User talk:Jay*Jay - Knowledge (XXG)

676:. I want you to know that I do not intend it as an attack, but that I do feel it is important for me to understand what has led him to accept your explanations. I have looked at the comments posted on his talk page, and in other places, and whilst I believe that you did not expect the controversy your nomination provoked, I am concerned about aspects of your response since then. I don't want to move on from this with a negative impression of you, and so I'd appreciate it if you could give some thought to what I have written. Of course you have the right to choose not to respond, and I am not saying that you owe me an explanation, but I would appreciate you choosing to expand on what has happened so that I (and possibly others) don't form an opinion without flagging concerns to you and providing an opportunity for a response. I recognise that you were likely upset by some of William's comments, and I also recognise that some of my comments may be overly harsh - I can't be entirely rational on a topic like this, and so I ask that you accept that my comments are meant as an appeal for information, rather than a direct criticism. 1035:

other way, and what I thought were legitimate issues went unaddressed. Now, my interpretation may have been incorrect, but I don't learn if I have misunderstood policy if no comment is made; instead, I felt ignored. The closing admins talk page comment that my views were disregarded didn't help, and the closure has simply added to the ill-will around the issue. Of course, in non-routine matters where views have been strongly expressed on both sides, policy-based judgement is needed, but I think the current procedures are failing to address some editors' concerns and leading to resentment. Some closing admins also have poor people skills - like the one whose response on being asked to explain amounted to "I've been doing this for ages, I'm right". Regardless of whether the decisions themselves are correct, the process is creating problems. I don't have a solution to offer that wouldn't add to the work involved, unfortunately, but an approach that seems to leave resnetment in its wake seems to me to be bad for WP.

2837: 1044:

Using "parent-mode" implicitly expects a contrite response in "child-mode"; when used inappropriately, it oftens elicits anger and a more strident response also in "parent-mode". Shortly afterwards, an argument typically takes off. FYI, there is a whole bunch of communications research on this stuff, and I am over-simplifying, but you get the idea. I find it a useful approach for my dealing with people, and it is part of the reason that I indicated my intention to follow up in a different location and later. The MfD wasn't the place to address my objection, and the time prevented my responding in a way that might have been less conducive to an adult-to-adult discussion. Hopefully you will find I'm not hard to get on with, and try to be fair. For example, I explained my motivation and thanked Aminz for his actions on his talk page. Similarly, I gave

804:; their interpretation in UCfD is so broad that nearly any user category can be construed to fall under one or the other. (Which, incidentally, has the unpleasant side effect of providing an excellent Knowledge (XXG)-policy cloak for bias.) Personally, if this problem cannot be solved in some way, I think it would be best to either eliminate user categories altogether or make them dramatically more difficult to create (for example, by requiring a call-for-creation discussion) and/or delete (for example, by requiring two or three nominators rather than just one). If there is bias against LGBT people in the deletion process, I think it is very likely to be on the part of nominators; the more general bias in UCfD appears to be against any "Wikipedians" category at all that is nominated. 2720:

that backwards - but I see that his comments about reverting edits did include "sockpuppet of a banned user." Also, I don't know that reverting edits from a banned user in order to discourage a return of that editor as a sock is grounds I'd call spurious - there seems to be some logic in not allowing edits from a banned user, even if they are superficially constructive. Anyway, as I said on the AE thread... Discussions even tangentially related to Giano/Troubles get heated, and actual substantive debate typically gets thrown off the rails pretty quickly. The issue of reverting these edits ought to be fairly straightforward to resolve, and the level of drama and heat exchange about it is pretty strange.

972:. You comment on my userboxes, and I agree they are not subtle. But, they are not advocating a position, but rather providing information (and pointing to an area of interest and knowledge - useful for potential collaboration). They are not comparable to an unrefenced section that is entirely one-sided, unsupported by the relevant research, and makes outlandish claims. I would have no particular objection to someon displaying an anti-porn userbox, but I have a strong objection to material I know to be untrue presented in isolation, and I don't caren where on WP I see it. If it violates 813:

this nature is certain to be a bitter and expensive one, and difficult to hold. I'm not so much interested merely in the restoration of the LGBT categories, but restoring them in such a way that they establish a difficult-to-challenge precedent rooted solidly in Knowledge (XXG) procedures; nothing short of that is a complete victory. I would like to see our side hold fire on the complaints of bias and homophobia; that is a heavy thing to say and requires good solid evidence -- and accusing someone of being a homophobe is a powerful way of making her one. --

5286: 1505: 832:, I recognise that we are working for the same goals, and that emotive arguments are not the way to influence those who are neutral and willing to be swayed by the quality of the argument. I hope you will see my latest contribution to the DRV discussion is policy and process-focused. Ultimately, we need to get the meta-level discussion going, but I haven't figured out where best to do so. If we were to lose there but the outcome where to restructure the categories so that 1444: 1892: 4706: 747:. I want to make it clear that I am not asking for any sanction of you, and I completely understand your desire to have the thread archived. However, I am not sure that the action that you have taken is a good idea, as it removes the context from the part of the discussion which you separated. I'm also not sure whether it is considered acceptable, which is why I have asked. You may want to monitor any response and / or make a comment. Best, 1016:

think with the exception of Spam people laying their cards on the table generally helps you to deal with them. Also the community doesn't always follow its own policies: particularly on user pages. Thanks for the thoughtful and unpolemic explanation (I won't say it does you credit in case thats patronising again. However I guess you would agree with userboxes that some people may regard a statement about you as advocacy in itself :) ) --

