done this seems a good point to go for GA status. If you have not contributed significantly to the articles and are a "more experienced" editor please consider doing the GA review for one or all. FYI these articles share lede and footer info but each article should be judged on it's own merit so the lede has to be judged as part of each article. I'm posting here as this project was the mother hen for the articles before all the other projects were notified of their existence. Benjiboi 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack, apparently lists aren't allowed at the GA booth, does anyone know if there is a GA for lists? Benjiboi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there's no equivalent of GA for lists, you'll have to do FL. Put one through and then adjust the other two according to that feedback and they should sail through. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have another editor interested in birds so maybe we'll target that first. Benjiboi 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article noms for 3 lists help needed 

message: I just came across this article.  I tagged it for the project, given its subject matter.  It is written in a very un-encyclopedic manner.  Is there anything there worth saving?  Is it a legitimate term for gays in Japan?  Anyone have a clue??? Aleta (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd speedy it on the grounds of that last paragraph being pure nonsense. And there are zero Google hits besides Wikipedia.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was nominated for CSD A1 on 7 Dec and contested, so speedy is no longer an option.  Prod is prolly the best way unless that is contested, then we go to AfD. I'm gonna watch it, and maybe do my first AfD nomination. It seems to be a made up article as a joke, and pure nonsense, although I'm mostly clueless on current Japanese gay culture, so I (we) could be wrong. It also has zero refs. I added a prod2 tag. — Becksguy (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the article has deleted the prod and prod2 templates.  Time for AfD?  I've never created an AfD.  Aleta (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're on the same wavelength! Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobiyashi and add your opinions as appropriate. Benjiboi 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hobiyashi]] 

message: I have added a paragraph on the homosexual subtext of that novel, with lots of references from academic books of literary criticism. Shouldn't the book be tagged? True, the main plot is not homosexual per se, but it probably isn't because of the era he was writing, and all these references seem to spell out the homosexual subplot.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zigzig20s, you are welcome to tag articles if you feel that they are within the scope of your project. We even tag articles about people who are not themselves LGBT, but whose actions have had an impact on LGBT history (Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, etc). Just put the article on the project page under "Newly tagged articles". Jeffpw (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case why not tag Joris-Karl Huysmans? It remains blurry whether he was gay or whether some people are trying to downplay it...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roderick Hudson]] by [[Henry James]]