1167:. At issue was the now-removed "Why Pornography is bad" section of that page. The MfD was closed as "speefy keep" after the involved user acted unilaterally to resolve the issue by removing the material, and the MfD-initator withdrew the objection. This question is not intended in any way to reflect on the user whose page was being discussed; in fact, I believe that user's decision reflects well on his judgement and I said so 1068:

effective) and for users (I think on Meta this is still allowed, but with some sort of right to non-categorisation). Personally I think I might have objected to the word "queer" (ambiguous where I live and sometimes still with homophobic overtones) but would support a category of "gay" or similar. But then I have never been even tempted to put "category Christian" or "category "supporter of Rowan Williams" on my user page.... --

1535: 1471: 2797: 1560: 1515: 1367: 1357: 2584: 134: 4056: 3520: 2901: 1843: 280: 5038:

Such a channel gives opportunity to discuss the latest happening on articles, the LGBT project itself, latest happening in your life with "wiki-friends" here, etc.. You can say things on there you normally wouldn't here on Knowledge (XXG) (keeping it civil of course) like talk about the latest hot guy/girl or tell a joke.. you get the point. Anyway, see you there - eventually!

1525: 2263: 1181:

is acceptable from Aminz's perspective, after which I will restore it. If he objects, I will find another approach, because I agree that he isn't up for RfA so doesn't deserve adverse scrutiny, and his participation in a discussion on the RfA page would be a totally inappropriate diversion from the purpose of the page. I will invite him here to comment. Best,

3712: 1850: 2210: 2021: 1987: 1945: 1880: 2579: 296: 5300: 960:

do as you're told". An adult-to-adult approach would have been better. After all, I made a policy-based comment. As for my appended note to the closing admin, my (admittedly limited) experience of deletion matters has included two reviews closed against consensus where the admin simply expressed their own view. One of these (relating to the

1599: 1092:

administrative duties, which probably won't address some of your underling concerns but please don't think that means I'm blowing any of them off. While I'll answer over there as is appropriate for RfA, I'm perfectly open to discussing other aspects of it outside the RfA via regular talk pages. Anyway, I expect to answer those later tonight.

952:

display amount to WP:SOAP. That is after all advancing a position (as well as a posterior). But I would oppose the removal of that too. If users cannot in any way reflect their views on their userpages it makes it much harder to monitor COI and POV. And what Aminz has done is not exactly in your face. --BozMo talk 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3716: 1030:

In my wiki-time (both editing and lurking), I have seen an astonishing range of admin actions, and have been stunned at a few cases of dreadful judgement (not necessarily relating to deletions). As such, it is also possible that my view of some actions is leading me to an unbalanced approach to situations requiring judgement.

3730: 3726: 3853:

the current members to be more active. If more members were energized, the project would be able to accomplish more. We should be, in effect, the smaller and included Knowledge (XXG) for LGBT related subjects. Overall, I wish we could focus more on content creation and improvement, and less on vandal fighting."

3845:. He's also helped save several project-related articles from deletion. His lowest moment here was getting involved in the discussion on a particular terrorism related article, thinking he could help calm the roiled waters on an extremely contentious subject with multiple edit wars and passionate editors. 3953:

because the magazine's contents 'may be vulgar, offensive, and indecent even though not regarded as such by a particular group ... because their own social or moral standards are far below those of the general community ... Social standards are fixed by and for the great majority and not by and for a

3852:

On Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, he says, "I think we need to learn better what processes work for a massive collaborative project. Some of what worked well for a more informal small project doesn’t scale up well. Process is not as important when the participants know each other. We need to get more of

3033:

regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with

2719:

Ah, I see that you are right, my mistake. NYB's reading of the policy would seem to contradict with the policy quote above from SirFozzie, though. To expand my comment, though... Since NYB's comment below that said he was refraining from commenting on the specific issue at hand, I mistakenly extended

2652:

The confusion here seems to be whether edits being reverted are prior to the ban (which is what it looks like NYB was talking about) or edits made after the ban. The standard for reversion is understandably different, and in this particular case it is the latter that is at issue. From what I've read,

1566:

Just thought you might like something sweet. I hope the conversation on the LGBT discussion page didn't leave a bad impression of me. Maybe I should have avoided the mentioning of the 7 year sentence thing...I didn't realize it would create such a stir. I'm glad you said you like to debate and didn't

1143:

Doczilla, I see your point, and have no problem with feedback on my actions. However, I would also like the material in question to be easily accessible for evaluation of your responses and reasoning. As such, I'm wondering whether a reasonable compromise would be to note that the MfD was closed as

1029:

Sorry to have disappointed you! :) Actually, I hadn't really thought about how my note might be seen by others, and that's something I'll have to ponder. Its intent was to flag what I thought was relevant and it wasn't meant to be patronising; nonetheless, I can see that it could be seen that way.

951:

I am sure that the closing admin doesn't need your advice on policy. As they know, and you will learn, there is a very strong case history in Knowledge (XXG) for the community giving considerable latitude to the content of user pages. You might equally argue that pro-gay userboxes such as the one you

5155:

As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people

5037:

but as the original people associated with the setting up and administration of that channel have seemed to have disappeared, this new channel has been set up. Plus the new channel is inline with required naming conventions for Knowledge (XXG) related IRC channels. So, feel free to use this channel.

4297:

There are more than 8,000 articles to work on. Can we build a list of priorities? Can we build enough enthusiasm to work on these? What if we had editors who oversaw progress in these areas and reported to the talk page or in the newsletter? Surely someone here wants to report on the progress of sex

4120:

On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.” “Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of

3827:

Becksguy didn’t start actively editing until May 2007. His most frequent tasks on Wiki include reverting vandalism to LGBT articles and creating new project-related articles. He comes from New York state, and to prove not all of us are teenagers (ha! I am so totally 15!) he's in his 60s and retired.

3606:

this project, that means that a few of ours may be de-listed unless someone can swoop in and save them. This one has to do with the designation of homosexuality as a crime in Germany. Most of this article's sources are in German. If anyone has any particular skill in this area, please lend a hand!

3168:

in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's

3163:

where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to

2772:

Thanks for the comment. I suppose if there's nothing you can do, then to some degree I don't see the need to rage about it. I agree with your concerns, but I think the truth is that things have actually improved some recently, along with attention to problematic use of checkuser. This has I think

1326:

created - for which I gave him my first ever (and so far only) barnstar - after his nomination wiped out Queer Wikipedians category). I also maintain membership in the ever-so-slightly pointy Queerass Wikipedians category. I appreciate your suggestion, but this is primarily about principle for me,

1180:

BTW, the reason I used the hypothetical for (b) and (c) was because I wanted to divert attention from the specific case to the general issue, but still included (a) because I wanted to check your judgement and reasoning on the specific example. I will now strike question 6 until we have a form that

4585:

and the others were creating the beginnings of the repeal effort, (gay activists) Basker, Campbell, Kunst, and the other (gay rights) ordinance supporters congratulated themselves on their success and then quickly disbanded... There was no organized recognition or celebration of the victory. As one

2692:

policy is insufficiently clear, it should be ammended to clarify this point. The policy does not mandate the reversion of useful edits, and when it comes to reversions that would introduce errors (whether minor typos or more important factual errors), the idea that policy requires such a reversion

1215:

I have no intention of doing anything on the RfA page until an acceptable resolution is reached. If Aminz says here that he wants the question blanked for the moment, I will respect that request. As such, the RfA process should be able to continue undisturbed. In the meantime, would you consider

1112:

In an RfA that is read by so many people, talking about a specific user by name after he/she already voluntarily removed the material could seem uncivil to some readers. It could look to them like we're attacking that individual in such a public setting without having invited him/her to participate

985:

and do something about it." then I probably wouldn't have said anything. The question for me was not the process - whether MfD was the correct approach - but rather the principle of complying with the intent of the policy. As can be seen from what happened, it didn't take much for Aminz to decide

959:

The comment about not needing advice on policy is patronising, especially when followed by the oblique reference to me being a new user. It has the tone of a parent speaking to a child, and an appeal to authority through experience - implicitly, it reads as "we know what we're doing, you don't, go

314:

Ms Julie is .. unavailable .. this month, so Isaac and Gopher have stepped in to put this newsletter thing together. We may not be as funny as you're used to, but if you'd like a free drink, come see me at the bar. That might help. Maybe. And no, there aren't any flashing lights or fancy pictures

3605:

Soon after we were informed that Homosexuality is being scrutinized, we heard the same for one of our few Featured Articles. As a participant of the Featured Article process, I think this is actually a good thing. The standards for Featured Articles are getting higher with time. But as a member of

1117:

and I'll be glad to discuss it, but for the RfA we need to make sure we focus on the issues and not on individuals who didn't agree to subject themselves to my RfA. It's your question, so it's completely up to you, of course, but if you could reword it (something like "You recently took part in an

1043:

is a fundamentally good thing. As a well educated person (I have a PhD), I believe in reasoned and evidence-based discussions, and am quite willing to be called on actions that are poor. I also try to engage in discussion in "adult-mode", as this implicitly asks for a response in the same mode.

1015:

Ah. All these points seem fair (and not what I was expecting). I thought my comment was no more patronising that you pointing this obviousness to the closing Admin but if we have failed to do the right thing in your experience I can only apologise. I have consistently defended user pages though. I

924:

Sorry if you felt I was "playing the man not the ball". I didn't intend to be critical of you and was just making the point that policy has to be understood in context of convention otherwise it could be taken to mean anything. Oh btw WP:SOAP has been applied to userboxes (but I quite like yours).

2954:

It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in

1034:

Regarding deletion issues in general, perhaps the origin for some of the controversies lies in the procedures themselves. Take the QW category DRv, for example. I expressed what I thought was a policy-based response, and noted that my view concurred with some others. The closing admin went the

846:

For the record, I don't think I've actually accused any individual of homophobia on the DRV - and if I have, please indicate where, as I agree with you that such accusations should be evidence-based and not made lightly. As a general rule, I would prefer to assume ignorance rather than malice in

812:

Knowledge (XXG). As long as that is true, and opposition rests its case on WIkipedia policies and guidelines while we rest ours on nebulous and emotional arguments, success is doubtful at best. Until the issue of UCfD's bias toward deletion of "Wikipedian" categories is resolved, any victory of

807:

Incidentally, I want to make clear that I am actually on the side of restoring the LGBT user categories; but our side's current efforts in that direction seem calculated to make more enemies than friends and to take arguments rooted outside Knowledge (XXG) and march directly into the buzzsaw of

4149:

Though what we do is an interesting hobby for some, we have the power to make a difference. California's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage was a fierce fight. It's being challenged right now, but just look at how Knowledge (XXG) played a role in that: in October 2008, 360,238 people read its

1091:

Thanks for asking questions at my RfA. I had readied myself to answer questions, but then this RfA has gone surprisingly smoothly without anybody hitting me with anything difficult. I'll answer the questions as you worded them and as they relate to what would most immediately be my own potential

1067:

Just to say I read the above and don't really have much to add (except that I look forward to coming across you again). The category thing people spend a lot of time on but I have never really found them an exciting idea either in articles (where there is too much anarchy for the structure to be

5148:

At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil

840:

and the like were also eliminated, I could live with that. However, if the hypocritical double standard were endorsed, I would certainly make some noise and move more into the homophobia that would consequently be clearly on display. My guess is that Jimbo Wales isn't keen on "Knowledge (XXG)

3111:

Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles,

3050:

because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my

444:

worked diligently on the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" and "WP:LGBT Random Picture" sections of the portal. They added many new quotes and pictures but, and yes here's the cat's meow friends... you can now use these on your own user pages! To add the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" to your own userpage, use:

2012:

used the lead paragraph from Knowledge (XXG), skillfully and lovingly written by Moni3, verbatim in the Lambda Literary Pioneers calendar. Moni3 contacted the Lambda Literary Foundation to let them know, and to ask if we could get a little write-up in the next Lambda Book Report. There is a

1052:

As for the line between "information" and "advocacy" in userboxes, my inclination would be for a very wide amount of latitude - but there are limits. I would object to an userbox that said "This user believes that watching pornography leads to committing rape" as unsubstiated and inaccurate

1802:

is more important than any other policy in the minds of many admins, so I'd tone it down if I were you. However, I am ultimately more concerned by SwatJester's actions, which I see as yet another case of an admin with questionable judgement. I have serious doubts about remaining at WP...

1250:

that Aminz has responded on his own talk page. I take his response to indicate that he would prefer the entire question for Doczilla's RfA be de-identified. That being the case, I will take note of the response above and reconstruct the question, and will notify Doczilla once it is done.

4870:

has nearly 1,000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears - that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll - were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase

964:) was closed despite other admins noting the failure to correctly apply policy. As such, I believed then and still believe that flagging that there was a policy issue that needed consideration was desirable. It's also useful if you need to ask about what you believe to be a bad decision. 3848:

Here at WP:LGBT, he creates and improves articles that present notable LGBT related subjects in a fair and balanced way, and tries to include more of the significant alternative sexuality related subjects without being an activist, and works to better source project-related articles.

3065:, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put ] around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the 976:

and there is no chance it can be fixed to be policy-compliant, then it is simple: it can't stay. If responses had been "MfD is not the place for this, because convention dictates that established user pages aren't removed this way. However, the content is problematic, and I call on

773:

thread - that was why I left you a note to advise that I had asked the question. I have added a link and explanatory note, to the earlier discussion, and marked the present discussion as resolved. Feel free to add if you think this is an inaccurate summary of the outcome. Best,

2934:, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Knowledge (XXG) weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has 3774:

In the lurking I do around and about on Wiki, I've long been astounded at the forbearance Benjiboi has for the utterly insane. Perhaps not so much, since the message on Benji's talk page notes frequent absences due to homophobia and transphobia. But it takes some kind of ...

3658:. Rock on, man. You're a machine. Good luck with your nominations. What is it about women that make them gay icons? And are there lesbian icons that aren't lesbians? How about bisexual icons? Am I the only lesbian who reacts with soul-trembling fear at the sight of 3587:

is quite active as a result. You have the opportunity to help. This is the corest of our core articles, and it needs some attention because it gets a lot of controversial input from many sides. If you can spare any time to edit the article, please do what you can.

3142:

says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think

4314:

The Republican Party is without direction. What's going to take the place of a moderate voice will not be pleasant to our ears. Watching and improving articles of subjects that have opposed gay rights in the past will be of vital importance very soon, I predict.

4136:. As someone who was married in California and lives in Florida, this is particularly poignant. We seem to be at the juncture of two converging paths. If we maximize our efforts and take the right ones, we might just be able to affect some change for ourselves. 1118:

MfD discussion about a userpage where someone listed objections to pornography"), I'll be glad to answer. Anybody who needs to know exactly what we're talking about in order to evaluate my response can still follow the edit history or just ask either one of us.

5317: 1127:

don't interpret this as any kind of admonishment. You've asked a fair question that does indeed relate to the exertion of administrative authority, and you yourself said you're still learning how these things work. Seriously, thanks for asking. Yours,

5143:

There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. n both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

2991:? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a 244:

Jumpaclass has been cleared and is ready for use in 2008. You might want to prod me so I remember to grade your work in a timely manner, though, I have an increasingly bad memory. But congratulations on wanting to enter, and here's hoping you win!

2497:

for an unconstructive edit. Given the nature of the personal attack, the fact that it followed so close after the previous block, the fact that the same editor was targetted, and the lack of constructive edits in the meantime (as shown by the

4427:

determine that some subjects have an importance category: Top, High, Mid, Low, or None (undetermined). If we decide that our most core articles, it might help to organize which articles to address first. Top importance, for example, would be

999:

is inconsistent with any 'convention' over non-compliance on user pages. A convention in how to handle such things, sure - hence I didn't act. But you can't say that convention allows the meaning of a clearly stated policy to be reversed.

1783:

Eleemosynary, I'm glad to be able to help out. I came across it because of the spraying of abuse by Matt - as you can see above, I had a visit as well - and the more I looked, the more I became concerned. For the record, I think that you

4779:

It's a featured article hitting the mainpage this Sunday to mark the 40th anniversary of the events. So first off, wow! Clever and cool. Moni3 has been recently named hottest delegate to Obama's bookclub but that may not be official yet.

5587:

need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Knowledge (XXG), plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please

698:

Thanks for your response, Avruch. I have, in turn, responded. For the record, I am pleased to find that the impression that I had formed is inaccurate, and I hope we can work well together into the future. No hard feelings? Best,

2593:. I have never before encountered the term "slinging match". Perhaps I am using an expression which is peculiar to some parts of the English-speaking world? Thanks for the suggestion, and I'll add the link as a clarification. :) 1053:

advocacy, but I wouldn't have a problem with "This user believes pornography is unacceptable" as an example of free speech providing potentially useful information about an editor who might work on pornography-related pages. Best,

2745:

considering reverting a banned user is one of the very few things that gets through the electric fence of 3RR, I think that Jay and I have different viewpoints on this. I guess Jay and I will have to agree to disagree. *shrugs*

16:

Please note: Unless you ask otherwise, I will respond to your comments here. If you want a response on your talk page, please ask, in which case I'll respond there and include a copy here, so that conversations are coherent.

429:'s main articles. Whether she will finally beat her procrastination pixies in submission and update the biographies remains to be seen, but Jeffpw has leapt to the rescue and taken it upon himself to do all our lovely news. 994:

on the MfD. I was unsure how the conventions of MfD interacted with the issue of the policy violation relating only to a section of a page (and a user page, rather than one in main space as well). However, the wording of

3051:

sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.

2634:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to

2836: 4808:

handy tool to count your 1,500 characters. As a suggestion, when you add your potential hook, include the character count and a link to the source(s) that confirm the hook. These will be confirmed anyway but may help.

3623:

I know you folks think I have much experience in a gay bathhouse, and I hate to disappoint you, but I actually do not. I seem like the sort of person who likes to stroll about in a towel. Shocking, no? It appears that

5400:

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Knowledge (XXG) articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see

1327:

and also about homophobic bias. I am not saying that this is the motivaiton for all who oppose the category, but it sure is for some - and prejudice like that is something up with which I will not put. :) Best,

334:. If you don't know Ms. Goldman, she was a Lithuanian anarchist. Aren't many of those around, really, so having one of our very own is special. She'll be dancing the Cha-Cha on the Promenade deck later tonight. 2539:

Thanks for the action. I would have gone to AIV or maybe AN/I if I had done the reversions, but since action had already been taken and a warning issued, I thought asking you was a better way to go. Best,

3745:

It seems a recurring issue which articles to tag, and what to say about a topic that's tagged. Certainly, because an article falls under our scope doesn't necessarily make the person gay. Florida Governor

358: 4863: 1792:, but so did SatyrTN - and the edit summaries show that a conversation was going on, just not in an appropriate place. However, I also think that you should have been more cautious in acting - and you 5466:

need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Knowledge (XXG), plain and simple, and all are welcome!

3252:, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of 796:

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a much bigger issue regarding user categories -- and I'll put it into specifics: that the idea of "categories must explicitly foster collaboration" and

5259: 3678:

has done this cool thing. If you click on that link, you'll see all the articles, categories, templates, and miscellany up for deletion. They're usually there because they're not considered to be

4901:. I'm sooo totally over having to deal with lovely images being deleted and argued about. If they are just free they are then also freely usable worldwide. And no, they don't need photos of your 2305: 1107:

I was about to answer your first question when I saw a problem. It's the opening sentence: "You recently took part in this MfD discussion about the this version of the user page of Aminz."

2518: 4848:

June 2009 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, citing the riots as a reason to "commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans". Excerpts at the bottom.

151:

We are a growing community of Knowledge (XXG) editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

2014: 3804: 1910: 801: 3729:? Ok I did mention naked women, and it's true. I found naked pictures of Barbara Gittings. But I scrolled through all of them and you'll have to as well. I'm not that mean, though. 5023:, click the link to the left. If you do not have an IRC client, you'll need to get one installed on your computer first. Once you've done this, then click on the link to the left. 3047: 2637:

It says it plainly. REGARDLESS of the merits of the edits. There are somethings to watch out for, (especially BLP), but it can't be plainer, that what I said IS explicitly policy.

1200:, I suppose that can work. As long as A. doesn't carry the conversation over to the RfA, because you could wind up getting accused of hijacking the RfA to get on your own soapbox. 946:, which I reproduce below, and ask yourself how much is about either the MfD, or the content to which the MfD-initiator objected, or the policy comments I made about that content: 4118:. It seems on November 5 a fog was lifted off my brain that helped me realize that we have massive potential in this project to get things done. Take this allegory, for instance: 2983:, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is 2678:

following posts from both BrownHairedGirl and Giano. SirFozzie is also wrong, as the quote he provides demonstrates - and as NYB has pointed out - the key word is that the edits

5573:. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow 2971:

about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.

4572:

These are the editors I've seen working (and I know I'm forgetting a few). There's more of you out there I haven't seen. Some of you are new. We need all of you. Please help.

2773:

been in the direction of more rather than less checking, but that's still probably a good thing in my view. In any case, I appreciate your comments and the issues you raised.

3628:

is single-handedly addressing all the problems with this article at its GA Review. While that's pretty impressive, it's also no doubt exhausting. Can anyone help out there?

4946: 178: 1171:. Whilst I understand the position you took in that MfD, I'd like to explore whether you might have acted differently as an admin, and also explore a related hypothetical. 189: 174: 5320:

Thank you for you contributions to Knowledge (XXG) at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the

4831: 4154:. I commend the editors who work on that article—both those who support and oppose it. A look at the talk page shows a concerted effort to keep it civil and accurate. 4929: 4128:

It definitely seems a start to a whole new era now. If planets align correctly to remind us that whatever advances we may have made in electing what appears to be an

3402:

It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Knowledge (XXG).

182: 170: 5203: 4614: 3982: 3448: 2345: 1156: 620: 5146:

LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

2228: 4132:

in the US, the moons that revolve around those planets also serve to illustrate it's not that simple. Florida, Arizona, and California all appear to have banned

3667: 4963:, the article alerts and keyword search alerts are handily located at the top of the page. Always fascinating to see what's up. All help appreciated on those. 3425:, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your 3034:

me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...

4480:, and so on. This can be a matter of discussion, or perhaps we could have someone in charge of determining these levels for all the articles we have tagged. 2429: 1216:

answering the other question (unless you have similar concerns), and I'll await yours and Aminz's thoughts on the modified formulation proposed above. Best,

1398: 4994: 2611:

I thought you meant to use a variant of "slinging insults" which has similar meanings, although "slang" implies one style of phrasing in the insults. --

2334: 1768:

I'll be commenting there shortly, but I wanted to thank you for your perceptive and thorough work on the AN/I page. I am very thankful you weighed in. --

600:

has mentioned a desire to work on .. desire. Specifically literature by and about LGBT desire. To facilitate "LGBT Literature" taskforce, there will be

196: 3124:

This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*)

2091: 510:) has proposed that an FA buddying system be set up, to help nudge frightened tikes who also happen to write killer ass articles over that initial first 155:

Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.

5517: 5394: 3920: 3066: 2968: 204: 159: 1270:

Say, what's your PhD in? Mine's in experimental social psychology. (I'd completely understand if you prefer not to answer that in this kind of forum.)

4784:

Otto4711 mentioned that gee we really should swamp the DYK section with LGBT-related articles for use on the 28th as well. We have eight or so in the

4168:

in its scope. We can continue to work piecemeal as we have in the past, or we can focus on goals. These are examples of areas we can concentrate on.

3708: 2203: 2189: 847:

most cases (such as Steel's comment on DRV) - although some comments do clearly indicate underlying stereotyping and homophobia (such as the one on

371:

Let's see - we started December with 35 FAs. We added two and dropped one. So somewhere there's a missing FA - has anyone seen one lying around?

5589: 5470: 3935:

decision in 1958 reversed a 1956 ruling by a federal district court that U.S. postal authorities were correct in prohibiting the mailing of the

4823: 4763:

How do you change the world? You can start by writing an incredible article for the world's encyclopedia. Moni3 kicks it old school again with

3682:. That can be a relative concept, and sometimes it has to be argued that topics pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues 2285: 2499: 2423: 2133: 898: 5496: 4715: 4684: 4671: 4065: 4037: 4025: 3529: 3501: 3489: 2909: 2886: 2697:, and decline to introduce errors to encyclopedic content on the spurious grounds of discouraging a banned editor from returing as a sock. 1858: 1828: 288: 265: 143: 2293: 2147: 5149:

unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "

3791: 4769:

a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the

3215:). We need to find more info on the Quill per se to reference the page that we create. Perhaps Google Books - and libraries? - can help. 2297: 2281: 2161: 425:

The marathon efforts of Dev920 against her astonishing abilities of procrastination continued this month, and she managed to update the

5556: 5534: 5438: 5416: 4497:

The editors I have admired in the past, who have done great things alone, and who I think can help us all do extraordinary things now:

3392: 2289: 2049: 5580: 5501: 5459: 5402: 5365: 5353: 5343: 2693:

is ludicrous. Such an interpretation is manifestly a case where any editor should exercise their judgment and common sense, invoke

2175: 395: 5579:. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a 5458:. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a 3112:

familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the

2964: 2674:

talking about edits made prior to the ban - look at the context within which his comments were made, in a thread on his talk page

2517:

Thanks for notifying me. I have blocked the IP for an additional 72 hours. In the future, you'd probably get a faster response at

4325:

All we can do is start somewhere. The first step is answering this newsletter on the project talk page. Join in the discussion.

4800:. Once you have expanded an article 5-fold or created an article with at least 1,500 characters of prose, place your DYK thread 1427:

for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and

56: 4827: 4206: 4142: 2812:. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) 2105: 2077: 3754:

is supergay, he won't admit it so instead he does the absolutely awfulest anti-gay things on the planet to deflect suspicion.

1749:

I'd be happy to, when next I can get to DC - but since it's about 19 h travelling by plane, that might be a little while. :)

41: 3187:, as it seems such a milestone in the advancement of gay/queer literature. Members of the Quill all have pages of their own ( 3164:

the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and

2864: 2085: 1740: 1648: 1623: 1610: 1572: 833: 4114:

I say this to myself as much as I say it to all of us. I work a lot by myself or with individual editors who spend time at

2447: 75:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

5254:

I hope you don't mind I removed that nonexisting category from your userpage. Feel free to revert me if you want to, it is

1969: 315:

this month - I'm still recovering from a whopping hangover. Julie's recovering too, but that's a story I'll let her tell.

5166: 5161: 4845: 4188:

Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years

3415: 2465: 2119: 2063: 1674: 837: 228: 5523:

Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons

5138: 968:

I was also disappointed that no one else seemed willing to admit that the section in question was a blatant violation of

5505:

campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to

5177: 4461: 2197: 2183: 507: 3798: 1113:(which shouldn't be done either -- RfA is not a forum for that argument). The material in question absolutely violated 990:

As for your comments about understanding policy operates within conventions, that was precisely the reason that I only

61: 5540: 5422: 3794:

in addition to being a LGBT project member. A few of Benjiboi's favorite links for making the wikiverse more fab are:

3232: 2255: 3553:

Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! Updates about our latest happenings in the gayest corner of Knowledge (XXG).

181:, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, 4164:

How do you fight ignorance? With information. That's what Knowledge (XXG) is for. This project is overwhelming with

1322:

I wasn't aware of QW, actually, but am already in the unbelievably collaborative LGBT Wikipedians category (the one

5603: 4801: 4526: 4210: 4202: 3758:, the red headed stepchild of the LGBT world, is tagged with an explanation we have yet to decide if we'll keep. 3384: 2009: 961: 3579:

An unfortunate effect of a group less active than in the past is that our articles lose integrity. This one is at

2809: 5528: 5410: 4872: 4546: 3868: 3647: 2860: 2653:

the two of you haven't actually disagreed with each other directly - you are talking about different situations.

2417: 2247: 2127: 2081: 1736: 1644: 1606: 1568: 5027: 4797: 36: 5173: 5095: 4382: 3192: 2930:

Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director,

2330: 2141: 1930: 2017:. Feel free to add to it. It should be no longer than 1,000 words, and it needs to be submitted by March 15. 68: 5545: 5427: 5150: 4932:- it's not perfect but should help inform on those gnip-gnop battles that do seem to drag on, and not in the 4307: 3125: 2193: 2179: 2155: 1456:

Thank you for casting the 90th yea vote and for the really special words of support. That meant a lot to me.

673: 554: 5158:

I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

4423:

If this was decided long before I was a member, maybe it's time to revisit it. Other WikiProjects, such as

4311: 2590:

I meant slanging matches - as in situations where discussions degenerate into throwing abuse at each other

586: 72: 4928:, possibly the most famous in the world. This also serves as a friendly reminder that we recently updated 3912: 3082: 3070: 3055: 2526: 2412: 2401: 2322: 2123: 2043: 1773: 1144:"speedy keep" after Aminz acted unilaterally to resolve the question raised. Perhaps a formulation like: 800:

have become distorted into euphemisms for "I don't like it" and "it's just not encyclopaedic" and similar

722: 5120: 4960: 4407: 3787: 3783: 2351: 1040: 76: 5596: 5480: 5285: 5026:

For more general information on IRC and a listing of other useful Knowledge (XXG)-related channels, see

3720: 2326: 2236: 2169: 1965: 1160: 943: 551: 389: 5565: 5444: 5321: 5156:

to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

5051: 4338: 3880: 3220: 51: 3872: 2277: 453:

If you'd like to see it in action, check out Allstarecho's userpage for both in action and Benjiboi's

5570: 5449: 4477: 3332: 3296: 3292: 3275:

Hey, I've seen you around! Sorry there seem to be so many—it's been a while. But we welcome you all:

3078: 2246:

Mostly for people who identify as either Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender; To place yourself in

1973: 1379: 1168: 894: 574: 3284: 2938:

blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the

714:

No problem, and no hard feelings. Hopefully the thread on AN will safely be archived in 7 days ;-)

25: 5062:, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb. 5020: 5008: 4774: 4349:, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb. 3336: 3264:. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss 3097: 2751: 2642: 2137: 2099: 2071: 354: 92: 4586:

activist remembered, "We just went home." They had little idea of the battle that was before them.

4424: 3312: 2486: 1696: 744: 411: 403: 381: 32:. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 5267: 5181: 4977: 4815: 4469: 4256: 4237: 4151: 3936: 3916: 3864: 3584: 3396: 3328: 3316: 3304: 3105: 3089: 2988: 2778: 2441: 2372: 2151: 1918: 1494: 1275: 1236: 1205: 1133: 1097: 883: 647: 518:(handcuffs are optional), do drop Dev an RSVP so she can start battering those darned pixies... 469: 454: 430: 2808:

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an

1799: 1670: 1164: 978: 1443: 1306: 5329: 4949:

is a new handy place to see which LGBT-tagged pages are the most popular in any given month.

4805: 4788:

and if you push yourself to get an article together you might be able to get in on the fun.

4705: 4646: 4613:

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know

4518: 4133: 3981:

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know

3479: 3447:

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know

3368: 3276: 3249: 2688:

be reverted as he claimed. NYB is correct that the situation calls for common sense. If the

2616: 2570: 2522: 2344:

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know

2113: 2039: 1926: 1891: 1769: 1732: 619:

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know

566: 224: 103: 5255: 5091: 4378: 2874: 2591: 2223:

Place yourself in a user category so you can collaborate with other LGBT/Allied Wikipedians!

1534: 1114: 996: 982: 973: 969: 609: 122: 4886: 4740: 4554: 4542: 4534: 4227: 4222: 3807:, a wonderful and fully linked essay about sourcing and why we need more and better sources. 3704: 3320: 3265: 3184: 3173: 3101: 3026: 2960: 2726: 2659: 2478: 2165: 2005: 1361: 662: 626: 562: 543: 501: 437: 385: 5515:

Create or improve LGBT-related Knowledge (XXG) pages and showcase the results of your work

4562: 4115: 3832: 3615: 3597: 3580: 3571: 3113: 3030: 2984: 2979:

We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic

2694: 2689: 1789: 797: 762:

I've responded to your post on WP:AN about my putting Coleman's thread in a collapse box.

511: 5484: 4764: 4755: 4663: 4600: 4530: 4457: 4302: 3968: 3950: 3841: 3434: 3388: 3257: 3212: 3204: 3200: 3086: 2820: 2563: 1914: 1900: 1735:. I like Cinnamon Bun, Strawberry Cheesecake and my new favorite, Cheesecake Brownie. :-] 1313: 1072: 1020: 929: 605: 570: 433:, lend us your goodwill and your eyeballs, and mosey on over to see all Jeff's hard work. 5084: 4371: 3634: 3088:. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website 2453: 2254:

to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add a userbox found at

848: 770: 740: 669: 488:

article would be encouraged, but do it stealthily - they don't like us to be *too* open.

481: 3380: 1514: 4921: 4550: 4268: 4244: 3896: 3892: 3884: 3719:, drag queen extraordinaire, and Stonewall Riots participant? Or the contact sheet for 3675: 3659: 3643: 3642:

In what I hope will counter the jolt of re-evaluating three Good or Featured Articles,

3356: 3352: 3324: 3180: 3165: 3131: 2980: 2747: 2638: 2095: 2067: 1977: 1470: 1428: 818: 597: 558: 88: 3679: 3147:

would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)

5263: 4770: 4558: 4522: 4514: 4510: 4490: 4264: 3932: 3876: 3820: 3767: 3747: 3655: 3651: 3625: 3611: 3593: 3567: 3410:

In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your

3364: 3288: 3280: 3208: 3156: 3144: 3139: 3116:

and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.

3043: 3014: 2774: 2387: 2368: 1938: 1488: 1271: 1232: 1201: 1129: 1093: 879: 841:

endorses homophobia" type headlines, but I doubt it will come to something like that.

643: 535: 531: 441: 188:

If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our

46: 4123: 2796: 1981: 1559: 5325: 5230: 5104:

Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!

4973: 4894: 4636: 4582: 4498: 4486: 4391:

Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!

4252: 4217: 4129: 4007: 3904: 3900: 3475: 3470: 3426: 3376: 3360: 3348: 3344: 3308: 3300: 3196: 3188: 2855:

evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great

2852: 2848: 2698: 2612: 2594: 2566: 2541: 2503: 2109: 2053: 1934: 1804: 1750: 1718: 1700: 1678: 1662: 1626: 1585: 1447: 1328: 1286: 1252: 1217: 1182: 1054: 1001: 902: 852: 775: 748: 726: 700: 677: 601: 578: 539: 407: 324: 219: 5392:

1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work

2502:), I thought you might believe a more forceful response was appropriate. Thanks, 2262: 1504: 351:

moaning that we didn't mention this promotion in the last newsletter. Happy now?

4898: 4566: 4502: 4465: 4453: 4445: 4286: 4260: 4232: 4191:

Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines

4073: 3908: 3888: 3813:, which also searches Google books, is a great help in finding reliable sources. 3751: 3700: 3422: 3372: 3340: 3160: 3018: 2999: 2931: 2721: 2654: 1922: 1866: 1424: 1366: 1356: 1323: 1045: 582: 497: 477: 473: 362: 331: 246: 5153:" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. 2583: 514:

hurdle. Anyone interested in shepherding duties, or anyone interested in being

133: 5560:

page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

5209: 4933: 4890: 4834:

has to be upped to match the new # of total quotes (not counting quote zero).

4659: 4620: 4596: 4506: 4433: 3988: 3964: 3454: 3430: 3253: 3074: 2992: 2935: 2845: 2813: 2565:

or "slinging matches". Admittedly, either meaning can fit the situation. --

2001: 1896: 1666: 1310: 1069: 1017: 926: 547: 348: 344: 337: 301: 108: 5015:, for coordination, collaboration and socializing. This channel is hosted on 3085:, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th 5349: 4914: 4736: 4473: 4055: 3940: 3750:

has been rumored to be gay in some newspaper accounts. Although we all know

3519: 3411: 3245: 3022: 3003: 2939: 2900: 1842: 1420: 829: 814: 399: 279: 5408:

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (

1309:

exists? Not to argue the principle but perhaps to offer an alternative...--

668:

Avruch, I feel that I should inform you that I have added a comment to the

2209: 2020: 1986: 1944: 1879: 1849: 1524: 1498: 5575: 5454: 5016: 4925: 4441: 4282: 3135: 3021:'s article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of 3010: 2391: 1953: 515: 1285:

My PhD is in Science, but I'd rather not go into details on-wiki. Best,

472:

are celebrating Bisexual Awareness Month. For our own wikicelebration,

295: 5526:

Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (

4437: 4278: 3831:

Becksguy considers his biggest triumph on Knowledge (XXG) so far was a

3537: 2917: 5452:. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow 2578: 2235:

to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add

398:)! Congratulations, Fluffball! Despite strongly being urged to select 5202:

To receive this newsletter in a different format, please let us know

4902: 4785: 4449: 4248: 3755: 2856: 1378: 426: 419: 5610: 5333: 5299: 5271: 5238: 4655: 4604: 4091:

Wake up WP:LGBT! It's time to kick in gear and get some things done!

4015: 3972: 3835:

in December 2007 for the first-ever newspaper report on what became

3483: 3438: 2967:.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the 2868: 2822: 2782: 2755: 2728: 2706: 2661: 2646: 2620: 2602: 2574: 2549: 2530: 2511: 2394: 2376: 1812: 1777: 1758: 1744: 1726: 1708: 1686: 1652: 1634: 1614: 1593: 1576: 1336: 1316: 1294: 1279: 1260: 1240: 1225: 1209: 1190: 1137: 1101: 1075: 1062: 1023: 1009: 932: 910: 887: 860: 822: 783: 763: 756: 743:

about your closing and marking as 'resolved' the above discussion.

734: 715: 708: 692: 685: 651: 250: 234: 114: 96: 87:

on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --

4773:. hey have become the defining event that marked the start of the 4579:

Miami, January 18, 1977 after the gay rights ordinance was passed:

3134:

since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as

1598: 449:

And to add the "WP:LGBT Random Picture" to your own userpage, use:

169:

The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as

5208: